Jump to content

Cutting the budget

swannymere

By swannymere,
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

swannymere

swannymere

Posted
Posted

This might be slightly controversial but i've an idea for cutting billions from the social welfare budget. My idea is that Child Benefit is paid for the first two children only, after that its down to you to pay for any children after that. It will stop people having more children to get larger houses and more money from social. Obviously it will not be applicable to people with families already as this would be unfair on the children, but after a certain date its down to the parents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
1976_Child

1976_Child

Posted
Posted

Welfare should only be paid to people who really, really need it. If you forget to use a condom and nine months later you end up with a baby then that is your fault. Why should I be expected to pay for the little scrote? It used to be called 'family planning'. couples should sit down with a calculator and work out how much a baby/child is going to cost them first before intercourse. I don't have kids, don't want kids and don't expect to have to pay because some unemployed oik on a council estate plucked his fat lard-arse cow after downing 2 liters of white diamond.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
1976_Child

1976_Child

Posted
Posted
Instead of cash give out vouchers that can only be used for food, kids school shoes etc. Take away the choice of what to do with the handouts and make sure that the benefits can only used for the purpose it was given.

 

they will just become a form of currency. people will sell them at a discount to the face value and then just go out and buy fags and booze as always. What they do in the US is to have payment cards which can only be used in stores, so there is no way of selling the 'vouchers'

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Big John

Big John

Posted
Posted (edited)

I'm 1 of 5 and agree. Mum should have stopped at 3, my 2 younger siblings are wasters and the 2 older ones have never claimed a penny from the state.

 

In fact one invented the one-way caps on sports drink bottles and the other saved Bryant & May a fortune by suggesting that they only put the 'striking' bit on one side of their math boxes, a few years back she also increased the sales of Head and Shoulders by adding the word 'REPEAT' after the bit that says 'RINSE' - sales increased by 43.8% over the first quarter.

 

I know that i personally struggled to live up to their genius so what chance did the other two have! Sex, know when to stop fffs.

 

NB

My mum was the youngest of 6 girls so I would also make an allowance for my nan and grandad, then again there was a war on and they couldn't afford a scrabble board. How many of our old'uns were conceived in air-raid shelters i wonder?

Edited by Big John
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Saint-scooby

Saint-scooby

Posted
Posted

In a previous job, you always knew when it was giro day, we were always busier, with a certain social element spending their hard earned handouts. Taylor made fags and bags and bags of shopping while sitting in the pub.

 

Most of us had child benifits, not sure when they started that, but its been around for a long time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lord Duckhunter

Lord Duckhunter

Posted
Posted

No Family benefit for people who pay the 50% tax rate.

 

The thing I can't understand is why we tax the poor and then give some back in tax credits. Is it not beyond the scope of modern computors to work out a system where they dont pay any tax in the first place. If you get £25.00 a week WFTC, why not just knock £25.00 off the tax they pay? Perhaps we could then save money by cutting the number of people needed to administer the WFTC.At the moment we're taking tax off people and then giving some back .

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bridge too far

bridge too far

Posted
Posted (edited)
In a previous job, you always knew when it was giro day, we were always busier, with a certain social element spending their hard earned handouts. Taylor made fags and bags and bags of shopping while sitting in the pub.

 

Most of us had child benifits, not sure when they started that, but its been around for a long time.

 

They were certainly around in the 50s, although only for the second and subsequent child. I don't know when they came into force for the first child - I think it must have been in the 70s at the earliest. I don't remember getting child benefit for my first child.

 

I also remember, however, that it counted as part of your taxable income or at least figured in the calculation for your tax code. I don't know if that's still the case.

 

Also, way back then, the main tax payer got a tax free allowance dependent on the number of children in the family.

Edited by bridge too far
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bridge too far

bridge too far

Posted
Posted
Why give them cash benefits at all. Just give them tokens which can be exchanged for food at their local supermarket.

 

Agree on the two child policy too.

 

I'm no defender of any faith, but I think some less well-off Catholic families might have an issue with that.

 

And, in some ways, large families benefit all of us in the future, when we need young working people to pay for our state pensions and healthcare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Arizona

Arizona

Posted
Posted
I'm no defender of any faith, but I think some less well-off Catholic families might have an issue with that.

 

And, in some ways, large families benefit all of us in the future, when we need young working people to pay for our state pensions and healthcare.

 

Sorry, meant the no benefits for more than 2 children bit.

 

Trying to think of a way to stop teenage slags on council estates from having 4 kids by the time they're 20 all on taxpayers money. Other than a general cull of these retards and their offspring, I can't think of anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Verbal

Verbal

Posted
Posted
I sometimes think that some members of this forum are living in the 1800s...

 

Could be. Or they imagine they are the entrepreneurial beating heart of the country, when in fact their business is doing a paper round or some such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Big John

Big John

Posted
Posted
Get rid of PCSO's. What a load of **** that is, half of them don't seem to do their job when I have been out and about drinking.

 

and stop the 'school prefects on acid' council tax exemption.

 

imho it is immoral to not pay your way yet take a position of telling others how to behave. Hypocritical politicies like this demonstrate just how out of touch our council and governent are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
saint boggy

saint boggy

Posted
Posted
Instead of cash give out vouchers that can only be used for food, kids school shoes etc. Take away the choice of what to do with the handouts and make sure that the benefits can only used for the purpose it was given.

 

this is what ive been saying for YEARS!!!.....if they want handouts, then they spend the money on what it was designed for....food and clothing....not beer,fags, drugs and Sky+HD ffs!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Saintandy666

Saintandy666

Posted
Posted

 

I don't really know enough about this to comment on it.

 

What is pointless is half the reforms in the NHS White Paper. Getting rid of PTC's is pointless. Giving loads of control over the NHS budget to GP's is pointless too, they don't have the time. They will just hire the sacked PCT people to do it for them. Most of the paper is just an example of how to waste millions of pounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bridge too far

bridge too far

Posted
Posted

And most GPs don't want control of their budgets either because, they say, they have neither the time nor the expertise to manage them.

 

A great deal of the stuff used by the NHS is off national contracts which, using economies of scale, deliver HUGE savings. Devolve procurement budgets to local level and all that is lost.

 

Still, more profit for the suppliers no doubt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
aintforever

aintforever

Posted
Posted

It's a hard balancing act between stopping the scrounging slobs from taking the **** and ruining the lives of those who genuinely need benefits but I'm glad the Tories are making the decisions because Labour have let everyone down badly.

 

A limit on child benefit is a good idea (2 kids max), plus people who are relatively well off should get no benefit at all.

 

Food and clothes vouchers are also a good idea, there is no reasonable argument against this IMO.

 

A max limit on housing benefit is a good idea (I think the Tories are already doing this).

 

I would also introduce a scheme that means anyone on job-seekers has to do 2-3 days unpaid work (litter picking etc) a week to receive it. That would help put people off taking the **** and get people in the habit of working.

 

Toughening up on the invalid benefit is important to, need to focus on what they can do as opposed to what they can't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Whitey Grandad

Whitey Grandad

Posted
Posted
They were certainly around in the 50s, although only for the second and subsequent child. I don't know when they came into force for the first child - I think it must have been in the 70s at the earliest. I don't remember getting child benefit for my first child.

 

I also remember, however, that it counted as part of your taxable income or at least figured in the calculation for your tax code. I don't know if that's still the case.

 

Also, way back then, the main tax payer got a tax free allowance dependent on the number of children in the family.

Yes, the main tax payer had an extra allowance for the children. The 'problem' was said to be that this money went to the husband who could spend it in the pub rather than to the mother who actually needed it for buying food and childrens' clothes. This was a great slur on the poor humble working man but nevertheless the system was changed so that he paid more in tax and the mother got the dosh. Those who did not work received a separate child allowance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bridge too far

bridge too far

Posted
Posted
Yes, the main tax payer had an extra allowance for the children. The 'problem' was said to be that this money went to the husband who could spend it in the pub rather than to the mother who actually needed it for buying food and childrens' clothes. This was a great slur on the poor humble working man but nevertheless the system was changed so that he paid more in tax and the mother got the dosh. Those who did not work received a separate child allowance.

 

But, as the research paper I linked above explains, 'he' also got the tax allowance in the first place. I can tell you that I would have been pushed to buy clothes for my children when they were little if it were not for Family Allowance (as it was then called). My children's father didn't spend it all in the pub and he was well paid. I didn't work (mothers tended not to in those days) and he just didn't give me enough for the children. So I relied on FA for the necessities for them.

 

And yes, dear reader - I left him :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Huffton

Huffton

Posted
Posted

 

I would also introduce a scheme that means anyone on job-seekers has to do 2-3 days unpaid work (litter picking etc) a week to receive it. That would help put people off taking the **** and get people in the habit of working.

 

Agree with this 100%. A few weeks of doing crap jobs for no money will make that minimum wage job flipping burgers somewhere suddenly seem bloody attractive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Whitey Grandad

Whitey Grandad

Posted
Posted
But, as the research paper I linked above explains, 'he' also got the tax allowance in the first place. I can tell you that I would have been pushed to buy clothes for my children when they were little if it were not for Family Allowance (as it was then called). My children's father didn't spend it all in the pub and he was well paid. I didn't work (mothers tended not to in those days) and he just didn't give me enough for the children. So I relied on FA for the necessities for them.

 

And yes, dear reader - I left him :)

It's a sad fact of life that not all hubbies are like me, BTF :) . My wife and I have always shared everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Big John

Big John

Posted
Posted
Toughening up on the invalid benefit is important to, need to focus on what they can do as opposed to what they can't.

 

 

If only people knew who they are starting with in this policy? Honestly, believe me I am very closely involved in this process.

 

I can understand why people want the system changed, but the people who are the real problem are not going to sack themselves. It would be like turkeys voting for Christmas.

 

I know people who's only contact with the outside world is one day at a day centre, quite literally. And they want these people to justify their entitlement. Watch yourselves people, some might want to get some advice from an advocacy agency if you are unfortunate enough to have a disabilty, they are coming for you. Do not attend a care manager's review without without first seeking unbiased advice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Big John

Big John

Posted
Posted
But, as the research paper I linked above explains, 'he' also got the tax allowance in the first place. I can tell you that I would have been pushed to buy clothes for my children when they were little if it were not for Family Allowance (as it was then called). My children's father didn't spend it all in the pub and he was well paid. I didn't work (mothers tended not to in those days) and he just didn't give me enough for the children. So I relied on FA for the necessities for them.

 

And yes, dear reader - I left him :)

 

Brilliant example if I might say BTF.

 

Sadly some people can not accept that this is still the case in toady's society too. there are millions of young Mums out ther who bloody well deserve that family allowance.

 

Suggestions like this are nothing but sexist crap. What would your mother say if she heard you talking like htis!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Whitey Grandad

Whitey Grandad

Posted
Posted
I'm sure you can manage on your 44k plus salary!

 

An easy reply to make, but an example of exactly what is wrong with the British economy. Why struggle to earn a little bit more if it's going to mean extra tax? 44k is not a lot if there is only one earner in the family, which is very likely if there are young children. This proposal is yet one more tax on the hard-working middle classes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lord Duckhunter

Lord Duckhunter

Posted
Posted
Georgie Porgie has started already:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11464300

 

But how crazy is this - if you are a single parent (mother or father) and you earn over £44K a year, you will lose your Child Benefit. However, if you are a couple, EACH EARNING £44k A YEAR, you won't!

 

:facepalm:

 

By taxing someone at a higher rate of tax, the system is basically saying you're better off than most. The better off should not receive benefits in the present climate. The interesting question to the Labour chancers who will jump all over this will be "if you return to Govt, will you give this benefit back to higher rated taxpayers?" You can bet your life that their next election campaign wont include pledges around giveaways for people on nearly 1,000 a week.

 

Would you rather the black hole left by Labour was filled by taxing people on less that £44,000 a year more?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bridge too far

bridge too far

Posted
Posted
An easy reply to make, but an example of exactly what is wrong with the British economy. Why struggle to earn a little bit more if it's going to mean extra tax? 44k is not a lot if there is only one earner in the family, which is very likely if there are young children. This proposal is yet one more tax on the hard-working middle classes.

 

Quite right - but do you not agree that it is very, very odd that a family where both earn c £44K will continue to receive this benefit, whereas a family with only one wage-earner earning this amount will no longer receive it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bridge too far

bridge too far

Posted
Posted
By taxing someone at a higher rate of tax, the system is basically saying you're better off than most. The better off should not receive benefits in the present climate. The interesting question to the Labour chancers who will jump all over this will be "if you return to Govt, will you give this benefit back to higher rated taxpayers?" You can bet your life that their next election campaign wont include pledges around giveaways for people on nearly 1,000 a week.

 

Would you rather the black hole left by Labour was filled by taxing people on less that £44,000 a year more?

 

I'm not querying the underlying principle at all - I'm pointing out the anomaly whereby a family with two wage earners and a JOINT salary of over £88K WILL get the benefit but a family with one wage earner earning over £44K won't.

 

Obviously Gorgeous George hasn't done his sums :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Joensuu

Joensuu

Posted
Posted
Bloody Tories!! That's me a grand worse off a year then. Since when did I vote for robbing from the supposedly "rich" to give to the "poor"?

 

FFS

 

That's it, I'm voting Labour next time....

 

Agree, Labour are to the right of the Tories... so if you disagree with progressive taxation, I guess voting Labour does indeed make sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Joensuu

Joensuu

Posted
Posted
I'm not querying the underlying principle at all - I'm pointing out the anomaly whereby a family with two wage earners and a JOINT salary of over £88K WILL get the benefit but a family with one wage earner earning over £44K won't.

 

Obviously Gorgeous George hasn't done his sums :D

 

Ay, I second that... as the only salary in my household, I think I could end up in exactly this situation... Upwards of £40k pa sounds like a lot, but when you have a family, and mortgage, it doesn't give you a lot of slack. We don't run a car, and we've even quit booze and meat to save money... remove the child benefit from us, and you will be taking directly from the money we can use to buy children's clothes and shoes. Cheers George.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...