|
|
Post by totheleft on Jul 24, 2024 8:13:49 GMT
We are to live in a civlised society and the nuclear family these days are 2 children . so if you only want people to have two children , why are you importing hordes of migrants into the uk to continue to grow the population? For a developed country to maintain , or increase its population , you need more than two children per native woman. Even them immigrants won't recieve more benefits for extra children. Can't you work that out . |
|
|
|
Post by totheleft on Jul 24, 2024 8:21:10 GMT
We are to live in a civlised society and the nuclear family these days are 2 children . Labour are pushing for working households what wrong with that . With breakfast for all children at school and extra nursery places so parnets can go to work . What do you want tommy a working household or them on Benifits. sorry what? You can afford to arm Israel , and send £3 billion per year to Ukraine , but you cant afford to scrap the tories two child benefit cap that your leader and deputy both wanted to scrap , and called obscene and inhumane? Keir Starmer
@keir_Starmer
·
Feb 6, 2020
Replying to @keir_Starmer
We must scrap the inhuman Work Capability Assessments and private provision of disability assessments (e.g. ATOS), scrap punitive sanctions, two-child limit and benefits cap.
 That doesnt answer my point I agree abandoned the disability accesment . Has for arming ukrain and isarail who said i wanted that? No one but you |
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,633
|
Post by Steve on Jul 24, 2024 8:26:29 GMT
I don't want to provoke a thread diversion but the UK has not armed Israel
As for digging up aged tweets from Rayner she's allowed to change her mind especially as we had 2 years of big spending on Covid after that tweet. The money's gone - if indeed there ever was money to pay for people to have as many kids as they wish at others expense.
Focus on benefits for needy children, there's no child number cap there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2024 8:56:30 GMT
Absolutely sickening and disgusting to see the Tory benefits policies being defended on here by supposed social-democrats, or at least those who pretend to show an ounce of compassion, the Braverman comparisons - as if people who oppose cruel Tory austerity policies are in any way like her sum up our point neatly - it's Labour who are currently like Suella Braverman
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,633
|
Post by Steve on Jul 24, 2024 8:58:33 GMT
Absolutely sickening and disgusting to see the Tory benefits policies being defended on here by supposed social-democrats, or at least those who pretend to show an ounce of compassion, the Braverman comparisons - as if people who oppose cruel Tory austerity policies are in any way like her sum up our point neatly - it's Labour who are currently like Suella Braverman And pray tell just who do you suppose here has defended the Tories benefits policies. You do realise that the paid to all child allowance is not the same as Universal Credit benefits don't you? Maybe you don't. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2024 9:12:49 GMT
Now you're lying about what I actually said and pretending you aren't defending her benefit policies, when you - and others here - clearly are, how outrageous is that?
Now please explain how totheleft's post is not defending the 2 child cap?
|
|
|
|
Post by AvonCalling on Jul 24, 2024 9:27:42 GMT
Maybe you should stick to posting your own opinions rather than making up others. I mean if we are going to talk about laughable Braverman taking the moral high ground takes the biscuit A whole 7 labour MPs voted against a bill, I bet Starmers knees are trembling with feart. ah ... the standard reply......"what I wrote is not what I meant" .It sounded like a labour whinge that the tory braverman was simply doing it to spite labour. Starmer was never in danger of losing the vote. It was the political fall out from this that will interest everyone who isnt a labour cult member. Labours slogan of "change" falls at the first hurdle. Didn't take long.  I could give you my login details if you prefer then you could cut out the middle man and write my posts for me. Off course it would make my post silly and simplistic but hey it saves me the effort if trying to be objective and grown up |
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,633
|
Post by Steve on Jul 24, 2024 13:59:17 GMT
Now you're lying about what I actually said and pretending you aren't defending her benefit policies, when you - and others here - clearly are, how outrageous is that? You need to have a lie down and chill out. These offensive accusations you insist on making are more appropriate to www.lets-go-slagging-off.com |
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,633
|
Post by Steve on Jul 24, 2024 14:11:57 GMT
So lets try to have an intelligent debate on the issue of people with children they cannot afford to keep in the standards better off people demand they should be kept in. There are two basic case types a) people that had multiple kids when earning enough and then fell into hard times through loss of jobs or unexpected serious illness b) people that just keep on having kids with no real regard to their own ability to properly support them I have every sympathy with those in group (a) but believe this is what the benefits system is for and not the non means tested child allowance which is what this 2 child cap is all about. I would strongly argue that the benefits cap (a questionable Tory policy) should be raised to cover those children conceived before benefits applied for. For group (b) there are no easy options and what we defaulted to for decades was driven by emotional reaction to stories like Cathy come home * than thinking the issue through. if someone who already struggles to fend for their children gets pregnant again then society has 3 unpleasant options: 1) just send them more money knowing full well many of these will keep having more kids to get more money (aka the Mick Philpott effect) and the country can hardly afford it 2) take the kid for adoption from the parent at birth (see Cathy come home) 3) just make the parent and current kids live in progressively more and more squallor for each extra kid. No good options * Cathy Come Home is a then very famous gut wrenching story from the BBC Play for today series of the 1960s www.bbc.com/historyofthebbc/anniversaries/november/cathy-come-home |
|
|
|
Post by AvonCalling on Jul 24, 2024 14:57:04 GMT
So lets try to have an intelligent debate on the issue of people with children they cannot afford to keep in the standards better off people demand they should be kept in. There are two basic case types a) people that had multiple kids when earning enough and then fell into hard times through loss of jobs or unexpected serious illness b) people that just keep on having kids with no real regard to their own ability to properly support them I have every sympathy with those in group (a) but believe this is what the benefits system is for and not the non means tested child allowance which is what this 2 child cap is all about. I would strongly argue that the benefits cap (a questionable Tory policy) should be raised to cover those children conceived before benefits applied for. For group (b) there are no easy options and what we defaulted to for decades was driven by emotional reaction to stories like Cathy come home * than thinking the issue through. if someone who already struggles to fend for their children gets pregnant again then society has 3 unpleasant options: 1) just send them more money knowing full well many of these will keep having more kids to get more money (aka the Mick Philpott effect) and the country can hardly afford it 2) take the kid for adoption from the parent at birth (see Cathy come home) 3) just make the parent and current kids live in progressively more and more squallor for each extra kid. No good options * Cathy Come Home is a then very famous gut wrenching story from the BBC Play for today series of the 1960s www.bbc.com/historyofthebbc/anniversaries/november/cathy-come-homeI would have the starting point in establishing just how much families with more than two kids in the B category cost the tax payer as it was my understanding that larger families are not allowed that common |
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,633
|
Post by Steve on Jul 24, 2024 15:13:25 GMT
I don't know and taking a kid for adoption will in some circumstances be more expensive/harmful then just paying the parent to keep it.
On another angle on this I would require DNA sampling of any child born without both parents stated. We have too many absent fathers who get away with not paying their due. But if they knew the baby's DNA was known then at the least they would be very careful not to commit any crime and get on the DNA database. And of course would probably be traceable either from previous crime or babies.
|
|
|
|
Post by AvonCalling on Jul 24, 2024 15:39:30 GMT
I don't know and taking a kid for adoption will in some circumstances be more expensive/harmful then just paying the parent to keep it. On another angle on this I would require DNA sampling of any child born without both parents stated. We have too many absent fathers who get away with not paying their due. But if they knew the baby's DNA was known then at the least they would be very careful not to commit any crime and get on the DNA database. And of course would probably be traceable either from previous crime or babies. I am not sure about paragraph two. It is my understanding that in terms of "crimes", and in this case I am counting not paying for the upkeep of children you have gathered, it is not fear of the consequences but fear of getting caught that is the most effective deterrent. |
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,633
|
Post by Steve on Jul 24, 2024 16:15:36 GMT
Yes but if you know you've fathered umpteen children by umpteen mothers you've intimated into not dobbing you in then the knowledge that you can get get caught by the DNA will have an effect. And of course that they will then have to start paying will reduce the burden on the taxpayer.
We have over 3.5 million children living in single parent families and they are the biggest part of the so called children in poverty problem. And while a small % will be from untimely parent death and another % will have both parents delivering their responsibilities, we should be getting far closer to 100%
|
|
|
|
Post by AvonCalling on Jul 24, 2024 16:35:22 GMT
Yes but if you know you've fathered umpteen children by umpteen mothers you've intimated into not dobbing you in then the knowledge that you can get get caught by the DNA will have an effect. And of course that they will then have to start paying will reduce the burden on the taxpayer. We have over 3.5 million children living in single parent families and they are the biggest part of the so called children in poverty problem. And while a small % will be from untimely parent death and another % will have both parents delivering their responsibilities, we should be getting far closer to 100% I don't have a problem with it although there will always be "edge cases" I just mean if it were to be done people need to be caught and seen do accept there responsibilities for the deterrent factor to really kick in |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jul 24, 2024 17:49:28 GMT
Labour facing moment of truth over tax pledges, economists warn Experts say 5.5% pay increase for public sector not ‘consistent’ with spending plans that rule out tax rises Labour is fast approaching a moment of truth over its election pledges on tax and spending, experts have warned, after Rachel Reeves indicated the government could agree above-inflation pay rises for public sector staff. The chancellor promised a full statement on pay board recommendations that teachers and NHS workers should receive 5.5% pay awards, ahead of an autumn budget that is set to be one of the most difficult economic balancing acts in years. While Reeves argued that denying such pay rises would bring its own costs, notably in likely strike action and a hit to staff recruitment and retention, economists warned that agreeing them would cost billions of pounds that is not currently on the balance sheet. Government spending plans, following an election campaign in which Reeves and Keir Starmer repeatedly ruled out rises to many taxes, “aren’t consistent with pay rises in the region of 5.5% to 6%,” said Ben Zaranko, senior research economist at the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/jul/22/labour-facing-moment-of-truth-over-tax-pledges-economists-warn#:~:text=Labour%20is%20fast%20approaching%20a,rises%20for%20public%20sector%20staff. My guess is Rachel will offer something better than the Tories 4% with a promise of more as the economy picks up with Labours help. My hope is staff will understand the situation and work with her, but if not I think the country will respect the open approach and even handedness and the unions appear out of step. That said the country is in a shit mess and I can only see higher taxes getting it fixed. Last poll I saw said 66% of voters would be happy to pay more tax for a better health service and education. (Let alone roads you can drive on. |
|
