Re: Should Iain Duncan Smiths expenses be capped at £26k a y : Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:09 pm  

XBrettKennyX wrote:

Tories "Social Engineering"?

Funniest thing I have heard in weeks given the Labour party's social engineering projects.

£40k a year for a made up local government job anyone?

Wonder who they will be voting for come the next election?


Carry on Cod Ed. You have made me chuckle after a hard day (earning money to keep the scroungers in Sky TV and White Lightening)

So, after proving you cannot grasp the concept of child benefit, you now show you have buggerall idea about social engineering.

Carry on, you'll have us all pleading with Wiggy to return soon

Re: Should Iain Duncan Smiths expenses be capped at £26k a y : Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:11 pm  

DaveO wrote:

You and Coach don't know what you are talking about re child benefit.

It was first introduced as the Family Allowance after WWII when the Welfare State was created based on Beverage's recommendations. One of the main reasons it was introduced was to ensure money was paid to the mother to ensure the father didn't get his hands on it and spend it down the pub (still as good a reason today as back then). The other main reason was to try and make sure children were not raised in poverty. The reason it is a universal benefit (so well off people get it as well as the less well off) with no means testing was also down to Beverage who thought all benefits should be universal as means testing always introduces a very high marginal tax rate for those who earn just enough to lose the entire benefit.

Now no doubt the pair of you think child benefit and perhaps other benefits should not exist at all but if you do that is because not only do you not understand child benefit you don't understand the concept of the Welfare State either. It is not, as the Daily mail would have you believe, designed to be some sort of spongers paradise but something we all contribute to and will all benefit from at different stages in our lives. This is also why Beverage wanted any benefits available to be free from means testing. The logic being if you receive a benefit, such as child benefit, it should not decrease or vanish once get a job that earns X amount because if it did then why bother getting a job that hits you with a stupendous rate of marginal tax? This idea is based on the key fact that the Welfare Sate is something everyone takes out of as well as pays into throughout their lives. It gives you a stake in the system because it is not as you seem to believe something you alone pay for just for the benefit of others. You too will benefit from it at some stage (if the Tories do not succeed in wrecking it completely). Maybe not via child benefit if you do not have kids but through the NHS or help if unemployed etc.

What the Welfare State is not supposed to be is a means tested safety net. No doubt that alternative appeals to the greedy and selfish "I am all right jack" brigade but if they only thought about it for a minute they would realise they are part of the system (in a beneficial way at some point) as much as anyone else.

So what the government is doing by including child benefit in the proposed benefits cap is completely undermining the principles under which it, as part of the Welfare State, was conceived. Less well off people are gong to lose it while a family on a joint income of £80K will keep it. You could not get further away from what Beverage envisaged if you tried.

As to child benefit being a benefit at all in that why pay people for having kids, it is there to help prevent child poverty (which goes out of the window with the benefits cap) and also to enable people to afford to have kids (a good thing with an ageing population). The fact well off people get it is because as I said, they are also part of the Welfare State and so are getting a little bit back for their contributions as is only right and proper.

It is a triumph of right wing propaganda that people get so incensed about benefits and benefit fraud when by the governments own figures it (benefit fraud) is exactly 1/10th of the amount of money lost to uncollected taxes (£1.5bn compared to £15bn per year). That is tax actually owed to the tax man but not collected, not tax legally avoided due to clever tax lawyers.

Er..... hang on we keep going on about this child benefit which everyone's gets and i actually think if you earn enough you shouldn't get it.
When someone titles the page "Should Iain Duncan Smiths expenses be capped at £26k a year" We are not just talking about child benefit, or are you missing the point yourself my friend.

£80 x 52 = £4,160.00 a far cry from 26k (maybe we should change the title to (Should Iain Duncan Smiths expenses be capped at £4,160.00k a year) if we are just going to go on about child benefit

I dont need to cut and paste something to tell me what child benefit is.

I could go on, about the bit in bold and totally agree, stuff should be done about it. Their is a damn lot wrong with what's going on in our country, but the topic is about 26k capped benefit not what's going on on another thread, topic or Barry and Paul down at the local takeaway.

Im solely talking about benefit and ill be very glad when it is capped at 26k

You deal with 1 problem at a time, sort it and move on to the next. I presume the government are sorting the easy ones first (thats the ones with public MAJORITY in favour which they have in this case)

Look forward to you talking about the the topic in hand and not what else is wrong with the country

Re: Should Iain Duncan Smiths expenses be capped at £26k a y : Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:13 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

So, after proving you cannot grasp the concept of child benefit, you now show you have buggerall idea about social engineering.

Carry on, you'll have us all pleading with Wiggy to return soon

Are you serious?

Let me educate you a touch.

Firstly I understand child benefit (and all aspects of tax and income) better than probably 99% of people on this site (at least I would hope I would otherwise I am looking for another job)

Secondly the Tories generally favour "small government" with the idea that the economic role of government is simply to create the conditions for growth and prosperity.

Labour generally favour "big government" who think that more interference is required in the economy.

You can accuse the Tories of many things, but social engineering isn't one of them.

Re: Should Iain Duncan Smiths expenses be capped at £26k a y : Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:22 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

Do you honestly believe that a first child can be provided for on £20 a week?

Should they crawl around naked? What about things like nappies, formula, clothing, prams, cots & bedding? Does that just fall out of the sky?

And you still haven't explained why a rich person should receive child benefit but you reckon poor ones should not

Coddy

Maybe i aren't explain myself properly 26k is about all benefit not just the child part.

I actually agree the rich don't need the Child Benefit

I don't expect the children to crawl around naked either. As i said earlier, explain to me if you cant afford the first child that you have (and i want a honest and fair answer on this don't dodge it) and we the tax payer pay for this child because they cant afford it for what ever reason.

Is it right we should then pay for every child they have, after that no matter what the price is??

What then gives them the right to continually have a second, third, forth, fifth child etc etc so we can keep paying for them there has to be a limit and that my fellow black and white will be 26k and thank god for that.

I shouldn't have to keep paying for someone who continually wants the shaft the system.
If you cant afford the first child then you shouldn't be allowed any more till you can

Re: Should Iain Duncan Smiths expenses be capped at £26k a y : Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:23 pm  

XBrettKennyX wrote:

You can accuse the Tories of many things, but social engineering isn't one of them.

You miss the sell off of the social housing stock then? A policy revived and, it seems to be given new life. I seem to remember Westminster Council being involved with the biggest case of gerrymandering for quite some time too.

Re: Should Iain Duncan Smiths expenses be capped at £26k a y : Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:27 pm  

Coach wrote:

Coddy

Maybe i aren't explain myself properly 26k is about all benefit not just the child part.

I actually agree the rich don't need the Child Benefit

I don't expect the children to crawl around naked either. As i said earlier, explain to me if you cant afford the first child that you have (and i want a honest and fair answer on this don't dodge it) and we the tax payer pay for this child because they cant afford it for what ever reason.

Is it right we should then pay for every child they have, after that no matter what the price is??

What then gives them the right to continually have a second, third, forth, fifth child etc etc so we can keep paying for them there has to be a limit and that my fellow black and white will be 26k and thank god for that.

I shouldn't have to keep paying for someone who continually wants the shaft the system.
If you cant afford the first child then you shouldn't be allowed any more till you can

Why is it you and your ilk always think that these families have set out to live on benefits and milk the system, it is possible in the current climate to have made decisions years ago based on current and projected earnings and the found themselves out of a job, it is a bit hard to send a couple of kids back and say you can't afford them now...

Re: Should Iain Duncan Smiths expenses be capped at £26k a y : Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:29 pm  

Big Graeme wrote:

You miss the sell off of the social housing stock then? A policy revived and, it seems to be given new life. I seem to remember Westminster Council being involved with the biggest case of gerrymandering for quite some time too.

That was driven through economics rather than social engineering.

Re: Should Iain Duncan Smiths expenses be capped at £26k a y : Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:29 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

Quite possibly but I did say someone else, I suppose that could be extended to anyone else, especially as child benefit is a universal credit. I dare say HM Queen also received family allowance for her kids and she's heading the biggest family of benefits scroungers this country has ever seen.

And I thought it was only us "lefties" that were guilty of the "politics of envy"

Now Now coddy don't bring her into it we could go on for ten thousand pages for and against this stick to the topic 26k capped is what we want to talk about.

For the record seeing as you have said one this about her i will to.

She brings in far more to this country in revenue from wide variety of things then they will ever take out and the charity most of them do far out ways any mistakes they have made as well.

Re: Should Iain Duncan Smiths expenses be capped at £26k a y : Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:30 pm  

XBrettKennyX wrote:

That was driven through economics rather than social engineering.

Complete cobblers and you know it.

Re: Should Iain Duncan Smiths expenses be capped at £26k a y : Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:30 pm  

Big Graeme wrote:

Why is it you and your ilk always think that these families have set out to live on benefits and milk the system, it is possible in the current climate to have made decisions years ago based on current and projected earnings and the found themselves out of a job, it is a bit hard to send a couple of kids back and say you can't afford them now...

Oh come on.

You are not seriously telling me that you don't think there are people who do this?

Honestly are you?

Because if you are then you are either naive in the extreme or arguing for the sake of it.