Has the 'Government' lost it's marbles?

[RogerC]

Press extract in red:

Plans to give tax breaks worth £1,200 per child to families with two working parents have been condemned as unfair to stay-at-home mothers.

Chancellor George Osborne launched a consultation on the proposals, heralded in his Budget in March, on Monday as he toured a London nursery.

Parents earning up to £150,000-a-year will be eligible for the tax-free childcare vouchers, allowing families with up to £300,000 in total income to claim them.

Critics have pointed out that this is in stark contrast to child benefit, which has been cut for families with one parent earning more than £50,000 and axed entirely if one is on £60,000 plus.

Working parents will be able to claim 20% of childcare costs, up to a maximum of £6,000 per child a year, working out at £1,200.

Whilst I have no problem with the 'State' helping out those on lower incomes  (and I consider that to be in the region of £30,000 gross which is, in my opinion a liveable amount) has the Government gone completely doolally with this proposal?  Giving such handouts to households bringing in up to £300,000 is plain lunacy and again, in my opinion,  profligacy in the extreme with my/our money. 

In essence I consider 'prospective' parents should do as we did many years back.....assess the household budget, decide if we could afford children and only then procreate if the figures added up.  I would respectfully suggest that those on, for example £50,000 have sufficient income to provide for themselves.  The bottom line is if you can not afford to have and raise children don't expect the State to provide so you can.

It really angers me that these so called 'intelligent' people in Government can not see the damage they are doing to the morale of the vast majority of the 'working classes'. Or is that they are, in many cases so wealthy and out of touch that they really have no idea of the 'real world'.   I feel sorry for those slogging away to make ends meet at the lower end of the pay scale, paying their taxes to see a proportion of it going to a household on £300,000 per year.

Before anyone jumps in and starts on about the amount those on £300,000 per year pay in taxes I appreciate that but the principle remains.....the State is proposing to give 'State/our tax payers' money to people who, in the overall 'wages/salary' picture are wealthy and should be beyond the need for State handouts.

[Guest pelmetman]

That's the Tory Toff's for you ;-).................never mind only another 2 years til we get a vote >:-)

[Guest Had Enough]

Whilst I agree that it does seem profligate, perhaps the government has done its sums and calculated that the cost of means testing would be much more than giving this benefit universally? After all, the number of very high earners is minuscule as a percentage of the general population.

 

And of course it could also be argued that the high earners have also paid vast amounts more income tax than low earners.

 

This is really no different an argument than bus passes or Winter Fuel Allowances (WFA). It seems silly giving WFA to higher rate taxpayers but again, the cost of administering a means-tested system would be very large.

 

The only problem is a political one, as those who, for whatever reason, loathe richer people, would be enraged. But if it is cheaper to give these benefits to everyone rather than put in bureaucratically inefficient means testing, should we care? I don't.

 

 

 

 

[malc d]

It does seem barmy to me that, at a time when they are talking about reviewing winter payments to pensioners who don't need them, bus passes to people who don't need them etc - they now have a new plan to give anything they save to parents who don't need it.

 

Not what I would call joined up government.

 

:-(

[Guest Had Enough]

malc d - 2013-08-05 8:06 PM

 

It does seem barmy to me that, at a time when they are talking about reviewing winter payments to pensioners who don't need them, bus passes to people who don't need them etc.........

 

:-(

 

Ah, but when they've done their reviews will they scrap these benefits for higher earners? I doubt it very much! It's an interesting moral question isn't it? Some think that everyone should have equal treatment regardless of their income.

 

They would claim that the only fair way to balance the needs of the rich and poor is by the income tax scales. It is a well-known fact (as verified by HMRC) that a tiny number of higher earners pay a vast amount of income tax. Currently the top 14% pay 60% of all income tax.

 

If you give these perks universally you save a vast amount of unwieldy means-testing and the relatively small number of higher earners who get them adds up to very little in the scale of things.

 

Out of a workforce of about 32 million, only 229,000 people earn more than £150,000, less than one percent.

[Guest pelmetman]

Just to put the 60% into perspective ;-)................Income tax raises only 26% of all tax :D

 

http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn09.pdf

[RogerC]

I did write:

 

Before anyone jumps in and starts on about the amount those on £300,000 per year pay in taxes I appreciate that but the principle remains.....the State is proposing to give 'State/our tax payers' money to people who, in the overall 'wages/salary' picture are wealthy and should be beyond the need for State handouts.

 

but someone had to.

 

My point is why should the upper figure be £300,000?  It is just plain ridiculous.  Regardless of the number of households it is the principle of the proposal.  I am just totally fed up with the constant 'moaning' (yes there was moaning on Radio 2 today on the topic....child care is so expensive/we need help etc etc) we hear from those on generous incomes that the State does not do enough to enable wives to go back to work.  Well they should have thought about that before procreating. 

 

Our household income is little enough as it is so why should any of my 'taxable pension' go towards 'supporting' irresponsible comfortable/wealthy (over £50k household income) couples?  Irresponsible? yes because they claim they need State financial assistance.

[John 47]

Regardless of the morality (or otherwise!) of this proposal, it clearly is at odds with the reduction of child benefit mentioned and thus indicates that this Government wouldn't know a consistent policy if it dropped on it! (lol)

[Guest Had Enough]

pelmetman - 2013-08-05 8:43 PM

 

Just to put the 60% into perspective ;-)................Income tax raises only 26% of all tax :D

 

http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn09.pdf

 

So what? We're talking here about individuals not corporations, and high earning individuals also pay much more VAT and are usually the owners of those corporations!

 

 

[Guest Had Enough]

RogerC - 2013-08-05 8:50 PMI did write:

 

Before anyone jumps in and starts on about the amount those on £300,000 per year pay in taxes I appreciate that but the principle remains.....the State is proposing to give 'State/our tax payers' money to people who, in the overall 'wages/salary' picture are wealthy and should be beyond the need for State handouts.

 

but someone had to.

 

My point is why should the upper figure be £300,000?  It is just plain ridiculous.  Regardless of the number of households it is the principle of the proposal.  I am just totally fed up with the constant 'moaning' (yes there was moaning on Radio 2 today on the topic....child care is so expensive/we need help etc etc) we hear from those on generous incomes that the State does not do enough to enable wives to go back to work.  Well they should have thought about that before procreating. 

 

Our household income is little enough as it is so why should any of my 'taxable pension' go towards 'supporting' irresponsible comfortable/wealthy (over £50k household income) couples?  Irresponsible? yes because they claim they need State financial assistance.

I'm sorry, I didn't realise we weren't allowed to talk about income tax, despite it being a very large factor in this equation and its morality.

[RogerC]

John 47 - 2013-08-05 8:51 PMRegardless of the morality (or otherwise!) of this proposal, it clearly is at odds with the reduction of child benefit mentioned and thus indicates that this Government wouldn't know a consistent policy if it dropped on it! (lol)

 

and that was another 'dogs dinner'.

 

No dogs were offended by the use of this term in a derogatory manner...  :-)

 

[RogerC]

Had Enough - 2013-08-05 8:57 PM

RogerC - 2013-08-05 8:50 PMI did write:

 

Before anyone jumps in and starts on about the amount those on £300,000 per year pay in taxes I appreciate that but the principle remains.....the State is proposing to give 'State/our tax payers' money to people who, in the overall 'wages/salary' picture are wealthy and should be beyond the need for State handouts.

 

but someone had to.

 

My point is why should the upper figure be £300,000?  It is just plain ridiculous.  Regardless of the number of households it is the principle of the proposal.  I am just totally fed up with the constant 'moaning' (yes there was moaning on Radio 2 today on the topic....child care is so expensive/we need help etc etc) we hear from those on generous incomes that the State does not do enough to enable wives to go back to work.  Well they should have thought about that before procreating. 

 

Our household income is little enough as it is so why should any of my 'taxable pension' go towards 'supporting' irresponsible comfortable/wealthy (over £50k household income) couples?  Irresponsible? yes because they claim they need State financial assistance.

I'm sorry, I didn't realise we weren't allowed to talk about income tax, despite it being a very large factor in this equation and its morality.

 

I was merely trying to avoid the issue being diverted onto who pays what in income tax etc.  I have tried to direct the point to one of principle which is that those on 'good by any standards' incomes should be more than able to provide for their families without State support.

 

I maintain that it is not the responsibility of the State to fund anyone to enable them to procreate and go back to work.  If those that wish to procreate can not afford it without basic 'universal' support  (what was once 'family allowance') then they should not do it.....simple.  If they do then it is us, the general public that is effectively funding a proportion of their choice to procreate.  I funded my own children's' upbringing, albeit with the meagre family allowance which was a universal allowance and which I have no objections to being provided to families.  I really don't want to fund others, who can more readily afford it, to go back to work.

 

[John 47]

RogerC - 2013-08-05 9:18 PMI maintain that it is not the responsibility of the State to fund anyone to enable them to procreate and go back to work.  If those that wish to procreate can not afford it without basic 'universal' support  (what was once 'family allowance') then they should not do it.....simple.  If they do then it is us, the general public that is effectively funding a proportion of their choice to procreate.  I funded my own children's' upbringing, albeit with the meagre family allowance which was a universal allowance and which I have no objections to being provided to families.  I really don't want to fund others, who can more readily afford it, to go back to work.

I don't think you have thought this through. Should the "State" (ie the taxpayer) fund schools if some people choose not to have children? Should the State choose to fund the army if a significant proportion of taxpayers are pacifists? Should the State fund roads if some of the people contributing to State funds don't use them? Should the State fund prisons if the majority of contributors never get convicted of anything? I think you have misunderstood the purpose of the State.

[RogerC]

John 47 - 2013-08-05 9:28 PM

RogerC - 2013-08-05 9:18 PMI maintain that it is not the responsibility of the State to fund anyone to enable them to procreate and go back to work.  If those that wish to procreate can not afford it without basic 'universal' support  (what was once 'family allowance') then they should not do it.....simple.  If they do then it is us, the general public that is effectively funding a proportion of their choice to procreate.  I funded my own children's' upbringing, albeit with the meagre family allowance which was a universal allowance and which I have no objections to being provided to families.  I really don't want to fund others, who can more readily afford it, to go back to work.

I don't think you have thought this through. Should the "State" (ie the taxpayer) fund schools if some people choose not to have children? Should the State choose to fund the army if a significant proportion of taxpayers are pacifists? Should the State fund roads if some of the people contributing to State funds don't use them? Should the State fund prisons if the majority of contributors never get convicted of anything? I think you have misunderstood the purpose of the State.

 

Somehow I knew this would degenerate into all and sundry that the State supplies and would divert the original post to one of ever widening issues.

 

I misunderstand nothing and once again it looks like comments against one's intellect are your forte'. 

 

The point is the State has to provide services to enable the country to function which includes those things you mention.  However how does any of that...enabling the country to function ...relate to the State funding couples on very large incomes to procreate and go back to work?

 

I am somewhat disappointed that once again what I considered to be a topic for 'mature' debate has been reduced to 'opinions' being expressed of ones intellect(possibly ridicule given the probable age range of posters here) by one of the forum protagonists.  I really should know better.

 

[Guest pelmetman]

Had Enough - 2013-08-05 8:55 PM

 

pelmetman - 2013-08-05 8:43 PM

 

Just to put the 60% into perspective ;-)................Income tax raises only 26% of all tax :D

 

http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn09.pdf

 

So what? We're talking here about individuals not corporations, and high earning individuals also pay much more VAT and are usually the owners of those corporations!

 

 

You seem to try to give the impression that the wealthy generate 60% of all the taxes paid ;-)..................when in truth its the average majority that generate the bulk of the taxes, and pay a larger a proportion of their income as tax in doing so *-).....................So its hardly the wealthy that need the tea and sympathy >:-)

[Guest Had Enough]

pelmetman - 2013-08-05 10:10 PM

 

You seem to try to give the impression that the wealthy generate 60% of all the taxes paid ;-)..................when in truth its the average majority that generate the bulk of the taxes, and pay a larger a proportion of their income as tax in doing so *-).....................So its hardly the wealthy that need the tea and sympathy >:-)

 

Well, only in your fevered imagination. This is what I said, please read it carefully:

 

'They would claim that the only fair way to balance the needs of the rich and poor is by the income tax scales. It is a well-known fact (as verified by HMRC) that a tiny number of higher earners pay a vast amount of income tax. Currently the top 14% pay 60% of all income tax. '

 

The repeated use of the words 'income tax' may give you a clue as to what I said.

 

You then tell us that the 'average majority' pay the bulk of taxes. Well yes, of course they do. As I pointed out only 229,000 people earn over £150K p.a. That leaves 32 million 'average' taxpayers, so I think that we've all worked that the 32 million 'average' people will pay a lot more taxes in total than 229,000. That's 99.3% as opposed to 0.07%. Pretty simple calculation really.

 

You then say that 'average people' pay a higher proportion of their income in taxes. Well clearly not in income tax they don't, but when we take into account indirect taxes, fuel duty, VAT etc. then of course they do - so what?

 

And I'm sorry that you feel that the wealthy don't need tea and sympathy. I'm sure they'll be devastated.

 

But just to remind you. This thread is about benefits for individuals. It's not about VAT, or corporation tax or other indirect taxes. My comment was about individuals and whether the fact that they pay a lot of tax INDIVIDUALLY should be considered when discussing refusing them benefits that are available to others.

 

You are the one who introduced the other red herrings, not me.

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

RogerC - 2013-08-05 9:42 PM

John 47 - 2013-08-05 9:28 PM

RogerC - 2013-08-05 9:18 PMI maintain that it is not the responsibility of the State to fund anyone to enable them to procreate and go back to work.  If those that wish to procreate can not afford it without basic 'universal' support  (what was once 'family allowance') then they should not do it.....simple.  If they do then it is us, the general public that is effectively funding a proportion of their choice to procreate.  I funded my own children's' upbringing, albeit with the meagre family allowance which was a universal allowance and which I have no objections to being provided to families.  I really don't want to fund others, who can more readily afford it, to go back to work.

I don't think you have thought this through. Should the "State" (ie the taxpayer) fund schools if some people choose not to have children? Should the State choose to fund the army if a significant proportion of taxpayers are pacifists? Should the State fund roads if some of the people contributing to State funds don't use them? Should the State fund prisons if the majority of contributors never get convicted of anything? I think you have misunderstood the purpose of the State.

 

Somehow I knew this would degenerate into all and sundry that the State supplies and would divert the original post to one of ever widening issues.

 

I misunderstand nothing and once again it looks like comments against one's intellect are your forte'. 

 

The point is the State has to provide services to enable the country to function which includes those things you mention.  However how does any of that...enabling the country to function ...relate to the State funding couples on very large incomes to procreate and go back to work?

 

I am somewhat disappointed that once again what I considered to be a topic for 'mature' debate has been reduced to 'opinions' being expressed of ones intellect(possibly ridicule given the probable age range of posters here) by one of the forum protagonists.  I really should know better.

Yes you should :D :D :D oh and by the way it's called nit picking and deliberately trying to turn yet again another post in to a personal argument, and personal denigration is also his forte, together with trying to demonstrate his own perceived intellectual high ground, it's what he lives for the plonker. ;-) This is a man that would condemn a Jew by calling him /her a BIGOT in the 1940s for daring to express hatred or blaming Germans for herding them or their families into the gas chambers , that's how out of kilter this mans thinking is. mind you there may be several John47s , perhaps we should not tar them all with the same brush, although one certain one I'd love to tar with a brush, might shut the git up for more than five minutes. ;-) But back to your OP, of course it's nuts, my daughter is struggling to bring up two kids after her partner of 10 years p*ssed off with a newer model, yet has been hit with the so called bedroom tax. >:-( and her earnings and benefits are around half what you said you'd consider a living amount, £30000, she'd wish, think around half of that mmm (!)

[Guest pelmetman]

Had Enough - 2013-08-05 11:41 PM

 

 

But just to remind you. This thread is about benefits for individuals. It's not about VAT, or corporation tax or other indirect taxes. My comment was about individuals and whether the fact that they pay a lot of tax INDIVIDUALLY should be considered when discussing refusing them benefits that are available to others.

 

 

Well I would be a bit more generous than Roger and set the threshold for ALL benefits at £50k per household, and I would only pay child benefit for the first two kids :D............

 

But there again I think the tax system needs to be massively simplified anyway ;-)..................but I doubt tax the armies of lawyers would like that >:-)

[John 47]

RogerC - 2013-08-05 9:42 PM

John 47 - 2013-08-05 9:28 PM

RogerC - 2013-08-05 9:18 PMI maintain that it is not the responsibility of the State to fund anyone to enable them to procreate and go back to work.  If those that wish to procreate can not afford it without basic 'universal' support  (what was once 'family allowance') then they should not do it.....simple.  If they do then it is us, the general public that is effectively funding a proportion of their choice to procreate.  I funded my own children's' upbringing, albeit with the meagre family allowance which was a universal allowance and which I have no objections to being provided to families.  I really don't want to fund others, who can more readily afford it, to go back to work.

I don't think you have thought this through. Should the "State" (ie the taxpayer) fund schools if some people choose not to have children? Should the State choose to fund the army if a significant proportion of taxpayers are pacifists? Should the State fund roads if some of the people contributing to State funds don't use them? Should the State fund prisons if the majority of contributors never get convicted of anything? I think you have misunderstood the purpose of the State.

 

Somehow I knew this would degenerate into all and sundry that the State supplies and would divert the original post to one of ever widening issues.

 

I misunderstand nothing and once again it looks like comments against one's intellect are your forte'. 

 

The point is the State has to provide services to enable the country to function which includes those things you mention.  However how does any of that...enabling the country to function ...relate to the State funding couples on very large incomes to procreate and go back to work?

 

I am somewhat disappointed that once again what I considered to be a topic for 'mature' debate has been reduced to 'opinions' being expressed of ones intellect(possibly ridicule given the probable age range of posters here) by one of the forum protagonists.  I really should know better.

First let me say that I totally agree with you when you say that the State should not be funding people on very large incomes. However, the statement that I was taking issue with was that it is not the responsibility of the State to fund anyone to enable them to procreate and go back to work. In other words, you were, perhaps inadvertently, making a blanket objection to welfare support. The reality may well be that it is cheaper and more cost-effective for the State to provide child-care provision for those on below average incomes rather than have those people stay at home and collect benefits. If your earlier statement was a simple mistake, then fair enough but if it was intended, then I very much disagree.Oh and you really should try not to be so tetchy! :-D

[John 47]

1footinthegrave - 2013-08-06 2:56 AM

This is a man that would condemn a Jew by calling him /her a BIGOT in the 1940s for daring to express hatred or blaming Germans for herding them or their families into the gas chambers , that's how out of kilter this mans thinking is.

 

Well, I don't know about the Government but clearly YOU have lost whatever marbles you had to start with!

 

Let me answer your idiocy with this simple offer. I have recently bought a new Hymer. It is yours if you can come anywhere near providing evidence to back up your wild and idiotic statement.

 

[RogerC]

John 47 - 2013-08-06 9:47 AM

RogerC - 2013-08-05 9:42 PM

John 47 - 2013-08-05 9:28 PM

RogerC - 2013-08-05 9:18 PMI maintain that it is not the responsibility of the State to fund anyone to enable them to procreate and go back to work.  If those that wish to procreate can not afford it without basic 'universal' support  (what was once 'family allowance') then they should not do it.....simple.  If they do then it is us, the general public that is effectively funding a proportion of their choice to procreate.  I funded my own children's' upbringing, albeit with the meagre family allowance which was a universal allowance and which I have no objections to being provided to families.  I really don't want to fund others, who can more readily afford it, to go back to work.

I don't think you have thought this through. Should the "State" (ie the taxpayer) fund schools if some people choose not to have children? Should the State choose to fund the army if a significant proportion of taxpayers are pacifists? Should the State fund roads if some of the people contributing to State funds don't use them? Should the State fund prisons if the majority of contributors never get convicted of anything? I think you have misunderstood the purpose of the State.

 

Somehow I knew this would degenerate into all and sundry that the State supplies and would divert the original post to one of ever widening issues.

 

I misunderstand nothing and once again it looks like comments against one's intellect are your forte'. 

 

The point is the State has to provide services to enable the country to function which includes those things you mention.  However how does any of that...enabling the country to function ...relate to the State funding couples on very large incomes to procreate and go back to work?

 

I am somewhat disappointed that once again what I considered to be a topic for 'mature' debate has been reduced to 'opinions' being expressed of ones intellect(possibly ridicule given the probable age range of posters here) by one of the forum protagonists.  I really should know better.

First let me say that I totally agree with you when you say that the State should not be funding people on very large incomes. However, the statement that I was taking issue with was that it is not the responsibility of the State to fund anyone to enable them to procreate and go back to work. In other words, you were, perhaps inadvertently, making a blanket objection to welfare support. The reality may well be that it is cheaper and more cost-effective for the State to provide child-care provision for those on below average incomes rather than have those people stay at home and collect benefits. If your earlier statement was a simple mistake, then fair enough but if it was intended, then I very much disagree.Oh and you really should try not to be so tetchy! :-D

 

Inadvertently nothing!  You read into others posts what you 'think' they mean instead of taking what is written is what is intended.

 

Now for simplicity:

 

It is my opinion that it is not the 'responsibility' of the State to fund people, who procreate, to enable them to go back to work.  The welfare system is, or was at it's inception, intended to be a 'safety net' not a financial crutch for those irresponsible enough to enter into parenthood when they can not afford it without handouts above and beyond basic 'family allowance'.   Those people have a choice.  If they can afford it from their income then procreate if not then don't.   If they require two incomes to survive then don't have children unless those incomes mean said couple can manage their circumstances without the State having to fund them......beyond the basic 'Child allowance' (as it used to be called and to which I have no objection).  It really is that simple.

 

As for being tetchy I consider my response to your remarks quite controlled given your condescending comments that I either failed to think things through or misunderstood the functions of State in society.  You do come across as somewhat superior in attitude which I find a most unpalatable trait.

 

[John 47]

RogerC - 2013-08-06 10:38 AM

John 47 - 2013-08-06 9:47 AM

RogerC - 2013-08-05 9:42 PM

John 47 - 2013-08-05 9:28 PM

RogerC - 2013-08-05 9:18 PMI maintain that it is not the responsibility of the State to fund anyone to enable them to procreate and go back to work.  If those that wish to procreate can not afford it without basic 'universal' support  (what was once 'family allowance') then they should not do it.....simple.  If they do then it is us, the general public that is effectively funding a proportion of their choice to procreate.  I funded my own children's' upbringing, albeit with the meagre family allowance which was a universal allowance and which I have no objections to being provided to families.  I really don't want to fund others, who can more readily afford it, to go back to work.

I don't think you have thought this through. Should the "State" (ie the taxpayer) fund schools if some people choose not to have children? Should the State choose to fund the army if a significant proportion of taxpayers are pacifists? Should the State fund roads if some of the people contributing to State funds don't use them? Should the State fund prisons if the majority of contributors never get convicted of anything? I think you have misunderstood the purpose of the State.

 

Somehow I knew this would degenerate into all and sundry that the State supplies and would divert the original post to one of ever widening issues.

 

I misunderstand nothing and once again it looks like comments against one's intellect are your forte'. 

 

The point is the State has to provide services to enable the country to function which includes those things you mention.  However how does any of that...enabling the country to function ...relate to the State funding couples on very large incomes to procreate and go back to work?

 

I am somewhat disappointed that once again what I considered to be a topic for 'mature' debate has been reduced to 'opinions' being expressed of ones intellect(possibly ridicule given the probable age range of posters here) by one of the forum protagonists.  I really should know better.

First let me say that I totally agree with you when you say that the State should not be funding people on very large incomes. However, the statement that I was taking issue with was that it is not the responsibility of the State to fund anyone to enable them to procreate and go back to work. In other words, you were, perhaps inadvertently, making a blanket objection to welfare support. The reality may well be that it is cheaper and more cost-effective for the State to provide child-care provision for those on below average incomes rather than have those people stay at home and collect benefits. If your earlier statement was a simple mistake, then fair enough but if it was intended, then I very much disagree.Oh and you really should try not to be so tetchy! :-D

 

Inadvertently nothing!  You read into others posts what you 'think' they mean instead of taking what is written is what is intended.

 

Now for simplicity:

 

It is my opinion that it is not the 'responsibility' of the State to fund people, who procreate, to enable them to go back to work.  The welfare system is, or was at it's inception, intended to be a 'safety net' not a financial crutch for those irresponsible enough to enter into parenthood when they can not afford it without handouts above and beyond basic 'family allowance'.   Those people have a choice.  If they can afford it from their income then procreate if not then don't.   If they require two incomes to survive then don't have children unless those incomes mean said couple can manage their circumstances without the State having to fund them......beyond the basic 'Child allowance' (as it used to be called and to which I have no objection).  It really is that simple.

 

As for being tetchy I consider my response to your remarks quite controlled given your condescending comments that I either failed to think things through or misunderstood the functions of State in society.  You do come across as somewhat superior in attitude which I find a most unpalatable trait.

In that case, I disagree with you. No-one will ever convince me that poor people should be denied the opportunity to have children. And, once again, you have not thought it through. What happens to a couple who have suddenly hit on bad times and find that they cannot both go out to work because they cannot afford the child-minder? In my view it is not only morally right but economically sound for the State to subsidise their child-care under those (and many other) circumstances. But I re-iterate that I see no worth in subsidising people who can well afford it. PS I was not reading anything into your post; I was quoting you directly.

[RogerC]

John 47 - 2013-08-06 10:47 AM

RogerC - 2013-08-06 10:38 AM

John 47 - 2013-08-06 9:47 AM

RogerC - 2013-08-05 9:42 PM

John 47 - 2013-08-05 9:28 PM

RogerC - 2013-08-05 9:18 PMI maintain that it is not the responsibility of the State to fund anyone to enable them to procreate and go back to work.  If those that wish to procreate can not afford it without basic 'universal' support  (what was once 'family allowance') then they should not do it.....simple.  If they do then it is us, the general public that is effectively funding a proportion of their choice to procreate.  I funded my own children's' upbringing, albeit with the meagre family allowance which was a universal allowance and which I have no objections to being provided to families.  I really don't want to fund others, who can more readily afford it, to go back to work.

I don't think you have thought this through. Should the "State" (ie the taxpayer) fund schools if some people choose not to have children? Should the State choose to fund the army if a significant proportion of taxpayers are pacifists? Should the State fund roads if some of the people contributing to State funds don't use them? Should the State fund prisons if the majority of contributors never get convicted of anything? I think you have misunderstood the purpose of the State.

 

Somehow I knew this would degenerate into all and sundry that the State supplies and would divert the original post to one of ever widening issues.

 

I misunderstand nothing and once again it looks like comments against one's intellect are your forte'. 

 

The point is the State has to provide services to enable the country to function which includes those things you mention.  However how does any of that...enabling the country to function ...relate to the State funding couples on very large incomes to procreate and go back to work?

 

I am somewhat disappointed that once again what I considered to be a topic for 'mature' debate has been reduced to 'opinions' being expressed of ones intellect(possibly ridicule given the probable age range of posters here) by one of the forum protagonists.  I really should know better.

First let me say that I totally agree with you when you say that the State should not be funding people on very large incomes. However, the statement that I was taking issue with was that it is not the responsibility of the State to fund anyone to enable them to procreate and go back to work. In other words, you were, perhaps inadvertently, making a blanket objection to welfare support. The reality may well be that it is cheaper and more cost-effective for the State to provide child-care provision for those on below average incomes rather than have those people stay at home and collect benefits. If your earlier statement was a simple mistake, then fair enough but if it was intended, then I very much disagree.Oh and you really should try not to be so tetchy! :-D

 

Inadvertently nothing!  You read into others posts what you 'think' they mean instead of taking what is written is what is intended.

 

Now for simplicity:

 

It is my opinion that it is not the 'responsibility' of the State to fund people, who procreate, to enable them to go back to work.  The welfare system is, or was at it's inception, intended to be a 'safety net' not a financial crutch for those irresponsible enough to enter into parenthood when they can not afford it without handouts above and beyond basic 'family allowance'.   Those people have a choice.  If they can afford it from their income then procreate if not then don't.   If they require two incomes to survive then don't have children unless those incomes mean said couple can manage their circumstances without the State having to fund them......beyond the basic 'Child allowance' (as it used to be called and to which I have no objection).  It really is that simple.

 

As for being tetchy I consider my response to your remarks quite controlled given your condescending comments that I either failed to think things through or misunderstood the functions of State in society.  You do come across as somewhat superior in attitude which I find a most unpalatable trait.

In that case, I disagree with you. No-one will ever convince me that poor people should be denied the opportunity to have children. And, once again, you have not thought it through. What happens to a couple who have suddenly hit on bad times and find that they cannot both go out to work because they cannot afford the child-minder? In my view it is not only morally right but economically sound for the State to subsidise their child-care under those (and many other) circumstances. But I re-iterate that I see no worth in subsidising people who can well afford it. PS I was not reading anything into your post; I was quoting you directly.

 

John, once again you widen the concept of the OP.  I am fully cognisant of the fact that those already with children are fully entitled to State support if, through no fault of their own fall on hard times.  That is what the Welfare state is supposedly all about.  I believe I already said it is a safety net with which I fully agree.

 

As for 'poor' people procreating there is already a system in place whereby the State provides support in terms of income support, housing assistance/rent assistance etc.  I know this because my niece is in that category and has a great deal of State support.  In addition if you bother to read and retain what has already been written my original point was that the proposal the Government is considering is, in my opinion ludicrous if applicable to any family with an income of over £30,000 gross.

 

Apart from the one point on which we appear to agree you just seem to want to inflame discourse here by your constant widening and/or misinterpretation of what is proffered for discussion.

 

[John 47]

RogerC - 2013-08-06 11:11 AMJohn, once again you widen the concept of the OP.  I am fully cognisant of the fact that those already with children are fully entitled to State support if, through no fault of their own fall on hard times.  That is what the Welfare state is supposedly all about.  I believe I already said it is a safety net with which I fully agree.

 

As for 'poor' people procreating there is already a system in place whereby the State provides support in terms of income support, housing assistance/rent assistance etc.  I know this because my niece is in that category and has a great deal of State support.  In addition if you bother to read and retain what has already been written my original point was that the proposal the Government is considering is, in my opinion ludicrous if applicable to any family with an income of over £30,000 gross.

 

Apart from the one point on which we appear to agree you just seem to want to inflame discourse here by your constant widening and/or misinterpretation of what is proffered for discussion.

No misinterpretation. I quoted you directly. I suggested, from other things you had said, that it might have been inadvertent. You came back and said it wasn't. Thus there can be no doubting your meaning. I disagree with you on that point - very strongly. Am I not allowed to express a view in your world?

[RogerC]

John 47 - 2013-08-06 11:21 AM

RogerC - 2013-08-06 11:11 AMJohn, once again you widen the concept of the OP.  I am fully cognisant of the fact that those already with children are fully entitled to State support if, through no fault of their own fall on hard times.  That is what the Welfare state is supposedly all about.  I believe I already said it is a safety net with which I fully agree.

 

As for 'poor' people procreating there is already a system in place whereby the State provides support in terms of income support, housing assistance/rent assistance etc.  I know this because my niece is in that category and has a great deal of State support.  In addition if you bother to read and retain what has already been written my original point was that the proposal the Government is considering is, in my opinion ludicrous if applicable to any family with an income of over £30,000 gross.

 

Apart from the one point on which we appear to agree you just seem to want to inflame discourse here by your constant widening and/or misinterpretation of what is proffered for discussion.

No misinterpretation. I quoted you directly. I suggested, from other things you had said, that it might have been inadvertent. You came back and said it wasn't. Thus there can be no doubting your meaning. I disagree with you on that point - very strongly. Am I not allowed to express a view in your world?

 

Express away...unfortunately your 'expression of views' is quite often off the point and, as a consequence, sometimes inflammatory.  It is my considered opinion that we would all appreciate your views more if you could stop 'widening' issues in order to inflame or irritate.  It does you no credit and only serves to alienate those who would otherwise proffer their comments/thoughts.