Jump to content
David

The Politics Thread 2019

Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Yes probably would be but they dont have to do the job full time when they get subsidised childcare 

They still have to do the full time job of raising the kids.  The situation for those families may be far more complex than you think.

 

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Highgate said:

They still have to do the full time job of raising the kids.  The situation for those families may be far more complex than you think.

 

Yes I'm sure there are plenty of different circumstances but there will be many of us that work in full time jobs and also raise families with no government help so I'm not entirely sure what the point you are making is?

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, Norman said:

So out of touch with working class society. 

We're specialists in getting full-time jobs just as we discover we're pregnant but don't disclose it.

We're specialists in getting private rented properties for free by having kids.

We're specialists in 15 and 3/4 hour contracts. God bless the supermarkets.

We're specialists at IVAs. Why pay debt back when you don't have to?

These are choices made by people on purpose. They get into debt on purpose. Overspend on purpose. People don't work on purpose. Girls get pregnant on purpose. Yes, a percentage will have kids for other reasons, such as something to love, you're quite right. Some homes don't have love. But most is learned behaviour. Undeniably so.

Broken homes and drugs are rife.

I've got a feeling that the lives of such people are anything other than depressing and tough.

The people who do work hard and play by the rules should have a better standard of living than those who don't, but I'm sure that this is often not the case for people on modest incomes with children to feed. These are the people that government policy should be geared towards, but the powers that be haven't given a fk about since the 70s. The real squeezed middle.

This would provide some aspiration to the people currently happy to survive on benefits.

The Tory way though is too make the rich richer and cut taxes for high earners to get votes. People have been brainwashed into hating inheritance tax, even though most of them will never pay it.

Then demonise all poor people and slash benefits, so at least there is a material difference between those struggling on a low salary and your benefit scroungers/those too disabled to work.

Just cut the safety net. The bedroom tax genuinely did happen. And that was by the supposedly centrist leadership of Cameron and Osbourne. If you think I am out of touch with working class society, wait until Johnson starts. His hero Churchill was a big fan of eugenics....

 

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Yes I'm sure there are plenty of different circumstances but there will be many of us that work in full time jobs and also raise families with no government help so I'm not entirely sure what the point you are making is?

My point is a fairly obvious one, it's surprising that I'm having to make it 3 times.  You said those parents never worked a day in their life AND they are raising 3 or 4 kids.  That's a blatant contradiction.  Both those statements can't be true. 

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

I genuinely dont know the answer here but how many of these children are born into poverty and how many go from living normal lives to a situation if poverty?

I can think of anything more selfish than having children when you cannot afford to bring them up and I think some of this goes back to a generation who saw having children as a career rather than as a lifestyle choice.

I'd love to have more kids but know that I could not afford to give them the lifestyle I would want my children to have, so I didnt have any more,well that plus the fact my wife hated me 🤣

Realise the above will not be a popular statement but think it is a question that should be asked.

 

4 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

No of course not.

I'm astounded that despite the state that the country is in, the government have still failed to tackle the real issues with the benefits system.

I mean what is Child Benefit all about? What sane system gives people money for having children without any sort of control over what the money is spent on?

Benefits should be limited to 1 child too in my opinion, that way you are still giving everyone the chance of being a parent without giving them the chance to try and turn into a career.

Obviously there is much more to the benefit system but these are 2 things that really annoy me.

Maybe the government should make it compulsory that all claimants of any benefit payment, male and female, be fitted with a chastity belt. While we're about it, all expectant mothers who attend prenatal clinics should be means tested. If they can't prove they are financially able to have and raise the child, then should their pregnancy be terminated.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, 1of4 said:

 

Maybe the government should make it compulsory that all claimants of any benefit payment, male and female, be fitted with a chastity belt. While we're about it, all expectant mothers who attend prenatal clinics should be means tested. If they can't prove they are financially able to have and raise the child, then should their pregnancy be terminated.

No, that's a silly idea. Much better to get other people to contribute towards raising other peoples children, or in many cases, towards their beer and fags.

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Highgate said:

My point is a fairly obvious one, it's surprising that I'm having to make it 3 times.  You said those parents never worked a day in their life AND they are raising 3 or 4 kids.  That's a blatant contradiction.  Both those statements can't be true. 

Raising children is not a job, it's a lifestyle choice and one which sadly is not taken seriously by way too many parents.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

No of course not.

I'm astounded that despite the state that the country is in, the government have still failed to tackle the real issues with the benefits system.

I mean what is Child Benefit all about? What sane system gives people money for having children without any sort of control over what the money is spent on?

Benefits should be limited to 1 child too in my opinion, that way you are still giving everyone the chance of being a parent without giving them the chance to try and turn into a career.

Obviously there is much more to the benefit system but these are 2 things that really annoy me.

Benefit for one child is, or was the system operated in Germany.  The rule was strict and you could only receive the benefit for six years.  To receive the benefit you had to prove there was no chance you could live with family or a parent . During these six years is was expected that the parent would undertake training/education to begin providing for themselves after the six years, full financial assistance was given with this in addition .   The actual payment did not include housing benefit/ furnishings/ baby equipment which were also supplied.  These payments also ceased after six years. 

This seems a fairly reasonable system.  

I thought we were putting something similar in place here,  I believe this may have been benefits for two children.  This idea may have been scrapped I believe .

Share this post


Link to post
41 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Raising children is not a job, it's a lifestyle choice and one which sadly is not taken seriously by way too many parents.

You said they never did a days work.  They have.  In fact they've done loads of it, if they've got 3-4 kids. 

You may call raising children a lifestyle choice, but you have to concede if people didn't make that choice, the country, or any country, would simply cease to exist. No more kids, then no more UK, (unless you want to depend 100% on immigrants). The most important job for any nation is the raise it's young people to adulthood as best and as fairly as it can.  To consider that crucial task not work, or not 'job' is just ludicrous.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

No, that's a silly idea. Much better to get other people to contribute towards raising other peoples children, or in many cases, towards their beer and fags.

Great idea. How should we raise the extra cash needed?  What about a surcharge of five percent on all items  purchased on Amazon. Wait we shouldn't be singling out just one company thats devoid of any morals, let put it on everything bought via the internet. A percentage of the resultant revenue can go on beer and fags or what is more likely to feed and clothe children, while the rest can go to subsidising high street businesses.

Edited by 1of4

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Highgate said:

You said they never did a days work.  They have.  In fact they've done loads of it, if they've got 3-4 kids. 

You may call raising children a lifestyle choice, but you have to concede if people didn't make that choice, the country, or any country, would simply cease to exist. No more kids, then no more UK, (unless you want to depend 100% on immigrants). The most important job for any nation is the raise it's young people to adulthood as best and as fairly as it can.  To consider that crucial task not work, or not 'job' is just ludicrous.

Judging by the state of some of the youth of today, there are a lot of people that deserve the sack from their 'job'.

 

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, 1of4 said:

Great idea. How should we raise the extra cash needed?  What about a surcharge of five percent on all items  purchased on Amazon. Wait we shouldn't be singling out just one company thats devoid of any morals, let put it on everything bought via the internet. A percentage of the resultant revenue can go on beer and fags or what is more likely to feed and clothe children, while the rest can go to subsidising high street businesses.

I'm all for ideas for re-generating the high street.

Instead of putting additional taxes on internet companies, how about people stop being hypocrites, get off their lazy arses and actually go into town.

Without customers these internet companies dont exist.

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, GboroRam said:

Squabbling over the crumbs. 

Persimmon boss was awarded a £75m bonus last year. Focus on the point in hand. You don't live in a third world country. We could change the rules, if we had the political will. 

Taxed at 40% that's £30m into the government coffers. 

Child benefit for 30,000 children paid for the year.

The top 1% of earners in the country pay 28% of the income tax burden, only 1% below record levels.

The top 50% of earners in the country pay 90% of the income tax burden.

I'm not sure why you think they are not paying their fair share?

Corporations are a different matter, it appears the big ones are avoiding corporation tax but that overlooks all of the other taxes they are contributing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
On 22/08/2019 at 00:30, maxjam said:

Just as a (hopefully interesting) side note to the Amazon conversation going on my wife and I run our own business from home, we used to have a website but the amount of money you needed to invest in it to get noticed was astronomical so we now sell 100% through eBay and Amazon. 

Whilst Amazon is not perfect it does allow small independent companies such as our own to promote our goods and access the global market for a tiny fraction of the cost it would do otherwise.  As we sell a lot through Amazon now, we ship everything to one of their warehouses, they store it, pack it and post it out via Amazon Prime which has enabled us to do a lot more business than we ever could have working out of our garage - and whilst I doubt Amazon pay any tax on our profits we certainly do.

In short, support independent sellers on Amazon!

You’re making a really interesting point about how amazon are evolving their business and because of our online shopping habits are now increasingly like a utility or infrastructure company.

as such , being “on the commanding heights of the economy “ it’s philosophically arguable that it should be a state run enterprise.

glad your business is doing well btw my wife’s little ice-cream dream is dying. So I know what hard work your own business is. For zero (or largely negative) reward in our case.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, G STAR RAM said:

Taxed at 40% that's £30m into the government coffers. 

Child benefit for 30,000 children paid for the year.

The top 1% of earners in the country pay 28% of the income tax burden, only 1% below record levels.

The top 50% of earners in the country pay 90% of the income tax burden.

I'm not sure why you think they are not paying their fair share?

Corporations are a different matter, it appears the big ones are avoiding corporation tax but that overlooks all of the other taxes they are contributing.

 

theres no way he pays tax on that bonus. these people are too clever.

i have heard stories of people at banks where their bonuses go through complex investments set up by the bank themselves for the benefit of the employees which reduces their tax liability.

I don't even think 28% of tax being paid by 1% of earners is even that outrageous, or even 90% paid by top 50% is even that outrageous either...

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, Norman said:

Someone will tell me I am wrong and sarcastically mock me.

Not me - I hear you, and I know that you are right that people in those situations exist, but it's a generalisation to say that is "working class society". The majority of true working class people are not like that.

I feel sorry for people whose life is doing those things you list - I can't get angry at them. That doesn't fix anything. Get angry at the successive governments that have created the situation and vote for change

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

I'm all for ideas for re-generating the high street.

Instead of putting additional taxes on internet companies, how about people stop being hypocrites, get off their lazy arses and actually go into town.

Without customers these internet companies dont exist.

Can't it be argued to be better for the environment by buying through the internet? 1 truck dropping off 100 gifts to 100 different people vs 100 people driving to and from a store to each pick up a single item.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.