Was George Osborne right?
Discussion
Digga said:
WhereamI said:
CaptainSlow said:
WhereamI said:
No. Taking money from people in tax and then paying some back to them in benefits make no sense.
Yes it does in certain circumstances. However, let's discourage the traditional family unit they'll only slow down this country's decline down the s
tter. But it is also part of a mindset that takes benefits away from being a safety net to become some all encompassing unaffordable nirvana where everyone has 'a right'. If you want to define anything as a cause of a 'decline down the s
tter' it is that.WhereamI said:
Digga said:
WhereamI said:
CaptainSlow said:
WhereamI said:
No. Taking money from people in tax and then paying some back to them in benefits make no sense.
Yes it does in certain circumstances. However, let's discourage the traditional family unit they'll only slow down this country's decline down the stter. But it is also part of a mindset that takes benefits away from being a safety net to become some all encompassing unaffordable nirvana where everyone has 'a right'. If you want to define anything as a cause of a 'decline down the s
tter' it is that.WhereamI said:
Absolutely, the starting point is a mindset that says that we each have a responsibility to support ourselves in this world, we don't have 'a right' to have anyone do it for us, OK as a society we should provide for those who cannot support themselves, but it's a far cry from that to paying people money just because they have kids.
Margaret Thatcher said:
I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand “I have a problem, it is the Government’s job to cope with it!” or “I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!” “I am homeless, the Government must house me!” and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first… There is no such thing as society. There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate.
WhereamI said:
But it is also part of a mindset that takes benefits away from being a safety net to become some all encompassing unaffordable nirvana where everyone has 'a right'.
We're already there and it's being funded by the higher earners. One small relief during a period of raising a family has now gone. The justification of using lower administration costs doesn't stack either. The way the Child Benefit qualification rules were unevenly introduced has made it more complex so I don't see there being any less cost now.Eta
However I am diverting the thread, there have been at least two other threads where the consensus that a single earner family on 60k is leading a life of luxury whereas two earners on 25k are average earners.
Edited by CaptainSlow on Tuesday 9th April 12:55
Ari said:
MissyMac said:
I've just done a quick calculation on how much benefit he (Philpott) and his family would be entitled to and it is nowhere near 70K. The newspaper are just increasing it every time I read a story about him. I think that the case is just being used as a political tool.
Ok so here's the Daily Mail breakdown. Which of these figures is wrong?
otolith said:
If (as we are told) there are hardly any people abusing the benefits system, why is any attempt to stop people abusing it treated as evil Tories bringing about the end of the welfare state?
because people are fking morons. Seriously though I suspect it boils down to conliblab 'knowing their market' and taking aim accordingly - forget what's good for the country just speak in sound-bitesherewego said:
Ari said:
MissyMac said:
I've just done a quick calculation on how much benefit he (Philpott) and his family would be entitled to and it is nowhere near 70K. The newspaper are just increasing it every time I read a story about him. I think that the case is just being used as a political tool.
Ok so here's the Daily Mail breakdown. Which of these figures is wrong?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff