egafd.com

Sam,

This may well be the first time I've disagreed with you, but I kinda do see Peter's underlying point (note: the underlying theory behind it. And I wouldn't express it so crudely and subjectively. Nor do I agree with the parameters of George "Fangs" Osbourne's proposals). If people fall on hard times and need government support, by all means we should provide that support. But simply giving out at least ?1000 a year for something the majority of society would end up doing anyway?

On the matter of taxes etc, there's a whole host of other government income sources beyond PAYE and NI. I readily accept that kids of tomorrow will help provide services for all us lot (for which they will be paid a salary and on which they will pay taxes to help fund their current and future services etc....). However, I don't buy that we de-facto need to give a couple/person ?20 a week if they choose to (or accidentally have) a baby, and ?13-odds a week for each child thereafter. Yes, babies are expensive. So are houses.

Why should, say, a city banker on a multi-million pound package get ?46 a week to fund his three offspring whilst someone cleaning his office with no kids is effectively part-funding that?

alicia_fan_uk

Fair enough Sam, you might be right that the average wage is ?23000 and I won?t argue about the tax paid on the sum but I know my tax is set at a much higher rate.
I might also point out that the average family (I?ll just guess here) is 2 kids,2 parents.
So the ?800 average tax paid by the average family covers the whole family of which a large part would be education costs.
So, just for arguments sake, I pay ?1000 tax a year. That tax is for me alone. I have no kids so (providing I have no serious illnesses or injuries) I am paying in. The likelihood of a family of 4 having illness or injury is much higher so over my working life I am paying in more and taking out less than the average family.

"You are too intelligent to really believe that cutting child benefit would result in kids being sent up chimneys. Who has chimneys anyway these days?"

I suspect that you have taken my point rather too literally. However, I stand by the overall argument I am making.

You stated
"If you can't afford kids, don't have them - why should non-breeders pay for other people's children?"

This is generally a 19th Centrury Victorian type argument which has surfaced again in the developed world with the Neo-Cons. As far as the Neo-Cons go, it involves a withdrawal of the state in these areas and placing more of a reliance on charities and in the States, food stamps to try and support people who are struggling. There is a stigma in the US on anybody getting food stamps.

This view logically also involves the withdrawal of all State-paid support for children and their parents e.g in the Uk, Surestart, child tax credit, child trust fund etc etc. This is the logical result of your statement above i.e. if you have children, you pay for them.

The US is the most powerful economy in the world and yet read this link to the problems of malnutrition there.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/05/ ... 98190.shtm

Yes, huge improvements have been made in the UK, mainly as a result of efforts made by Labour governments. That isnt to say that this situation is automatically guaranteed, irrespective of the welfare cuts introduced.

Cheers
D

Tried the link in my previous post and it wasnt working. Here is some relevant text

"Childhood malnutrition is generally thought of as being limited to developing countries, but although most malnutrition occurs there, it is also an ongoing presence in developed nations. For example, in the United States of America, one out of every six children is at risk of hunger. A study, based on 2005-2007 data from the U.S. Census Bureau and the Agriculture Department, shows that an estimated 3.5 million children under the age of five are at risk of hunger in the United States. In developed countries, this persistent hunger problem is not due to lack of food or food programs, but is largely due to an underutilization of existing programs designed to address the issue, such as food stamps or school meals. Many citizens of rich countries such as the United States of America attach stigmas to food programs or otherwise discourage their use. In the USA, only 60% of those eligible for the food stamp program actually receive benefits. The U.S. Department of Agriculture reported that in 2003, only 1 out of 200 U.S. households with children became so severely food insecure that any of the children went hungry even once during the year. A substantially larger proportion of these same households (3.8 percent) had adult members who were hungry at least one day during the year because of their households' inability to afford enough food.

Cheers
D

Once again David you've managed to tell us how great the Labour government was.
You better watch out sunshine, some people might surmise that you actually support them.
If you support the party, then by default you support the leader (I think I stated this before) so you supported old Tony baby a man you decry.I think there was somebody called "Broon" next who can only be summed up as a non-elected waste of space.
Comments please (including links where necessary)

I wish people would understand how our democracy works. There is no such thing as an "elected" PM in the context that this issue is normally raised (as it has been done so above). Gordon Brown was no more or less elected as PM by the public than Tony Blair, John Major or Maggie Thatcher (to name but a few). Gordon Brown put himself forward for the vacant post of leader of the Labour Party - which just happened to be in power at the time - and was elected unopposed (as Tony, Maggie and John would have been had no-one stood against them for party leadership). I'm not saying I agree with the system, but that's just how it is.

You may think you are voting at election time for the PM/potential PM. Unless you voted in Witney or Kirkcaldy & Cowdenbeath in May 2010, you did not. Indeed, if that is what you believe you are actually voting for I suggest you do more research and read the ballot paper more closely.

We can argue about whether "everybody really just votes for the party leader though, don't they?" until we are blue (or red, or yellow) in the face. In reality, people vote the way they do for a whole host of different reasons. Some are leadership led, others due to a plethora of alternative reasons.

What is the real scandal is that a party can get around only a third of the votes yet can realistically expect to walk away with a thumping majority whilst others get little or no representation having obtained a notable share of the total vote. However, this fact seems to irk some people far less than an "unelected" PM.

alicia_fan_uk

[quote]Fair enough Sam, you might be right that the average wage is ?23000 and I won?t argue about the tax paid on the sum but I know my tax is set at a much higher rate.[/quote]

It might be. I was just going on UK averages (taken from 2006 so there might be slight changes. Nothing that would alter my main point though).

[quote]I might also point out that the average family (I?ll just guess here) is 2 kids,2 parents.[/quote]

True. I was going on the old '2.4 children' saying. It's around 1.8 now, worryingly. Still, it's a good figure to have the next time some loon complains about chavs breeding like rabbits. They may be, but there aren't enough high-breeders to alter the national statistics, that's for sure.

[quote]So the ?800 average tax paid by the average family covers the whole family of which a large part would be education costs.[/quote]

I wouldn't complain about the cost of education, surely. I'd guess the only reason 99.9% of us can even debate over things on here is because taxpayers paid for our education when we were young.

[quote]So, just for arguments sake, I pay ?1000 tax a year. That tax is for me alone.[/quote]

Well, no. Your taxes also go towards people who earn much less than you and who wouldn't pay ?1000pa in taxes. On the flip side there are people paying ?5000pa in taxes and some of their money will go towards your pension, or hip replacement, or future cancer treatment.

[quote]The likelihood of a family of 4 having illness or injury is much higher so over my working life I am paying in more and taking out less than the average family.[/quote]

Taking out less, yes, but that family of four means two extra future contributors to our future economy. When you stop working you stop contributing completely. When the parents of the family of 4 stop working their children will be, and they'll be paying to you. Just like you complaining your taxes go towards other peoples' kids, isn't it then fair to say a father or mother is in a similar position, where they can complain about their childrens' future taxes will be paying for some pensioners who didn't have children to help contribute to their future retirement?

Picture this:

You're 85 and sat in a home with Fred. He's also 85. You never had kids but he had two.

You: "My taxes went towards your bloody kids, Fred. 13 years of school and college, and all cos of me. You should be more twatting grateful. Bahhhh!"

Fred: "My children's taxes are keeping you in dipers and jammy dodgers and they have been since you retired 20 years ago - When are you going to fucking die anyway you moaning old cunt?"

As you can see, both have a valid point and it's unclear who's actually contributed to society the most.

What we do know is that, as you've pointed out, the birth rate is getting lower and lower while the percentage of the population that's of pension age and older is getting higher and higher. That can't go on forever because we'll get to a point where there aren't enough taxpayers to pay for the pensioners. This means either higher taxes (will be unpopular with workers), working till we're much older (will be unpopular with workers) or asking people to have more children (unpopular with some workers who happen to be single....and it means more overcrowding in our cities and a bigger drain on the earth's resources). Which do you choose?

You can see here how the percentage of pensioners is rising compared to the percentage of children under 16 >

[quote]However, I don't buy that we de-facto need to give a couple/person ?20 a week if they choose to (or accidentally have) a baby, and ?13-odds a week for each child thereafter. Yes, babies are expensive. So are houses.[/quote]

I agree, to a point. I've always been of the opinion that the government should only pay for the first............say.............3 kids. Everyone should have the opportunity of having a family but if you want a large family you should be a little more financially stable. But, yes, governments don't really have an option but to help pay for children (if the parents need support). To not do so will just mean putting more children in poverty, and they didn't ask to be born.

[quote]Why should, say, a city banker on a multi-million pound package get ?46 a week to fund his three offspring whilst someone cleaning his office with no kids is effectively part-funding that?[/quote]

I agree, and to be fair I don't think I even hinted at the upper-middle classes needing the money. Family allowances should only be given to families who need it. Maybe I should've been clearer.

"Once again David you've managed to tell us how great the Labour government was."

Thank you, Dick. Labour governments to be precise. It was Clem Attlee who introduced the concept of child benefits as part of the great reforming Labour government of 1945-51.

"If you support the party, then by default you support the leader"

Wrong. If I see politics as a reality TV contest, possibly, but I don't. I support or oppose policy measures. I vote for the party who has what I view as the best policies and who I trust to actually make an attempt to implement them, if elected. For the role of PM, read Alicia Fan's post.

I include a pertinent quote from the great man (Attlee) himself.

"'In a civilised community, although it may be composed of self-reliant individuals, there will be some persons who will be unable at some period of their lives to look after themselves, and the question of what is to happen to them may be solved in three ways ? they may be neglected, they may be cared for by the organised community as of right, or they may be left to the goodwill of individuals in the community. The first way is intolerable, and as for the third: Charity is only possible without loss of dignity between equals. A right established by law, such as that to an old age pension, is less galling than an allowance made by a rich man to a poor one, dependent on his view of the recipient?s character, and terminable at his caprice'"

Well, if you can provide me with a list of all the fantastic things the Tories have done for children over the years, I am more than happy to compliment them i.e. the measures!

PS With links if possible!

Goodnight
D