On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 16:58:09 +0100, "Andy Pandy"
wrote:


"Mark" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 12:03:30 +0100, "Andy Pandy"
wrote:

"Mark" wrote in message
...

In fact I really don't understand why there is so much hysteria
about
"scroungers". Unless someone is fiddling the system they can't
get
a
reasonable standard of living without working, can they?

Depends what you mean by reasonable. A family on the dole generally
gets about 90% of what they'd get on a single average income (I've
provided the figures many times).

I haven't seen this.

Quick cut and paste (figures are for last year so the benefits will be
a little more this year, the working families figures will be almost
the same). Figures assume a family with 2 school age kids.

Unemployed family: Total £21690
Working family on £30k: Total £24175

Interesting. Neither amount would be enough (for us) to live off
though.

From my personal experience we need two decent
incomes to raise an ordinary family, to provide our children with
the minimum expected.

Partly because of independant taxation. The idea that you tax an
income which supports a family of 4 the same as an income which
supports a single person. People abroad really don't understand how we
put up with it. It means the gain to work for the first earner is
trivial (as above) but the gain with the second earner is very
significant.

This results in a sharp divide between 2-earner households and no
earner households. Despite having lower unemployment than most of the
EU, we have the highest proportion of children living in jobless
households. It creates a divided society, increasing child poverty.

I totally agree. However, even in a fairer taxation system, I still
think both myself and my wife would need to work.

This doesn't include things such as multiple cars,
iphones, HD TVs, good holidays and XBOXs etc. Nearly all the
families
I know both parents have to work.

Indeed if benefits are so good why don't more people give up their
jobs and why do people buy income protection insurance?

Generally people don't have a clue. The number of times I've quoted
figures like the above and people haven't believed me.

Insurance is often sold to the stupid at silly prices - PPI, extended
warranties, Super CDW, etc. A few years ago I bought a PAYG mobile for
£30 and was offered insurance at £5 a month!! Yet apparently some
idiots pay it! Most people seem totally incapable of assessing risk
and reward.

A lot of these are obviously a waste of time. Is income protection so
straightforward though?
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

In message , Rob Graham
writes
On 17/06/2010 12:53, Gordon H wrote:
In message , Rob Graham
writes

You don't need to fiddle the system. You just have plenty of babies,
viz Karen Matthews, to quote one example in the news.

Rob

Go on, then..

Just did. Karen Matthews

Prejudiced as I am, as soon as I saw that woman's face on TV I knew
exactly what she was...
Yet her daughter who was allegedly "kidnapped" looks a delightful child.
--
Gordon H
Remove "invalid" to reply

In message , Andy Pandy
writes

Yes, the fat cats have seen their pay soar under Labour. Not to
mention taxes on the rich were far less under the last Labour
government than even under Thatcher.

Labour should be in inverted commas in this context, Blair was a Tory.

Which is why so many millionare
businessmen back Labour. At least the new government are proposing a
20:1 max ratio of pay in the public sector, more than the last lot of
incompetant fat cat arse lickers ever did.
--
Andy

What they are proposing is one thing, what they will do is another.
--
Gordon H
Remove "invalid" to reply

johnboy wrote:
In fact, why not pay unemployment benefit and all the
other benefits to everyone, and then take it back in
taxes (VAT and income tax) - even more savings!


"RobertL" wrote
Absolutely right. Although you do have to have some system that
prevents the world and his dog coming to the UK simply to cash in.

But how do you stop the entire *existing*
population from "simply cashing in"?

"johnboy" wrote
There would be no exceptions or loop holes. e.g. If you decide
to have 10 kids, you'd better get a job, because the state would
not be picking up the tab for more than your £5k / year.

"Andy Pandy" wrote
Eh? No "child benefit", which you were arguing for paying non
means tested? You'd need an amount for children, otherwise
those who don't provide the next generation of taxpayers
to pay their "allowance" when they're no longer paying
taxes would be sponging off the kids of those who did.

Not so - the state should just save up some of the
taxes while people are working, to pay back to them
later when they're no longer paying taxes (so there'd
be no "sponging off the kids of those who did").

"Tim" wrote in message
...
"johnboy" wrote
There would be no exceptions or loop holes. e.g. If you decide
to have 10 kids, you'd better get a job, because the state would
not be picking up the tab for more than your £5k / year.

"Andy Pandy" wrote
Eh? No "child benefit", which you were arguing for paying non
means tested? You'd need an amount for children, otherwise
those who don't provide the next generation of taxpayers
to pay their "allowance" when they're no longer paying
taxes would be sponging off the kids of those who did.

Not so - the state should just save up some of the
taxes while people are working, to pay back to them
later when they're no longer paying taxes (so there'd
be no "sponging off the kids of those who did").

And in which bank do you suggest they save it ...?


--
Martin

"johnboy" wrote
There would be no exceptions or loop holes. e.g. If you decide
to have 10 kids, you'd better get a job, because the state would
not be picking up the tab for more than your £5k / year.

"Andy Pandy" wrote
Eh? No "child benefit", which you were arguing for paying non
means tested? You'd need an amount for children, otherwise
those who don't provide the next generation of taxpayers
to pay their "allowance" when they're no longer paying
taxes would be sponging off the kids of those who did.

"Tim" wrote
Not so - the state should just save up some of the
taxes while people are working, to pay back to them
later when they're no longer paying taxes (so there'd
be no "sponging off the kids of those who did").

"Martin" wrote
And in which bank do you suggest they save it ...?

Stuff some more gold in the vaults at BoE?

Mind you, they could "invest" it in paying CB for current
kiddies, who'll grow up to pay taxes in the future...

Better way to save money is to scrap it altogether and not replace it with
anything else. Parents should bear all the responsability and costs of
bringing up the children they chose to have.

"johnboy" wrote in message
...
How?

Just add a small amount to income tax to cancel it out.

Then - get rid of all the extra pencil pushers who would otherwise be
needed to decide if the family passes some means test to get it.

Result is a net saving in administration.

In fact, why not pay unemployment benefit and all the other benefits to
everyone, and then take it back in taxes (VAT and income tax) - even more
savings!

Simples

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 12:49:49 +0100, "Terence"
wrote:

Better way to save money is to scrap it altogether and not replace it with
anything else. Parents should bear all the responsability and costs of
bringing up the children they chose to have.

OK. As long as no-one else benefits from their existence. I assume
therefore that you will never claim your state pension or ever benefit
from anyone else children? No. I thought not.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 13:57:47 +0100
Mark wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 12:49:49 +0100, "Terence"
wrote:

Better way to save money is to scrap it altogether and not replace
it with anything else. Parents should bear all the responsability
and costs of bringing up the children they chose to have.

OK. As long as no-one else benefits from their existence. I assume
therefore that you will never claim your state pension or ever benefit
from anyone else children? No. I thought not.

Surely my NI contributions were meant to provide my state pension.

My children were raised without trust funds, tax credits or any other
benefit other than Family Allowance. My daughter is a teacher and my son
is in the pharmaceutical industry, sufficient repayment of minimal
benefits received?

Surely the time has come when people only have the children they can
afford.

dg