|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Jul 12, 2023 11:45:18 GMT
Again ignoring your desire to bring everything back to race, Dan, I think the motivation probably was as you describe - to try to deter parents (often poorer often single parent) from having more children. That might be a laudable aim but frankly benefits is unlikely to achieve that aim. The cost of the policy is penalising children who have done nothing wrong and forcing them into further poverty further limiting their life chances all for a hypothetical benefit. Its obviously a matter of opinion whether this is a sensible or counter-productive policy. Seems to me it is the latter. given the fact most of britain’s indigenous white people seem unable to afford kids whilst first second and third generation immigrants clad in burkhas round here, seem to have between three and six, which i do not doubt is a direct result of both their culture and their first cousin procreation that keeps family wealth under the control of the family making it. This is the elephant you are quite determined to ignore but simple demographic charts show the reality |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jul 12, 2023 15:02:59 GMT
Well that will give some of our young girl school kids another career choice. probably Rayners idea. Well the slapper has had enough experience mate.......She can't even shut the FU when she has a gob full. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jul 12, 2023 15:28:27 GMT
Well the slapper has had enough experience mate.......She can't even shut the FU when she has a gob full. LOL |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2023 18:39:58 GMT
Anything that helps families on low incomes has got to be a good thing, and I cannot be arsed to even answer the usual racists who always link everything to either coloured people, immigrants or Muslims. I couldnt give a shit what ethnic background or race people are, if it helps struggling parents with children, then its to be welcomed. HOWEVER, I think that - IF - Keir Starmer does become the Prime Minister, things will have to be priorotised according to need and resources. I personaly dont think this would be top of the agenda. Encouraging people who cannot afford an army of children, to continue having children, whilst passing the cost onto the taxpayer is insane. Smearing people with racism because they accurately rely on facts that distinguish between cultures is also insane.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2023 22:01:12 GMT
Some people obviously believe that the government should decide how many children any couple / parents should have, to be done by discouraging people from having more than 2 children using the Family Allowance or tax system.
I always thought we lived in a FREE country where people decided how many children, or what size family people wanted.
The "Family Allowance" universal benefit was introduced in the aftermath of the Second World War, and it is not a matter of encouraging people who cannot afford to have children, it is a matter of assisting people with children.
AS per usual the Tory supporters know the price of everything, but the value of nothing
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jul 13, 2023 5:17:03 GMT
The issue is not whether people should be allowed to have as many children as they wish, but whether or not the state (i.e. everybody else) should step in to provide for them if parents already reliant on state benefits are unable to do so themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jul 13, 2023 6:18:28 GMT
Some people obviously believe that the government should decide how many children any couple / parents should have, to be done by discouraging people from having more than 2 children using the Family Allowance or tax system. I always thought we lived in a FREE country where people decided how many children, or what size family people wanted. Where is the freedom for those who have to pay for these children that the parents cannot afford?. Yes, if someone decides they want 6 kids is great - good for them. But if they then expect other people to pay for them, then other peoples views also come into the equation. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jul 13, 2023 7:12:31 GMT
Some people obviously believe that the government should decide how many children any couple / parents should have, to be done by discouraging people from having more than 2 children using the Family Allowance or tax system. I always thought we lived in a FREE country where people decided how many children, or what size family people wanted. Where is the freedom for those who have to pay for these children that the parents cannot afford?. Yes, if someone decides they want 6 kids is great - good for them. But if they then expect other people to pay for them, then other peoples views also come into the equation. What the left mean by a free country is that they don't have to pay feck all and rely on the taxpayers to keep them. . |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jul 13, 2023 9:03:45 GMT
Where is the freedom for those who have to pay for these children that the parents cannot afford?. Yes, if someone decides they want 6 kids is great - good for them. But if they then expect other people to pay for them, then other peoples views also come into the equation. What the left mean by a free country is that they don't have to pay feck all and rely on the taxpayers to keep them. . ...and telling them if they vote Labour they can continue to knockout as many chavs as they want. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2023 9:49:15 GMT
Family Allowance should be paid to all families below a certain / decided income level, and to all children.
Alternatively, abolish it completely
You either do it fairly, or not at all
Family Allowances were first introduced by mutual agreement between the caretaker Prime Minister at the time (Winston Churchill) and the opposition Labour Party.
A policy, like all of the Welfare State and the NHS, designed to lift ordinary Britons out of poverty and fear of either becoming ill or stuggling on poor wages, or becoming unemployed.
We all pay our taxes to live in a DECENT, CIVILISED society, where those with needs are looked after, but if you want a Free For All, dog eat dog, sink or swim society .... Vote Conservative.
|
|
|
|
Post by dodgydave on Jul 15, 2023 16:04:35 GMT
The problem Labour have is that they have gone on and on about the "cost of living crisis" and how "we have the highest tax level in 50 years" etc.
The reality is we have one of the lowest tax burdens in the West, and the cost of living crisis is down to temporary external factors.
So how the fuck can Labour get anything done of meaning when the entire country now believes we already pay too much tax???
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2023 18:43:00 GMT
I'm in favour of child allowance for every child. We need to encourage people to have children as we are not repopulating our country.
As far as taxation and public spending goes, there used to be an advert which said "work smarter, not harder". I think this applies to public spending - "spend smarter, not harder" and probably especially refers to the NHS, but not solely.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jul 15, 2023 21:35:43 GMT
The problem Labour have....... ..is a dearth of actual policies. They are totally reliant on just being 'not the Tories' at the next election - it may well work but its not a great advert for representative democracy. |
|
|
|
Post by dodgydave on Jul 15, 2023 23:26:12 GMT
The problem Labour have....... ..is a dearth of actual policies. They are totally reliant on just being 'not the Tories' at the next election - it may well work but its not a great advert for representative democracy. They have some policies... but they are funded on populist fairytale economics. We will have great public services... paid for by somebody else lol. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jul 15, 2023 23:56:06 GMT
As far as I'm aware Labour are not planning to scrap the two-child benefit cap, although I have no doubt Starmer would like to. Such a policy would greatly boost Labours popularity in richly multicultural and diverse areas where men have multiple wives and many children. Of course Starmer is a socialist, but that doesn't mean he's stupid. He knows abolishing the cap would cost £1.3 billion, an annual cost that would rise in line with future inevitable benefit increases, so I guess we'll have to wait and see. But I have to ask, if someone cant afford three, four or five children, why should the state pay for them? Surely this is encouraging people to rely on state handouts.
|
|
