|
|
Post by jonksy on Jun 10, 2024 14:35:52 GMT
What I want is to be left alone. Or more specificially, less public spending, lower taxes, less immigration, less over crowding and a smaller state with less interference in our lives. Get those things sorted and pretty much everything else in the country will take care of itself.
Oh, and by "Populist" (a pejorative term), I take it you mean anyone who disagrees with your big state, high tax, net nero, extreme left control freak agenda?
in order to find your tax cuts? Where would you target your tax cuts - on lower paid people or higher paid people or companies? Putting up illegals in hotels for starters... |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jun 10, 2024 15:04:26 GMT
Very few couples split up because of a “moment” Sandy but relationships entered into in good faith sometimes founder and it is not clear that it is in the interests of children for the state to seek to intervene to keep parents together if they don’t want to be and of course many kids are born from much more casual relationships at the start. As I think we have seen, making divorce harder seems to achieve very little for either the parents or the child so what policies would you advocate the state adopt to seek to preserve unhappy nuclear families (if indeed you think this is desirable)? That seems like just opinion as we know not why couples split up but we know it is increasing and that it is easier. I am not suggesting interference and I do not think anyone else is but making it easy for couples to part, and in fact in some instances making it economically more advantageous, is not good for children. Splitting up is bad for children, staying together may also be bad, so it is not a good choice but the pressure, however it is applied, should advanatge a stable family unit. Them be fine words Sandy and lots of them too but not sure you have actually said anything. Could I ask you to answer the question? |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jun 10, 2024 15:18:10 GMT
That seems like just opinion as we know not why couples split up but we know it is increasing and that it is easier. I am not suggesting interference and I do not think anyone else is but making it easy for couples to part, and in fact in some instances making it economically more advantageous, is not good for children. Splitting up is bad for children, staying together may also be bad, so it is not a good choice but the pressure, however it is applied, should advanatge a stable family unit. Them be fine words Sandy and lots of them too but not sure you have actually said anything. Could I ask you to answer the question? There is no question to answer . Just assumptions and opinion. The question of state interference is nonsense when the state so often becomes involved in divorces . Your acceptance that splitting up is hard for children is followed saying it ‘ might ‘ be bad if they stayed together . You completely ignore that marriage is a contract and ever more meaningful when children are involved . There should be incentives for nuclear families to stay together and disincentives for nuclear families to seperate . Once you decide to be honest enough to accept that premise as a valid one then you might be able to debate it |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jun 10, 2024 15:35:32 GMT
No Bentley. I am asking you and Sandy for specifics.
You keep talking marriage and divorce but the reality is that roughly 50% of babies are born outside of married couples. Are you suggesting that the state should try to change that statistic. If so specifically how?
You talk about making divorce harder. But you havent explained why it benefits a child for the parents to remain legally married but live apart because they can’t get divorced rather than get the legal piece of paper. If there is an answer could you answer that specific question?
Is it your case that you believe that if parents can’t get legally divorced so easily, they will say “ah bugger, in that case we’ll just have to keep on living together with Johnny” ? Does that seem credible to you?
Happy relationships don’t need state “interference” to keep together, so you are only seeking for the state to somehow keep together unhappy relationships. What makes you think that is in the interests of the child?
If you do want the state to seek to preserve unhappy relationships, what specific measures are you advocating to do so?
5 direct questions. I think they are clear. Could you try to answer them please.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jun 10, 2024 15:47:42 GMT
No Bentley. I am asking you and Sandy for specifics. You keep talking marriage and divorce but the reality is that roughly 50% of babies are born outside of married couples. Are you suggesting that the state should try to change that statistic. If so specifically how? You talk about making divorce harder. But you havent explained why it benefits a child for the parents to remain legally married but live apart because they can’t get divorced rather than get the legal piece of paper. If there is an answer could you answer that specific question? Is it your case that you believe that if parents can’t get legally divorced so easily, they will say “ah bugger, in that case we’ll just have to keep on living together with Johnny” ? Does that seem credible to you? Happy relationships don’t need state “interference” to keep together, so you are only seeking for the state to somehow keep together unhappy relationships. What makes you think that is in the interests of the child? If you do want the state to seek to preserve unhappy relationships, what specific measures are you advocating to do so? 5 direct questions. I think they are clear. Could you try to answer them please. So once again you ignore the post make false assumptions and be obtuse “ There should be incentives for nuclear families to stay together and disincentives for nuclear families to seperate .”You have not posted questions. You have posted assumptions and claims ending in question marks . |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jun 10, 2024 15:51:58 GMT
Steve Bannon does quite an admirable job explaining in this short clip. He does swear a bit though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jun 10, 2024 16:07:27 GMT
Dappy will no doubt have been cheered by the enactment of the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act in 2022. American-style no-fault divorce is now the law of the land and divorce is almost as simple and easy in England and Wales as it is under Islam. Perhaps that's what's next. No doubt dappy will applaud it too.
|
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Jun 10, 2024 16:07:40 GMT
Ok so what changes would you wish made to benefits. I think the biggest cost is pensions. Does that get cut too? Benefits? No out of work handouts without a 5 year contribution history in the UK Out of work benefits for maximum of 5 year during working age All out of work benefit packages to be taxable at standard income tax rates Disability handouts for physical disability only , take alleged MH out of the equation ,eg Anxiety/ADHD/AST(unless completely non functiional) Benefit handouts to be awarded in voucher form for specific items only and exchangeable only in major supermarkets or utility companies. No booze/fags/Sky TV/takeaways etc OAP pension is a pittance (and it's taxable) , OAPS have paid in - leave them alone |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jun 10, 2024 16:22:35 GMT
No Bentley. I am asking you and Sandy for specifics. You keep talking marriage and divorce but the reality is that roughly 50% of babies are born outside of married couples. Are you suggesting that the state should try to change that statistic. If so specifically how? You talk about making divorce harder. But you havent explained why it benefits a child for the parents to remain legally married but live apart because they can’t get divorced rather than get the legal piece of paper. If there is an answer could you answer that specific question? Is it your case that you believe that if parents can’t get legally divorced so easily, they will say “ah bugger, in that case we’ll just have to keep on living together with Johnny” ? Does that seem credible to you? Happy relationships don’t need state “interference” to keep together, so you are only seeking for the state to somehow keep together unhappy relationships. What makes you think that is in the interests of the child? If you do want the state to seek to preserve unhappy relationships, what specific measures are you advocating to do so? 5 direct questions. I think they are clear. Could you try to answer them please. So once again you ignore the post make false assumptions and be obtuse “ There should be incentives for nuclear families to stay together and disincentives for nuclear families to seperate .”You have not posted questions. You have posted assumptions and claims ending in question marks . You are still avoiding answering simple questions. Let’s try another one What should the incentives be for nuclear families to stay together? What should be the disincentives to splitting. Given that by definition they would be unhappy relationships, what evidence do you have that a child fared better in an unhappy nuclear family compared to a happier non-nuclear one? |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jun 10, 2024 16:25:23 GMT
Dappy will no doubt have been cheered by the enactment of the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act in 2022. American-style no-fault divorce is now the law of the land and divorce is almost as simple and easy in England and Wales as it is under Islam. Perhaps that's what's next. No doubt dappy will applaud it too. Dappy probably didn’t spend a lot of time studying the fine detail of the 2022 Act. If the main change of the act is to take away the concept of finding one or other partner to blame and instead focusing on achieving an amicable split if that is what both parties want - that seems sensible to me. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jun 10, 2024 16:29:37 GMT
Ok so what changes would you wish made to benefits. I think the biggest cost is pensions. Does that get cut too? Benefits? No out of work handouts without a 5 year contribution history in the UK Out of work benefits for maximum of 5 year during working age All out of work benefit packages to be taxable at standard income tax rates Disability handouts for physical disability only , take alleged MH out of the equation ,eg Anxiety/ADHD/AST(unless completely non functiional) Benefit handouts to be awarded in voucher form for specific items only and exchangeable only in major supermarkets or utility companies. No booze/fags/Sky TV/takeaways etc OAP pension is a pittance (and it's taxable) , OAPS have paid in - leave them alone Over 50% of the total pension spend goes on pensions but that is to be excluded from your savage cuts. Is it fair to guess that you are a pensioner and this is a case of “leave my benefits alone but cut all the other buggers….”? |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jun 10, 2024 16:37:48 GMT
Dappy wants the money for migration policies. Pensioners are weak, while the boat people are strong.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jun 10, 2024 16:38:07 GMT
So once again you ignore the post make false assumptions and be obtuse “ There should be incentives for nuclear families to stay together and disincentives for nuclear families to seperate .”You have not posted questions. You have posted assumptions and claims ending in question marks . You are still avoiding answering simple questions. Let’s try another one What should the incentives be for nuclear families to stay together? What should be the disincentives to splitting. Given that by definition they would be unhappy relationships, what evidence do you have that a child fared better in an unhappy nuclear family compared to a happier non-nuclear one? The social advantages would be to recognise that children flourish better in nuclear families and then make it more socially acceptable for families to stay together . Instead of lionising single parenthood society should celebrate parents who respect the obligation to their children . So maybe society should celebrate joined parenthood as much as it celebrates LGBGT and multiculturalism. Status means a lot . Couples with children should be given financial incentives to stay together. Tax or otherwise . Divorces with children involved should have to go through arbitration and counciling before they progress . Maybe the children should have Input. Thats a start. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jun 10, 2024 16:43:14 GMT
Dappy will no doubt have been cheered by the enactment of the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act in 2022. American-style no-fault divorce is now the law of the land and divorce is almost as simple and easy in England and Wales as it is under Islam. Perhaps that's what's next. No doubt dappy will applaud it too. Dappy probably didn’t spend a lot of time studying the fine detail of the 2022 Act. If the main change of the act is to take away the concept of finding one or other partner to blame and instead focusing on achieving an amicable split if that is what both parties want - that seems sensible to me. The whole point of the Act is to enable a divorce to happen if only one of the parties wants it. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jun 10, 2024 16:43:40 GMT
I keep asking the same question over and over again.
It may well be true that children in happy nuclear families on average do better than other children. But we are not discussing them.
What evidence do you have that children in unhappy nuclear families kept together by tax or other incentives /disincentives do better than children in non nuclear families
|
|
