|
|
Post by Hutchyns on Jun 10, 2024 21:31:47 GMT
Red Rackham A conclusive answer to that should be available on the morning of July 5th  |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jun 10, 2024 21:41:15 GMT
Good try to turn it round but it is for you to explain why you go against common sense and believe it is in most cases beneficial for children to live in unhappy households with unhappy parents argueing. It’s the crux of your case yet it defies logic. It’s known that children do better in nuclear families . You want any attempt to keep nuclear families together to be abandoned because some children might be unhappy . You keep up this lie that the process will force couples to stay together . You haven’t graded the crux of my case . You make up a false claim and project it at me . I am not sure it’s as clear cut as you say re nuclear families and I am sure some would dispute your assertion altogether but I think I do agree that on average children are likely to do better in a nuclear family than not. Just to be clear “nuclear “ doesn’t necessarily mean biological parents, marriage or even mixed sex parents - just two people in a stable relationship offering a secure home perhaps offers a better opportunity on average than one. So broadly we agree your initial premise. However you are seeking to extend that to argue that therefore if the state by tax or other means can facilitate a relationship to just survive when it would otherwise fail, hence preserving a nuclear if unhappy household , that too would be better for the child. That seems counter-intuitive. I have asked you repeatedly to evidence that assertion. Still waiting. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jun 10, 2024 21:42:41 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? You expressed an opinion as regards why most people separate which is an assumption. Keeping generally happy nuclear families together should draw some form of financial advantage (tax or benefit). An unhappy man or woman has still the responsibility of the children and should be available to take the strain of the other parent. Being unhappy is not an excuse to renege on one's responsibilities. Decisions one makes in life have consequences and bringing children into the world is a big one and 'the state' must not make it easy for people shirking that responsibility irrespective of how 'unhappy' they may be. Some people spend 40 years being extremely unhappy at work, should we make it easier for them not to work? Unhappiness can be both fleeting and long term, sometimes having to work through a problem by being unable to easily separate can resolve an issue. So in direct answer tax breaks for nuclear families and married couples with children, no financial advantage for couples to live apart (and that happens often). |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Jun 10, 2024 21:57:33 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Jun 10, 2024 22:01:32 GMT
Whilst true, there is of course good reason for that, as there's been many women who otherwise wouldn't count for any state help post retirement. |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Jun 10, 2024 22:01:58 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?
My error was pursuing just that I wanted to be left alone to run my business, make my money, live my life I should have bribed my way into piwer. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jun 10, 2024 22:07:22 GMT
I think the only “opinion” I stated was that generally relationships especially those with kids don’t split up on a whim. That “opinion” is a surely a fraction away from being a fact.
There is no reason to reward generally happy couples with kids (whether or not biological parents, legally married or mixed or single sex) with tax breaks. By definition if they are generally happy they would be expected to stay together anyway so the state gets zero benefit for its “spend”.
There could be a benefit in giving tax breaks to generally unhappy couples to stay together “for the sake of the kids” if it was felt that the kids benefit from the unhappy relationship surviving. I have asked repeatedly for evidence that kids do benefit. Still waiting. In fact intuitively the opposite is the case - kids are unlikely to benefit if their childhood is spent in an unhappy household with repeated rows.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Jun 10, 2024 22:13:09 GMT
Encourage nuclear families, set net zero to end of century, control/ reduce immigration, accept diversity/ multiculturalismis not necessarily a positive thing, stop white race baiting , reduce university places and increase vocational training. Explore and rethink what the NHS objectives should be in the future …. Just picking a couple of those out. What do you mean by “ encourage nuclear families” . How. What are the benefits. What downsides do you see? What do you mean by rethink NHS objectives? Could you give me an example? In the fifties we had a tax regieme designed to promote the baby boomer population growth because two wars had totally buggered us The fifties provided job vacancies for any who wanted a job. The recent arrival of HP removed tve outrageous profits of unscrupulous loan sharks and gave the employed young man (and woman) a lifestyle that with care and caution could be afforded yet was beyond their parents wildest dreams But above all a young man willing to apply himself was able to kook forward to affording a roof over his and his wife’s head, food on the table and a family. Hell, it was still JUST possible in 1981 for a couple of newlywed's to rent a low end flat and live and pay the bills and look forward to buying a home on an average salary paid to a new graduate in a numerate science and their spouse in a lowly public service post I know because Moira and i were that coupl Today ? Not a bloody chance Show me a couple today who can expect that |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Jun 10, 2024 22:16:43 GMT
Whilst true, there is of course good reason for that, as there's been many women who otherwise wouldn't count for any state help post retirement. You previously stated that OAP pension is entirely contribution based , now you admit that it isn't I do wish that you lefties would get your stories straight before posting untruths |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Jun 10, 2024 22:39:57 GMT
Whilst true, there is of course good reason for that, as there's been many women who otherwise wouldn't count for any state help post retirement. You previously stated that OAP pension is entirely contribution based , now you admit that it isn't I do wish that you lefties would get your stories straight before posting untruths No, the conversation was about the state pension and what i said was correct, I linked to the gov.uk website which confirned, as did Jonksy's video. It was you who changed to talking about pension credit. |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Jun 10, 2024 22:49:03 GMT
You previously stated that OAP pension is entirely contribution based , now you admit that it isn't I do wish that you lefties would get your stories straight before posting untruths No, the conversation was about the state pension and what i said was correct, I linked to the gov.uk website which confirned, as did Jonksy's video. It was you who changed to talking about pension credit. Does the word ''pension'' not give a clue or you can continue to play semantics The OAP pension may in theory be contribution based BUT no contribution still gets the non contributor an equivalent state handout under a marginally amended name with pension in the title |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Jun 10, 2024 23:05:12 GMT
No, the conversation was about the state pension and what i said was correct, I linked to the gov.uk website which confirned, as did Jonksy's video. It was you who changed to talking about pension credit. Does the word ''pension'' not give a clue or you can continue to play semantics The OAP pension may in theory be contribution based BUT no contribution still gets the non contributor an equivalent state handout under a marginally amended name with pension in the title So, just to clarify, are you saying that state retirement pension and Guarantee Credit are the same thing? They're not. SRP is not means tested, but is calculated on your NI records. PCGC is a means tested benefit that pensioners who fall below a threshold tops up, and also passports onto housing benefit, council tax support etc, where SRP doesn't. |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Jun 10, 2024 23:14:16 GMT
Does the word ''pension'' not give a clue or you can continue to play semantics The OAP pension may in theory be contribution based BUT no contribution still gets the non contributor an equivalent state handout under a marginally amended name with pension in the title So, just to clarify, are you saying that state retirement pension and Guarantee Credit are the same thing? They're not. SRP is not means tested, but is calculated on your NI records. PCGC is a means tested benefit that pensioners who fall below a threshold tops up, and also passports onto housing benefit, council tax support etc, where SRP doesn't. Does an OAP who hasn't paid required NI for a state pension get a regular income with pension in the title from the state ? Yes? Is a state pension taxable? yes? Is the pension ''credit'' taxable? No? You are now giving me palpitations with your added comments that the non contributor actually gets a welfare ''package'' - (presumably non taxable like working age handout package ) that is denied to the OAP ''taxable'' pensioner |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Jun 10, 2024 23:21:55 GMT
So, just to clarify, are you saying that state retirement pension and Guarantee Credit are the same thing? They're not. SRP is not means tested, but is calculated on your NI records. PCGC is a means tested benefit that pensioners who fall below a threshold tops up, and also passports onto housing benefit, council tax support etc, where SRP doesn't. Does an OAP who hasn't paid required NI for a state pension get a regular income with pension in the title from the state ? Yes? Is a state pension taxable? yes? Is the pension ''credit'' taxable? No? You are now giving me palpitations with your added comments that the non contributor actually gets a welfare ''package'' - (presumably non taxable like working age handout package ) that is denied to the OAP ''taxable'' pensioner You misunderstand. PCGC is a passporting benefit, so if you qualify, then you will get your rent paid in full (or there can be some rent restrictions based on the kind of tenancy that you have) and your council tax paid in full. Deductions are made for other adults in the household. SRP is not a passporting benefit, but it is unearned income. This doesn't mean that you cannot claim housing benefit or council tax support, but rather that you need to be assessed by the local authority, based on not only your SRP but also any other incomes that you have too. The higher your income, the less benefit you receive. So, other than the fact that they are both aimed at pension age claimants, they are not related and certainly not the same thing, or treated in the same way. Your statement that it's a subtle name change is somewhat misguided and misleading. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Jun 10, 2024 23:24:33 GMT
With regards to your comments on taxability, Job Seekers Allowance is taxable, as is State Retirement Pension, but Universal Credit isn't.
|
|
