True, but do you think chucking money at poor working families is the answer and that this helps the child be raised to be independent and responsible children? Starving kids, not well dressed for school, unhealthy and unhygienic kids is a sad situation. Some of it will be down to poor parenting, sometimes it will be the parents fault or sometimes it will just be a struggling parent who just doesn't know what to do/is working all the time. I don't think giving the money directly to the parents resolves either issue. I'd prefer some of the state money to go to families as it does now but have an onus on the state spending it in its institutions for these kids which i think goldie has already stated.
Don’t worry, please feel free to argue with me. It’ll just be like being at home. Perhaps it’s best to avoid the term ‘workhouse’ as it evokes images of Dickensian gruel and hardship. A 21C solution would do this but with magnolia walls.
Let's not argue. Let's have a discussion and share ideas. That'll scare 'em... BTW - I'm sure magnolia walls are now classified by the UN as being a form of torture... Being fairly simplistic, it would appear we may have two broad groups of parent that need help with support for their kids. The first group are seen as socially irresponsible by having children they can't afford to support themselves and taking money from the public purse to enable it. The second group used to be able to afford to support their children but something happened that changed their situation. Most people would want to help the second group until they're back on their feet. Most wouldn't want to help the first group, because it's perceived they did it to themselves, but the children would suffer for their parents lack of responsibility. The thought that help goes directly to the children rather than the parent wherever it can has some appeal. What we don't want is to stigmatise those children when they are accessing the help that is being given. It's not their fault. I remember what it was like when I was at school and the kids getting free lunches were dealt with separately from those whose parents were paying. There is at least a third group, too. The middle class wealthier parents who don't need child allowance but take it anyway to pay for extra tuition for their kids when it's GCSE or A level time and they need a little coaching to get a better Uni place. Or to run a second car. No-one seems to mention those parents... Isn't that socially irresponsible and taking money from the public purse as well? And continuing to make sure the playing field is never level when it comes to equal opportunity for all bright kids to achieve their potential?
Very well written post: 1. it isn't the kids fault and hopefully they can break free from the shackles of irresponsible parents (if that is indeed what they are - by irresponsible i mean not loving and/or entitled shouting ones). I think what people don't want (the kids are the most innocent and tragically affected here) is money just being dolled out that incentivises people to have kids just for the sake of it as that isn't good for the children either. 2. I understand that kids might get stigmatised at school. It's why i think school uniform as well as maybe bathroom facilities should be provided. Depending on the cost of school meals if you want to remove the ostracization then all kids getting school meals. 3. with respect to the third group - isn't the child benefit for families where both parents (i understand this isn't popular 2 incomes over 1 income but i guess theres the sacrifice that both parents are working) under 40k so that is already dividing it in the less well off (maybe the threshold should be reduced?). Again this has it's own set of problems where 40k you're probably living like a king in wales and up north whereas 40k will get you diddly squat in london (if you don't own)
Just for factual accuracy, if one half of a couple earns over £50k they have to pay tax on family allowance, if one half earns over £60k he/she has to pay the entire amount back on the family allowance. This is an interesting discussion.
Just had, for the first time in nearly 40 years of work, a really interesting staff survey through at work. It was a very cleverly designed thing asking me to make (at this stage hypothetical, doubtlesss bad stuff on the way) trade offs between various bits of my benefits package (pay rises v pensions contributions, holiday v medical benefits etc, but more complicated lots of different factors involved in each scenario). It struck me that this might be an interesting way to set government policy objectives, particularly on spending. Trade off your tax contribution on health, welfare, law and order, defence, security, state pension etc etc. Say if you would be prepared to pay more for certain things or less (at the moment I suspect some people who say they would pay more do so in the knowledge that people other than them will be paying a lot more). Do we want to finance Uber’s new Poor Law 1601 reloaded, buy nuclear bombs, recruit more foreign doctors or none or all of these. I suppose it would only work if net contributors in the tax system were the only ones allowed a say (this would of course take out a lot of Tory pensioners as well as workshy, baby spewing scroungers). Perhaps your response has more weight according to your net contribution. If you don’t respond tough titty, if you don’t like what the algorithms come out with once the numbers have been crunched, its the will of the ****ing people. Direct, participative democracy! None of this in or out, make your mind up now don’t dilly dally or what’s your favourite colour, vote for them bollocks. Complicated questions should be put in a complicated way.
I think it’s a great idea, Stanno. I’ve often thought that something similar could be applied at the local government level at least, where those paying council taxes might be invited to provide a weighting to the various services on offer, including (say) refuse collection, local policing, roads, parking, street lighting, litter & graffiti cleanup, schools and so forth. Ally this to asking the man on the Clapham omnibus what he’d be prepared to pay for the whole shooting match and you’d get a reet good laff.
We get told what our council tax is spent on round here, but aside from x in a box every few years, have no say in prioritisation. Elections are a very blunt instrument. I was seriously impressed with the survey I got, forced me to think at every stage, even though for someone at my stage of career the choices are simple - maximise pay and pension. And if you did a general public version and some found it too complicated or stressful to complete, excellent, an instant refinement of the decision making process.
I read yesterday that police are quitting their jobs at a higher rate than ever before, presumably because government cuts and rising violent crime (totally unconnected according to Mrs May) are making their jobs intolerable. The day before that, I read about private police forces that are operating in Belgravia and Kensington (at a cost, of course, to local residents) being so popular that they are to be rolled out in other wealthy areas around the country. Your plan in action - you only get police if you can pay for them. I would certainly opt to divert whatever of my tax goes towards nuclear weapons and foreign military interventions towards the NHS. Or maybe I should sell my personal missile to pay for private health cover?
Would you be happier with this (without the facetious property/wealth qualification) or the endless Tory or Labour question? Personally I suspect that you would be in the majority (along with me) on the nuclear weapons scrapped for NHS investment. But in this political world of binary, oversimplified choices at long intervals, we’ll never know.
I didn't think I was being facetious about the wealth factor, Stan. I currently work for a company owned by an old couple who are 82 and 78 years of age respectively (they both turn up to the office every day) and I happen to know - because I see the bills - that their joint private health insurance costs them £40k per annum. I would suspect that the NHS wouldn't be top of their priorities for government spending. As to the Nukes v NHS question, I suspect that if Corbyn lasts as Labour leader, scrapping Trident could become Labour policy. Then we might really get to choose.
I was being facetious in my previous post mate, saying only net contributors to get a say. If the owners of your company are paying their tax and shelling out for, and using, private health insurance and private health facilities, then surely the NHS is the winner? As long as they don’t get a choice that is.....do you know if they draw their state pension? I wouldn’t blame them if they did, if they have paid their tax that is. Of course if you vote for Corbyn on missiles then you also vote for a whole bunch of other stuff. That’s why I am attracted to a more sophisticated way of engaging the public, even if it means free Wi-fi and iPads for all registered voters. Of course I am not qualified to work out if it is at all practical. Wish I could post the link to the clever work survey I had, but it was a one use only thing, and would have probably resulted in the sack, which would not have been great for my pension.
Yes, the fact that they are not clogging up the NHS is a good thing, and how they spend their money is up to them. My point is that those who don't have need of the NHS are less likely to value it. I don't know if they draw the state pension, but like you don't see any reason why they shouldn't (as long as they have paid their tax).
I like the notion of voting for ideas, not people and not parties. A very limited system currently exists and it clearly doesn't work, or else we'd be getting healthier, happier, homeier (less homeless, obviously), and less paralysed by the restrictions of criminally low wages vs ever increasing costs of living.
State pension is or was paid out based on National Insurances contributions, not tax. Has that changed recently?
