Anyone in receipt of the above average of just over £100 per week will have paid far, far less tax than that. So they end up in their pocket with more than their gross earnings from employment.
Children are expensive.
So what? Houses are expensive. Transport is expensive. Elderly parents are expensive. Weddings are expensive. Education is expensive. Life is expensive.
If you can't afford children, don't have them. You don't have a right to have your lifestyle choices funded by other taxpayers.
I'm sure this has been posted before, but a cool infographic of traitorous pigdogs (those defecting from the Tories), and all-round good eggs (those defecting to the Tories);
Instead of the state finding ever more ways of taking our money, it should be taking the minimum necessary to fund the essential functions of the state.
The discussion that ought to be had is what those essential functions are and how much should we spend on them. The state does far too much and, in consequence, does much of it badly and ineffectively, taxes us too much and we feel that the money is wasted.
Do less. Do it better. Raise the money effectively. Spend it sensibly. And the state should never ever forget that it is spending our money.
I agree completely, but then I am not sitting on my sofa playing on a xbox while someone else it out at work paying for it.
Re your last sentence, I am not sure the Treasury would agree,
Sir Humphrey: "Taxation isn't about what you need." Jim Hacker: "Oh, what is it about?" Sir Humphrey: "Prime Minister, the Treasury doesn't work out what they need to spend and then think how to raise the money." Jim Hacker: "What does it do?" Sir Humphrey: "They pitch for as much as they think they can get away with and then think what to spend it on."
Quoting a TV farce is hardly a sound basis for an argument. The reality is that the Treasury are always in a constant battle with the spending depertments. Its just so much easier for the latter under Labour.
Another example of an even crazier tax is the High Income Child Benefit Tax - that's even worse because it affects many more people, at lower incomes, and is even harder to administer.
Both taxes are awfully designed.
Agreed.
It's crazily bureaucratic now.
The next government, whoever it is, should merge Child Tax Credit and Child Benefit into one means-tested child allowance with the need to self-assess for HMRC abolished.
They should at the same time introduce some form of limit on the maximum number of eligible children, along with some fail-safe that means it is only paid to people who have contributed in Britain and for children that are resident in Britain.
Why can't we just scrap it entirely?
Having children is one of the most popular activities there is, and we have an ever growing population. I see no reason why the state should continue to subsidise it, particularly when we having a pressing deficit challenge.
Surely having children is the solution to the deficit challenge?
I'm gay, I'm not likely to be procreating any time soon, but I'm encouraging all my straight friends to go forth and breed. I need the population pyramid to keep growing if i'm going to have a comfortable retirement in ~40 years...
I don't think child benefit of £20 a week makes much of a difference in people's decision to have kids. On the other hand, it costs £12bn a year.
I can think of far better things to spend the money on.
Everyone talks about Child Benefit but it is Child Tax Credits that are the huge payer.
8 million households get Child Benefit.
4 million households get Child Tax Credits.
And those 4 million households get, on average, just over £100 per week of Child Tax Credits. They then, of course, also get Child Benefit on top.
So Child Tax Credits are not just being paid to very poor people. They are being paid to 50% of people with children. And they are massive.
And they are not a "tax credit" in the sense of a reduction of tax paid. Anyone in receipt of the above average of just over £100 per week will have paid far, far less tax than that. So they end up in their pocket with more than their gross earnings from employment.
Thanks for that. I'm very interested in reform of welfare and social security.
Anyone in receipt of the above average of just over £100 per week will have paid far, far less tax than that. So they end up in their pocket with more than their gross earnings from employment.
Children are expensive.
The one measure that would drastically cut CO2 emissions is enforced sterilisation. For everyone.
If you can't afford children, don't have them. You don't have a right to have your lifestyle choices funded by other taxpayers.
I dont think anyone is arguing that it's a right. Society has taken the view that it's better to have some of those costs shared though tax / tax credits. Personally I think that's a very sensible position. Good luck to the party who wants to abolish child benefits / tax credits, I suspect they'll need it.
I find it staggering that a family can have an income of £58,000 a year and still get handouts from the government. Small admittedly (£545 a year) but still ludicrous.
To be fair that was the old threshold - I think tax credits now generally end at approx £30,000 earnings.
However the threshold does vary with the number of children - so with large numbers of children they are still paid at higher income levels. But this will only affect very small numbers of people - so minimal impact on cost.
What matters - and what costs - is the average. Half of all families with children getting £100+ per week.
Emily Thornberry's tweet mocking white van man on the day of a by-election has to rank as of the most stupid moves by a senior politician for many years.
Are we not stretching the meaning of "senior politician" beyond breaking point?
Anyone in receipt of the above average of just over £100 per week will have paid far, far less tax than that. So they end up in their pocket with more than their gross earnings from employment.
Children are expensive.
So what? Houses are expensive. Transport is expensive. Elderly parents are expensive. Weddings are expensive. Education is expensive. Life is expensive.
If you can't afford children, don't have them. You don't have a right to have your lifestyle choices funded by other taxpayers.
Horses are too, no tax breaks for them much to my other half's chagrin !
Anyone in receipt of the above average of just over £100 per week will have paid far, far less tax than that. So they end up in their pocket with more than their gross earnings from employment.
Children are expensive.
The one measure that would drastically cut CO2 emissions is enforced sterilisation. For everyone.
I find it staggering that a family can have an income of £58,000 a year and still get handouts from the government. Small admittedly (£545 a year) but still ludicrous.
To be fair that was the old threshold - I think tax credits now generally end at approx £30,000 earnings.
However the threshold does vary with the number of children - so with large numbers of children they are still paid at higher income levels. But this will only affect very small numbers of people - so minimal impact on cost.
What matters - and what costs - is the average. Half of all families with children getting £100+ per week.
Are the tax credits calculated on father, mother or both income ?
Emily Thornberry's tweet mocking white van man on the day of a by-election has to rank as of the most stupid moves by a senior politician for many years.
Are we not stretching the meaning of "senior politician" beyond breaking point?
Anyone in receipt of the above average of just over £100 per week will have paid far, far less tax than that. So they end up in their pocket with more than their gross earnings from employment.
Children are expensive.
So what? Houses are expensive. Transport is expensive. Elderly parents are expensive. Weddings are expensive. Education is expensive. Life is expensive.
Of that list we do subsidise:
(1) Housing (2) Transport (3) Social care (4) Education
If you can't afford children, don't have them. You don't have a right to have your lifestyle choices funded by other taxpayers.
I dont think anyone is arguing that it's a right. Society has taken the view that it's better to have some of those costs shared though tax / tax credits. Personally I think that's a very sensible position. Good luck to the party who wants to abolish child benefits / tax credits, I suspect they'll need it.
I think we are all waiting to see what Labour are going to abolish to save that 45bn quid that needs trimming from government spending next year, if not tax credits for people on good salaries then what...
Mr. Nose, welcome to pb.com and cheers for the info.
Mr. Away, people often live in houses for many years. That doesn't mean it's legitimate to hurl an extra tax their way. Just because someone has money doesn't mean it's valid for the state to try desperately to think of a way to seize it. Fair taxation doesn't mean ever more taxation.
I think the state should be smaller than it is (hence my name) but there is a huge national debt and if taxation does have to be raised I would prefer it to be more balanced towards assets than income. I said on the earlier thread I though a better way of property tax would be an extension of the rates bands but the labour mansion tax is hardly a vote loser, unfair or even socialist imo
IMO it takes a particular sort of pessimist to start moaning about having to pay some extra tax because their house has shot up in value to over £2 million however many years they have lived in it!!
From a straight economics perspective, you're absolutely right. By taxing assets, you discourage inefficient use of capital.
I tend to vote Conservative because I generally think they are on the side of aspiration but if the Tories do have a fault its that they covert exemption on inheritance taxation more than anything else. If ,because of a property tax on high value homes , heirs get less money on death that is a good thing imo -it creates a more level playing field for others to aspire to get on
I agree 100%. I think, at the very simplest level, we should move to a recipient tax, rather than an estate tax. Treat inheritance as what it is: unearned income.
What[s the basis of the state's entitlement to take someone's estate?
Power. Physical power. The ability to remove your money with the threat of force - over which it has a monopoly.
Its called democracy. We have general elections every 5 years. Voters vote on policies. With most voters cash short there should be no surprise that they support death duties up to the point it starts affecting them. I do not say it or the level of duty is right or wrong. But its not 'power' its the inevitable desire of quite a lot of voters to want something for nothing.
If you can't afford children, don't have them. You don't have a right to have your lifestyle choices funded by other taxpayers.
I dont think anyone is arguing that it's a right. Society has taken the view that it's better to have some of those costs shared though tax / tax credits. Personally I think that's a very sensible position. Good luck to the party who wants to abolish child benefits / tax credits, I suspect they'll need it.
There'll be a royal stink about whatever sweeties the government takes away. There always has been in the past.
At one time there was a sales tax called Purchase Tax which varied according to the class of goods being sold/purchased. This then morphed into VAT which brought services into taxation.
Why not have another VAT rate (ignore the EU rules as the French do) which is far higher for foods that cause obesity (e.g crisps, biscuits, sugar-filled drinks, cakes, sweets etc) and SKY-tv and other pay channels. At the same time remove VAT from all forms of exercise or exercise related goods.
I haven't heard any of the details about it, but the Danes recently introduced a tax on butter/fat. If you buy food from a supermarket that itemises the VAT paid on your receipt - like Lidl - then it's easy to see that the present rules are a mess.
I would support a straightforward tax on sugar - though at any sort of meaningful rate it would make my home baking of cakes ridiculously expensive.
Anyone in receipt of the above average of just over £100 per week will have paid far, far less tax than that. So they end up in their pocket with more than their gross earnings from employment.
Children are expensive.
Indeed. But how expensive?
4 million households are receiving over £100 per week in child tax credits + £34 per week child benefit - a total of just on £140 per week.
Does it cost £140 per week, on average, to bring up two children?
Obviously lifestyles vary but the impression is that the state is essentially funding the bringing up of children in full (at least at a basic lifestyle level) for about half the population.
If you can't afford children, don't have them. You don't have a right to have your lifestyle choices funded by other taxpayers.
I dont think anyone is arguing that it's a right. Society has taken the view that it's better to have some of those costs shared though tax / tax credits. Personally I think that's a very sensible position. Good luck to the party who wants to abolish child benefits / tax credits, I suspect they'll need it.
There'll be a royal stink about whatever sweeties the government takes away. There always has been in the past.
We will get over it.
Why pick on subsidies for those raising children over, say, subsidies for those with elderly parents who need care?
Given that (a) families with children have higher costs than families without and (b) we all have an interest in maintaining a birth rate near the replacement ratio I would have thought it would be insane to go all out to eliminate child benefit / tax credits.
At one time there was a sales tax called Purchase Tax which varied according to the class of goods being sold/purchased. This then morphed into VAT which brought services into taxation.
Why not have another VAT rate (ignore the EU rules as the French do) which is far higher for foods that cause obesity (e.g crisps, biscuits, sugar-filled drinks, cakes, sweets etc) and SKY-tv and other pay channels. At the same time remove VAT from all forms of exercise or exercise related goods.
O Flynn wanted to bring that in for The Kippers but the donors made Nige slap him down.
Political donors are dictating UKIP policy? This makes them as bad as the trade unions.
Obviously lifestyles vary but the impression is that the state is essentially funding the bringing up of children in full (at least at a basic lifestyle level) for about half the population.
Impressions are one thing. Are there actual numbers that justify that claim? (I am blissfully unaware of how expensive it is to raise children as my union with Nino has not been blessed with any yet.)
I didn't expect anything else from an Islington MP, they haven't been outside of inner London for years, so they don't know that there is a world out there.
The Lib Dems in Islington South & Finsbury are even more middle class than Emily Thornberry.
Perhaps I should stand as the working class candidate.
"Middle class" has been stretched beyond all breaking point definition (Not by your good self, just the way the word is). Is there anything remotely "middle" about "middle class" Islington ^_~ ?
Emily has at least done everyone a great favour for next spring. If you don't want to be hassled by Labour canvassers seeking your vote, just put a couple of crosses of St George in your windows....
“It was a house covered in British flags. I’ve never seen anything like it before. My point is that it’s a remarkable image of a house completely covered in flags. There’s three of them.”
Any news on turnout? Skybet gone back to 5/6 over 50.5% from 11/10 this morning. Turnout does look like high according to reports on twitter, though no exact figures being banded about.
If you can't afford children, don't have them. You don't have a right to have your lifestyle choices funded by other taxpayers.
I dont think anyone is arguing that it's a right. Society has taken the view that it's better to have some of those costs shared though tax / tax credits. Personally I think that's a very sensible position. Good luck to the party who wants to abolish child benefits / tax credits, I suspect they'll need it.
There'll be a royal stink about whatever sweeties the government takes away. There always has been in the past.
We will get over it.
Why pick on subsidies for those raising children over, say, subsidies for those with elderly parents who need care?
Given that (a) families with children have higher costs than families without and (b) we all have an interest in maintaining a birth rate near the replacement ratio I would have thought it would be insane to go all out to eliminate child benefit / tax credits.
Possibly because you can't choose not to have parents.
“It was a house covered in British flags. I’ve never seen anything like it before. My point is that it’s a remarkable image of a house completely covered in flags. There’s three of them.”
"Located just north of central London, Islington South and Finsbury is a part-grand, part-poor metaphor for New Labour; Tony Blair lived here prior to his election as prime minister. Its dinner tables are routinely maligned as the natural habitat of the hypocritical, well-off, ostensibly liberal "chattering classes".
So it's everything that has gone wrong in british politics.
I have the chance to stand against Thornberry for ukip... Shall I take up the challenge?
If you can't land a plum spot (B&SE Thurrock) do your time by going for an unwinnable seat such as Islington. You won't have a chance in hell there but you can raise your personal profile and lay digs on Labour there.
My friend who is now a London Tory councillor started off by going for St Michael's ward in Coventry which is basically unwinnable for the Cons there.
That Thornberry tweet is all over the place. Blimey.
It's a terrible indictment of the detached tory party, snobbish and sneering - yes it's not to my taste - but as a Tory you can't be pompous like that, sometimes the tory arrogance is a real achilles heel.
Too many tweets make a ....
Has Emily Thornberry defected to the Tories? Er, no thanks...!
The Islington bunker mind-set writ large.
You mean she's a comrade and a leftie????????????????????????????? Is she related to Polly T?
“It was a house covered in British flags. I’ve never seen anything like it before. My point is that it’s a remarkable image of a house completely covered in flags. There’s three of them.”
Thornberry explains..
Doesn't even know what a British flag looks like. Shocking.
Dark moods in Tory Rochester HQ reported by the Guardian live feed: "5m ago In contrast to the buzz - and parking attendants - around the Mark Reckless campaign HQ this evening, my colleague Rowena Mason says meanwhile:
The Conservative shop on Rochester high street is completely dead in comparison to the Ukip HQ, which is brimming with jubilant looking activists.
There are few glum-looking faces inside but no one who’s up for talking."
To be fair, there are now many in the Conservative party who think the same. Although Labour has the worst of it in terms of despising their own people.
Occasionally, I'd be taken aback by some of the things that some Conservatives would say about people who lived on council estates (but we're only talking about a small minority of party members). What struck me about Matthew Parris' article in the Times was the way that he really was out and proud about taking a swing at them. But then, he did have form, as Margaret Thatcher's secretary, and she sacked him.
“It was a house covered in British flags. I’ve never seen anything like it before. My point is that it’s a remarkable image of a house completely covered in flags. There’s three of them.”
Thornberry explains..
Does she also explain why she can't differentiate the English cross of St George from the British Union flag?
She's clearly just lost the vexillographers vote.....
Obviously lifestyles vary but the impression is that the state is essentially funding the bringing up of children in full (at least at a basic lifestyle level) for about half the population.
Impressions are one thing. Are there actual numbers that justify that claim? (I am blissfully unaware of how expensive it is to raise children as my union with Nino has not been blessed with any yet.)
I don't pretend to have such figures - and circumstances and choices will vary enormously.
Ultimately it comes down to the subjective judgement of what a reasonable lifestyle is.
I know this isn't completely relevant but I'll say it to give a flavour - my late Uncle had zero private income and the state gave him pension, pension credit and attendance allowance. It was generous enough for him to save between £3,000 and £4,000 per year which he then spent on private operations (three hip replacements over a 10 to 15 year period - all at top private hospitals).
The above seems farcical on the face of it but he led what most would consider a very basic lifestyle. Many others would spend significant amounts on things they would regard as essential which he would never have dreamed of.
So whether giving £7,000 on average to half the UK's families to bring up children is generous or not has to be a subjective judgement.
All I ask is that people are aware that those payments are being made.
Those who don't want to vote for the Lib Dems and who want to send a signal to a Marie Antoinette figure may well decide to make a protest vote.
Quite difficult to ask people in Islington to vote against them, Islington is famous for being the home of Marie Antoinettes, Tony Blair was one of them.
Thornberry obviously doesn't get out much because I've seen a few flat windows in Tower Hamlets covered in English flags. You see them on the DLR between Bank and Canary Wharf.
To be fair, there are now many in the Conservative party who think the same. Although Labour has the worst of it in terms of despising their own people.
Occasionally, I'd be taken aback by some of the things that some Conservatives would say about people who lived on council estates (but we're only talking about a small minority of party members). What struck me about Matthew Parris' article in the Times was the way that he really was out and proud about taking a swing at them. But then, he did have form, as Margaret Thatcher's secretary, and she sacked him.
That's true. Conservatives I knew were generally ok. Some could be patronising, condescening and snobbish toward the working class - particularly the patriarchs. But they never hated them, or despised their pride in being English.
I have the chance to stand against Thornberry for ukip... Shall I take up the challenge?
If you can't land a plum spot (B&SE Thurrock) do your time by going for an unwinnable seat such as Islington. You won't have a chance in hell there but you can raise your personal profile and lay digs on Labour there.
My friend who is now a London Tory councillor started off by going for St Michael's ward in Coventry which is basically unwinnable for the Cons there.
In short - Yes !
Well the reason I support arsenal is because my grandparents are from Islington... Essex Road in fact, is that in the constituency?
Dark moods in Tory Rochester HQ reported by the Guardian live feed: "5m ago In contrast to the buzz - and parking attendants - around the Mark Reckless campaign HQ this evening, my colleague Rowena Mason says meanwhile:
The Conservative shop on Rochester high street is completely dead in comparison to the Ukip HQ, which is brimming with jubilant looking activists.
There are few glum-looking faces inside but no one who’s up for talking."
Err, they're meant to be out pounding the streets GETTING THE VOTE OUT. That's kinda the idea, right?
To be fair, there are now many in the Conservative party who think the same. Although Labour has the worst of it in terms of despising their own people.
Occasionally, I'd be taken aback by some of the things that some Conservatives would say about people who lived on council estates (but we're only talking about a small minority of party members). What struck me about Matthew Parris' article in the Times was the way that he really was out and proud about taking a swing at them. But then, he did have form, as Margaret Thatcher's secretary, and she sacked him.
That's true. Conservatives I knew were generally ok. Some could be patronising, condescening and snobbish toward the working class - particularly the patriarchs. But they never hated them, or despised their pride in being English.
Given that the Labour leader doesn't even include England as a nation in his proposed "Senate of the Nations and Regions", is it any surprise? Labour would rather England doesn't exist.
Those who don't want to vote for the Lib Dems and who want to send a signal to a Marie Antoinette figure may well decide to make a protest vote.
Quite difficult to ask people in Islington to vote against them, Islington is famous for being the home of Marie Antoinettes, Tony Blair was one of them.
I'm not suggesting he's going to win or come close. But he'll do OK.
Incidentally, Islington is a lot more mixed than the external stereotype would suggest. Why, I haven't held a dinner party all month.
I have the chance to stand against Thornberry for ukip... Shall I take up the challenge?
If you can't land a plum spot (B&SE Thurrock) do your time by going for an unwinnable seat such as Islington. You won't have a chance in hell there but you can raise your personal profile and lay digs on Labour there.
My friend who is now a London Tory councillor started off by going for St Michael's ward in Coventry which is basically unwinnable for the Cons there.
In short - Yes !
Well the reason I'm support arsenal is because my grandparents are from Islington... Essex Road in fact, is tha in the constituency?
And it is a lovely area!
I was at the Emirates yesterday for a product launch, impressive but soulless at the same time.
My granddaughter lived off Essex road for a year and never had a moments trouble.
Definitely stand, show the snobby cow up for what she really is.
Dark moods in Tory Rochester HQ reported by the Guardian live feed: "5m ago In contrast to the buzz - and parking attendants - around the Mark Reckless campaign HQ this evening, my colleague Rowena Mason says meanwhile:
The Conservative shop on Rochester high street is completely dead in comparison to the Ukip HQ, which is brimming with jubilant looking activists.
There are few glum-looking faces inside but no one who’s up for talking."
Err, they're meant to be out pounding the streets GETTING THE VOTE OUT. That's kinda the idea, right?
Heh.
Wasn't UKIP's ground game commented on in the Newark by-election?
Dark moods in Tory Rochester HQ reported by the Guardian live feed: "5m ago In contrast to the buzz - and parking attendants - around the Mark Reckless campaign HQ this evening, my colleague Rowena Mason says meanwhile:
The Conservative shop on Rochester high street is completely dead in comparison to the Ukip HQ, which is brimming with jubilant looking activists.
There are few glum-looking faces inside but no one who’s up for talking."
Err, they're meant to be out pounding the streets GETTING THE VOTE OUT. That's kinda the idea, right?
Heh.
Wasn't UKIP's ground game commented on in the Newark by-election?
I recall a dubious poll and lots of ££££ flushed down the bookies... but there were lot's of em.
Dark moods in Tory Rochester HQ reported by the Guardian live feed: "5m ago In contrast to the buzz - and parking attendants - around the Mark Reckless campaign HQ this evening, my colleague Rowena Mason says meanwhile:
The Conservative shop on Rochester high street is completely dead in comparison to the Ukip HQ, which is brimming with jubilant looking activists.
There are few glum-looking faces inside but no one who’s up for talking."
Err, they're meant to be out pounding the streets GETTING THE VOTE OUT. That's kinda the idea, right?
Sands End by-election 2002 is the classic example of prematurely celebrating a win, rather than door-knocking, and the Tories lost by 6 votes.
The Guardian have an article on the Thornberry tweet:
"With one tweet, Emily Thornberry has turned the fire on to Labour The Rochester byelection should have been a contest between Ukip and the Tories. Now the MP has put the focus on Labour as the party of the metropolitan elite"
Anyone in receipt of the above average of just over £100 per week will have paid far, far less tax than that. So they end up in their pocket with more than their gross earnings from employment.
Children are expensive.
So what? Houses are expensive. Transport is expensive. Elderly parents are expensive. Weddings are expensive. Education is expensive. Life is expensive.
Of that list we do subsidise:
(1) Housing (2) Transport (3) Social care (4) Education
but not weddings (that I am aware of).
That's kind of my point. If you're making an argument that we should support childcare because it's expensive, then you could apply that same argument to a dozen other things.
We can't afford to pay for them all. There are difficult choices to make, and no money. The state should provide a safety net, not fund the discretionary decisions of adults and their personal lifestyle choices.
The Guardian have an article on the Thornberry tweet:
"With one tweet, Emily Thornberry has turned the fire on to Labour The Rochester byelection should have been a contest between Ukip and the Tories. Now the MP has put the focus on Labour as the party of the metropolitan elite"
I have the chance to stand against Thornberry for ukip... Shall I take up the challenge?
If you can't land a plum spot (B&SE Thurrock) do your time by going for an unwinnable seat such as Islington. You won't have a chance in hell there but you can raise your personal profile and lay digs on Labour there.
My friend who is now a London Tory councillor started off by going for St Michael's ward in Coventry which is basically unwinnable for the Cons there.
In short - Yes !
Well the reason I support arsenal is because my grandparents are from Islington... Essex Road in fact, is that in the constituency?
And it is a lovely area!
If you ever seriously want to become an MP, I'd definitely go for it. Aside from anything else the experience of being a PPC (assuming you were to campaign even semi-seriously) is fairly unique. You'd be in a much better spot for any future run in a more winnable seat if you'd gone through the motions of managing a campaign team, seeking out local media, and serious amounts of door-knocking for weeks on end.
If you don't have any aspirations in that direction at all, I'd still seriously consider it. It could be fun, and you'd doubtless be left with some good stories.
"I’ve got a £50 bet on the Conservatives winning so I hope I will be able to wipe the smile off the bookmakers’ face later."
He's not alone.
That's just the amount I'm going to lose on the main Betfair market. I confidently expected UKIP's price to lengthen at some point but instead it commenced the long relentless march down to 1.01.
Expensive childcare discourages people from going into work (increasing the welfare bill bad lowering tax revenues) and in some cases will dissuade people from having children at all. Besides, the child will in most cases pay several times the childcare subsidy back in taxes over a lifetime of working.
Given our aging population, lowering the birth rate tis not a good thing to be encouraging as down the line, it will mean more immigration will be required.
Comments
If you can't afford children, don't have them. You don't have a right to have your lifestyle choices funded by other taxpayers.
twitter.com/mattsmithetc/status/535413657409441792
:-)
I've never heard of the woman to be honest so have no opinion on her.
The reality is that the Treasury are always in a constant battle with the spending depertments. Its just so much easier for the latter under Labour.
Not sure that is a wise line
Is it in the Green Party manifesto ?
However the threshold does vary with the number of children - so with large numbers of children they are still paid at higher income levels. But this will only affect very small numbers of people - so minimal impact on cost.
What matters - and what costs - is the average. Half of all families with children getting £100+ per week.
I have a list though....
(1) Housing
(2) Transport
(3) Social care
(4) Education
but not weddings (that I am aware of).
We will get over it.
Emily Thornberry is just doing her bit for the economy - she's just upped the media income of some guy with a white van in Rochester.
4 million households are receiving over £100 per week in child tax credits + £34 per week child benefit - a total of just on £140 per week.
Does it cost £140 per week, on average, to bring up two children?
Obviously lifestyles vary but the impression is that the state is essentially funding the bringing up of children in full (at least at a basic lifestyle level) for about half the population.
Given that (a) families with children have higher costs than families without and (b) we all have an interest in maintaining a birth rate near the replacement ratio I would have thought it would be insane to go all out to eliminate child benefit / tax credits.
Perhaps I should stand as the working class candidate.
I'm hoping Thornberry will help my Rother Valley bet however.
Thornberry explains..
Are any kippers going to the drink tmrw? We can plot to take back Islington!!
Has she not seen a single house in all of Islington that had english flags ouside during the world cup?
But we are talking about Islington which is accurately described by the Guardian as such:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/constituency/1047/islington-south-and-finsbury
"Located just north of central London, Islington South and Finsbury is a part-grand, part-poor metaphor for New Labour; Tony Blair lived here prior to his election as prime minister. Its dinner tables are routinely maligned as the natural habitat of the hypocritical, well-off, ostensibly liberal "chattering classes".
So it's everything that has gone wrong in british politics.
My friend who is now a London Tory councillor started off by going for St Michael's ward in Coventry which is basically unwinnable for the Cons there.
In short - Yes !
"5m ago
In contrast to the buzz - and parking attendants - around the Mark Reckless campaign HQ this evening, my colleague Rowena Mason says meanwhile:
The Conservative shop on Rochester high street is completely dead in comparison to the Ukip HQ, which is brimming with jubilant looking activists.
There are few glum-looking faces inside but no one who’s up for talking."
http://islingtonnow.co.uk/2014/10/11/green-parliamentary-party-candidate-charlie-kiss-attacks-private-landlords/
Those who don't want to vote for the Lib Dems and who want to send a signal to a Marie Antoinette figure may well decide to make a protest vote.
So, what've I missed?
Reckless looking good, Mr. Isam sworn to crush Thornberry, and Thornberry confused by an English and/or Union Jack/flag, yes?
She's clearly just lost the vexillographers vote.....
Ultimately it comes down to the subjective judgement of what a reasonable lifestyle is.
I know this isn't completely relevant but I'll say it to give a flavour - my late Uncle had zero private income and the state gave him pension, pension credit and attendance allowance. It was generous enough for him to save between £3,000 and £4,000 per year which he then spent on private operations (three hip replacements over a 10 to 15 year period - all at top private hospitals).
The above seems farcical on the face of it but he led what most would consider a very basic lifestyle. Many others would spend significant amounts on things they would regard as essential which he would never have dreamed of.
So whether giving £7,000 on average to half the UK's families to bring up children is generous or not has to be a subjective judgement.
All I ask is that people are aware that those payments are being made.
Who are these people?
And it is a lovely area!
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/20/michael-gove-100-per-cent-no-more-tory-defections-ukip
Say what you like about the Tories: they are a patriotic party, and love their country*.
(*with a few notable exceptions)
Incidentally, Islington is a lot more mixed than the external stereotype would suggest. Why, I haven't held a dinner party all month.
My granddaughter lived off Essex road for a year and never had a moments trouble.
Definitely stand, show the snobby cow up for what she really is.
Wasn't UKIP's ground game commented on in the Newark by-election?
So take his words with a big pinch of salt.
Is it because Glasgow provides much of the Scotland squad and so they will be under strength?
Mr. Socrates, so what does Miliband propose then?
Perhaps I should propose "A (petition to ban the petition relating to)^n (the)^(n-1) Mylene Klass ?"
"I’ve got a £50 bet on the Conservatives winning so I hope I will be able to wipe the smile off the bookmakers’ face later."
Sands End by-election 2002 is the classic example of prematurely celebrating a win, rather than door-knocking, and the Tories lost by 6 votes.
It was a great party, though.
"With one tweet, Emily Thornberry has turned the fire on to Labour
The Rochester byelection should have been a contest between Ukip and the Tories. Now the MP has put the focus on Labour as the party of the metropolitan elite"
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/20/tweet-emily-thornberry-labour-rochester-byelection-ukip-tories?CMP=share_btn_tw
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/11/19/buffalo-snow-photos-weather-storm-pictures_n_6186604.html
We can't afford to pay for them all. There are difficult choices to make, and no money. The state should provide a safety net, not fund the discretionary decisions of adults and their personal lifestyle choices.
If you don't have any aspirations in that direction at all, I'd still seriously consider it. It could be fun, and you'd doubtless be left with some good stories.
That's just the amount I'm going to lose on the main Betfair market. I confidently expected UKIP's price to lengthen at some point but instead it commenced the long relentless march down to 1.01.
Can't win 'em all.
Given our aging population, lowering the birth rate tis not a good thing to be encouraging as down the line, it will mean more immigration will be required.