politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Punters now taking a more positive view of Trump’s survival ch

TwistedFireStopper said:

RobD said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

I fitted smoke detectors in a council flat today. A young woman, age 22, with 4 children by various fathers. As a council property, it had hard wired detectors, but the current junkie boyfriend had pulled them off the ceiling when his late night activities set them off. My head says 2 kids for child benefit payments is a perfectly sensible policy. My heart, looking at the little 3 year old fella who was mesmerised by the fire engine says otherwise. I don't have any answers.

Luckily for her all existing children are still eligible.

I know, but someone like her after this policy won't be. "Won't someone think of the children?" Clearly someone needs to.

They can 'think of the children' before they have them. Plus it is not a stop on tax credits and welfare for children, just limiting it to 2 ie the replacement rate, after that if you want extra children taxpayers will not fund it

Pulpstar said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Danny565 said:

Can Mr Nabavi confirm though:- has he just confirmed he took measures to minimise his tax bill before the 50p rate was reduced? Did he really have the brass neck to criticise the Labour government for creating a huge deficit, while simultaneously exploiting loopholes with his personal finances that made the deficit bigger?

No I didn't, for the extremely good reason that I don't earn enough to be affected.

Nabavi in 'relative poverty' shocker

My father always advised 'act dumb and plead poverty'. No doubt it was good advice, but I never managed to follow it.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Pulpstar said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Danny565 said:

Can Mr Nabavi confirm though:- has he just confirmed he took measures to minimise his tax bill before the 50p rate was reduced? Did he really have the brass neck to criticise the Labour government for creating a huge deficit, while simultaneously exploiting loopholes with his personal finances that made the deficit bigger?

No I didn't, for the extremely good reason that I don't earn enough to be affected.

Nabavi in 'relative poverty' shocker

My father always advised 'act dumb and plead poverty'. No doubt it was good advice, but I never managed to follow it.

You've done both tonight. The old man would be proud.

RobD said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

RobD said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

I fitted smoke detectors in a council flat today. A young woman, age 22, with 4 children by various fathers. As a council property, it had hard wired detectors, but the current junkie boyfriend had pulled them off the ceiling when his late night activities set them off. My head says 2 kids for child benefit payments is a perfectly sensible policy. My heart, looking at the little 3 year old fella who was mesmerised by the fire engine says otherwise. I don't have any answers.

Luckily for her all existing children are still eligible.

I know, but someone like her after this policy won't be. "Won't someone think of the children?" Clearly someone needs to.

Well the idea is it changes behavior...

I'm not disagreeing with you, it's just that I see families like this all the time and I'm not sure changing behaviour is as simple as making them poorer. As I say, I don't have any answers, but it will be the poorest that suffer.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Danny565 said:

Can Mr Nabavi confirm though:- has he just confirmed he took measures to minimise his tax bill before the 50p rate was reduced? Did he really have the brass neck to criticise the Labour government for creating a huge deficit, while simultaneously exploiting loopholes with his personal finances that made the deficit bigger?

No I didn't, for the extremely good reason that I don't earn enough to be affected.

Re-reading your original post, I can see now that you were talking hypothetically, so apologies!

Even so, my other point still stands. If we were talking about any other crime - say drink-driving, thieving from shops, or indeed fraudulently claiming benefits - I'm pretty sure your response would not be to throw your hands up and say "oh it's too difficult to stop these people doing these things, so let's just change the law and stop trying to catch them". Your response would probably be, rightly, that we have to enforce the laws better and that, as a point of principle, we don't give into people who deliberately try to dodge the rules. I don't see why tax rates should be the exception to that.

TwistedFireStopper said:

RobD said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

RobD said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

I fitted smoke detectors in a council flat today. A young woman, age 22, with 4 children by various fathers. As a council property, it had hard wired detectors, but the current junkie boyfriend had pulled them off the ceiling when his late night activities set them off. My head says 2 kids for child benefit payments is a perfectly sensible policy. My heart, looking at the little 3 year old fella who was mesmerised by the fire engine says otherwise. I don't have any answers.

Luckily for her all existing children are still eligible.

I know, but someone like her after this policy won't be. "Won't someone think of the children?" Clearly someone needs to.

Well the idea is it changes behavior...

I'm not disagreeing with you, it's just that I see families like this all the time and I'm not sure changing behaviour is as simple as making them poorer. As I say, I don't have any answers, but it will be the poorest that suffer.

Not if they plan and not if a reduction is seen in the number of children raised in benefit dependant households

HYUFD said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

RobD said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

RobD said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

I fitted smoke detectors in a council flat today. A young woman, age 22, with 4 children by various fathers. As a council property, it had hard wired detectors, but the current junkie boyfriend had pulled them off the ceiling when his late night activities set them off. My head says 2 kids for child benefit payments is a perfectly sensible policy. My heart, looking at the little 3 year old fella who was mesmerised by the fire engine says otherwise. I don't have any answers.

Luckily for her all existing children are still eligible.

I know, but someone like her after this policy won't be. "Won't someone think of the children?" Clearly someone needs to.

Well the idea is it changes behavior...

I'm not disagreeing with you, it's just that I see families like this all the time and I'm not sure changing behaviour is as simple as making them poorer. As I say, I don't have any answers, but it will be the poorest that suffer.

Not if they plan and not if a reduction is seen in the number of children raised in benefit dependant households

Who is doing the planning?

TwistedFireStopper said:

RobD said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

RobD said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

I fitted smoke detectors in a council flat today. A young woman, age 22, with 4 children by various fathers. As a council property, it had hard wired detectors, but the current junkie boyfriend had pulled them off the ceiling when his late night activities set them off. My head says 2 kids for child benefit payments is a perfectly sensible policy. My heart, looking at the little 3 year old fella who was mesmerised by the fire engine says otherwise. I don't have any answers.

Luckily for her all existing children are still eligible.

I know, but someone like her after this policy won't be. "Won't someone think of the children?" Clearly someone needs to.

Well the idea is it changes behavior...

I'm not disagreeing with you, it's just that I see families like this all the time and I'm not sure changing behaviour is as simple as making them poorer. As I say, I don't have any answers, but it will be the poorest that suffer.

I see such families frequently too. Forcing people to stand on their own two feet works a lot better for some than others. For some it is the kick up the backside that they need to get their life in order. For others it is the kick that moves them from scraping by to sleeping on doorways taking Spice or being trafficked.

Danny565 said:

Re-reading your original post, I can see now that you were talking hypothetically!

Even so, my other point still stands. If we were talking about any other crime - say drink-driving, thieving from shops, or indeed fraudulently claiming benefits - I'm pretty sure your response would not be to throw your hands up and say "oh it's too difficult to stop these people doing these things, so let's just change the law and stop trying to catch them". Your response would probably be, rightly, that we have to enforce the laws better and that, as a point of principle, we don't give into people who deliberately try to dodge the rules. I don't see why tax rates should be the exception to that.

No, your other point doesn't still stand. If we had a law which failed to achieve its objectives, indeed was counter-productive, we'd repeal or amend it. In any case, what's this stuff about 'crime'? Paying a perfectly legal pension contribution, or working a bit less, is not a crime. Nor, in the limit, is emigrating to a less rapacious tax regime, as many French people do.

Of course, you are right that the same problem applies to benefits. Leaving aside the (relatively rare) cases of benefit fraud, the much bigger problem is the perverse incentives in the benefit system. I don't for a moment blame people for adjusting their behaviour according to those perverse incentives; they don't make the rules. But government's role should be to set up sensible incentives, be it in benefits or in taxation.

TwistedFireStopper said:

RobD said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

RobD said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

I fitted smoke detectors in a council flat today. A young woman, age 22, with 4 children by various fathers. As a council property, it had hard wired detectors, but the current junkie boyfriend had pulled them off the ceiling when his late night activities set them off. My head says 2 kids for child benefit payments is a perfectly sensible policy. My heart, looking at the little 3 year old fella who was mesmerised by the fire engine says otherwise. I don't have any answers.

Luckily for her all existing children are still eligible.

I know, but someone like her after this policy won't be. "Won't someone think of the children?" Clearly someone needs to.

Well the idea is it changes behavior...

I'm not disagreeing with you, it's just that I see families like this all the time and I'm not sure changing behaviour is as simple as making them poorer. As I say, I don't have any answers, but it will be the poorest that suffer.

It's certainly not easy. Sadly it is not the case that people automatically become more responsible because they have kids. Some number do, I'm sure we all know people where that has been the case, and therefore people who would take steps not to have further kids if they could not afford it, knowing benefits would not follow. What can be done for the rest, recognising there is a limit to what everyone else can pay to accomodate others' choices? It's beyond the PB mind trust I suspect.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Of course, you are right that the same problem applies to benefits. Leaving aside the (relatively rare) cases of benefit fraud, the much bigger problem is the perverse incentives in the benefit system. I don't for a moment blame people for adjusting their behaviour according to those perverse incentives; they don't make the rules. But government's role should be to set up sensible incentives, be it in benefits or in taxation.

So, in your worldview, the "incentives" that get people on benefits to behave are to give them less money, yet the "incentives" that get rich potential tax-dodgers to behave are to give them MORE money?

calum said:

FWIW I think the Scottish Tories are about to pay a price for the WM imposed benefit changes.

I doubt it, polls show Scots take just as tough a line on excess welfare as the English

Danny565 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Of course, you are right that the same problem applies to benefits. Leaving aside the (relatively rare) cases of benefit fraud, the much bigger problem is the perverse incentives in the benefit system. I don't for a moment blame people for adjusting their behaviour according to those perverse incentives; they don't make the rules. But government's role should be to set up sensible incentives, be it in benefits or in taxation.

So, in your worldview, the "incentives" that get people on benefits to behave are to give them less money, yet the "incentives" that get rich potential tax-dodgers to behave are to give them MORE money?

Isn't it 'take less' money rather than 'give more'?

Richard_Nabavi said:

Jonathan said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Pulpstar said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Danny565 said:

Can Mr Nabavi confirm though:- has he just confirmed he took measures to minimise his tax bill before the 50p rate was reduced? Did he really have the brass neck to criticise the Labour government for creating a huge deficit, while simultaneously exploiting loopholes with his personal finances that made the deficit bigger?

No I didn't, for the extremely good reason that I don't earn enough to be affected.

Nabavi in 'relative poverty' shocker

My father always advised 'act dumb and plead poverty'. No doubt it was good advice, but I never managed to follow it.

You've done both tonight. The old man would be proud.

Bravo! That was a good riposte.

You're, as ever, a good sport. Goodnight.

TwistedFireStopper said:

HYUFD said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

RobD said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

RobD said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

I fitted smoke detectors in a council flat today. A young woman, age 22, with 4 children by various fathers. As a council property, it had hard wired detectors, but the current junkie boyfriend had pulled them off the ceiling when his late night activities set them off. My head says 2 kids for child benefit payments is a perfectly sensible policy. My heart, looking at the little 3 year old fella who was mesmerised by the fire engine says otherwise. I don't have any answers.

Luckily for her all existing children are still eligible.

I know, but someone like her after this policy won't be. "Won't someone think of the children?" Clearly someone needs to.

Well the idea is it changes behavior...

I'm not disagreeing with you, it's just that I see families like this all the time and I'm not sure changing behaviour is as simple as making them poorer. As I say, I don't have any answers, but it will be the poorest that suffer.

Not if they plan and not if a reduction is seen in the number of children raised in benefit dependant households

Who is doing the planning?

The parents, if they know they will not get extra support for a third child but still take the risk anyway that is up to them

Danny565 said:

chestnut said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

chestnut said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

RobD said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

I fitted smoke detectors in a council flat today. A young woman, age 22, with 4 children by various fathers. As a council property, it had hard wired detectors, but the current junkie boyfriend had pulled them off the ceiling when his late night activities set them off. My head says 2 kids for child benefit payments is a perfectly sensible policy. My heart, looking at the little 3 year old fella who was mesmerised by the fire engine says otherwise. I don't have any answers.

Luckily for her all existing children are still eligible.

I know, but someone like her after this policy won't be. "Won't someone think of the children?" Clearly someone needs to.

Junkie boyfriend? 4 kids at 22?

Benefits don't seem to be helping much.

So what do we do? Let the kids die?

We take them off her.

(Though it should be said, wouldn't taking many more kids of benefit-claimants into care, and all the bureaucracy that comes from it, probably end up costing more than the current system of Child Benefit?)

Almost certainly I would think, it is very expensive indeed, and just a few more children than expected can have major impacts on council budgeting.

chestnut said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

chestnut said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

RobD said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

I fitted smoke detectors in a council flat today. A young woman, age 22, with 4 children by various fathers. As a council property, it had hard wired detectors, but the current junkie boyfriend had pulled them off the ceiling when his late night activities set them off. My head says 2 kids for child benefit payments is a perfectly sensible policy. My heart, looking at the little 3 year old fella who was mesmerised by the fire engine says otherwise. I don't have any answers.

Luckily for her all existing children are still eligible.

I know, but someone like her after this policy won't be. "Won't someone think of the children?" Clearly someone needs to.

Junkie boyfriend? 4 kids at 22?

Benefits don't seem to be helping much.

So what do we do? Let the kids die?

We take them off her.

Have you considered a career with United Airlines?

Danny565 said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

Of course, you are right that the same problem applies to benefits. Leaving aside the (relatively rare) cases of benefit fraud, the much bigger problem is the perverse incentives in the benefit system. I don't for a moment blame people for adjusting their behaviour according to those perverse incentives; they don't make the rules. But government's role should be to set up sensible incentives, be it in benefits or in taxation.

So, in your worldview, the "incentives" that get people on benefits to behave are to give them less money, yet the "incentives" that get rich potential tax-dodgers to behave are to give them MORE money?

In both cases financial incentives cause people to game the system. I certainly made maximum use of legal tax avoidance measures when i reached the peak rate where personal allowance clawback causes a 62% marginal tax rate.

One of the sad things that I see is that while dole bludgers get away with it, people in real hardship get screwed by the welfare clampdowns. Real shysters are good at working round the rules, while honest folk are much easier targets for sanctions.

Danny565 said:

chestnut said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

chestnut said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

RobD said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

I fitted smoke detectors in a council flat today. A young woman, age 22, with 4 children by various fathers. As a council property, it had hard wired detectors, but the current junkie boyfriend had pulled them off the ceiling when his late night activities set them off. My head says 2 kids for child benefit payments is a perfectly sensible policy. My heart, looking at the little 3 year old fella who was mesmerised by the fire engine says otherwise. I don't have any answers.

Luckily for her all existing children are still eligible.

I know, but someone like her after this policy won't be. "Won't someone think of the children?" Clearly someone needs to.

Junkie boyfriend? 4 kids at 22?

Benefits don't seem to be helping much.

So what do we do? Let the kids die?

We take them off her.

See, I actually think this is a better response than just cutting off benefits. It might be that parents are genuinely feckless and not responsible enough to take care of their kids, but that shouldn't mean that we then punish the kid for their parent's sins - not least because punishing them with a crappy childhood means they're more likely to grow into being just as feckless as their parents.

(Though it should be said, wouldn't taking many more kids of benefit-claimants into care, and all the bureaucracy that comes from it, probably end up costing more than the current system of Child Benefit?)

Stopping tax credits after 2 children is not taking anymore into care, if you choose to have more you just have to be prepared to fund them and budget for them yourself

HYUFD said:

Danny565 said:

chestnut said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

chestnut said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

RobD said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

I fitted smoke detectors in a council flat today. A young woman, age 22, with 4 children by various fathers. As a council property, it had hard wired detectors, but the current junkie boyfriend had pulled them off the ceiling when his late night activities set them off. My head says 2 kids for child benefit payments is a perfectly sensible policy. My heart, looking at the little 3 year old fella who was mesmerised by the fire engine says otherwise. I don't have any answers.

Luckily for her all existing children are still eligible.

I know, but someone like her after this policy won't be. "Won't someone think of the children?" Clearly someone needs to.

Junkie boyfriend? 4 kids at 22?

Benefits don't seem to be helping much.

So what do we do? Let the kids die?

We take them off her.

See, I actually think this is a better response than just cutting off benefits. It might be that parents are genuinely feckless and not responsible enough to take care of their kids, but that shouldn't mean that we then punish the kid for their parent's sins - not least because punishing them with a crappy childhood means they're more likely to grow into being just as feckless as their parents.

(Though it should be said, wouldn't taking many more kids of benefit-claimants into care, and all the bureaucracy that comes from it, probably end up costing more than the current system of Child Benefit?)

Stopping tax credits after 2 children is not taking anymore into care, if you choose to have more you just have to be prepared to fund them and budget for them yourself

If someone has more children than they can afford, then they are likely to come to the attention of social services, and thereby the care system.

One thing that encourages me in life is regression to the mean. I have seen some very normal people come out of very abnormal homes.

I forgot, PB is the place of 600 quid restaurant meals for 2, where you still have to complain about the quality of the food.

isam said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

I forgot, PB is the place of 600 quid restaurant meals for 2, where you still have to complain about the quality of the food.

Classic humblebragging!

Why aren't you banned?

TwistedFireStopper said:

I forgot, PB is the place of 600 quid restaurant meals for 2, where you still have to complain about the quality of the food.

I cannot imagine any meal, except perhaps dolphin stuffed with caviar, being worth 600, so I'd think any such meal would disappoint, and therefore deserve complaint.

isam said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

isam said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

I forgot, PB is the place of 600 quid restaurant meals for 2, where you still have to complain about the quality of the food.

Classic humblebragging!

Why aren't you banned?

I think it was all just an administrative error!

They'll let anybody in here nowadays.

FrancisUrquhart said:

isam said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

isam said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

I forgot, PB is the place of 600 quid restaurant meals for 2, where you still have to complain about the quality of the food.

Classic humblebragging!

Why aren't you banned?

I think it was all just an administrative error!

You could have always created 20 new accounts...

Don't we all forget passwords?

foxinsoxuk said:

HYUFD said:

Danny565 said:

chestnut said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

chestnut said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

RobD said:

TwistedFireStopper said:

I fitted smoke detectors in a council flat today. A young woman, age 22, with 4 children by various fathers. As a council property, it had hard wired detectors, but the current junkie boyfriend had pulled them off the ceiling when his late night activities set them off. My head says 2 kids for child benefit payments is a perfectly sensible policy. My heart, looking at the little 3 year old fella who was mesmerised by the fire engine says otherwise. I don't have any answers.

Luckily for her all existing children are still eligible.

I know, but someone like her after this policy won't be. "Won't someone think of the children?" Clearly someone needs to.

Junkie boyfriend? 4 kids at 22?

Benefits don't seem to be helping much.

So what do we do? Let the kids die?

We take them off her.

See, I actually think this is a better response than just cutting off benefits. It might be that parents are genuinely feckless and not responsible enough to take care of their kids, but that shouldn't mean that we then punish the kid for their parent's sins - not least because punishing them with a crappy childhood means they're more likely to grow into being just as feckless as their parents.

(Though it should be said, wouldn't taking many more kids of benefit-claimants into care, and all the bureaucracy that comes from it, probably end up costing more than the current system of Child Benefit?)

Stopping tax credits after 2 children is not taking anymore into care, if you choose to have more you just have to be prepared to fund them and budget for them yourself

If someone has more children than they can afford, then they are likely to come to the attention of social services, and thereby the care system.

One thing that encourages me in life is regression to the mean. I have seen some very normal people come out of very abnormal homes.

Well that is their decision by having more than they can afford, taxpayers should not have to pick up the tab, though I really doubt 2 lots of universal credit rather than 3 will really make that much difference

fitalass said:

calum said:

FWIW I think the Scottish Tories are about to pay a price for the WM imposed benefit changes.

FWIW I think that you are going to be very disappointed.

I think you're right on this. Most people have 2 kids, or if they do have 3+ can afford it "under their own steam" so to speak. This is the sort of policy that will get alot of 'quiet approval' with the opponents being relatively loud. There'll be no electoral price to pay methinks.

The state of this...
Edinburgh Evening News - Frank Ross: Check the name on ballot paper when you vote . .

chestnut said:

Labour costs in the manufacturing industries of Slovakia and Hungary were an hourly 10.70 euros and 8.40 euros per worker respectively in 2016, compared with 26.10 euros in Britain and 33.40 euros in Germany, according to Germany's Federal Statistics Office.

Race to the Bottom.

Will high value-add factories in Hungary and Slovakia tend to push wages up or down? It's a race to the top.

NB: The UK is not winning the race.

My married, working class parents had three kids. The state paid out family allowance (as was) for each one. All three grew up to become taxpayers. Two also helped to create businesses that employ taxpaying people and pay corporation tax (the other one did too, but in New Zealand, so he doesn't count!). The state made an investment and has been well rewarded. That's the other side of the benefits story and the one we seldom hear.

JackW said:

SouthamObserver said:

My married, working class parents had three kids. The state paid out family allowance (as was) for each one. All three grew up to become taxpayers. Two also helped to create businesses that employ taxpaying people and pay corporation tax (the other one did too, but in New Zealand, so he doesn't count!). The state made an investment and has been well rewarded. That's the other side of the benefits story and the one we seldom hear.

Your parents were married ?!?

Some on PB have questioned that narrative in the past ....

Touche. ;-)

SouthamObserver said:

My married, working class parents had three kids. The state paid out family allowance (as was) for each one. All three grew up to become taxpayers. Two also helped to create businesses that employ taxpaying people and pay corporation tax (the other one did too, but in New Zealand, so he doesn't count!). The state made an investment and has been well rewarded. That's the other side of the benefits story and the one we seldom hear.

Well done to your parents, they've every right to be proud of themselves for a job well done.

A family of three children a few years ago would have received considerably less state help than a modern family of two children, thanks to Gordon Brown's largesse with various tax credits since about 2003. This is what the government are trying to roll back, to remove incentives for those on low incomes to have growing numbers of children supported by the State.

This policy as a whole should also include carrots of better access to new long term contraceptives as well as the sticks of fewer benefits for larger families. Better adoption services would also help.

SouthamObserver said:

Sandpit said:

SouthamObserver said:

My married, working class parents had three kids. The state paid out family allowance (as was) for each one. All three grew up to become taxpayers. Two also helped to create businesses that employ taxpaying people and pay corporation tax (the other one did too, but in New Zealand, so he doesn't count!). The state made an investment and has been well rewarded. That's the other side of the benefits story and the one we seldom hear.

Well done to your parents, they've every right to be proud of themselves for a job well done.

A family of three children a few years ago would have received considerably less state help than a modern family of two children, thanks to Gordon Brown's largesse with various tax credits since about 2003. This is what the government are trying to roll back, to remove incentives for those on low incomes to have growing numbers of children supported by the State.

This policy as a whole should also include carrots of better access to new long term contraceptives as well as the sticks of fewer benefits for larger families. Better adoption services would also help.

I am not sure that the state is more generous these days. I also got a completely free education up to the age of 21 and was actually paid a grant, while receiving housing benefit and being able to claim the Dole in the summer. Things are a lot more rigorous these days. But, I agree, in the end it does boil down the parents you get - I was very lucky in that respect too. Most kids are, to be fair. It's the ones that aren't that are going to be adversely affected by all the cuts to social security and public services that we have seen over recent years. And in the end that will come back to bite us all.

Good point about higher education, the state is much less generous between 18-21 than they used to be when only 15% went to university.

While free money is always gratefully received by those on that end of it, Brown's problem was that he never had the money to hand out in the first place, it was all borrowed. Taxes rises and spending reallocation since 2010 has closed the fiscal gap somewhat, but if we are going to come close to balancing the books then real spending cuts are needed to welfare. A dose of inflation also helps, which we are finally starting to see even if it's driven mostly off the back of a currency devaluation.

Sandpit said:

SouthamObserver said:

Sandpit said:

SouthamObserver said:

My married, working class parents had three kids. The state paid out family allowance (as was) for each one. All three grew up to become taxpayers. Two also helped to create businesses that employ taxpaying people and pay corporation tax (the other one did too, but in New Zealand, so he doesn't count!). The state made an investment and has been well rewarded. That's the other side of the benefits story and the one we seldom hear.

Well done to your parents, they've every right to be proud of themselves for a job well done.

A family of three children a few years ago would have received considerably less state help than a modern family of two children, thanks to Gordon Brown's largesse with various tax credits since about 2003. This is what the government are trying to roll back, to remove incentives for those on low incomes to have growing numbers of children supported by the State.

This policy as a whole should also include carrots of better access to new long term contraceptives as well as the sticks of fewer benefits for larger families. Better adoption services would also help.

I am not sure that the state is more generous these days. I also got a completely free education up to the age of 21 and was actually paid a grant, while receiving housing benefit and being able to claim the Dole in the summer. Things are a lot more rigorous these days. But, I agree, in the end it does boil down the parents you get - I was very lucky in that respect too. Most kids are, to be fair. It's the ones that aren't that are going to be adversely affected by all the cuts to social security and public services that we have seen over recent years. And in the end that will come back to bite us all.

Good point about higher education, the state is much less generous between 18-21 than they used to be when only 15% went to university.

While free money is always gratefully received by those on that end of it, Brown's problem was that he never had the money to hand out in the first place, it was all borrowed. Taxes rises and spending reallocation since 2010 has closed the fiscal gap somewhat, but if we are going to come close to balancing the books then real spending cuts are needed to welfare. A dose of inflation also helps, which we are finally starting to see even if it's driven mostly off the back of a currency devaluation.

Gordon Brown was paying off Tory debt. Leaving that to one side, there are many problems with tax credits, as you'd expect from what was originally a right wing policy. They are expensive, over-complex and create perverse incentives at the margins. Worst of all, they subsidise bad employers.

On topic, sort of, the Guardian is reporting that the Republicans have just scraped home in a Congressional by-election, in a district they’ve normally held comfortably for around 20 years.

So Trump there until 2020 probably, after that..........

The Syrian missiles seem to have had only a modest positive effect for Trump, which in view of the generally positive coverage suggests that disgruntled supporters are less easily regruntled than one might have thought.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html

SouthamObserver said:

Sandpit said:

SouthamObserver said:

My married, working class parents had three kids. The state paid out family allowance (as was) for each one. All three grew up to become taxpayers. Two also helped to create businesses that employ taxpaying people and pay corporation tax (the other one did too, but in New Zealand, so he doesn't count!). The state made an investment and has been well rewarded. That's the other side of the benefits story and the one we seldom hear.

Well done to your parents, they've every right to be proud of themselves for a job well done.

A family of three children a few years ago would have received considerably less state help than a modern family of two children, thanks to Gordon Brown's largesse with various tax credits since about 2003. This is what the government are trying to roll back, to remove incentives for those on low incomes to have growing numbers of children supported by the State.

This policy as a whole should also include carrots of better access to new long term contraceptives as well as the sticks of fewer benefits for larger families. Better adoption services would also help.

I am not sure that the state is more generous these days. I also got a completely free education up to the age of 21 and was actually paid a grant, while receiving housing benefit and being able to claim the Dole in the summer. Things are a lot more rigorous these days. But, I agree, in the end it does boil down the parents you get - I was very lucky in that respect too. Most kids are, to be fair. It's the ones that aren't that are going to be adversely affected by all the cuts to social security and public services that we have seen over recent years. And in the end that will come back to bite us all.

You got a free education up to 21, as did I and many on this forum, but a large majority of the country did not. If you are going to compare the situation then you have to think of the whole picture: the state was more generous to a much smaller group.
Modern sixth-formers have more opportunities then we did, but the cost of taking them up is now also higher. In my own experience of guiding students through the complexities of UCAS most think the price is worth paying. Of course they would prefer someone else to pay.

On topic... 20% chance of him going this year seems way, way too high.
2019 IMO should be most likely of the three years.

After the mid-terms it's possible Dems do very well and retake house and senate. I think it's a near certainty Trump is guilty of something impeachable and after a few months of proper investigation it will come out.

DecrepitJohnL said:

Gordon Brown was paying off Tory debt. Leaving that to one side, there are many problems with tax credits, as you'd expect from what was originally a right wing policy. They are expensive, over-complex and create perverse incentives at the margins. Worst of all, they subsidise bad employers.

He did from 1997-2000, when the debt/GDP ratio hit a postwar low of 30%. This was also substantially boosted by a number of one-off large payments e.g. The sale of digital frequencies.

After that - when he had abandoned Clarke's deliberately tight spending policy - he went on a spree. Despite substantial economic growth, by the start of 2007 the debt/GDP ratio has risen back to 40%. That did not include PFI or the debts of various quangoes, e.g. Network Rail (I don't think it included pension liabilities either but I'm not sure on that point) so it was probably worse than it looked.Since then of course it has rocketed.

This is why when a real crisis hit he was left with very little room to manoeuvre economically or politically. The situation was worse because he had kidded himself (a) that the good times would never end and (b) that they existed solely because of his genius. So he ended up failing on more or less every level. Enoch Powell would have held him up as proof of his famous dictum.

PS - I entirely agree re tax credits. Worth remembering that they were originally a Conservative idea to make businesses on small margins more profitable by allowing employers to keep wages low.

foxinsoxuk said:

SouthamObserver said:

Sandpit said:

Well done to your parents, they've every right to be proud of themselves for a job well done.

A family of three children a few years ago would have received considerably less state help than a modern family of two children, thanks to Gordon Brown's largesse with various tax credits since about 2003. This is what the government are trying to roll back, to remove incentives for those on low incomes to have growing numbers of children supported by the State.

This policy as a whole should also include carrots of better access to new long term contraceptives as well as the sticks of fewer benefits for larger families. Better adoption services would also help.

I am not sure that the state is more generous these days. I also got a completely free education up to the age of 21 and was actually paid a grant, while receiving housing benefit and being able to claim the Dole in the summer. Things are a lot more rigorous these days. But, I agree, in the end it does boil down the parents you get - I was very lucky in that respect too. Most kids are, to be fair. It's the ones that aren't that are going to be adversely affected by all the cuts to social security and public services that we have seen over recent years. And in the end that will come back to bite us all.

The social engineering of this change to treatment of larger families may or may not be effective in altering behaviour. My impression is that it will affect some but not others, as there are some people who plan their lives intermittently and poorly. Large families are pretty evenly distributed across SE groups, but for those on the lowest incomes ChB makes up a bigger percentage of household income. A lot of the poorest will be single mothers, but also second generation immigrants. I suspect the latter are not going to get much sympathy from PB Tories.

Will it save money? probably in the short term in narrow criteria. In wider terms it may be much less successful as pushing up both the financial and social costs of the social consequences is very likely. A very high percentage of homeless, addicts, and criminals come out of the care system. Keeping children with their parents (even fairly feckless ones) is often money well spent.

What's with the unpleasant insinuation that PB Tories are borderline racists? Totally uncalled for.

I look forward to @Topping furiously condemning you and all your kind

foxinsoxuk said:

NickPalmer said:

The Syrian missiles seem to have had only a modest positive effect for Trump, which in view of the generally positive coverage suggests that disgruntled supporters are less easily regruntled than one might have thought.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html

Such bombings are usually popular in the short term, but that often shifts in the longer term. Getting embroiled further in Mid East wars is a pretty nailed on way of losing popular support. Even Putin seems to be suffering as a result.

+1 a knee-jerk reaction got a knee-jerk response

another_richard said:

ydoethur said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Gordon Brown was paying off Tory debt. Leaving that to one side, there are many problems with tax credits, as you'd expect from what was originally a right wing policy. They are expensive, over-complex and create perverse incentives at the margins. Worst of all, they subsidise bad employers.

He did from 1997-2000, when the debt/GDP ratio hit a postwar low of 30%. This was also substantially boosted by a number of one-off large payments e.g. The sale of digital frequencies.

After that - when he had abandoned Clarke's deliberately tight spending policy - he went on a spree. Despite substantial economic growth, by the start of 2007 the debt/GDP ratio has risen back to 40%. That did not include PFI or the debts of various quangoes, e.g. Network Rail (I don't think it included pension liabilities either but I'm not sure on that point) so it was probably worse than it looked.Since then of course it has rocketed.

This is why when a real crisis hit he was left with very little room to manoeuvre economically or politically. The situation was worse because he had kidded himself (a) that the good times would never end and (b) that they existed solely because of his genius. So he ended up failing on more or less every level. Enoch Powell would have held him up as proof of his famous dictum.

PS - I entirely agree re tax credits. Worth remembering that they were originally a Conservative idea to make businesses on small margins more profitable by allowing employers to keep wages low.

A rare occasion of inaccurate facts from you.

Debt/GDP hit a low of 24.2% in 1991q1.

The lowest it was under Gordon Brown was 27.9% in 2002q1.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/timeseries/hf6x/pusf

His figures appear to be wrong. On checking my reference books the national debt in 1991 was £198 billion while national income was £433 billion. That' seems a figure of 45.7% or rather more than double what it is from the ONS. That table is also puzzling as it cites no sources and gives no data set.

And actually I am usually right, although I will
admit I do make mistakes, but I mostly can't be bothered to argue with people who subscribe to Reagan's infamous position of heart and best intentions rather than facts and evidence. I am too busy to deal with such people.

Your riposte is incidentally especially ironic as I got heavily told off on here the other day for daring to point out that the ONS figures made a mockery of Juncker and Mellor's claim that non-EU immigration was higher than EU immigration and I was also wrongly called a leaver by two especially dense posters as a result.