Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hugo, Hugo, Hugo... I'm sorry if what I write makes you think I'm making things up or have some weird goings on in my head. I do get passionate about subjects such as these because my view is one of an insider, unlike yourself. It's so easy to generalise in debates like these. And to be fair, you come across as a very miserable resentful old man so I just respond accordingly. Of course I don't wish anything happens to you, I'm not interested in teaching people lessons at all.


I was refering to this point you made in regards to IV's post:


'You've clearly got great kids, but other people will have kids who are a net drain on society. Besides most of their tax investment will go on providing services for themselvelves.'


I'm also in favour of reforming child benefits, to see that those who need it get it.

That's simply a statement of fact zeban. There are 3 million UK adults on long term unemployment benefits. They were children once.


It's not safe to assume that a child automatically develops into a tax-paying asset.


Now, please don't do anything terminally stupid like claim I was having a go at scroungers or anything. I'm spectacularly unimpressed by this encounter with an 'insider', but I should be humbled if you don't need to make anything else up to demonstrate your lofty surveil.

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> That's simply a statement of fact zeban. There are

> 3 million UK adults on long term unemployment

> benefits. They were children once.

>

> It's not safe to assume that a child automatically

> develops into a tax-paying asset.

>

> Now, please don't do anything terminally stupid

> like claim I was having a go at scroungers or

> anything. I'm spectacularly unimpressed by this

> encounter with an 'insider', but I should be

> humbled if you don't need to make anything else up

> to demonstrate your lofty surveil.



Nor is it "safe" to assume they wont.


Not a good point to make eh? ;-)

Oh God.


*despair*


The point was that you cannot be sure that a child is an investment with a post dated return on taxable income.


Hence you can't use it as a robust justification for child benefit.


It's not a 'loaded' context. The only people who 'loaded' it were the ones who made completely fabricated claims about what I'd said in order to vilify my position, the ones who tried to turn it into a war of compassion for the starving and downtrodden.

As in the background I've come from, my own personal experience. It's only been IV and myself who have layed these out on the line as a kind of counter argument to some simplistic responses to this debate. It is a complicated issue after all.


Look Huguenot, I'm sorry if I misread you, I honestly didn't think I did. It's true that 'you cannot be sure that a child is an investment with a post dated return on taxable income' but they also might well do that. There's also other ways you can contribute towards society than just paying your taxes.

Zeban, we probably agree with each other. I'm not against the welfare system per se.


DJKQs summary of the impetus for delivering child benefit in the 40s may well be spot on, that it was created in a world that needed to come to terms with the empowerment of women and families.


However, if this was the case once, what is it now? Clearly rogue husbands down the pub spending the housekeeping would not wash for the creation of a new benefit allowance in the modern era.


If there are millions in poverty who need support then give it to them. Just don't call it child benefit, and don't give it to people for whom the biggest family challenge this year will be Tuscany or the Dordogne.

If there are millions in poverty who need support then give it to them. Just don't call it child benefit, and don't give it to people for whom the biggest family challenge this year will be Tuscany or the Dordogne.


Finally we agree and all ends well. :)-D

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Surprised at how many people take the 'oooh it's great it got approved, something is better than nothing' view. This is exactly Southwark council's approach, pandering to greedy developers for the absolute bare minimum of social and affordable housing. It's exactly why, under their leadership, only a fraction of social and affordable housing has been built in the borough - weirdly Mccash chose to highlight their own failures in his 'near unprecedented' (yet unbiased 😆) submission. All the objectors i have met support redevelopment, to benefit those in need of homes and the community - not change it forever. The council could and should be bolder, demand twice the social and affordable housing in these schemes, and not concede to 8 storeys of unneeded student bedsits. If it is a question of viability, publically disclose the business plan to prove how impossible it might be to turn a profit. Once the thing is built these sites can never be used for social or affordable housing. The council blows every opportunity, every time. Its pathetic. Developers admitted the scale was, in this instance, not required for viability. The student movements data seemed completely made up. The claim that 'students are taking up private rentals' was backed up with no data. There is empty student housing on denmark hill, needs to be fixed up but it's there already built. The council allows developers years to build cosy relationships with planners such that the final decision is a formality - substantiated objections are dismissed with wooly words and BS. Key meetings and consultations are scheduled deliberately to garner minimal engagement or objection. Local councillors, who we fund, ignore their constituents concerns. Those councillors that dare waiver in the predetermination are slapped down. Not very democratic. They've removed management and accountability by having no nomination agreement with any of the 'many london universities needing accommodation' - these direct lets MAKE MORE MONEY. A privately run firm will supposedly ensure everyone that those living there is actually a student and adheres to any conduct guidelines. There's no separation to residents - especially to ones on their own development. Could go on... We'll see how many of the 53 social/affordable units that we're all so happy to have approved actually get built. 
    • I am looking for 1 unit which is working for £50 cash. Thank you
    • Can’t recommend the company enough, great service. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...