CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 Free childcare for all. Alternatively, if you can't look after them, don't have them. Why should everyone else pay? Hey, I'm just here to have a good time and mindlessly shout slogans. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 (edited) Repeat: All the figures were supplied by the government's own calculator. This? Edit: If so, the results from that would suggest you have double counted the WTC. Also I believe they only represent the tax credits for between now and the beginning of April, not for a full year. I would prefer to see your numbers but as you are claiming that I massively understated just how generous the government are, I am more than satisfied with that. You are quite correct, I did massively understate the generosity of the government; thanks for putting me right. Edited October 9, 2013 by MakemineVanilla Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markavfc40 Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 (edited) Free childcare for all. Alternatively, if you can't look after them, don't have them. Why should everyone else pay? As someone with two children who has always worked full time along with my wife and been fortunate enough to have never had to claim a penny from the state I have some sympathy with that argument but you can't really stop people having children unless they earn a certain amount can you. Say like 20k income you can have one child, 30k 2 children..... etc. Might sound good in theory but how would you implement it. You could say the state will not help you if you do have children but can't afford to. However you are then hurting the innocent child and they would then go hungry, be poorly clothed, be cold in winter etc. You also have the scenario of someone having children and then further down the line losing their job and not being able to find work or having to take a lower paid job or one parent becoming ill or dying. It is already the case that many children are being brought up in poverty in this country and it could be argued the state needs to do far more to help. Edited October 9, 2013 by markavfc40 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 (edited) I would prefer to see your numbers...'My numbers' would be the same numbers as you would have seen on the final page:WTC of £512.88CTC of £4274.52And a total of £4787.40On that page it also says, "This is the amount your household may be entitled to from 09/10/2013 until 05/04/2014. This result is only an estimate and is based on the information provided assuming you make the claim on 09/10/2013. This means the amount shown may not be your entitlement for the full year." Edited October 9, 2013 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted October 9, 2013 Author Moderator Share Posted October 9, 2013 Below average income family boosts income from benefits to become below average income family.Some peoples perception of what is morally acceptable for a government to give out to the less well off in society really does border on the inhuman.The same people would also probably be up in arms when crime goes through the roof and the streets are full of people begging.The Witches disciples are still amongst us.Me me me me me me me me... 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 I would prefer to see your numbers... 'My numbers' would be the same numbers as you would have seen on the final page: WTC of £512.88 CTC of £4274.52 And a total of £4787.40 On that page it also says, "This is the amount your household may be entitled to from 09/10/2013 until 05/04/2014. This result is only an estimate and is based on the information provided assuming you make the claim on 09/10/2013. This means the amount shown may not be your entitlement for the full year." It is amazing that it is actually twice as much as I originally thought. The Which web site gives a figure of £8715 for 3 kids and an income of £15k. So if correct the total should read: WTC £ 512.88 CTC £ 8715 CV £ 2392 Total £ 11619.88 Giving an income of £26619.88 It sure looks like socialism to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 Below average income family boosts income from benefits to become below average income family. Some peoples perception of what is morally acceptable for a government to give out to the less well off in society really does border on the inhuman. The same people would also probably be up in arms when crime goes through the roof and the streets are full of people begging. The Witches disciples are still amongst us. Me me me me me me me me... Top, top post Gareth. Was about to come in here to post similar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 Social Darwinism innit. Don't have no babies if you can't afford them. If you do have them, you're on your own. Welcome to a world of poverty and malnutrition, little Johnny, (I know you had no say in the matter, kiddo, but it's your parents fault for having you, wee man, it's not fair on the rest of us to pay for your basic survival when you have nothing to do with us). Meanwhile, let us monied folk get on with breeding. We should be the ones having babies, really, when we can support them. What's that darling? Childcare is how much? Oh never mind, I guess you can stay at home a little more each week. Oh, you don't want to lose your job. Well, I guess we can put off the garage work and hire a nanny. See, poor folk? This is how sensible citizens do it. We can afford to pay other people to look after our kids while the parents earn a living! Why can't you all get your act together and do the same? Tsk tsk. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 (edited) Again, 27k is nout for 2 adults and 3 kids to live on... Edited October 9, 2013 by StefanAVFC 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted October 9, 2013 Author Moderator Share Posted October 9, 2013 It sure looks like socialism to me.It sure looks like you know little about socialism 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetrees Posted October 9, 2013 Share Posted October 9, 2013 Free childcare for all. Alternatively, if you can't look after them, don't have them. Why should everyone else pay? As someone with two children who has always worked full time along with my wife and been fortunate enough to have never had to claim a penny from the state I have some sympathy with that argument but you can't really stop people having children unless they earn a certain amount can you. Say like 20k income you can have one child, 30k 2 children..... etc. Might sound good in theory but how would you implement it. You could say the state will not help you if you do have children but can't afford to. However you are then hurting the innocent child and they would then go hungry, be poorly clothed, be cold in winter etc. You also have the scenario of someone having children and then further down the line losing their job and not being able to find work or having to take a lower paid job or one parent becoming ill or dying. It is already the case that many children are being brought up in poverty in this country and it could be argued the state needs to do far more to help. I agree with you entirely. My view is that children are a choice that working parents should budget and, if they wish, sacrifice some luxuries for. I prefer state benefits to be targetted at those who are truly in need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted October 10, 2013 Author Moderator Share Posted October 10, 2013 Certainly sounds like Maoist Communism to me 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 It sure looks like socialism to me. It sure looks like you know little about socialism Unfortunately the right conflated Labour's social democratic post-war project with Stalinism and worse, and so the term socialism in common usage, covers a multitude of sins. Even Wiki has two different pages for socialism and socialism (Marxism). So I think it is safe to assume that the tag covers a spectrum of political models. The recent Daily Mail attack on Ralph Miliband who was a Marxist, was used to accuse Red Ed of being the same, by describing him as a socialist, in the full knowledge that readers would predictably conflate the two. So taking that into account I would say that New Labour's project was Social Democracy light, which dispensed with the nationalisation and national industrial planning but kept wealth distribution, social security, the minimum wage and Keynesian demand management. So if you accept that social democracy is driven by socialist values, and that wealth redistribution is one of those values, then you probably have to accept that tax-credits are a socialist intervention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfisher Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 What I cant understand is, if, say, Tesco make a billion £ profit in a year, why can't they afford to pay their staff enough money to live on? Why are Tesco workers on income support or WTC? Isn't the state just simply giving money to Tesco? Is that how capitalism works? How about Tesco pay more tax, or government implement a minimum wage of say £7.50 an hour? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 What I cant understand is, if, say, Tesco make a billion £ profit in a year, why can't they afford to pay their staff enough money to live on? Why are Tesco workers on income support or WTC? Isn't the state just simply giving money to Tesco? Is that how capitalism works? How about Tesco pay more tax, or government implement a minimum wage of say £7.50 an hour? I don't think it is unreasonable to describe tax credits as a subsidy to businesses which cannot or refuse to compete in the labour market. It might even be the case that topping up people's wages actually lowers wages by encouraging people into the labour market who would be better off on benefits, which increases the pool of labour and so by the law of supply and demand, lowers wage rates. As most supermarkets keep most of their staff on short hours, topping up people's wages seems to encourage this by allowing these company's maximum flexibility which lowers costs, while their employees rely on what amounts to their government wage. The government's soft attitude to the retail sector, as regards labour laws which favour them, or tax collection, is a mystery because it is not as though they can operate offshore. I seem to remember that Tesco used to be Tory donors. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfisher Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 Tesco were involved with workfare for a while too, so not only do they not pay a living wage, not only do they indirectly scrounge money out of the government purse but the cheeky **** also wanted to make the unemployed work for them for free! But it's no just Tesco, there's Asda, Morrisons etc... Is this capitalist model something to cherish? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 What I cant understand is, if, say, Tesco make a billion £ profit in a year, why can't they afford to pay their staff enough money to live on? Why are Tesco workers on income support or WTC? Isn't the state just simply giving money to Tesco? Is that how capitalism works? How about Tesco pay more tax, or government implement a minimum wage of say £7.50 an hour? Its quite simple really - more pay=less profit. Less profit=less investment in growing the company less investment in growing the company = fewer new stores built/suppliers getting a poorer deal fewer new stores built/suppliers getting a poorer deal= less profit in the construction industry/less profit for suppliers less profit in the construction industry/less profit for suppliers = less investment in those sectors=higher unemployment/greater benefit dependancy. I'm making no moral judgements here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfisher Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 (edited) Well for those who are making moral judgements. Why is Cameron fighting an EU cap on bankers bonuses? Why has nothing been done about the real causes of the crash, that benefited the few and caused misery to so many? London, under the governance of Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown and Cameron is the capital of bad business that's why. It was all great until the economic crash it created, and the only people who are paying are the very people who didn't create it. So if any **** wants to whinge about the benefit scroungers, the unemployed or the single mothers they need to take a look at what's really happening. Edited October 10, 2013 by Kingfisher 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted October 10, 2013 Share Posted October 10, 2013 What I cant understand is, if, say, Tesco make a billion £ profit in a year, why can't they afford to pay their staff enough money to live on? Why are Tesco workers on income support or WTC? Isn't the state just simply giving money to Tesco? Is that how capitalism works? How about Tesco pay more tax, or government implement a minimum wage of say £7.50 an hour? Its quite simple really - more pay=less profit. Less profit=less investment in growing the company less investment in growing the company = fewer new stores built/suppliers getting a poorer deal fewer new stores built/suppliers getting a poorer deal= less profit in the construction industry/less profit for suppliers less profit in the construction industry/less profit for suppliers = less investment in those sectors=higher unemployment/greater benefit dependancy. I'm making no moral judgements here Its quite simple really - more pay=less profit. Less profit=less investment in growing the company less investment in growing the company = fewer new stores built/ -- leaving a gap for competitors to get in on the market More competitor stores built = more profit in the construction industry/more profit for suppliers more profit in the construction industry/moreprofit for suppliers = more investment in those sectors=lower unemployment/lower benefit dependancy. I'm making no moral judgements here -- an alternative view? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Kingfisher Posted October 10, 2013 Popular Post Share Posted October 10, 2013 What about these coffee houses? Costa, and Starbucks etc? Their staff are on close to - if not the minimum wage. Not only that but at least one of them companies has been pulled out for using loopholes to get out of paying even the pitiful tax that they are required to pay! So they're milking the system, lining their pockets, and even using every trick to get out of putting anything back. But no. Lets go on to a government website and find out how much one of their slaves is having to claim in order to live, because of course it's their fault. All hail the great capitalist model. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts