Buy you new bikes now then!

And suddenly, the air is filled by flocks of flying handbags.

 

Simple, because 'we' have invested far more in our children than the
state has.

Children are the lifeblood of the country, without children there is
no future.

And... as Wessie points out, you're going to need someone to look
after you in
your dotage.

The principle that there is a small contribution made towards the cost
of raising children
doesn't seem to me to be unreasonable.

However... I do think that this should be managed via some form of
means testing
(gulp, I agree with Hog...) and whilst we're about this we could also
means test
some other universal benefits- state pension and heating allowance.

Benefits should be paid on the basis of need, not some view of selfish
entitlement.

 

Ouch... Straight for the throat.

 

Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana; the thoughts of
irate ukrm-ers flies like a handbag?

 

That would involve a lot of additional bureaucracy. Simply raising
income tax would be more efficient.

Tax should be levied according to the ability to pay.

Both are over-simplifications.

 

None of which would be affected by stopping child benefits for those on
more than nK/year, or even by scrapping them completely. The only
people who have kids because it benefits them financially are the scum
at the bottom of the pile, & I doubt too many people would care if that
stopped.

The bit of 'raising children' that potentially benefits society is
schooling, & we all contribute to that anyway.

We do however seem to agree on the main point.

 

A somewhat soggy handbag containing three snotty tissues, a well-worn
tube of lip balm and a half-brick.

 

I already did in another post

 

Blade Nazi

 

that'd be a Solingen, surely?

 

I wouldn't even enter into the argument until people become responsible for
their elderly care. So if they own a house or other assets they get used to
pay for said care. If and when they don't have assets lets talk about
making sure the State provides for them. At the moment we seem to State
Fund inherited wealth for kids and family.

Then lets have the discussion about whether families should be providing for
their parents' elderly care, before the State has to step in.

I've done without shedloads in life and have set aside enough to see me
through retirement and old age without being a burden on the State or my
family. Those that can should so that the State can afford a decent level of
care for those who cannot.

 

I have a home and will be retiring in East Asia. People there do not have
huge families, they cannot afford to do so and are surprisingly responsible.
They still look after their parents.
I think the correct answer lies somewhere in the middle. People being
responsible and liable but with a State sector that ensures nobody falls
through the cracks and that a decent minimum standard is maintained for
everyone. I don't think we are so far off the mark that UK Inc cannot get
its act together so one should be fairly optimistic.

 

Grammar Nazi

 

and complete bollocks. Nobody was suggesting deconstructing society.
Somewhat to the contrary. I think the intention is to take the finite
available resources and try to put them where they are needed.

The argument is about is about what the level of available resources is. Do
we have a libertarian society where we levy taxes at a level acceptable to
most and provide the services that can be afforded therein or do we have
socialism where an autocracy decides what level of services will be provided
and take as much as they like from whoever they like.

 

A benefits system which only applies to those in real need does not require
more bureaucracy, it would require less. Because currently we have both.
Taxes must be as low as possible not higher because business and
international trade thrive on low tax high incentive economies. Without
successful business there is no welfare system.

IMHO tax should be a flat rate system but based on a high rate of initial
allowance and a corporate environment where there are limits between minimum
and maximum incomes and where additional benefits have to be largely
universal. The wealth creators will then take the bulk of additional income
in profits/dividend which can be appropriately taxed. Corporation and
Capital Gains. The current system fosters a lack of respect in business,
both upwards and downwards and the tax system costs far to much to run.

 

It's potentially 2k on the cost of a decent car. It is shocking ;o)

It seems to have been forgotten that we did have a prevailing 15% rate so
the short term pain is 5%.

My thought are somewhat tempered by an observation of you average lower
income British family. Fag stuck in mouth and obese. So apparently
resources are not scarce at all.

 

The answer, obviously, is that you have to find a balance between the
two. Can't be arsed to find the figures, but IIRC Osborne has gone for
20% additional taxation and 80% cuts. I'd have preferred to see more
taxation of the better-off and fewer cuts.

I also don't see why we have to completely wipe out our debt in 4
years. Of course, perhaps Osborne doesn't either, and plans to
backtrack a little in the autumn - which can be presented as "good"
news by a 6-month-old coalition government.

 

That's not the plan, AIUI. The plan is to remove the structural deficit -
to get the basic income and expenditure into balance, ignoring short-term
cyclical variations. So - if the economy's still below par in 4yrs, the
debt will still be increasing, just considerably more slowly and only due
to any short-term recession. If it's static, debt will remain static. If,
otoh, the economy's healthy, then the debt will reduce.

Not be reduced to zero. That's just impossible...

The debt's currently 70% of GDP. The deficit is "only" 12%
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=277

 

There's a different between wiping out debt, and wiping out deficit.

 

Er .. good point, well made.