FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Alternative manifesto
Alternative manifesto
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Nationalisation of certain public sector areas to prevent them being profit driven and more about service delivery.
Making those who politics their career have no outside business interests or connections to try and introduce a more altruistic approach.
Education facilities and teachers supported to a greater degree with parents having more contractual responsibility of their children. They are our countries future after all and with 53 % in Britain considered to have low education this is not acceptable. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Re-nationalise railways and utilities
100% Internet and mobile phone coverage
Stop all tax loopholes and prevent tax avoidance including IoM, Channel Islands etc so even if a company was registered elsewhere, if it operated in the UK, they would pay tax. No Starbucks 'zero profit' claims. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Fund hospices so they don't rely on charitable donations.
Cap child benefit to 2 children.
Single occupant should pay 50% council tax"
Now, being a fascist (not), can I be really controversial and ask why there is child benefit? If you decide to have children, in the majority of cases that is a life choice. Why should other people pay for your decision to bring a life into this world?
If I drive a car, I agree to pay road tax. But if I have a child, why should I expect you to pay for it?
Just debating. But am I right or wrong? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Fund hospices so they don't rely on charitable donations.
Cap child benefit to 2 children.
Single occupant should pay 50% council tax
Now, being a fascist (not), can I be really controversial and ask why there is child benefit? If you decide to have children, in the majority of cases that is a life choice. Why should other people pay for your decision to bring a life into this world?
If I drive a car, I agree to pay road tax. But if I have a child, why should I expect you to pay for it?
Just debating. But am I right or wrong?"
I guess having children can bring a future to the country and is almost like an investment. Drive a car and you just pollute the country and injuries cyclist's. ...tongue in cheek of course |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Fund hospices so they don't rely on charitable donations.
Cap child benefit to 2 children.
Single occupant should pay 50% council tax
Now, being a fascist (not), can I be really controversial and ask why there is child benefit? If you decide to have children, in the majority of cases that is a life choice. Why should other people pay for your decision to bring a life into this world?
If I drive a car, I agree to pay road tax. But if I have a child, why should I expect you to pay for it?
Just debating. But am I right or wrong?
I guess having children can bring a future to the country and is almost like an investment. Drive a car and you just pollute the country and injuries cyclist's. ...tongue in cheek of course "
Child benefit was introduced post war when our population needed expanding. I have no desire to pay for other folks children. It would be an unpopular poilcy for those with children but I do not see why it should be perceived as a right. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Re-nationalise railways and utilities
100% Internet and mobile phone coverage
Stop all tax loopholes and prevent tax avoidance including IoM, Channel Islands etc so even if a company was registered elsewhere, if it operated in the UK, they would pay tax. No Starbucks 'zero profit' claims."
Mine too  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
1. All rented housing to be affordable through rent-capping. This can then be set at levels so that luxury housing is still available to those that can afford it and not skew the market for those in the hovels.
2. Minimum wage to be the same as the living wage.
3. Increased investment in infrastructure, paid for through money recouped from tax avoidance/loop-holes.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oxy_minxWoman
over a year ago
Scotland - Aberdeen |
"Fund hospices so they don't rely on charitable donations.
Cap child benefit to 2 children.
Single occupant should pay 50% council tax"
I definitely agree with capping the benefits, as there are people who will just have child after child, to make money.
And I don't have children (by choice) yet I have to subsidise other peoples, and yes another singleton here and I pay 82% council tax.... no kids, just me, one bag of rubbish a week and for that privilege, I have to pay just under £100 a month. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
"Fund hospices so they don't rely on charitable donations.
Cap child benefit to 2 children.
Single occupant should pay 50% council tax
Now, being a fascist (not), can I be really controversial and ask why there is child benefit? If you decide to have children, in the majority of cases that is a life choice. Why should other people pay for your decision to bring a life into this world?
If I drive a car, I agree to pay road tax. But if I have a child, why should I expect you to pay for it?
Just debating. But am I right or wrong?
I guess having children can bring a future to the country and is almost like an investment. Drive a car and you just pollute the country and injuries cyclist's. ...tongue in cheek of course
Child benefit was introduced post war when our population needed expanding. I have no desire to pay for other folks children. It would be an unpopular poilcy for those with children but I do not see why it should be perceived as a right."
Maybe it's time Child Benefit was means tested. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Fund hospices so they don't rely on charitable donations.
Cap child benefit to 2 children.
Single occupant should pay 50% council tax
Now, being a fascist (not), can I be really controversial and ask why there is child benefit? If you decide to have children, in the majority of cases that is a life choice. Why should other people pay for your decision to bring a life into this world?
If I drive a car, I agree to pay road tax. But if I have a child, why should I expect you to pay for it?
Just debating. But am I right or wrong?
I guess having children can bring a future to the country and is almost like an investment. Drive a car and you just pollute the country and injuries cyclist's. ...tongue in cheek of course
Child benefit was introduced post war when our population needed expanding. I have no desire to pay for other folks children. It would be an unpopular poilcy for those with children but I do not see why it should be perceived as a right."
because if you stopped all benifits for kids people would still have them it would only be the kids that suffered and they didn't ask to come into this world |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
In a system that requires perpetual growth you always need more people, hence why they have to expand the population with child benefit.
Me I'd have 3 simple rules
Every single letter, memo and conversation in public office recorded and published after 10 years.
No political parties at all and every single person must be independent and atheist working in the best interest of their constituency.
No person can remain in politics for more than 6 years, one term to be 3 years, with no other direct family members running concurrently, members of public schools are forbidden to hold any office ever as are religious people. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eavenNhellCouple
over a year ago
carrbrook stalybridge |
flat rate of tax for everybody set at 10% no tax relief no loopholes everybody on every penny they earn in this country no matter were they are based earn it here pay tax on it
all utilitys public transport etc to be brought back into public ownership as not for profit organisations
voting to be compulsary for all by law |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"flat rate of tax for everybody set at 10% no tax relief no loopholes everybody on every penny they earn in this country no matter were they are based earn it here pay tax on it
all utilitys public transport etc to be brought back into public ownership as not for profit organisations
voting to be compulsary for all by law "
There is a voting reform consultation group running in Parliament right now. Let them know you think voting should be compulsory if you want to see that change.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"In a system that requires perpetual growth you always need more people, hence why they have to expand the population with child benefit.
"
Does child benefit encourage people to have children? I would be worried if that were the case. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"In a system that requires perpetual growth you always need more people, hence why they have to expand the population with child benefit.
Does child benefit encourage people to have children? I would be worried if that were the case."
I agree with your stance on it and no on the whole it doesn't.
Can't argue with it being means tested either but I think we need to avoid a culture of taking things away from those who are working hard and succeeding in life. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Yeah of course it does.
All tax breaks/punishment is government encouragement.
Same as they tax big engines on cars and rebate small engines.
Why did you think it got started in the first place. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"In a system that requires perpetual growth you always need more people, hence why they have to expand the population with child benefit.
Does child benefit encourage people to have children? I would be worried if that were the case."
I'd be shocked if it did! £140 every 4 weeks hardly makes a dent in even the food costs of having 2 kids!  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
It was started after ww2 to encourage the working class who struggled financially to have children because of the obvious population decrease.
It's an encouragement like any tax break is designed to do.
Do let's say for instance they reversed it and they charged you 100 pounds a month to have children. What do you think would happen to the birth figures |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
1. Stop NHS privatisation. Most attempts to introduce this have failed miserably at the expense of patient care and it's fundamentally wrong for fat cats to get rich off the back of sick people.
2. Cut taxes for families who work and provide cheaper childcare.
3. Increase taxes for those who have substantial means, including increases on VAT on high end luxury goods. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"In a system that requires perpetual growth you always need more people, hence why they have to expand the population with child benefit.
Does child benefit encourage people to have children? I would be worried if that were the case.
I'd be shocked if it did! £140 every 4 weeks hardly makes a dent in even the food costs of having 2 kids! "
They reckoned 10 years ago it cost £250,000 to raise a child to 18, so the idea that anyone would have a kid to get £140 a month seems a little absurd. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"In a system that requires perpetual growth you always need more people, hence why they have to expand the population with child benefit.
Does child benefit encourage people to have children? I would be worried if that were the case.
I'd be shocked if it did! £140 every 4 weeks hardly makes a dent in even the food costs of having 2 kids!
They reckoned 10 years ago it cost £250,000 to raise a child to 18, so the idea that anyone would have a kid to get £140 a month seems a little absurd."
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
just 3??? ... ok
1: people who don't clean up their dog's shit should be forced to wear it as a moustache
2: If it pisses down with rain on a bank holiday, it will be considered a rollover
3: leopards should be diguised as foxes in order to discourage people from continuing to hunt illegally |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Fund hospices so they don't rely on charitable donations.
Cap child benefit to 2 children.
Single occupant should pay 50% council tax
Now, being a fascist (not), can I be really controversial and ask why there is child benefit? If you decide to have children, in the majority of cases that is a life choice. Why should other people pay for your decision to bring a life into this world?
If I drive a car, I agree to pay road tax. But if I have a child, why should I expect you to pay for it?
Just debating. But am I right or wrong?
I guess having children can bring a future to the country and is almost like an investment. Drive a car and you just pollute the country and injuries cyclist's. ...tongue in cheek of course
Child benefit was introduced post war when our population needed expanding. I have no desire to pay for other folks children. It would be an unpopular poilcy for those with children but I do not see why it should be perceived as a right.
Maybe it's time Child Benefit was means tested. "
It is, ours was stopped a few years ago as one of us earns over a certain amount. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Nationalise Railways
British Rail became Railtrack who then became Network Rail still the same company that monopolise the railway infrastructure
Certain branches if BR broke away and changed their name to the likes of Jarvis, Cariilion etc. Still the same people doing the same job and still subsidised by the government |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Flat rate of tax, no loopholes,no avoidance schemes.
No Overseas Aid, if you want to help fund an overseas project you do it with your own money.
NHS/Public Bodies to stop funding interpreters/translation services. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
1: there should be a public referendum before going to war or before troops are deployed anywhere abroad
2: any private healthcare companies that use nhs trained staff, doctors, nurses, clinicians etc., shoukld pay a levy worth 25% of the staff wages to pay the nhs to reimburse them for the training costs and help with training in the future
3: party manifestos should be legally binding |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I love all this talk about nationalisation. While I've not checked every profile I would guess that most who are advocating the nationalisation of this that or the other don't remember when they were nationalised.
So ladies and gentleman I will remind you about the joys of nationalisation.
You sir, yes you sir, can be the (not so) proud owner of of the TGWU's latest technological miracle the Austin Allegro (yes it was a bloody miracle that anyone in their right mind bought one)
Over to you madam. You want a telephone line installing? Of course madam, how does the 2nd week in June sound? If were not on strike of course.
Ah, Mr and Mrs taxpayer. I've been looking for you. Our big nationalised steel company needs a million quid a day so that it can produce expensive steel that nobody wants. Come on, dig deep.
Over to you Mr rail commuter. Our nationalised rail company has just closed your local station. What? you want to know how you will get to work? Easy, walking is supposed to be quite healthy and good for Polar bears.
Oh how I miss nationalisation.
Oh wait a minute, it is still alive and well (pardon the pun) Mr and Mrs hospital patient have informed me that they are looking forward to waiting at least 62 days to see a cancer specialist. When I asked them what if you die while you are waiting? They replied. "It's quite fun really, a bit like roulette, and we can't afford to go to Vegas".  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Fund hospices so they don't rely on charitable donations.
Cap child benefit to 2 children.
Single occupant should pay 50% council tax
Now, being a fascist (not), can I be really controversial and ask why there is child benefit? If you decide to have children, in the majority of cases that is a life choice. Why should other people pay for your decision to bring a life into this world?
If I drive a car, I agree to pay road tax. But if I have a child, why should I expect you to pay for it?
Just debating. But am I right or wrong?"
So make children suffer to prove a point? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Fund hospices so they don't rely on charitable donations.
Cap child benefit to 2 children.
Single occupant should pay 50% council tax
Now, being a fascist (not), can I be really controversial and ask why there is child benefit? If you decide to have children, in the majority of cases that is a life choice. Why should other people pay for your decision to bring a life into this world?
If I drive a car, I agree to pay road tax. But if I have a child, why should I expect you to pay for it?
Just debating. But am I right or wrong?
I guess having children can bring a future to the country and is almost like an investment. Drive a car and you just pollute the country and injuries cyclist's. ...tongue in cheek of course
Child benefit was introduced post war when our population needed expanding. I have no desire to pay for other folks children. It would be an unpopular poilcy for those with children but I do not see why it should be perceived as a right.
Maybe it's time Child Benefit was means tested. "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"In a system that requires perpetual growth you always need more people, hence why they have to expand the population with child benefit.
Me I'd have 3 simple rules
Every single letter, memo and conversation in public office recorded and published after 10 years.
No political parties at all and every single person must be independent and atheist working in the best interest of their constituency.
No person can remain in politics for more than 6 years, one term to be 3 years, with no other direct family members running concurrently, members of public schools are forbidden to hold any office ever as are religious people."
Make government like jury service and have total transparency at all times. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Fund hospices so they don't rely on charitable donations.
Cap child benefit to 2 children.
Single occupant should pay 50% council tax
I definitely agree with capping the benefits, as there are people who will just have child after child, to make money.
And I don't have children (by choice) yet I have to subsidise other peoples, and yes another singleton here and I pay 82% council tax.... no kids, just me, one bag of rubbish a week and for that privilege, I have to pay just under £100 a month."
Child after child to make money???
Really?
It can't be that much money! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Stop giving free stuff to those on benefits, boilers for instance, I need a new one but can't afford it. If I was on benefits I'd get one for free but as I work I have to fund free boilers for those that don't so therefore can't afford one myself.
Where is the incentive to get off benefits, they would lose too many perks, free prescriptions, dentistry, housing benefit, etc etc.
I say turn it on it's head and give the free stuff to those that work, people would find employment in order to qualify for the perks they previously had whilst on benefits. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Stop giving free stuff to those on benefits, boilers for instance, I need a new one but can't afford it. If I was on benefits I'd get one for free but as I work I have to fund free boilers for those that don't so therefore can't afford one myself.
Where is the incentive to get off benefits, they would lose too many perks, free prescriptions, dentistry, housing benefit, etc etc.
I say turn it on it's head and give the free stuff to those that work, people would find employment in order to qualify for the perks they previously had whilst on benefits. "
I'd rather lean on the super rich than the poor! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Stop giving free stuff to those on benefits, boilers for instance, I need a new one but can't afford it. If I was on benefits I'd get one for free but as I work I have to fund free boilers for those that don't so therefore can't afford one myself.
Where is the incentive to get off benefits, they would lose too many
perks, free prescriptions, dentistry, housing benefit, etc etc.
I say turn it on it's head and give the free stuff to those that work, people would find employment in order to qualify for the perks they previously had whilst on benefits.
I'd rather lean on the super rich than the poor!"
But are they poor, I see a lot of people who work the benefit system and they are a lot better off than I am, most couldn't afford to get a job because they would be much worse off |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Stop giving free stuff to those on benefits, boilers for instance, I need a new one but can't afford it. If I was on benefits I'd get one for free but as I work I have to fund free boilers for those that don't so therefore can't afford one myself.
Where is the incentive to get off benefits, they would lose too many
perks, free prescriptions, dentistry, housing benefit, etc etc.
I say turn it on it's head and give the free stuff to those that work, people would find employment in order to qualify for the perks they previously had whilst on benefits.
I'd rather lean on the super rich than the poor!
But are they poor, I see a lot of people who work the benefit system and they are a lot better off than I am, most couldn't afford to get a job because they would be much worse off"
I'm not getting into this except to say please don't generalise.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Stop giving free stuff to those on benefits, boilers for instance, I need a new one but can't afford it. If I was on benefits I'd get one for free but as I work I have to fund free boilers for those that don't so therefore can't afford one myself.
Where is the incentive to get off benefits, they would lose too many
perks, free prescriptions, dentistry, housing benefit, etc etc.
I say turn it on it's head and give the free stuff to those that work, people would find employment in order to qualify for the perks they previously had whilst on benefits.
I'd rather lean on the super rich than the poor!
But are they poor, I see a lot of people who work the benefit system and they are a lot better off than I am, most couldn't afford to get a job because they would be much worse off
I'm not getting into this except to say please don't generalise.
"
What you are is so so true I know so many people that don't work and have the sky van round to sort their satellite dish out how the fuck can they afford sky, they will get a deal then get in debt, sorry get a job if your fit and able to do so. Rant over |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Stop giving free stuff to those on benefits, boilers for instance, I need a new one but can't afford it. If I was on benefits I'd get one for free but as I work I have to fund free boilers for those that don't so therefore can't afford one myself.
Where is the incentive to get off benefits, they would lose too many
perks, free prescriptions, dentistry, housing benefit, etc etc.
I say turn it on it's head and give the free stuff to those that work, people would find employment in order to qualify for the perks they previously had whilst on benefits.
I'd rather lean on the super rich than the poor!
But are they poor, I see a lot of people who work the benefit system and they are a lot better off than I am, most couldn't afford to get a job because they would be much worse off
I'm not getting into this except to say please don't generalise.
What you are is so so true I know so many people that don't work and have the sky van round to sort their satellite dish out how the fuck can they afford sky, they will get a deal then get in debt, sorry get a job if your fit and able to do so. Rant over "
I could go off you.
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Stop giving free stuff to those on benefits, boilers for instance, I need a new one but can't afford it. If I was on benefits I'd get one for free but as I work I have to fund free boilers for those that don't so therefore can't afford one myself.
Where is the incentive to get off benefits, they would lose too many
perks, free prescriptions, dentistry, housing benefit, etc etc.
I say turn it on it's head and give the free stuff to those that work, people would find employment in order to qualify for the perks they previously had whilst on benefits.
I'd rather lean on the super rich than the poor!
But are they poor, I see a lot of people who work the benefit system and they are a lot better off than I am, most couldn't afford to get a job because they would be much worse off
I'm not getting into this except to say please don't generalise.
What you are is so so true I know so many people that don't work and have the sky van round to sort their satellite dish out how the fuck can they afford sky, they will get a deal then get in debt, sorry get a job if your fit and able to do so. Rant over
I could go off you.
"
Bit harsh  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Stop giving free stuff to those on benefits, boilers for instance, I need a new one but can't afford it. If I was on benefits I'd get one for free but as I work I have to fund free boilers for those that don't so therefore can't afford one myself.
Where is the incentive to get off benefits, they would lose too many
perks, free prescriptions, dentistry, housing benefit, etc etc.
I say turn it on it's head and give the free stuff to those that work, people would find employment in order to qualify for the perks they previously had whilst on benefits.
I'd rather lean on the super rich than the poor!
But are they poor, I see a lot of people who work the benefit system and they are a lot better off than I am, most couldn't afford to get a job because they would be much worse off
I'm not getting into this except to say please don't generalise.
What you are is so so true I know so many people that don't work and have the sky van round to sort their satellite dish out how the fuck can they afford sky, they will get a deal then get in debt, sorry get a job if your fit and able to do so. Rant over
I could go off you.
Bit harsh "
Jeezaloo I'm joking. ... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Stop giving free stuff to those on benefits, boilers for instance, I need a new one but can't afford it. If I was on benefits I'd get one for free but as I work I have to fund free boilers for those that don't so therefore can't afford one myself.
Where is the incentive to get off benefits, they would lose too many
perks, free prescriptions, dentistry, housing benefit, etc etc.
I say turn it on it's head and give the free stuff to those that work, people would find employment in order to qualify for the perks they previously had whilst on benefits.
I'd rather lean on the super rich than the poor!
But are they poor, I see a lot of people who work the benefit system and they are a lot better off than I am, most couldn't afford to get a job because they would be much worse off
I'm not getting into this except to say please don't generalise.
"
I'm not generalising at all, all I'm saying is that there is an element of society that milks the benefit system and they are better off on benefits than they would be if they worked. If they turned it on it's head and gave the perks to the working population then there would be incentives to work rather than incentives to remain on benefits.
I know not all people on benefits choose to be but I see a lot of people who do. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Stop giving free stuff to those on benefits, boilers for instance, I need a new one but can't afford it. If I was on benefits I'd get one for free but as I work I have to fund free boilers for those that don't so therefore can't afford one myself.
Where is the incentive to get off benefits, they would lose too many
perks, free prescriptions, dentistry, housing benefit, etc etc.
I say turn it on it's head and give the free stuff to those that work, people would find employment in order to qualify for the perks they previously had whilst on benefits.
I'd rather lean on the super rich than the poor!
But are they poor, I see a lot of people who work the benefit system and they are a lot better off than I am, most couldn't afford to get a job because they would be much worse off
I'm not getting into this except to say please don't generalise.
I'm not generalising at all, all I'm saying is that there is an element of society that milks the benefit system and they are better off on benefits than they would be if they worked. If they turned it on it's head and gave the perks to the working population then there would be incentives to work rather than incentives to remain on benefits.
I know not all people on benefits choose to be but I see a lot of people who do. "
I've never lived on benefits.
I wonder if I'd really feel better off.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Stop giving free stuff to those on benefits, boilers for instance, I need a new one but can't afford it. If I was on benefits I'd get one for free but as I work I have to fund free boilers for those that don't so therefore can't afford one myself.
Where is the incentive to get off benefits, they would lose too many
perks, free prescriptions, dentistry, housing benefit, etc etc.
I say turn it on it's head and give the free stuff to those that work, people would find employment in order to qualify for the perks they previously had whilst on benefits.
I'd rather lean on the super rich than the poor!
But are they poor, I see a lot of people who work the benefit system and they are a lot better off than I am, most couldn't afford to get a job because they would be much worse off
I'm not getting into this except to say please don't generalise.
I'm not generalising at all, all I'm saying is that there is an element of society that milks the benefit system and they are better off on benefits than they would be if they worked. If they turned it on it's head and gave the perks to the working population then there would be incentives to work rather than incentives to remain on benefits.
I know not all people on benefits choose to be but I see a lot of people who do.
I've never lived on benefits.
I wonder if I'd really feel better off.
"
I was out of work for nearly two years and only got dole for 6 months. Then nowt. Sweet fa. That's the reality for the real unemployed. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Stop giving free stuff to those on benefits, boilers for instance, I need a new one but can't afford it. If I was on benefits I'd get one for free but as I work I have to fund free boilers for those that don't so therefore can't afford one myself.
Where is the incentive to get off benefits, they would lose too many
perks, free prescriptions, dentistry, housing benefit, etc etc.
I say turn it on it's head and give the free stuff to those that work, people would find employment in order to qualify for the perks they previously had whilst on benefits.
I'd rather lean on the super rich than the poor!
But are they poor, I see a lot of people who work the benefit system and they are a lot better off than I am, most couldn't afford to get a job because they would be much worse off
I'm not getting into this except to say please don't generalise.
I'm not generalising at all, all I'm saying is that there is an element of society that milks the benefit system and they are better off on benefits than they would be if they worked. If they turned it on it's head and gave the perks to the working population then there would be incentives to work rather than incentives to remain on benefits.
I know not all people on benefits choose to be but I see a lot of people who do.
I've never lived on benefits.
I wonder if I'd really feel better off.
I was out of work for nearly two years and only got dole for 6 months. Then nowt. Sweet fa. That's the reality for the real unemployed."
I couldn't get dole. Not a penny.
I'm not going to begrudge the ones who did but we gotta stop looking at bottom and question the bastards at the top. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Stop giving free stuff to those on benefits, boilers for instance, I need a new one but can't afford it. If I was on benefits I'd get one for free but as I work I have to fund free boilers for those that don't so therefore can't afford one myself.
Where is the incentive to get off benefits, they would lose too many
perks, free prescriptions, dentistry, housing benefit, etc etc.
I say turn it on it's head and give the free stuff to those that work, people would find employment in order to qualify for the perks they previously had whilst on benefits.
I'd rather lean on the super rich than the poor!
But are they poor, I see a lot of people who work the benefit system and they are a lot better off than I am, most couldn't afford to get a job because they would be much worse off
I'm not getting into this except to say please don't generalise.
I'm not generalising at all, all I'm saying is that there is an element of society that milks the benefit system and they are better off on benefits than they would be if they worked. If they turned it on it's head and gave the perks to the working population then there would be incentives to work rather than incentives to remain on benefits.
I know not all people on benefits choose to be but I see a lot of people who do.
I've never lived on benefits.
I wonder if I'd really feel better off.
I was out of work for nearly two years and only got dole for 6 months. Then nowt. Sweet fa. That's the reality for the real unemployed.
I couldn't get dole. Not a penny.
I'm not going to begrudge the ones who did but we gotta stop looking at bottom and question the bastards at the top."
I couldn't get any with my last spell of unemployment, luckily only 3 months. Because I had been unemployed within the previous two financial years. I was let go because it was an agency, and I followed the DWP advice and took any work that was offered. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Stop giving free stuff to those on benefits, boilers for instance, I need a new one but can't afford it. If I was on benefits I'd get one for free but as I work I have to fund free boilers for those that don't so therefore can't afford one myself.
Where is the incentive to get off benefits, they would lose too many
perks, free prescriptions, dentistry, housing benefit, etc etc.
I say turn it on it's head and give the free stuff to those that work, people would find employment in order to qualify for the perks they previously had whilst on benefits.
I'd rather lean on the super rich than the poor!
But are they poor, I see a lot of people who work the benefit system and they are a lot better off than I am, most couldn't afford to get a job because they would be much worse off
I'm not getting into this except to say please don't generalise.
I'm not generalising at all, all I'm saying is that there is an element of society that milks the benefit system and they are better off on benefits than they would be if they worked. If they turned it on it's head and gave the perks to the working population then there would be incentives to work rather than incentives to remain on benefits.
I know not all people on benefits choose to be but I see a lot of people who do.
I've never lived on benefits.
I wonder if I'd really feel better off.
I was out of work for nearly two years and only got dole for 6 months. Then nowt. Sweet fa. That's the reality for the real unemployed.
I couldn't get dole. Not a penny.
I'm not going to begrudge the ones who did but we gotta stop looking at bottom and question the bastards at the top.
I couldn't get any with my last spell of unemployment, luckily only 3 months. Because I had been unemployed within the previous two financial years. I was let go because it was an agency, and I followed the DWP advice and took any work that was offered. Damned if you do, damned if you don't."
Well that's wrong, I'd like to think I'd receive benefits if I found myself out if work, the benefits system should be there as a cushion for spells of unemployment or for those that are unable to work. There are those that see being on benefits as a career tho and they know how to abuse it. It's the system that's wrong if you ask me, if you all read my posts all I was saying is give the perks to the workers which would give an incentive to get off benefits rather than make people worse off for working. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Anyway, I'd also like to see social services overhauled, in particular the way children in care are housed and managed, I don't have the answers but I think it needs re_iewing. That's not a did at social workers because like all public services they are overworked and under staffed.
I'd also like to see a system introduced to get the homeless off the streets, in this day and age there is no excuse for this country to see people living rough. There are plenty of boarded up houses dotted about and and if the government have got 100's of millions to give to international aid then they can find the money to support our own. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I love all this talk about nationalisation.
So ladies and gentleman I will remind you about the joys of nationalisation.
You want a telephone line installing? Of course madam, how does the 2nd week in June sound? If were not on strike of course.
Over to you Mr rail commuter. Our nationalised rail company has just closed your local station. What? you want to know how you will get to work? Easy, walking is supposed to be quite healthy and good for Polar bears.
Oh how I miss nationalisation.
Oh wait a minute, it is still alive and well (pardon the pun) Mr and Mrs hospital patient have informed me that they are looking forward to waiting at least 62 days to see a cancer specialist. When I asked them what if you die while you are waiting? They replied. "It's quite fun really, a bit like roulette, and we can't afford to go to Vegas". "
ok .... we needed a phone line installing in our last home .... we had to wait 18 weeks .... ten weeks longer than we would've waited in the days when the GPO or british telecom were running the comms network in the uk. also the POEU (post office engineers union) which was the only union that phone engineers were alowed to be memeber to, never ever went on strike as they're own rules meant they were a non strike union
the east coast rail line is owned by the tax payer (it is however at this moment being tendered out for privatisation) and it has consistantly returned a profit, this year it returned a profit of £235 million pounds to the treasury. our exorbitant rail fares charged by german companies who run most of our rail infrastructure go to subsidise the fares charged by the german nationalised transport system.
my mother was diagnosed with cancer a couple of years back.... she saw the cancer specialist within days and was operated on within 2 weeks .... in Wales where everyone seems to think that the health system is broken.
just saying |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"In a system that requires perpetual growth you always need more people, hence why they have to expand the population with child benefit.
Does child benefit encourage people to have children? I would be worried if that were the case.
I'd be shocked if it did! £140 every 4 weeks hardly makes a dent in even the food costs of having 2 kids!
They reckoned 10 years ago it cost £250,000 to raise a child to 18, so the idea that anyone would have a kid to get £140 a month seems a little absurd."
.
What?.
I said it was an incentive tax.
The same way they don't pay for your electric car but they give you free tax= Incentive to buy one and to the other scale massive road tax on big engine 4x4 =disincentive to buy one.
Now imagine taking 140 pounds a month away and charging you 140 pounds a month instead, what do you think would happen to the birth rate!!.
As for this supposed figure of 250 grand that's nonsense.
250£ a week per child, some people don't even earn that much. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I love all this talk about nationalisation.
So ladies and gentleman I will remind you about the joys of nationalisation.
You want a telephone line installing? Of course madam, how does the 2nd week in June sound? If were not on strike of course.
Over to you Mr rail commuter. Our nationalised rail company has just closed your local station. What? you want to know how you will get to work? Easy, walking is supposed to be quite healthy and good for Polar bears.
Oh how I miss nationalisation.
Oh wait a minute, it is still alive and well (pardon the pun) Mr and Mrs hospital patient have informed me that they are looking forward to waiting at least 62 days to see a cancer specialist. When I asked them what if you die while you are waiting? They replied. "It's quite fun really, a bit like roulette, and we can't afford to go to Vegas".
ok .... we needed a phone line installing in our last home .... we had to wait 18 weeks .... ten weeks longer than we would've waited in the days when the GPO or british telecom were running the comms network in the uk. also the POEU (post office engineers union) which was the only union that phone engineers were alowed to be memeber to, never ever went on strike as they're own rules meant they were a non strike union
the east coast rail line is owned by the tax payer (it is however at this moment being tendered out for privatisation) and it has consistantly returned a profit, this year it returned a profit of £235 million pounds to the treasury. our exorbitant rail fares charged by german companies who run most of our rail infrastructure go to subsidise the fares charged by the german nationalised transport system.
my mother was diagnosed with cancer a couple of years back.... she saw the cancer specialist within days and was operated on within 2 weeks .... in Wales where everyone seems to think that the health system is broken.
just saying"
Eighteen weeks does seem a bit excessive but in the 70's nine months wasn't uncommon.
Interestingly enough Deutsche Bahn is in the process of being privatised.
It seems like your mother was quite fortunate (hope she is OK BTW) but the 62 days comes from the governments own targets, which they didn't hit.
Hope you like the Allegro |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"In a system that requires perpetual growth you always need more people, hence why they have to expand the population with child benefit.
Does child benefit encourage people to have children? I would be worried if that were the case.
I'd be shocked if it did! £140 every 4 weeks hardly makes a dent in even the food costs of having 2 kids!
They reckoned 10 years ago it cost £250,000 to raise a child to 18, so the idea that anyone would have a kid to get £140 a month seems a little absurd..
What?.
I said it was an incentive tax.
The same way they don't pay for your electric car but they give you free tax= Incentive to buy one and to the other scale massive road tax on big engine 4x4 =disincentive to buy one.
Now imagine taking 140 pounds a month away and charging you 140 pounds a month instead, what do you think would happen to the birth rate!!.
As for this supposed figure of 250 grand that's nonsense.
250£ a week per child, some people don't even earn that much."
I do not understand why people who decide to bring children into this world should be paid significant amounts of money to do so. For the sake of a better country, I am content to pay towards education but why should I go further than that? Why do parents consider child benefit to be a right? I would not buy a pet if I could not afford it. I would not buy a car if I could not run it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"In a system that requires perpetual growth you always need more people, hence why they have to expand the population with child benefit.
Does child benefit encourage people to have children? I would be worried if that were the case.
I'd be shocked if it did! £140 every 4 weeks hardly makes a dent in even the food costs of having 2 kids!
They reckoned 10 years ago it cost £250,000 to raise a child to 18, so the idea that anyone would have a kid to get £140 a month seems a little absurd..
What?.
I said it was an incentive tax.
The same way they don't pay for your electric car but they give you free tax= Incentive to buy one and to the other scale massive road tax on big engine 4x4 =disincentive to buy one.
Now imagine taking 140 pounds a month away and charging you 140 pounds a month instead, what do you think would happen to the birth rate!!.
As for this supposed figure of 250 grand that's nonsense.
250£ a week per child, some people don't even earn that much."
What benefits give you £250 a week per child? I'd like some of these! Child benefit is £20 and so many pence per week for your first child and I think it's £12 on a second or third child, I don't know I've only got one. It is only available to families that have less than 80k a year coming in from wages.
You'll get child tax credit and working tax credit all dependant on your circumstance but there is no benefit of 250 quid a week just for having a child. Even Income Support line parent isn't £250 a week and that's the only real benefit you can claim for being a parent and that's only if you have a child under 4 years old. After that you'd go on job seekers allowance.
Source, I'm ex DWP staff |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
NHS-
Make every person pay £1 for a prescription. I think its something like 1 in 10 people pay for prescriptions, so this will raise more money for the NHS.
Doctors to charge £10 per visit, a refund given on a means tested basis, like they do in France. This should reduce no-shows at the doctors.
These monies to help pay for an increase in nurses wages.
Benefits-
Limit child benefit to 2 children. Also means test it
Limit unemployment benefit (or whatever its called now) to 24 months claims over a lifetime. Make it easier for home owners to claim when they are made unemployed.
Fuel duty and Road Fund Licence-
Scrap 'road tax' and add a tax to fuel. Meaning lower 'tax' bills for lower road users.
Fuel Duty to be reduced.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I actually hate all this nonsense about benefits. It's only the horror stories that newspapers will print just to get peoples blood boiling.
People on benefits do seem like they have a better deal but would I like to live a life on benefits no I wouldn't, I definitely wouldn't be beetle off financially and the amount of better off calculations I used to do for people it would always work out that working is more than benefits. Bit sometimes if would only be 50 or 60 pound a week better off and when you tell someone that their wage would be paying their rent instead of housing benefit they think that for "just" 50 quid a week more they might as well stay on benefits.
There are strict rules on claiming and they are getting tighter and tighter but there's always gonna be someone taking the piss. My taxes and your taxes don't just go towards paying for people's benefits. Instead of being bitter towards someone on benefits just be thankful that you aren't on them.
There's bigger things to concentrate on in this country, there's other things that strain our economy more than benefits. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Eighteen weeks does seem a bit excessive but in the 70's nine months wasn't uncommon.
It seems like your mother was quite fortunate (hope she is OK BTW) but the 62 days comes from the governments own targets, which they didn't hit.
Hope you like the Allegro "
a nine month wait is a massive exaggeration ..... 8 weeks was the standard wait (my dad was a telecom engineer and eventually manager who retired when they privatised, so he knows all the details. you seem to have believed the tory propaganda which preceeded the privatisation at that time on this one.
my mother beat her cancer as did my aunt who was also treated within 2 weeks as was her husband my uncle (he wasn't so lucky and is longer with us. but this is in wales mind (where the tories propaganda again assures us that the nhs is completely kaput) not england. so fortunate but also indicative of a system that does work pretty well ... there will always be exceptions though.
we had a austin maxi then two allegro's one after the other .... they both worked fine and were cheap and easy to maintain as was my first car which was a maestro .... can't say the same for the cars available now .... expensive to maintain, no less reliable than a car of today and unnecessarily complicated to work on due to being overly engineered.
nationalised industry wasn't working very well in the late 60's and 70's due to upper management being inept and too greedy, but it's the privatisation of essential services such as power, energy, fuel, comms, transport, housing and now the stealth privatisation of the nhs (which has been going on for the last 4 years) which has firmly entrenched us in the mire we find ourselves in today. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"In a system that requires perpetual growth you always need more people, hence why they have to expand the population with child benefit.
Does child benefit encourage people to have children? I would be worried if that were the case.
I'd be shocked if it did! £140 every 4 weeks hardly makes a dent in even the food costs of having 2 kids!
They reckoned 10 years ago it cost £250,000 to raise a child to 18, so the idea that anyone would have a kid to get £140 a month seems a little absurd..
What?.
I said it was an incentive tax.
The same way they don't pay for your electric car but they give you free tax= Incentive to buy one and to the other scale massive road tax on big engine 4x4 =disincentive to buy one.
Now imagine taking 140 pounds a month away and charging you 140 pounds a month instead, what do you think would happen to the birth rate!!.
As for this supposed figure of 250 grand that's nonsense.
250£ a week per child, some people don't even earn that much.
What benefits give you £250 a week per child? I'd like some of these! Child benefit is £20 and so many pence per week for your first child and I think it's £12 on a second or third child, I don't know I've only got one. It is only available to families that have less than 80k a year coming in from wages.
You'll get child tax credit and working tax credit all dependant on your circumstance but there is no benefit of 250 quid a week just for having a child. Even Income Support line parent isn't £250 a week and that's the only real benefit you can claim for being a parent and that's only if you have a child under 4 years old. After that you'd go on job seekers allowance.
Source, I'm ex DWP staff"
.
If you read the post you'd have seen that the 250£ a week referred to the supposed 250,000 cost of rearing a child to the age of 18.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"My point was not about benefits but whether we should continue with child benefit in an age where we don't really want or need population increase."
It is means tested but, erm, I am not sure that folk earning more than £60k really need £20 per week to keep a child healthy. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"In a system that requires perpetual growth you always need more people, hence why they have to expand the population with child benefit.
Does child benefit encourage people to have children? I would be worried if that were the case."
Be worried. Be very worried!!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
