FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Child Credits
Child Credits
Jump to: Newest in thread
Starmer said Labour will not change the policy of not being able to claim for children after the second one.
He's now on the receiving end of some of his own party.
What do you think, should there be a cap on benefits to 2 children or not?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/17/labour-mps-keir-starmer-tories-two-child-benefit-limit |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
Yes there should be a cap. If you can’t afford kids don’t have them!
UNLESS (getting a bit meta here)...
1. We have a workforce shortage (long term)
2. We do not want the long term solution to this being increased immigration
3. We therefore want to encourage more indigenous births so we have more British born workers for the future |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Yes there should be a cap. If you can’t afford kids don’t have them!
UNLESS (getting a bit meta here)...
1. We have a workforce shortage (long term)
2. We do not want the long term solution to this being increased immigration
3. We therefore want to encourage more indigenous births so we have more British born workers for the future"
That would take at least 20-25 years to come to fruition, that's never gonna happen imo.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Yes there should be a cap. If you can’t afford kids don’t have them!
UNLESS (getting a bit meta here)...
1. We have a workforce shortage (long term)
2. We do not want the long term solution to this being increased immigration
3. We therefore want to encourage more indigenous births so we have more British born workers for the future
That would take at least 20-25 years to come to fruition, that's never gonna happen imo.
"
Agreed but that is a reason to incentivise people to have more children. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Yes there should be a cap. If you can’t afford kids don’t have them!
UNLESS (getting a bit meta here)...
1. We have a workforce shortage (long term)
2. We do not want the long term solution to this being increased immigration
3. We therefore want to encourage more indigenous births so we have more British born workers for the future
That would take at least 20-25 years to come to fruition, that's never gonna happen imo.
Agreed but that is a reason to incentivise people to have more children."
Yeah, I agree. It's just not feasible, which I think we also I agree on. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
This is a perfect example of why I don't trust labour with the economy. MP's attacking the lack of money being spent! I read it on here from people who suggest we can do X Y & Z and when asked how do we pay for that, the usual comment of "we are one of the richest nations in the world".
It is a challenging time and we need a government who can manage with direction and a strong backbone. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Yes there should be a cap. If you can’t afford kids don’t have them!
UNLESS (getting a bit meta here)...
1. We have a workforce shortage (long term)
2. We do not want the long term solution to this being increased immigration
3. We therefore want to encourage more indigenous births so we have more British born workers for the future
That would take at least 20-25 years to come to fruition, that's never gonna happen imo.
Agreed but that is a reason to incentivise people to have more children.
Yeah, I agree. It's just not feasible, which I think we also I agree on."
We do agree. I think it is useful and interesting to put that out there though.
The UK has a negative indigenous birth rate. We have an ageing population and a state pension that is little better than a Ponzi scheme. So we face two challenges:
1. Not enough workers to do the jobs.
2. Not enough taxpayers to fund state pension.
So there are only two answers (well three actually)
A) We increase immigration.
B) We have more babies.
or
C) We automate more and do away with State Pension |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"Yes there should be a cap. If you can’t afford kids don’t have them!
UNLESS (getting a bit meta here)...
1. We have a workforce shortage (long term)
2. We do not want the long term solution to this being increased immigration
3. We therefore want to encourage more indigenous births so we have more British born workers for the future
That would take at least 20-25 years to come to fruition, that's never gonna happen imo.
Agreed but that is a reason to incentivise people to have more children.
Yeah, I agree. It's just not feasible, which I think we also I agree on.
We do agree. I think it is useful and interesting to put that out there though.
The UK has a negative indigenous birth rate. We have an ageing population and a state pension that is little better than a Ponzi scheme. So we face two challenges:
1. Not enough workers to do the jobs.
2. Not enough taxpayers to fund state pension.
So there are only two answers (well three actually)
A) We increase immigration.
B) We have more babies.
or
C) We automate more and do away with State Pension"
Automation is the answer, the other 2 things are doomed to fail through irregular human behaviours.
Automation doesn't mean the end of jobs for people, it will move jobs into other sectors that might not exist yet, it is how it has worked for years. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Yes there should be a cap. If you can’t afford kids don’t have them!
UNLESS (getting a bit meta here)...
1. We have a workforce shortage (long term)
2. We do not want the long term solution to this being increased immigration
3. We therefore want to encourage more indigenous births so we have more British born workers for the future
That would take at least 20-25 years to come to fruition, that's never gonna happen imo.
Agreed but that is a reason to incentivise people to have more children.
Yeah, I agree. It's just not feasible, which I think we also I agree on.
We do agree. I think it is useful and interesting to put that out there though.
The UK has a negative indigenous birth rate. We have an ageing population and a state pension that is little better than a Ponzi scheme. So we face two challenges:
1. Not enough workers to do the jobs.
2. Not enough taxpayers to fund state pension.
So there are only two answers (well three actually)
A) We increase immigration.
B) We have more babies.
or
C) We automate more and do away with State Pension
Automation is the answer, the other 2 things are doomed to fail through irregular human behaviours.
Automation doesn't mean the end of jobs for people, it will move jobs into other sectors that might not exist yet, it is how it has worked for years. "
Literally everybody accepts that automation is going to result in a smaller jobs market, except apparently you. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Yes there should be a cap. If you can’t afford kids don’t have them!
UNLESS (getting a bit meta here)...
1. We have a workforce shortage (long term)
2. We do not want the long term solution to this being increased immigration
3. We therefore want to encourage more indigenous births so we have more British born workers for the future
That would take at least 20-25 years to come to fruition, that's never gonna happen imo.
Agreed but that is a reason to incentivise people to have more children.
Yeah, I agree. It's just not feasible, which I think we also I agree on.
We do agree. I think it is useful and interesting to put that out there though.
The UK has a negative indigenous birth rate. We have an ageing population and a state pension that is little better than a Ponzi scheme. So we face two challenges:
1. Not enough workers to do the jobs.
2. Not enough taxpayers to fund state pension.
So there are only two answers (well three actually)
A) We increase immigration.
B) We have more babies.
or
C) We automate more and do away with State Pension"
Do we have a negative indigenous births rate?
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/datasets/vitalstatisticspopulationandhealthreferencetables#:~:text=In%202021%2C%20there%20were%20694%2C685,1.9%25%20from%20681%2C560%20in%202020.
I think when we speak of funding pensions etc. that's a different topic.
This is about not being able to claim benefits from child 3 onwards. It's aimed to stop people just having babies and living off the taxpayer. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"We need to have fewer children, not more. Not just the U.K. but worldwide.
Because we can't afford them? Or because the world is overpopulated?"
Because of population and climate change. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"Yes there should be a cap. If you can’t afford kids don’t have them!
UNLESS (getting a bit meta here)...
1. We have a workforce shortage (long term)
2. We do not want the long term solution to this being increased immigration
3. We therefore want to encourage more indigenous births so we have more British born workers for the future
That would take at least 20-25 years to come to fruition, that's never gonna happen imo.
Agreed but that is a reason to incentivise people to have more children.
Yeah, I agree. It's just not feasible, which I think we also I agree on.
We do agree. I think it is useful and interesting to put that out there though.
The UK has a negative indigenous birth rate. We have an ageing population and a state pension that is little better than a Ponzi scheme. So we face two challenges:
1. Not enough workers to do the jobs.
2. Not enough taxpayers to fund state pension.
So there are only two answers (well three actually)
A) We increase immigration.
B) We have more babies.
or
C) We automate more and do away with State Pension
Automation is the answer, the other 2 things are doomed to fail through irregular human behaviours.
Automation doesn't mean the end of jobs for people, it will move jobs into other sectors that might not exist yet, it is how it has worked for years.
Literally everybody accepts that automation is going to result in a smaller jobs market, except apparently you. "
Not just me... The wood for the trees, springs to mind.
Time and time again technology has changed how we do things and jobs that do those things. Time and time again other roles appear that were not around before the change.
To be able to consider this is important, it stops Luddite fear mongering |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We need to have fewer children, not more. Not just the U.K. but worldwide.
Because we can't afford them? Or because the world is overpopulated?
Because of population and climate change. "
'Climate change'. It's the answer to everything at the minute 
What do you think about SKS stance on the freeze of benefits. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Yes there should be a cap. If you can’t afford kids don’t have them!
UNLESS (getting a bit meta here)...
1. We have a workforce shortage (long term)
2. We do not want the long term solution to this being increased immigration
3. We therefore want to encourage more indigenous births so we have more British born workers for the future
That would take at least 20-25 years to come to fruition, that's never gonna happen imo.
Agreed but that is a reason to incentivise people to have more children.
Yeah, I agree. It's just not feasible, which I think we also I agree on.
We do agree. I think it is useful and interesting to put that out there though.
The UK has a negative indigenous birth rate. We have an ageing population and a state pension that is little better than a Ponzi scheme. So we face two challenges:
1. Not enough workers to do the jobs.
2. Not enough taxpayers to fund state pension.
So there are only two answers (well three actually)
A) We increase immigration.
B) We have more babies.
or
C) We automate more and do away with State Pension
Automation is the answer, the other 2 things are doomed to fail through irregular human behaviours.
Automation doesn't mean the end of jobs for people, it will move jobs into other sectors that might not exist yet, it is how it has worked for years. "
In all likelihood yes but do you really not see automation reducing the size of the required workforce? If it is reduced there will be fewer taxpayers to fund the pensions of todays workers. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Personally, I don't think the state nor taxpayer should be funding large families. There are far too many dependent on state benefits as it is, we are falling into a dependency trap. People have to take responsibility for themselves. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"Yes there should be a cap. If you can’t afford kids don’t have them!
UNLESS (getting a bit meta here)...
1. We have a workforce shortage (long term)
2. We do not want the long term solution to this being increased immigration
3. We therefore want to encourage more indigenous births so we have more British born workers for the future
That would take at least 20-25 years to come to fruition, that's never gonna happen imo.
Agreed but that is a reason to incentivise people to have more children.
Yeah, I agree. It's just not feasible, which I think we also I agree on.
We do agree. I think it is useful and interesting to put that out there though.
The UK has a negative indigenous birth rate. We have an ageing population and a state pension that is little better than a Ponzi scheme. So we face two challenges:
1. Not enough workers to do the jobs.
2. Not enough taxpayers to fund state pension.
So there are only two answers (well three actually)
A) We increase immigration.
B) We have more babies.
or
C) We automate more and do away with State Pension
Automation is the answer, the other 2 things are doomed to fail through irregular human behaviours.
Automation doesn't mean the end of jobs for people, it will move jobs into other sectors that might not exist yet, it is how it has worked for years.
In all likelihood yes but do you really not see automation reducing the size of the required workforce? If it is reduced there will be fewer taxpayers to fund the pensions of todays workers. "
No, the work will change, to what I'm not sure.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"We need to have fewer children, not more. Not just the U.K. but worldwide.
Because we can't afford them? Or because the world is overpopulated?
Because of population and climate change.
'Climate change'. It's the answer to everything at the minute
What do you think about SKS stance on the freeze of benefits. "
Research climate change and population then
I don’t agree with the freeze, but the economy has been fucked by 13 years of misrule so I have to assume that labour have crunched the numbers and made a decision.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Yes there should be a cap. If you can’t afford kids don’t have them!
UNLESS (getting a bit meta here)...
1. We have a workforce shortage (long term)
2. We do not want the long term solution to this being increased immigration
3. We therefore want to encourage more indigenous births so we have more British born workers for the future
That would take at least 20-25 years to come to fruition, that's never gonna happen imo.
Agreed but that is a reason to incentivise people to have more children.
Yeah, I agree. It's just not feasible, which I think we also I agree on.
We do agree. I think it is useful and interesting to put that out there though.
The UK has a negative indigenous birth rate. We have an ageing population and a state pension that is little better than a Ponzi scheme. So we face two challenges:
1. Not enough workers to do the jobs.
2. Not enough taxpayers to fund state pension.
So there are only two answers (well three actually)
A) We increase immigration.
B) We have more babies.
or
C) We automate more and do away with State Pension
Automation is the answer, the other 2 things are doomed to fail through irregular human behaviours.
Automation doesn't mean the end of jobs for people, it will move jobs into other sectors that might not exist yet, it is how it has worked for years.
In all likelihood yes but do you really not see automation reducing the size of the required workforce? If it is reduced there will be fewer taxpayers to fund the pensions of todays workers.
No, the work will change, to what I'm not sure.
"
TBF the IT industry has more than doubled in the UK since 2011 so as we get even more technology I'd assume that opens up more positions in that industry.
That is of course a guess, I don't know the exact breakdown |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Yes there should be a cap. If you can’t afford kids don’t have them!
UNLESS (getting a bit meta here)...
1. We have a workforce shortage (long term)
2. We do not want the long term solution to this being increased immigration
3. We therefore want to encourage more indigenous births so we have more British born workers for the future
That would take at least 20-25 years to come to fruition, that's never gonna happen imo.
Agreed but that is a reason to incentivise people to have more children.
Yeah, I agree. It's just not feasible, which I think we also I agree on.
We do agree. I think it is useful and interesting to put that out there though.
The UK has a negative indigenous birth rate. We have an ageing population and a state pension that is little better than a Ponzi scheme. So we face two challenges:
1. Not enough workers to do the jobs.
2. Not enough taxpayers to fund state pension.
So there are only two answers (well three actually)
A) We increase immigration.
B) We have more babies.
or
C) We automate more and do away with State Pension
Do we have a negative indigenous births rate?
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/datasets/vitalstatisticspopulationandhealthreferencetables#:~:text=In%202021%2C%20there%20were%20694%2C685,1.9%25%20from%20681%2C560%20in%202020.
I think when we speak of funding pensions etc. that's a different topic.
This is about not being able to claim benefits from child 3 onwards. It's aimed to stop people just having babies and living off the taxpayer."
Will have to download the dataset and take a look as the summary doesn’t answer whether that is a post Covid uplift in the birthrate rather than a trend AND doesn’t indicate whether those births are inflated due to immigration (children of immigrants). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Yes there should be a cap. If you can’t afford kids don’t have them!
UNLESS (getting a bit meta here)...
1. We have a workforce shortage (long term)
2. We do not want the long term solution to this being increased immigration
3. We therefore want to encourage more indigenous births so we have more British born workers for the future
That would take at least 20-25 years to come to fruition, that's never gonna happen imo.
Agreed but that is a reason to incentivise people to have more children.
Yeah, I agree. It's just not feasible, which I think we also I agree on.
We do agree. I think it is useful and interesting to put that out there though.
The UK has a negative indigenous birth rate. We have an ageing population and a state pension that is little better than a Ponzi scheme. So we face two challenges:
1. Not enough workers to do the jobs.
2. Not enough taxpayers to fund state pension.
So there are only two answers (well three actually)
A) We increase immigration.
B) We have more babies.
or
C) We automate more and do away with State Pension
Automation is the answer, the other 2 things are doomed to fail through irregular human behaviours.
Automation doesn't mean the end of jobs for people, it will move jobs into other sectors that might not exist yet, it is how it has worked for years.
In all likelihood yes but do you really not see automation reducing the size of the required workforce? If it is reduced there will be fewer taxpayers to fund the pensions of todays workers.
No, the work will change, to what I'm not sure.
"
If, for example lorry drivers are replaced by autonomous trucks, we’ll need far fewer new jobs running ‘the system’ than we had truck drivers.
Now if that happens in 50-60% of manual industries (that figure is an assumption), how can automation possibly create enough new roles? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Yes there should be a cap. If you can’t afford kids don’t have them!
UNLESS (getting a bit meta here)...
1. We have a workforce shortage (long term)
2. We do not want the long term solution to this being increased immigration
3. We therefore want to encourage more indigenous births so we have more British born workers for the future
That would take at least 20-25 years to come to fruition, that's never gonna happen imo.
Agreed but that is a reason to incentivise people to have more children.
Yeah, I agree. It's just not feasible, which I think we also I agree on.
We do agree. I think it is useful and interesting to put that out there though.
The UK has a negative indigenous birth rate. We have an ageing population and a state pension that is little better than a Ponzi scheme. So we face two challenges:
1. Not enough workers to do the jobs.
2. Not enough taxpayers to fund state pension.
So there are only two answers (well three actually)
A) We increase immigration.
B) We have more babies.
or
C) We automate more and do away with State Pension
Automation is the answer, the other 2 things are doomed to fail through irregular human behaviours.
Automation doesn't mean the end of jobs for people, it will move jobs into other sectors that might not exist yet, it is how it has worked for years.
In all likelihood yes but do you really not see automation reducing the size of the required workforce? If it is reduced there will be fewer taxpayers to fund the pensions of todays workers.
No, the work will change, to what I'm not sure.
TBF the IT industry has more than doubled in the UK since 2011 so as we get even more technology I'd assume that opens up more positions in that industry.
That is of course a guess, I don't know the exact breakdown"
Best start investing more in education for all these higher skilled jobs automation will bring! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We need to have fewer children, not more. Not just the U.K. but worldwide.
Because we can't afford them? Or because the world is overpopulated?
Because of population and climate change.
'Climate change'. It's the answer to everything at the minute
What do you think about SKS stance on the freeze of benefits.
Research climate change and population then
I don’t agree with the freeze, but the economy has been fucked by 13 years of misrule so I have to assume that labour have crunched the numbers and made a decision.
"
I know the supposed correlation, it's got nothing to do with this thread though.
You don't agree with the freeze, would you freeze it at any point? Or allow say an unlimited size family to claim benefits (additional child element). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Yes there should be a cap. If you can’t afford kids don’t have them!
UNLESS (getting a bit meta here)...
1. We have a workforce shortage (long term)
2. We do not want the long term solution to this being increased immigration
3. We therefore want to encourage more indigenous births so we have more British born workers for the future
That would take at least 20-25 years to come to fruition, that's never gonna happen imo.
Agreed but that is a reason to incentivise people to have more children.
Yeah, I agree. It's just not feasible, which I think we also I agree on.
We do agree. I think it is useful and interesting to put that out there though.
The UK has a negative indigenous birth rate. We have an ageing population and a state pension that is little better than a Ponzi scheme. So we face two challenges:
1. Not enough workers to do the jobs.
2. Not enough taxpayers to fund state pension.
So there are only two answers (well three actually)
A) We increase immigration.
B) We have more babies.
or
C) We automate more and do away with State Pension
Do we have a negative indigenous births rate?
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/datasets/vitalstatisticspopulationandhealthreferencetables#:~:text=In%202021%2C%20there%20were%20694%2C685,1.9%25%20from%20681%2C560%20in%202020.
I think when we speak of funding pensions etc. that's a different topic.
This is about not being able to claim benefits from child 3 onwards. It's aimed to stop people just having babies and living off the taxpayer.
Will have to download the dataset and take a look as the summary doesn’t answer whether that is a post Covid uplift in the birthrate rather than a trend AND doesn’t indicate whether those births are inflated due to immigration (children of immigrants). "
You're right, it doesn't.
Children of immigrants are British though  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"We need to have fewer children, not more. Not just the U.K. but worldwide.
Because we can't afford them? Or because the world is overpopulated?
Because of population and climate change.
'Climate change'. It's the answer to everything at the minute
What do you think about SKS stance on the freeze of benefits.
Research climate change and population then
I don’t agree with the freeze, but the economy has been fucked by 13 years of misrule so I have to assume that labour have crunched the numbers and made a decision.
I know the supposed correlation, it's got nothing to do with this thread though.
You don't agree with the freeze, would you freeze it at any point? Or allow say an unlimited size family to claim benefits (additional child element)."
In a perfect world, yes - because this thing of enormous families living off the state is largely fabricated and actually represents a tiny percentage of the population, over publicised by hacks and realty TV.
Once again, bigger fish to fry by closing tax loopholes. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Yes there should be a cap. If you can’t afford kids don’t have them!
UNLESS (getting a bit meta here)...
1. We have a workforce shortage (long term)
2. We do not want the long term solution to this being increased immigration
3. We therefore want to encourage more indigenous births so we have more British born workers for the future
That would take at least 20-25 years to come to fruition, that's never gonna happen imo.
Agreed but that is a reason to incentivise people to have more children.
Yeah, I agree. It's just not feasible, which I think we also I agree on.
We do agree. I think it is useful and interesting to put that out there though.
The UK has a negative indigenous birth rate. We have an ageing population and a state pension that is little better than a Ponzi scheme. So we face two challenges:
1. Not enough workers to do the jobs.
2. Not enough taxpayers to fund state pension.
So there are only two answers (well three actually)
A) We increase immigration.
B) We have more babies.
or
C) We automate more and do away with State Pension
Automation is the answer, the other 2 things are doomed to fail through irregular human behaviours.
Automation doesn't mean the end of jobs for people, it will move jobs into other sectors that might not exist yet, it is how it has worked for years.
In all likelihood yes but do you really not see automation reducing the size of the required workforce? If it is reduced there will be fewer taxpayers to fund the pensions of todays workers.
No, the work will change, to what I'm not sure.
If, for example lorry drivers are replaced by autonomous trucks, we’ll need far fewer new jobs running ‘the system’ than we had truck drivers.
Now if that happens in 50-60% of manual industries (that figure is an assumption), how can automation possibly create enough new roles? "
We will not be getting autonomous trucks in our lifetimes I wouldn't imagine.
I just don't see any government building the infrastructure for it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We need to have fewer children, not more. Not just the U.K. but worldwide.
Because we can't afford them? Or because the world is overpopulated?
Because of population and climate change.
'Climate change'. It's the answer to everything at the minute
What do you think about SKS stance on the freeze of benefits.
Research climate change and population then
I don’t agree with the freeze, but the economy has been fucked by 13 years of misrule so I have to assume that labour have crunched the numbers and made a decision.
I know the supposed correlation, it's got nothing to do with this thread though.
You don't agree with the freeze, would you freeze it at any point? Or allow say an unlimited size family to claim benefits (additional child element).
In a perfect world, yes - because this thing of enormous families living off the state is largely fabricated and actually represents a tiny percentage of the population, over publicised by hacks and realty TV.
Once again, bigger fish to fry by closing tax loopholes."
We don't live in utopia though.
Enormous families aren't really the issue here, we're probably more likely talking about 3-5 children than 10+ |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"Yes there should be a cap. If you can’t afford kids don’t have them!
UNLESS (getting a bit meta here)...
1. We have a workforce shortage (long term)
2. We do not want the long term solution to this being increased immigration
3. We therefore want to encourage more indigenous births so we have more British born workers for the future
That would take at least 20-25 years to come to fruition, that's never gonna happen imo.
Agreed but that is a reason to incentivise people to have more children.
Yeah, I agree. It's just not feasible, which I think we also I agree on.
We do agree. I think it is useful and interesting to put that out there though.
The UK has a negative indigenous birth rate. We have an ageing population and a state pension that is little better than a Ponzi scheme. So we face two challenges:
1. Not enough workers to do the jobs.
2. Not enough taxpayers to fund state pension.
So there are only two answers (well three actually)
A) We increase immigration.
B) We have more babies.
or
C) We automate more and do away with State Pension
Automation is the answer, the other 2 things are doomed to fail through irregular human behaviours.
Automation doesn't mean the end of jobs for people, it will move jobs into other sectors that might not exist yet, it is how it has worked for years.
In all likelihood yes but do you really not see automation reducing the size of the required workforce? If it is reduced there will be fewer taxpayers to fund the pensions of todays workers.
No, the work will change, to what I'm not sure.
If, for example lorry drivers are replaced by autonomous trucks, we’ll need far fewer new jobs running ‘the system’ than we had truck drivers.
Now if that happens in 50-60% of manual industries (that figure is an assumption), how can automation possibly create enough new roles? "
You are looking at the direct impact and not how services will change to support such a change.
In your scenario, which will happen, the network must change to support faster more frequent and tighter margins of travel that would happen due to humans being taken out of the driving seat.
The way the network will change would become a high profile industry, there is also the maintenance and recovery far greater than today. The tech that manages the logistics and fulfilment, drivers might not be in demand but other skills will appear to tackle problems that come with the new solutions. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"Yes there should be a cap. If you can’t afford kids don’t have them!
UNLESS (getting a bit meta here)...
1. We have a workforce shortage (long term)
2. We do not want the long term solution to this being increased immigration
3. We therefore want to encourage more indigenous births so we have more British born workers for the future
That would take at least 20-25 years to come to fruition, that's never gonna happen imo.
Agreed but that is a reason to incentivise people to have more children.
Yeah, I agree. It's just not feasible, which I think we also I agree on.
We do agree. I think it is useful and interesting to put that out there though.
The UK has a negative indigenous birth rate. We have an ageing population and a state pension that is little better than a Ponzi scheme. So we face two challenges:
1. Not enough workers to do the jobs.
2. Not enough taxpayers to fund state pension.
So there are only two answers (well three actually)
A) We increase immigration.
B) We have more babies.
or
C) We automate more and do away with State Pension
Automation is the answer, the other 2 things are doomed to fail through irregular human behaviours.
Automation doesn't mean the end of jobs for people, it will move jobs into other sectors that might not exist yet, it is how it has worked for years.
In all likelihood yes but do you really not see automation reducing the size of the required workforce? If it is reduced there will be fewer taxpayers to fund the pensions of todays workers.
No, the work will change, to what I'm not sure.
If, for example lorry drivers are replaced by autonomous trucks, we’ll need far fewer new jobs running ‘the system’ than we had truck drivers.
Now if that happens in 50-60% of manual industries (that figure is an assumption), how can automation possibly create enough new roles?
We will not be getting autonomous trucks in our lifetimes I wouldn't imagine.
I just don't see any government building the infrastructure for it."
The infrastructure is here, we just need to take people out of the loop making bad decisions.
The roads will not need traffic lights, ones side or the other to travel on, in an autonomous environment the roads will become high speed multi directional highways |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Yes there should be a cap. If you can’t afford kids don’t have them!
UNLESS (getting a bit meta here)...
1. We have a workforce shortage (long term)
2. We do not want the long term solution to this being increased immigration
3. We therefore want to encourage more indigenous births so we have more British born workers for the future
That would take at least 20-25 years to come to fruition, that's never gonna happen imo.
Agreed but that is a reason to incentivise people to have more children.
Yeah, I agree. It's just not feasible, which I think we also I agree on.
We do agree. I think it is useful and interesting to put that out there though.
The UK has a negative indigenous birth rate. We have an ageing population and a state pension that is little better than a Ponzi scheme. So we face two challenges:
1. Not enough workers to do the jobs.
2. Not enough taxpayers to fund state pension.
So there are only two answers (well three actually)
A) We increase immigration.
B) We have more babies.
or
C) We automate more and do away with State Pension
Automation is the answer, the other 2 things are doomed to fail through irregular human behaviours.
Automation doesn't mean the end of jobs for people, it will move jobs into other sectors that might not exist yet, it is how it has worked for years.
In all likelihood yes but do you really not see automation reducing the size of the required workforce? If it is reduced there will be fewer taxpayers to fund the pensions of todays workers.
No, the work will change, to what I'm not sure.
If, for example lorry drivers are replaced by autonomous trucks, we’ll need far fewer new jobs running ‘the system’ than we had truck drivers.
Now if that happens in 50-60% of manual industries (that figure is an assumption), how can automation possibly create enough new roles?
We will not be getting autonomous trucks in our lifetimes I wouldn't imagine.
I just don't see any government building the infrastructure for it.
The infrastructure is here, we just need to take people out of the loop making bad decisions.
The roads will not need traffic lights, ones side or the other to travel on, in an autonomous environment the roads will become high speed multi directional highways"
Do you think auto and manual vehicles can run on the same roads? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"We need to have fewer children, not more. Not just the U.K. but worldwide.
Because we can't afford them? Or because the world is overpopulated?
Because of population and climate change.
'Climate change'. It's the answer to everything at the minute
What do you think about SKS stance on the freeze of benefits.
Research climate change and population then
I don’t agree with the freeze, but the economy has been fucked by 13 years of misrule so I have to assume that labour have crunched the numbers and made a decision.
I know the supposed correlation, it's got nothing to do with this thread though.
You don't agree with the freeze, would you freeze it at any point? Or allow say an unlimited size family to claim benefits (additional child element).
In a perfect world, yes - because this thing of enormous families living off the state is largely fabricated and actually represents a tiny percentage of the population, over publicised by hacks and realty TV.
Once again, bigger fish to fry by closing tax loopholes.
We don't live in utopia though.
Enormous families aren't really the issue here, we're probably more likely talking about 3-5 children than 10+"
How many families of 5-7 people live solely on benefits?
Anecdote isn’t data, but I’ve never known one. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We need to have fewer children, not more. Not just the U.K. but worldwide.
Because we can't afford them? Or because the world is overpopulated?
Because of population and climate change.
'Climate change'. It's the answer to everything at the minute
What do you think about SKS stance on the freeze of benefits.
Research climate change and population then
I don’t agree with the freeze, but the economy has been fucked by 13 years of misrule so I have to assume that labour have crunched the numbers and made a decision.
I know the supposed correlation, it's got nothing to do with this thread though.
You don't agree with the freeze, would you freeze it at any point? Or allow say an unlimited size family to claim benefits (additional child element).
In a perfect world, yes - because this thing of enormous families living off the state is largely fabricated and actually represents a tiny percentage of the population, over publicised by hacks and realty TV.
Once again, bigger fish to fry by closing tax loopholes.
We don't live in utopia though.
Enormous families aren't really the issue here, we're probably more likely talking about 3-5 children than 10+
How many families of 5-7 people live solely on benefits?
Anecdote isn’t data, but I’ve never known one."
I think the answer is....
Google is your friend |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"Yes there should be a cap. If you can’t afford kids don’t have them!
UNLESS (getting a bit meta here)...
1. We have a workforce shortage (long term)
2. We do not want the long term solution to this being increased immigration
3. We therefore want to encourage more indigenous births so we have more British born workers for the future
That would take at least 20-25 years to come to fruition, that's never gonna happen imo.
Agreed but that is a reason to incentivise people to have more children.
Yeah, I agree. It's just not feasible, which I think we also I agree on.
We do agree. I think it is useful and interesting to put that out there though.
The UK has a negative indigenous birth rate. We have an ageing population and a state pension that is little better than a Ponzi scheme. So we face two challenges:
1. Not enough workers to do the jobs.
2. Not enough taxpayers to fund state pension.
So there are only two answers (well three actually)
A) We increase immigration.
B) We have more babies.
or
C) We automate more and do away with State Pension
Automation is the answer, the other 2 things are doomed to fail through irregular human behaviours.
Automation doesn't mean the end of jobs for people, it will move jobs into other sectors that might not exist yet, it is how it has worked for years.
In all likelihood yes but do you really not see automation reducing the size of the required workforce? If it is reduced there will be fewer taxpayers to fund the pensions of todays workers.
No, the work will change, to what I'm not sure.
If, for example lorry drivers are replaced by autonomous trucks, we’ll need far fewer new jobs running ‘the system’ than we had truck drivers.
Now if that happens in 50-60% of manual industries (that figure is an assumption), how can automation possibly create enough new roles?
We will not be getting autonomous trucks in our lifetimes I wouldn't imagine.
I just don't see any government building the infrastructure for it.
The infrastructure is here, we just need to take people out of the loop making bad decisions.
The roads will not need traffic lights, ones side or the other to travel on, in an autonomous environment the roads will become high speed multi directional highways
Do you think auto and manual vehicles can run on the same roads?"
no, it is too dangerous.
The benefits of autonomous vehicles will be the speed they can move and the removal of safety constraints needed to protect human bad decisions.
I believe we will not own a car or vehicle in the future, they will become rentable only, paying into subscriptions for usage.
Use an app car arrives and takes you wherever you want, no need to worry about parking, driveways will become a thing of the past, roads will not have cars or other vehicles parked on them.
That is way into the future, hearts and minds need to be changed, they are changing slowly and I believe it will get there. I also believe in the future kids will be shown how we were in control of these metal death traps and allowed to ride on the network, they will be lost for words on how backward we were. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"We need to have fewer children, not more. Not just the U.K. but worldwide.
Because we can't afford them? Or because the world is overpopulated?
Because of population and climate change.
'Climate change'. It's the answer to everything at the minute
What do you think about SKS stance on the freeze of benefits.
Research climate change and population then
I don’t agree with the freeze, but the economy has been fucked by 13 years of misrule so I have to assume that labour have crunched the numbers and made a decision.
I know the supposed correlation, it's got nothing to do with this thread though.
You don't agree with the freeze, would you freeze it at any point? Or allow say an unlimited size family to claim benefits (additional child element).
In a perfect world, yes - because this thing of enormous families living off the state is largely fabricated and actually represents a tiny percentage of the population, over publicised by hacks and realty TV.
Once again, bigger fish to fry by closing tax loopholes.
We don't live in utopia though.
Enormous families aren't really the issue here, we're probably more likely talking about 3-5 children than 10+
How many families of 5-7 people live solely on benefits?
Anecdote isn’t data, but I’ve never known one.
I think the answer is....
Google is your friend "
It is. I trust you’ve done the donkey work?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Yes there should be a cap. If you can’t afford kids don’t have them!
UNLESS (getting a bit meta here)...
1. We have a workforce shortage (long term)
2. We do not want the long term solution to this being increased immigration
3. We therefore want to encourage more indigenous births so we have more British born workers for the future
That would take at least 20-25 years to come to fruition, that's never gonna happen imo.
Agreed but that is a reason to incentivise people to have more children.
Yeah, I agree. It's just not feasible, which I think we also I agree on.
We do agree. I think it is useful and interesting to put that out there though.
The UK has a negative indigenous birth rate. We have an ageing population and a state pension that is little better than a Ponzi scheme. So we face two challenges:
1. Not enough workers to do the jobs.
2. Not enough taxpayers to fund state pension.
So there are only two answers (well three actually)
A) We increase immigration.
B) We have more babies.
or
C) We automate more and do away with State Pension
Automation is the answer, the other 2 things are doomed to fail through irregular human behaviours.
Automation doesn't mean the end of jobs for people, it will move jobs into other sectors that might not exist yet, it is how it has worked for years.
In all likelihood yes but do you really not see automation reducing the size of the required workforce? If it is reduced there will be fewer taxpayers to fund the pensions of todays workers.
No, the work will change, to what I'm not sure.
If, for example lorry drivers are replaced by autonomous trucks, we’ll need far fewer new jobs running ‘the system’ than we had truck drivers.
Now if that happens in 50-60% of manual industries (that figure is an assumption), how can automation possibly create enough new roles?
We will not be getting autonomous trucks in our lifetimes I wouldn't imagine.
I just don't see any government building the infrastructure for it.
The infrastructure is here, we just need to take people out of the loop making bad decisions.
The roads will not need traffic lights, ones side or the other to travel on, in an autonomous environment the roads will become high speed multi directional highways
Do you think auto and manual vehicles can run on the same roads? no, it is too dangerous.
The benefits of autonomous vehicles will be the speed they can move and the removal of safety constraints needed to protect human bad decisions.
I believe we will not own a car or vehicle in the future, they will become rentable only, paying into subscriptions for usage.
Use an app car arrives and takes you wherever you want, no need to worry about parking, driveways will become a thing of the past, roads will not have cars or other vehicles parked on them.
That is way into the future, hearts and minds need to be changed, they are changing slowly and I believe it will get there. I also believe in the future kids will be shown how we were in control of these metal death traps and allowed to ride on the network, they will be lost for words on how backward we were."
Maybe you're right. I still don't believe that will happen in out lifetimes. I'm not sure how you remove millions of vehicles from the road and simultaneously replace them with others. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We need to have fewer children, not more. Not just the U.K. but worldwide.
Because we can't afford them? Or because the world is overpopulated?
Because of population and climate change.
'Climate change'. It's the answer to everything at the minute
What do you think about SKS stance on the freeze of benefits.
Research climate change and population then
I don’t agree with the freeze, but the economy has been fucked by 13 years of misrule so I have to assume that labour have crunched the numbers and made a decision.
I know the supposed correlation, it's got nothing to do with this thread though.
You don't agree with the freeze, would you freeze it at any point? Or allow say an unlimited size family to claim benefits (additional child element).
In a perfect world, yes - because this thing of enormous families living off the state is largely fabricated and actually represents a tiny percentage of the population, over publicised by hacks and realty TV.
Once again, bigger fish to fry by closing tax loopholes.
We don't live in utopia though.
Enormous families aren't really the issue here, we're probably more likely talking about 3-5 children than 10+
How many families of 5-7 people live solely on benefits?
Anecdote isn’t data, but I’ve never known one.
I think the answer is....
Google is your friend
It is. I trust you’ve done the donkey work? "
No because its just a conversation, hence why I said 'were probably' |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"We need to have fewer children, not more. Not just the U.K. but worldwide.
Because we can't afford them? Or because the world is overpopulated?
Because of population and climate change.
'Climate change'. It's the answer to everything at the minute
What do you think about SKS stance on the freeze of benefits.
Research climate change and population then
I don’t agree with the freeze, but the economy has been fucked by 13 years of misrule so I have to assume that labour have crunched the numbers and made a decision.
I know the supposed correlation, it's got nothing to do with this thread though.
You don't agree with the freeze, would you freeze it at any point? Or allow say an unlimited size family to claim benefits (additional child element).
In a perfect world, yes - because this thing of enormous families living off the state is largely fabricated and actually represents a tiny percentage of the population, over publicised by hacks and realty TV.
Once again, bigger fish to fry by closing tax loopholes."
Tax loopholes, of course the answer to where is the money coming from for everything it seems.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"We need to have fewer children, not more. Not just the U.K. but worldwide.
Because we can't afford them? Or because the world is overpopulated?
Because of population and climate change.
'Climate change'. It's the answer to everything at the minute
What do you think about SKS stance on the freeze of benefits.
Research climate change and population then
I don’t agree with the freeze, but the economy has been fucked by 13 years of misrule so I have to assume that labour have crunched the numbers and made a decision.
I know the supposed correlation, it's got nothing to do with this thread though.
You don't agree with the freeze, would you freeze it at any point? Or allow say an unlimited size family to claim benefits (additional child element).
In a perfect world, yes - because this thing of enormous families living off the state is largely fabricated and actually represents a tiny percentage of the population, over publicised by hacks and realty TV.
Once again, bigger fish to fry by closing tax loopholes.
Tax loopholes, of course the answer to where is the money coming from for everything it seems.
"
Well until they’re closed, we’re not going to benefit from them, are we? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"Yes there should be a cap. If you can’t afford kids don’t have them!
UNLESS (getting a bit meta here)...
1. We have a workforce shortage (long term)
2. We do not want the long term solution to this being increased immigration
3. We therefore want to encourage more indigenous births so we have more British born workers for the future
That would take at least 20-25 years to come to fruition, that's never gonna happen imo.
Agreed but that is a reason to incentivise people to have more children.
Yeah, I agree. It's just not feasible, which I think we also I agree on.
We do agree. I think it is useful and interesting to put that out there though.
The UK has a negative indigenous birth rate. We have an ageing population and a state pension that is little better than a Ponzi scheme. So we face two challenges:
1. Not enough workers to do the jobs.
2. Not enough taxpayers to fund state pension.
So there are only two answers (well three actually)
A) We increase immigration.
B) We have more babies.
or
C) We automate more and do away with State Pension
Automation is the answer, the other 2 things are doomed to fail through irregular human behaviours.
Automation doesn't mean the end of jobs for people, it will move jobs into other sectors that might not exist yet, it is how it has worked for years.
In all likelihood yes but do you really not see automation reducing the size of the required workforce? If it is reduced there will be fewer taxpayers to fund the pensions of todays workers.
No, the work will change, to what I'm not sure.
If, for example lorry drivers are replaced by autonomous trucks, we’ll need far fewer new jobs running ‘the system’ than we had truck drivers.
Now if that happens in 50-60% of manual industries (that figure is an assumption), how can automation possibly create enough new roles?
We will not be getting autonomous trucks in our lifetimes I wouldn't imagine.
I just don't see any government building the infrastructure for it.
The infrastructure is here, we just need to take people out of the loop making bad decisions.
The roads will not need traffic lights, ones side or the other to travel on, in an autonomous environment the roads will become high speed multi directional highways
Do you think auto and manual vehicles can run on the same roads? no, it is too dangerous.
The benefits of autonomous vehicles will be the speed they can move and the removal of safety constraints needed to protect human bad decisions.
I believe we will not own a car or vehicle in the future, they will become rentable only, paying into subscriptions for usage.
Use an app car arrives and takes you wherever you want, no need to worry about parking, driveways will become a thing of the past, roads will not have cars or other vehicles parked on them.
That is way into the future, hearts and minds need to be changed, they are changing slowly and I believe it will get there. I also believe in the future kids will be shown how we were in control of these metal death traps and allowed to ride on the network, they will be lost for words on how backward we were.
Maybe you're right. I still don't believe that will happen in out lifetimes. I'm not sure how you remove millions of vehicles from the road and simultaneously replace them with others. "
Not in our lifetimes, that is for sure.
We have some amazing services running already.
When you are bored have a peak at Waymo |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We need to have fewer children, not more. Not just the U.K. but worldwide.
Because we can't afford them? Or because the world is overpopulated?
Because of population and climate change.
'Climate change'. It's the answer to everything at the minute
What do you think about SKS stance on the freeze of benefits.
Research climate change and population then
I don’t agree with the freeze, but the economy has been fucked by 13 years of misrule so I have to assume that labour have crunched the numbers and made a decision.
I know the supposed correlation, it's got nothing to do with this thread though.
You don't agree with the freeze, would you freeze it at any point? Or allow say an unlimited size family to claim benefits (additional child element).
In a perfect world, yes - because this thing of enormous families living off the state is largely fabricated and actually represents a tiny percentage of the population, over publicised by hacks and realty TV.
Once again, bigger fish to fry by closing tax loopholes.
We don't live in utopia though.
Enormous families aren't really the issue here, we're probably more likely talking about 3-5 children than 10+
How many families of 5-7 people live solely on benefits?
Anecdote isn’t data, but I’ve never known one."
In the Sussex area lots of 4 to 6 child families live in overcrowded flats and solely on benefits I see
at least 3 property's like this each week in my work going in to social housing. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Yes there should be a cap. If you can’t afford kids don’t have them!
UNLESS (getting a bit meta here)...
1. We have a workforce shortage (long term)
2. We do not want the long term solution to this being increased immigration
3. We therefore want to encourage more indigenous births so we have more British born workers for the future
That would take at least 20-25 years to come to fruition, that's never gonna happen imo.
Agreed but that is a reason to incentivise people to have more children.
Yeah, I agree. It's just not feasible, which I think we also I agree on.
We do agree. I think it is useful and interesting to put that out there though.
The UK has a negative indigenous birth rate. We have an ageing population and a state pension that is little better than a Ponzi scheme. So we face two challenges:
1. Not enough workers to do the jobs.
2. Not enough taxpayers to fund state pension.
So there are only two answers (well three actually)
A) We increase immigration.
B) We have more babies.
or
C) We automate more and do away with State Pension
Automation is the answer, the other 2 things are doomed to fail through irregular human behaviours.
Automation doesn't mean the end of jobs for people, it will move jobs into other sectors that might not exist yet, it is how it has worked for years.
In all likelihood yes but do you really not see automation reducing the size of the required workforce? If it is reduced there will be fewer taxpayers to fund the pensions of todays workers.
No, the work will change, to what I'm not sure.
If, for example lorry drivers are replaced by autonomous trucks, we’ll need far fewer new jobs running ‘the system’ than we had truck drivers.
Now if that happens in 50-60% of manual industries (that figure is an assumption), how can automation possibly create enough new roles?
We will not be getting autonomous trucks in our lifetimes I wouldn't imagine.
I just don't see any government building the infrastructure for it.
The infrastructure is here, we just need to take people out of the loop making bad decisions.
The roads will not need traffic lights, ones side or the other to travel on, in an autonomous environment the roads will become high speed multi directional highways
Do you think auto and manual vehicles can run on the same roads? no, it is too dangerous.
The benefits of autonomous vehicles will be the speed they can move and the removal of safety constraints needed to protect human bad decisions.
I believe we will not own a car or vehicle in the future, they will become rentable only, paying into subscriptions for usage.
Use an app car arrives and takes you wherever you want, no need to worry about parking, driveways will become a thing of the past, roads will not have cars or other vehicles parked on them.
That is way into the future, hearts and minds need to be changed, they are changing slowly and I believe it will get there. I also believe in the future kids will be shown how we were in control of these metal death traps and allowed to ride on the network, they will be lost for words on how backward we were."
This App car system is all ready being tested in Milton Keynes. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Yes there should be a cap. If you can’t afford kids don’t have them!
UNLESS (getting a bit meta here)...
1. We have a workforce shortage (long term)
2. We do not want the long term solution to this being increased immigration
3. We therefore want to encourage more indigenous births so we have more British born workers for the future
That would take at least 20-25 years to come to fruition, that's never gonna happen imo.
Agreed but that is a reason to incentivise people to have more children.
Yeah, I agree. It's just not feasible, which I think we also I agree on.
We do agree. I think it is useful and interesting to put that out there though.
The UK has a negative indigenous birth rate. We have an ageing population and a state pension that is little better than a Ponzi scheme. So we face two challenges:
1. Not enough workers to do the jobs.
2. Not enough taxpayers to fund state pension.
So there are only two answers (well three actually)
A) We increase immigration.
B) We have more babies.
or
C) We automate more and do away with State Pension
Do we have a negative indigenous births rate?
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/datasets/vitalstatisticspopulationandhealthreferencetables#:~:text=In%202021%2C%20there%20were%20694%2C685,1.9%25%20from%20681%2C560%20in%202020.
I think when we speak of funding pensions etc. that's a different topic.
This is about not being able to claim benefits from child 3 onwards. It's aimed to stop people just having babies and living off the taxpayer.
Will have to download the dataset and take a look as the summary doesn’t answer whether that is a post Covid uplift in the birthrate rather than a trend AND doesn’t indicate whether those births are inflated due to immigration (children of immigrants).
You're right, it doesn't.
Children of immigrants are British though "
They are indeed but would they be classed as indigenous births as their parents are immigrants? The next generation (grandchildren) certainly. The point is without immigration they would not be born in this country and I believe we would have a negative birth rate. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Yes there should be a cap. If you can’t afford kids don’t have them!
UNLESS (getting a bit meta here)...
1. We have a workforce shortage (long term)
2. We do not want the long term solution to this being increased immigration
3. We therefore want to encourage more indigenous births so we have more British born workers for the future
That would take at least 20-25 years to come to fruition, that's never gonna happen imo.
Agreed but that is a reason to incentivise people to have more children.
Yeah, I agree. It's just not feasible, which I think we also I agree on.
We do agree. I think it is useful and interesting to put that out there though.
The UK has a negative indigenous birth rate. We have an ageing population and a state pension that is little better than a Ponzi scheme. So we face two challenges:
1. Not enough workers to do the jobs.
2. Not enough taxpayers to fund state pension.
So there are only two answers (well three actually)
A) We increase immigration.
B) We have more babies.
or
C) We automate more and do away with State Pension
Do we have a negative indigenous births rate?
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/datasets/vitalstatisticspopulationandhealthreferencetables#:~:text=In%202021%2C%20there%20were%20694%2C685,1.9%25%20from%20681%2C560%20in%202020.
I think when we speak of funding pensions etc. that's a different topic.
This is about not being able to claim benefits from child 3 onwards. It's aimed to stop people just having babies and living off the taxpayer.
Will have to download the dataset and take a look as the summary doesn’t answer whether that is a post Covid uplift in the birthrate rather than a trend AND doesn’t indicate whether those births are inflated due to immigration (children of immigrants).
You're right, it doesn't.
Children of immigrants are British though
They are indeed but would they be classed as indigenous births as their parents are immigrants? The next generation (grandchildren) certainly. The point is without immigration they would not be born in this country and I believe we would have a negative birth rate."
Genuinely don't know if they would be classed as indigenous or not. I agree without immigration we would definitely have a negative birth rate but I think that's a moot point. We will never be without immigration. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'm not sure how you remove millions of vehicles from the road and simultaneously replace them with others. "
Easy. Raise the motorway speed limit to 100mph for automated vehicles only. You'd soon see anyone that does motorway travel swapping their old slow cars for new automated ones.
Start up the short-term car loan companies in rural areas, and subsidise them for anyone with disabilities or on benefits. This would quickly replace the local bus and taxi services, and lots of people would be able to get rid of the cars that they don't really want, but previously had to have.
The vast majority of people don't actually enjoy driving. Give them the right incentives and they'd happily give up their car. The only problem is going to be getting manufacturers to make them fast enough. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Starmer said Labour will not change the policy of not being able to claim for children after the second one.
He's now on the receiving end of some of his own party.
What do you think, should there be a cap on benefits to 2 children or not?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/17/labour-mps-keir-starmer-tories-two-child-benefit-limit"
No increase the benifit for the first one and that's it.
Also people are moaning about the cost of childcare if you can't afford it don't have it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago
North West |
"Starmer said Labour will not change the policy of not being able to claim for children after the second one.
He's now on the receiving end of some of his own party.
What do you think, should there be a cap on benefits to 2 children or not?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/17/labour-mps-keir-starmer-tories-two-child-benefit-limit
No increase the benifit for the first one and that's it.
Also people are moaning about the cost of childcare if you can't afford it don't have it. "
Having children is an investment into the future of your country.
Not everything should be looked through a self-centred lens. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Having children is an investment into the future of your country.
Not everything should be looked through a self-centred lens."
Bollocks!
No one at all has children because their country needs them. People have children because they want children. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago
North West |
"Having children is an investment into the future of your country.
Not everything should be looked through a self-centred lens.
Bollocks!
No one at all has children because their country needs them. People have children because they want children."
I didn’t say that they didn’t. But the fact is that they are an investment in the future of the country. Every year our future scientists, engineers, builders and doctors are born.
We could as a nation choose to take a long term view of that, or we could take a self centred view. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"This is a perfect example of why I don't trust labour with the economy. MP's attacking the lack of money being spent! I read it on here from people who suggest we can do X Y & Z and when asked how do we pay for that, the usual comment of "we are one of the richest nations in the world".
It is a challenging time and we need a government who can manage with direction and a strong backbone. "
You don’t trust the labour with the economy because you were told not to trust labour with the economy, this is the new tactic.
If anything trust your own eyes. Instead of being gaslighted by those media outlets you ascribe to. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This is a perfect example of why I don't trust labour with the economy. MP's attacking the lack of money being spent! I read it on here from people who suggest we can do X Y & Z and when asked how do we pay for that, the usual comment of "we are one of the richest nations in the world".
It is a challenging time and we need a government who can manage with direction and a strong backbone.
You don’t trust the labour with the economy because you were told not to trust labour with the economy, this is the new tactic.
If anything trust your own eyes. Instead of being gaslighted by those media outlets you ascribe to."
Is that the same Labour that led the country into financial crisis in the 70's and had to beg the IMF for a £4 billion bailout? (£25 bil. in today's terms). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Having children is an investment into the future of your country.
Not everything should be looked through a self-centred lens.
Bollocks!
No one at all has children because their country needs them. People have children because they want children.
I didn’t say that they didn’t. But the fact is that they are an investment in the future of the country. Every year our future scientists, engineers, builders and doctors are born.
We could as a nation choose to take a long term view of that, or we could take a self centred view. "
So hang on, for our future we need an endless supply of migrants AND large families? Blimey, will there be any green fields and trees left? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"This is a perfect example of why I don't trust labour with the economy. MP's attacking the lack of money being spent! I read it on here from people who suggest we can do X Y & Z and when asked how do we pay for that, the usual comment of "we are one of the richest nations in the world".
It is a challenging time and we need a government who can manage with direction and a strong backbone.
You don’t trust the labour with the economy because you were told not to trust labour with the economy, this is the new tactic.
If anything trust your own eyes. Instead of being gaslighted by those media outlets you ascribe to.
Is that the same Labour that led the country into financial crisis in the 70's and had to beg the IMF for a £4 billion bailout? (£25 bil. in today's terms)."
I think Starmer would have been a teenager then, wouldn’t he?
Do we judge Sunak’s tories for Black Wednesday? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"This is a perfect example of why I don't trust labour with the economy. MP's attacking the lack of money being spent! I read it on here from people who suggest we can do X Y & Z and when asked how do we pay for that, the usual comment of "we are one of the richest nations in the world".
It is a challenging time and we need a government who can manage with direction and a strong backbone.
You don’t trust the labour with the economy because you were told not to trust labour with the economy, this is the new tactic.
If anything trust your own eyes. Instead of being gaslighted by those media outlets you ascribe to."
Assumption a plenty here. I have looked at this with my own eyes and I also have past experiences to pull on too. If anyone is trying to gaslight here, it could be you... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago
North West |
"Having children is an investment into the future of your country.
Not everything should be looked through a self-centred lens.
Bollocks!
No one at all has children because their country needs them. People have children because they want children.
I didn’t say that they didn’t. But the fact is that they are an investment in the future of the country. Every year our future scientists, engineers, builders and doctors are born.
We could as a nation choose to take a long term view of that, or we could take a self centred view.
So hang on, for our future we need an endless supply of migrants AND large families? Blimey, will there be any green fields and trees left?"
I personally have not mentioned migrants, so I am not sure why you are saying this.
But as you have… Successive Governments have failed to identify the employment sectors which need to attract migrants. For example, it is often said that we must have immigration to staff the NHS, but no-one in Government is looking at ways of filling those roles internally by incentivising young people and students with low-cost options into medicine and nursing.
As I said, the babies, children and youth of our society are the future of the nation and Governments could choose to view them as such. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"This is a perfect example of why I don't trust labour with the economy. MP's attacking the lack of money being spent! I read it on here from people who suggest we can do X Y & Z and when asked how do we pay for that, the usual comment of "we are one of the richest nations in the world".
It is a challenging time and we need a government who can manage with direction and a strong backbone.
You don’t trust the labour with the economy because you were told not to trust labour with the economy, this is the new tactic.
If anything trust your own eyes. Instead of being gaslighted by those media outlets you ascribe to.
Assumption a plenty here. I have looked at this with my own eyes and I also have past experiences to pull on too. If anyone is trying to gaslight here, it could be you..."
You only have to look at the way reporting changes during purdah to realise the inherent bias shown towards the incumbent government in normal times.
(And yes, the tabloids sucked up to new labour just as much as they now do the tories) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oo hotCouple
over a year ago
North West |
"This is a perfect example of why I don't trust labour with the economy. MP's attacking the lack of money being spent! I read it on here from people who suggest we can do X Y & Z and when asked how do we pay for that, the usual comment of "we are one of the richest nations in the world".
It is a challenging time and we need a government who can manage with direction and a strong backbone.
You don’t trust the labour with the economy because you were told not to trust labour with the economy, this is the new tactic.
If anything trust your own eyes. Instead of being gaslighted by those media outlets you ascribe to.
Assumption a plenty here. I have looked at this with my own eyes and I also have past experiences to pull on too. If anyone is trying to gaslight here, it could be you..."
When you looked with your own eyes, did you see the era of Tony Blair? GDP per capita has never been higher than it was in the Blair/Brown era. NHS waiting lists never lower and rough sleeping all but eliminated. It took a worldwide financial crash to knock the wheels off that bus, but history has shown us that Gordon Brown acted absolutely correctly in its aftermath, despite popular consensus at the time. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"This is a perfect example of why I don't trust labour with the economy. MP's attacking the lack of money being spent! I read it on here from people who suggest we can do X Y & Z and when asked how do we pay for that, the usual comment of "we are one of the richest nations in the world".
It is a challenging time and we need a government who can manage with direction and a strong backbone.
You don’t trust the labour with the economy because you were told not to trust labour with the economy, this is the new tactic.
If anything trust your own eyes. Instead of being gaslighted by those media outlets you ascribe to.
Assumption a plenty here. I have looked at this with my own eyes and I also have past experiences to pull on too. If anyone is trying to gaslight here, it could be you...
You only have to look at the way reporting changes during purdah to realise the inherent bias shown towards the incumbent government in normal times.
(And yes, the tabloids sucked up to new labour just as much as they now do the tories)"
I'm perfectly capable of assessing the information and it leads me back to exactly the same place, a mistrust of public funds.
People on the left are very good at demanding financial support without a clue or care where the money would come from, and more dangerously without understanding the consequences for the the economy, as a rule. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"This is a perfect example of why I don't trust labour with the economy. MP's attacking the lack of money being spent! I read it on here from people who suggest we can do X Y & Z and when asked how do we pay for that, the usual comment of "we are one of the richest nations in the world".
It is a challenging time and we need a government who can manage with direction and a strong backbone.
You don’t trust the labour with the economy because you were told not to trust labour with the economy, this is the new tactic.
If anything trust your own eyes. Instead of being gaslighted by those media outlets you ascribe to.
Assumption a plenty here. I have looked at this with my own eyes and I also have past experiences to pull on too. If anyone is trying to gaslight here, it could be you...
You only have to look at the way reporting changes during purdah to realise the inherent bias shown towards the incumbent government in normal times.
(And yes, the tabloids sucked up to new labour just as much as they now do the tories)
I'm perfectly capable of assessing the information and it leads me back to exactly the same place, a mistrust of public funds.
People on the left are very good at demanding financial support without a clue or care where the money would come from, and more dangerously without understanding the consequences for the the economy, as a rule. "
So you’ve analysed the economy under the last lab. govt, compared it to the economy they inherited and to the one we have now, and come to the conclusion that labour are the problem?
Man. Not sure how to respond to that. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Starmer said Labour will not change the policy of not being able to claim for children after the second one.
He's now on the receiving end of some of his own party.
What do you think, should there be a cap on benefits to 2 children or not?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/17/labour-mps-keir-starmer-tories-two-child-benefit-limit
No increase the benifit for the first one and that's it.
Also people are moaning about the cost of childcare if you can't afford it don't have it.
Having children is an investment into the future of your country.
Not everything should be looked through a self-centred lens."
What we should do is have more children, that neither myself nor anyone in my house wants, children that will literally affect our whole lives. Just so the country can be a better place in maybe 30 years time
Fuck that. If that makes us selfish then I'm being selfish. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Having children is an investment into the future of your country.
Not everything should be looked through a self-centred lens.
Bollocks!
No one at all has children because their country needs them. People have children because they want children.
I didn’t say that they didn’t. But the fact is that they are an investment in the future of the country. Every year our future scientists, engineers, builders and doctors are born.
We could as a nation choose to take a long term view of that, or we could take a self centred view.
So hang on, for our future we need an endless supply of migrants AND large families? Blimey, will there be any green fields and trees left?
I personally have not mentioned migrants, so I am not sure why you are saying this.
But as you have… Successive Governments have failed to identify the employment sectors which need to attract migrants. For example, it is often said that we must have immigration to staff the NHS, but no-one in Government is looking at ways of filling those roles internally by incentivising young people and students with low-cost options into medicine and nursing.
As I said, the babies, children and youth of our society are the future of the nation and Governments could choose to view them as such. "
If you are saying we somehow need an ever growing population, I disagree. Truth be told, overpopulation is the root cause of much of the world's problems. We need fewer people, not more. The advent of AI reinforces that point. What are people actually going to do in future, apart from eat? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"This is a perfect example of why I don't trust labour with the economy. MP's attacking the lack of money being spent! I read it on here from people who suggest we can do X Y & Z and when asked how do we pay for that, the usual comment of "we are one of the richest nations in the world".
It is a challenging time and we need a government who can manage with direction and a strong backbone.
You don’t trust the labour with the economy because you were told not to trust labour with the economy, this is the new tactic.
If anything trust your own eyes. Instead of being gaslighted by those media outlets you ascribe to.
Assumption a plenty here. I have looked at this with my own eyes and I also have past experiences to pull on too. If anyone is trying to gaslight here, it could be you...
You only have to look at the way reporting changes during purdah to realise the inherent bias shown towards the incumbent government in normal times.
(And yes, the tabloids sucked up to new labour just as much as they now do the tories)
I'm perfectly capable of assessing the information and it leads me back to exactly the same place, a mistrust of public funds.
People on the left are very good at demanding financial support without a clue or care where the money would come from, and more dangerously without understanding the consequences for the the economy, as a rule.
So you’ve analysed the economy under the last lab. govt, compared it to the economy they inherited and to the one we have now, and come to the conclusion that labour are the problem?
Man. Not sure how to respond to that. "
You are perfect example of the above, often calling for support and funding for a list as long as your arm and no idea other than closing tax loopholes and we are a leading world economy to explain how things would be paid for.
Calling for mortgage support as measures are put in place to get inflation down is another eye opener, labour MP's also calling for this, it shows a lack of understanding. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"This is a perfect example of why I don't trust labour with the economy. MP's attacking the lack of money being spent! I read it on here from people who suggest we can do X Y & Z and when asked how do we pay for that, the usual comment of "we are one of the richest nations in the world".
It is a challenging time and we need a government who can manage with direction and a strong backbone.
You don’t trust the labour with the economy because you were told not to trust labour with the economy, this is the new tactic.
If anything trust your own eyes. Instead of being gaslighted by those media outlets you ascribe to.
Assumption a plenty here. I have looked at this with my own eyes and I also have past experiences to pull on too. If anyone is trying to gaslight here, it could be you...
You only have to look at the way reporting changes during purdah to realise the inherent bias shown towards the incumbent government in normal times.
(And yes, the tabloids sucked up to new labour just as much as they now do the tories)
I'm perfectly capable of assessing the information and it leads me back to exactly the same place, a mistrust of public funds.
People on the left are very good at demanding financial support without a clue or care where the money would come from, and more dangerously without understanding the consequences for the the economy, as a rule.
So you’ve analysed the economy under the last lab. govt, compared it to the economy they inherited and to the one we have now, and come to the conclusion that labour are the problem?
Man. Not sure how to respond to that.
You are perfect example of the above, often calling for support and funding for a list as long as your arm and no idea other than closing tax loopholes and we are a leading world economy to explain how things would be paid for.
Calling for mortgage support as measures are put in place to get inflation down is another eye opener, labour MP's also calling for this, it shows a lack of understanding. "
I can call for lots of things - but I’m not an MP. That doesn’t change the recent empirical evidence that labour are better at handling the economy than the tories.
The tories have had thirteen years in power. Thirteen. Judge them on their actions, not your perception of what labour may or may not do in their place.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This is a perfect example of why I don't trust labour with the economy. MP's attacking the lack of money being spent! I read it on here from people who suggest we can do X Y & Z and when asked how do we pay for that, the usual comment of "we are one of the richest nations in the world".
It is a challenging time and we need a government who can manage with direction and a strong backbone.
You don’t trust the labour with the economy because you were told not to trust labour with the economy, this is the new tactic.
If anything trust your own eyes. Instead of being gaslighted by those media outlets you ascribe to.
Is that the same Labour that led the country into financial crisis in the 70's and had to beg the IMF for a £4 billion bailout? (£25 bil. in today's terms).
I think Starmer would have been a teenager then, wouldn’t he?
Do we judge Sunak’s tories for Black Wednesday?"
The people may have changed, but Labour's financial management skills haven't. Just this week, Starmer is trying to be financially responsible and gets pilloried by his own party. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"This is a perfect example of why I don't trust labour with the economy. MP's attacking the lack of money being spent! I read it on here from people who suggest we can do X Y & Z and when asked how do we pay for that, the usual comment of "we are one of the richest nations in the world".
It is a challenging time and we need a government who can manage with direction and a strong backbone.
You don’t trust the labour with the economy because you were told not to trust labour with the economy, this is the new tactic.
If anything trust your own eyes. Instead of being gaslighted by those media outlets you ascribe to.
Is that the same Labour that led the country into financial crisis in the 70's and had to beg the IMF for a £4 billion bailout? (£25 bil. in today's terms).
I think Starmer would have been a teenager then, wouldn’t he?
Do we judge Sunak’s tories for Black Wednesday?
The people may have changed, but Labour's financial management skills haven't. Just this week, Starmer is trying to be financially responsible and gets pilloried by his own party."
Why was the economy so strong under the last lab govt? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This is a perfect example of why I don't trust labour with the economy. MP's attacking the lack of money being spent! I read it on here from people who suggest we can do X Y & Z and when asked how do we pay for that, the usual comment of "we are one of the richest nations in the world".
It is a challenging time and we need a government who can manage with direction and a strong backbone.
You don’t trust the labour with the economy because you were told not to trust labour with the economy, this is the new tactic.
If anything trust your own eyes. Instead of being gaslighted by those media outlets you ascribe to.
Is that the same Labour that led the country into financial crisis in the 70's and had to beg the IMF for a £4 billion bailout? (£25 bil. in today's terms).
I think Starmer would have been a teenager then, wouldn’t he?
Do we judge Sunak’s tories for Black Wednesday?
The people may have changed, but Labour's financial management skills haven't. Just this week, Starmer is trying to be financially responsible and gets pilloried by his own party.
Why was the economy so strong under the last lab govt? "
We should give all credit to Tony Blairs Labour for the great state of the economy in the 00s.
We should not give any blame to Tony Blairs Labour for how they handled the financial crash.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This is a perfect example of why I don't trust labour with the economy. MP's attacking the lack of money being spent! I read it on here from people who suggest we can do X Y & Z and when asked how do we pay for that, the usual comment of "we are one of the richest nations in the world".
It is a challenging time and we need a government who can manage with direction and a strong backbone.
You don’t trust the labour with the economy because you were told not to trust labour with the economy, this is the new tactic.
If anything trust your own eyes. Instead of being gaslighted by those media outlets you ascribe to.
Is that the same Labour that led the country into financial crisis in the 70's and had to beg the IMF for a £4 billion bailout? (£25 bil. in today's terms).
I think Starmer would have been a teenager then, wouldn’t he?
Do we judge Sunak’s tories for Black Wednesday?
The people may have changed, but Labour's financial management skills haven't. Just this week, Starmer is trying to be financially responsible and gets pilloried by his own party.
Why was the economy so strong under the last lab govt? "
In two words : Thatcher reforms. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"This is a perfect example of why I don't trust labour with the economy. MP's attacking the lack of money being spent! I read it on here from people who suggest we can do X Y & Z and when asked how do we pay for that, the usual comment of "we are one of the richest nations in the world".
It is a challenging time and we need a government who can manage with direction and a strong backbone.
You don’t trust the labour with the economy because you were told not to trust labour with the economy, this is the new tactic.
If anything trust your own eyes. Instead of being gaslighted by those media outlets you ascribe to.
Is that the same Labour that led the country into financial crisis in the 70's and had to beg the IMF for a £4 billion bailout? (£25 bil. in today's terms).
I think Starmer would have been a teenager then, wouldn’t he?
Do we judge Sunak’s tories for Black Wednesday?
The people may have changed, but Labour's financial management skills haven't. Just this week, Starmer is trying to be financially responsible and gets pilloried by his own party.
Why was the economy so strong under the last lab govt?
We should give all credit to Tony Blairs Labour for the great state of the economy in the 00s.
We should not give any blame to Tony Blairs Labour for how they handled the financial crash.
"
The shrewdness of Gordon Brown’s work is only now being openly discussed. In 2008 he was stellar. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"This is a perfect example of why I don't trust labour with the economy. MP's attacking the lack of money being spent! I read it on here from people who suggest we can do X Y & Z and when asked how do we pay for that, the usual comment of "we are one of the richest nations in the world".
It is a challenging time and we need a government who can manage with direction and a strong backbone.
You don’t trust the labour with the economy because you were told not to trust labour with the economy, this is the new tactic.
If anything trust your own eyes. Instead of being gaslighted by those media outlets you ascribe to.
Is that the same Labour that led the country into financial crisis in the 70's and had to beg the IMF for a £4 billion bailout? (£25 bil. in today's terms).
I think Starmer would have been a teenager then, wouldn’t he?
Do we judge Sunak’s tories for Black Wednesday?
The people may have changed, but Labour's financial management skills haven't. Just this week, Starmer is trying to be financially responsible and gets pilloried by his own party.
Why was the economy so strong under the last lab govt?
In two words : Thatcher reforms. "
I don’t think we have an emoji for ‘piss myself laughing’ |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This is a perfect example of why I don't trust labour with the economy. MP's attacking the lack of money being spent! I read it on here from people who suggest we can do X Y & Z and when asked how do we pay for that, the usual comment of "we are one of the richest nations in the world".
It is a challenging time and we need a government who can manage with direction and a strong backbone.
You don’t trust the labour with the economy because you were told not to trust labour with the economy, this is the new tactic.
If anything trust your own eyes. Instead of being gaslighted by those media outlets you ascribe to.
Is that the same Labour that led the country into financial crisis in the 70's and had to beg the IMF for a £4 billion bailout? (£25 bil. in today's terms).
I think Starmer would have been a teenager then, wouldn’t he?
Do we judge Sunak’s tories for Black Wednesday?
The people may have changed, but Labour's financial management skills haven't. Just this week, Starmer is trying to be financially responsible and gets pilloried by his own party.
Why was the economy so strong under the last lab govt?
In two words : Thatcher reforms.
I don’t think we have an emoji for ‘piss myself laughing’ "
Maybe you missed the dire state of the nation pre-Thatcher then? It was no laughing matter for sure. I guess you had to be there to see how bad it was. Love her or loathe her, she fundamentally changed Britain's economy and prosperity. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"This is a perfect example of why I don't trust labour with the economy. MP's attacking the lack of money being spent! I read it on here from people who suggest we can do X Y & Z and when asked how do we pay for that, the usual comment of "we are one of the richest nations in the world".
It is a challenging time and we need a government who can manage with direction and a strong backbone.
You don’t trust the labour with the economy because you were told not to trust labour with the economy, this is the new tactic.
If anything trust your own eyes. Instead of being gaslighted by those media outlets you ascribe to.
Is that the same Labour that led the country into financial crisis in the 70's and had to beg the IMF for a £4 billion bailout? (£25 bil. in today's terms).
I think Starmer would have been a teenager then, wouldn’t he?
Do we judge Sunak’s tories for Black Wednesday?
The people may have changed, but Labour's financial management skills haven't. Just this week, Starmer is trying to be financially responsible and gets pilloried by his own party.
Why was the economy so strong under the last lab govt?
In two words : Thatcher reforms.
I don’t think we have an emoji for ‘piss myself laughing’
Maybe you missed the dire state of the nation pre-Thatcher then? It was no laughing matter for sure. I guess you had to be there to see how bad it was. Love her or loathe her, she fundamentally changed Britain's economy and prosperity."
I did see the state of the nation in 1992. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This is a perfect example of why I don't trust labour with the economy. MP's attacking the lack of money being spent! I read it on here from people who suggest we can do X Y & Z and when asked how do we pay for that, the usual comment of "we are one of the richest nations in the world".
It is a challenging time and we need a government who can manage with direction and a strong backbone.
You don’t trust the labour with the economy because you were told not to trust labour with the economy, this is the new tactic.
If anything trust your own eyes. Instead of being gaslighted by those media outlets you ascribe to.
Is that the same Labour that led the country into financial crisis in the 70's and had to beg the IMF for a £4 billion bailout? (£25 bil. in today's terms).
I think Starmer would have been a teenager then, wouldn’t he?
Do we judge Sunak’s tories for Black Wednesday?
The people may have changed, but Labour's financial management skills haven't. Just this week, Starmer is trying to be financially responsible and gets pilloried by his own party.
Why was the economy so strong under the last lab govt?
We should give all credit to Tony Blairs Labour for the great state of the economy in the 00s.
We should not give any blame to Tony Blairs Labour for how they handled the financial crash.
The shrewdness of Gordon Brown’s work is only now being openly discussed. In 2008 he was stellar. "
Gordon Brown will tell you himself that they let bankers do what they wanted. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This is a perfect example of why I don't trust labour with the economy. MP's attacking the lack of money being spent! I read it on here from people who suggest we can do X Y & Z and when asked how do we pay for that, the usual comment of "we are one of the richest nations in the world".
It is a challenging time and we need a government who can manage with direction and a strong backbone.
You don’t trust the labour with the economy because you were told not to trust labour with the economy, this is the new tactic.
If anything trust your own eyes. Instead of being gaslighted by those media outlets you ascribe to.
Is that the same Labour that led the country into financial crisis in the 70's and had to beg the IMF for a £4 billion bailout? (£25 bil. in today's terms).
I think Starmer would have been a teenager then, wouldn’t he?
Do we judge Sunak’s tories for Black Wednesday?
The people may have changed, but Labour's financial management skills haven't. Just this week, Starmer is trying to be financially responsible and gets pilloried by his own party.
Why was the economy so strong under the last lab govt?
In two words : Thatcher reforms.
I don’t think we have an emoji for ‘piss myself laughing’
Maybe you missed the dire state of the nation pre-Thatcher then? It was no laughing matter for sure. I guess you had to be there to see how bad it was. Love her or loathe her, she fundamentally changed Britain's economy and prosperity.
I did see the state of the nation in 1992. "
Indeed. Thatcher warned against ERM membership which caused the 1992 crash. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"This is a perfect example of why I don't trust labour with the economy. MP's attacking the lack of money being spent! I read it on here from people who suggest we can do X Y & Z and when asked how do we pay for that, the usual comment of "we are one of the richest nations in the world".
It is a challenging time and we need a government who can manage with direction and a strong backbone.
You don’t trust the labour with the economy because you were told not to trust labour with the economy, this is the new tactic.
If anything trust your own eyes. Instead of being gaslighted by those media outlets you ascribe to.
Is that the same Labour that led the country into financial crisis in the 70's and had to beg the IMF for a £4 billion bailout? (£25 bil. in today's terms).
I think Starmer would have been a teenager then, wouldn’t he?
Do we judge Sunak’s tories for Black Wednesday?
The people may have changed, but Labour's financial management skills haven't. Just this week, Starmer is trying to be financially responsible and gets pilloried by his own party.
Why was the economy so strong under the last lab govt?
In two words : Thatcher reforms.
I don’t think we have an emoji for ‘piss myself laughing’
Maybe you missed the dire state of the nation pre-Thatcher then? It was no laughing matter for sure. I guess you had to be there to see how bad it was. Love her or loathe her, she fundamentally changed Britain's economy and prosperity.
I did see the state of the nation in 1992.
Indeed. Thatcher warned against ERM membership which caused the 1992 crash."
Be that as it may, Thatcher’s reforms had no bearing on the U.K economy under new labour, which had to recover from the mismanaged finances under Major. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Starmer said Labour will not change the policy of not being able to claim for children after the second one.
He's now on the receiving end of some of his own party.
What do you think, should there be a cap on benefits to 2 children or not?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/17/labour-mps-keir-starmer-tories-two-child-benefit-limit"
Why should the state (i.e. us as taxpayers) pay for anyone else's children? There shouldn't be any benefits at all for any children.
Also in the news, some residents in South Wales are having to pay for meal vouchers for other people's children over the summer as their councils have decided to fund the vouchers from their own budgets. What other services are they cutting to fund this? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Starmer said Labour will not change the policy of not being able to claim for children after the second one.
He's now on the receiving end of some of his own party.
What do you think, should there be a cap on benefits to 2 children or not?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/17/labour-mps-keir-starmer-tories-two-child-benefit-limit
Why should the state (i.e. us as taxpayers) pay for anyone else's children? There shouldn't be any benefits at all for any children.
Also in the news, some residents in South Wales are having to pay for meal vouchers for other people's children over the summer as their councils have decided to fund the vouchers from their own budgets. What other services are they cutting to fund this?"
No child benefits = fewer children = work/pensions crisis, unless of course replaced by *mass* immigration.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Starmer said Labour will not change the policy of not being able to claim for children after the second one.
He's now on the receiving end of some of his own party.
What do you think, should there be a cap on benefits to 2 children or not?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/17/labour-mps-keir-starmer-tories-two-child-benefit-limit
Why should the state (i.e. us as taxpayers) pay for anyone else's children? There shouldn't be any benefits at all for any children.
Also in the news, some residents in South Wales are having to pay for meal vouchers for other people's children over the summer as their councils have decided to fund the vouchers from their own budgets. What other services are they cutting to fund this?
No child benefits = fewer children = work/pensions crisis, unless of course replaced by *mass* immigration.
"
This is slightly odd.
No child benefits = fewer children. Sounds very much like you're saying people have children for the benefits. We had children because we wanted children, have only ever received child benefit and could easily do without it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
In response to several recent posts:
1. Geo-political/worldwide economics provide wider context (both negative and positive) for how any govt of the day performs.
2. The 1970s had several crises that impacted the UK economy.
3. Thatcher’s govt did inherit a shitshow of an economy but you cannot lay all the blame at Labour’s feet and need to also look at what got us to that point all the way back to WWII.
4. Thatcher’s govt’s solution to an “empty treasury” was to sell off the family silver at knock down prices. It was a finite resource to gain “cash” and in some cases has stored up problems for the future as it was really only a short-term one-off solution. They also deregulated the financial markets that ultimately led to the 2007/8 crash.
5. Major, despite being “grey man and boring” actually got the UK into a fair state by the mid 90s but in the eyes of the electorate the damage was done.
6. Blair’s govt inherited an ok position and while they did a lot of good, the economic growth they enjoyed was building on a worldwide positive trend and was not of their making.
7. Brown (like Major) was dull and workmanlike and unpopular. He did make some mistakes (IMHO) as Chancellor but if you do some reading be is to be lauded for his actions on the international stage during the 07/08 financial crisis (actions that actually prevented financial armageddon and led the world).
8. However, those actions came at a cost (don’t they all - looking at you Covid).
The point is that when discussing whether Labour or the Conservatives are better with the economy it is highly inaccurate to make sweeping statements in attack or defence if either without taking into consideration the exogenous events that took place during (or prior to) their term in govt. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Starmer said Labour will not change the policy of not being able to claim for children after the second one.
He's now on the receiving end of some of his own party.
What do you think, should there be a cap on benefits to 2 children or not?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/17/labour-mps-keir-starmer-tories-two-child-benefit-limit
Why should the state (i.e. us as taxpayers) pay for anyone else's children? There shouldn't be any benefits at all for any children.
Also in the news, some residents in South Wales are having to pay for meal vouchers for other people's children over the summer as their councils have decided to fund the vouchers from their own budgets. What other services are they cutting to fund this?
No child benefits = fewer children = work/pensions crisis, unless of course replaced by *mass* immigration.
This is slightly odd.
No child benefits = fewer children. Sounds very much like you're saying people have children for the benefits. We had children because we wanted children, have only ever received child benefit and could easily do without it. "
Exactly. We have had the number of children we wanted and could afford. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Starmer said Labour will not change the policy of not being able to claim for children after the second one.
He's now on the receiving end of some of his own party.
What do you think, should there be a cap on benefits to 2 children or not?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/17/labour-mps-keir-starmer-tories-two-child-benefit-limit
Why should the state (i.e. us as taxpayers) pay for anyone else's children? There shouldn't be any benefits at all for any children.
Also in the news, some residents in South Wales are having to pay for meal vouchers for other people's children over the summer as their councils have decided to fund the vouchers from their own budgets. What other services are they cutting to fund this?
No child benefits = fewer children = work/pensions crisis, unless of course replaced by *mass* immigration.
This is slightly odd.
No child benefits = fewer children. Sounds very much like you're saying people have children for the benefits. We had children because we wanted children, have only ever received child benefit and could easily do without it. "
I don’t believe that people have children purely for benefits. I do believe that without benefits an increased number of families would feel less confident to have children for financial fears - real or imagined. And we’d probably see an increase in abortion rates as well.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Starmer said Labour will not change the policy of not being able to claim for children after the second one.
He's now on the receiving end of some of his own party.
What do you think, should there be a cap on benefits to 2 children or not?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/17/labour-mps-keir-starmer-tories-two-child-benefit-limit
Why should the state (i.e. us as taxpayers) pay for anyone else's children? There shouldn't be any benefits at all for any children.
Also in the news, some residents in South Wales are having to pay for meal vouchers for other people's children over the summer as their councils have decided to fund the vouchers from their own budgets. What other services are they cutting to fund this?
No child benefits = fewer children = work/pensions crisis, unless of course replaced by *mass* immigration.
This is slightly odd.
No child benefits = fewer children. Sounds very much like you're saying people have children for the benefits. We had children because we wanted children, have only ever received child benefit and could easily do without it.
I don’t believe that people have children purely for benefits. I do believe that without benefits an increased number of families would feel less confident to have children for financial fears - real or imagined. And we’d probably see an increase in abortion rates as well.
"
If people have financial fears then having children is the last thing they should be contemplating.
Re. Abortions. What's the problem with increased abortion rates? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This is a perfect example of why I don't trust labour with the economy. MP's attacking the lack of money being spent! I read it on here from people who suggest we can do X Y & Z and when asked how do we pay for that, the usual comment of "we are one of the richest nations in the world".
It is a challenging time and we need a government who can manage with direction and a strong backbone.
You don’t trust the labour with the economy because you were told not to trust labour with the economy, this is the new tactic.
If anything trust your own eyes. Instead of being gaslighted by those media outlets you ascribe to.
Is that the same Labour that led the country into financial crisis in the 70's and had to beg the IMF for a £4 billion bailout? (£25 bil. in today's terms).
I think Starmer would have been a teenager then, wouldn’t he?
Do we judge Sunak’s tories for Black Wednesday?
The people may have changed, but Labour's financial management skills haven't. Just this week, Starmer is trying to be financially responsible and gets pilloried by his own party.
Why was the economy so strong under the last lab govt?
In two words : Thatcher reforms.
I don’t think we have an emoji for ‘piss myself laughing’
Maybe you missed the dire state of the nation pre-Thatcher then? It was no laughing matter for sure. I guess you had to be there to see how bad it was. Love her or loathe her, she fundamentally changed Britain's economy and prosperity.
I did see the state of the nation in 1992.
Indeed. Thatcher warned against ERM membership which caused the 1992 crash.
Be that as it may, Thatcher’s reforms had no bearing on the U.K economy under new labour, which had to recover from the mismanaged finances under Major."
We still see the impact of Thatcher's reforms today for better or worse. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Starmer said Labour will not change the policy of not being able to claim for children after the second one.
He's now on the receiving end of some of his own party.
What do you think, should there be a cap on benefits to 2 children or not?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/17/labour-mps-keir-starmer-tories-two-child-benefit-limit
Why should the state (i.e. us as taxpayers) pay for anyone else's children? There shouldn't be any benefits at all for any children.
Also in the news, some residents in South Wales are having to pay for meal vouchers for other people's children over the summer as their councils have decided to fund the vouchers from their own budgets. What other services are they cutting to fund this?
No child benefits = fewer children = work/pensions crisis, unless of course replaced by *mass* immigration.
This is slightly odd.
No child benefits = fewer children. Sounds very much like you're saying people have children for the benefits. We had children because we wanted children, have only ever received child benefit and could easily do without it.
I don’t believe that people have children purely for benefits. I do believe that without benefits an increased number of families would feel less confident to have children for financial fears - real or imagined. And we’d probably see an increase in abortion rates as well.
If people have financial fears then having children is the last thing they should be contemplating.
Re. Abortions. What's the problem with increased abortion rates?"
I don’t recall saying it was a problem. I said it would be a likely consequence. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"In response to several recent posts:
1. Geo-political/worldwide economics provide wider context (both negative and positive) for how any govt of the day performs.
2. The 1970s had several crises that impacted the UK economy.
3. Thatcher’s govt did inherit a shitshow of an economy but you cannot lay all the blame at Labour’s feet and need to also look at what got us to that point all the way back to WWII.
4. Thatcher’s govt’s solution to an “empty treasury” was to sell off the family silver at knock down prices. It was a finite resource to gain “cash” and in some cases has stored up problems for the future as it was really only a short-term one-off solution. They also deregulated the financial markets that ultimately led to the 2007/8 crash.
5. Major, despite being “grey man and boring” actually got the UK into a fair state by the mid 90s but in the eyes of the electorate the damage was done.
6. Blair’s govt inherited an ok position and while they did a lot of good, the economic growth they enjoyed was building on a worldwide positive trend and was not of their making.
7. Brown (like Major) was dull and workmanlike and unpopular. He did make some mistakes (IMHO) as Chancellor but if you do some reading be is to be lauded for his actions on the international stage during the 07/08 financial crisis (actions that actually prevented financial armageddon and led the world).
8. However, those actions came at a cost (don’t they all - looking at you Covid).
The point is that when discussing whether Labour or the Conservatives are better with the economy it is highly inaccurate to make sweeping statements in attack or defence if either without taking into consideration the exogenous events that took place during (or prior to) their term in govt. "
4. That's statement is true. Isn't it also true that Labour had the opportunity to tighten those controls again? They had been in power for over 10 years.
You're last paragraph is 100% true but unfortunately no one cares, its so much more about point scoring and laying blame. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Starmer said Labour will not change the policy of not being able to claim for children after the second one.
He's now on the receiving end of some of his own party.
What do you think, should there be a cap on benefits to 2 children or not?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/17/labour-mps-keir-starmer-tories-two-child-benefit-limit
Why should the state (i.e. us as taxpayers) pay for anyone else's children? There shouldn't be any benefits at all for any children.
Also in the news, some residents in South Wales are having to pay for meal vouchers for other people's children over the summer as their councils have decided to fund the vouchers from their own budgets. What other services are they cutting to fund this?
No child benefits = fewer children = work/pensions crisis, unless of course replaced by *mass* immigration.
This is slightly odd.
No child benefits = fewer children. Sounds very much like you're saying people have children for the benefits. We had children because we wanted children, have only ever received child benefit and could easily do without it.
I don’t believe that people have children purely for benefits. I do believe that without benefits an increased number of families would feel less confident to have children for financial fears - real or imagined. And we’d probably see an increase in abortion rates as well.
If people have financial fears then having children is the last thing they should be contemplating.
Re. Abortions. What's the problem with increased abortion rates?
I don’t recall saying it was a problem. I said it would be a likely consequence."
OK, what was the purpose of the statement? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Starmer said Labour will not change the policy of not being able to claim for children after the second one.
He's now on the receiving end of some of his own party.
What do you think, should there be a cap on benefits to 2 children or not?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/17/labour-mps-keir-starmer-tories-two-child-benefit-limit
Why should the state (i.e. us as taxpayers) pay for anyone else's children? There shouldn't be any benefits at all for any children.
Also in the news, some residents in South Wales are having to pay for meal vouchers for other people's children over the summer as their councils have decided to fund the vouchers from their own budgets. What other services are they cutting to fund this?
No child benefits = fewer children = work/pensions crisis, unless of course replaced by *mass* immigration.
This is slightly odd.
No child benefits = fewer children. Sounds very much like you're saying people have children for the benefits. We had children because we wanted children, have only ever received child benefit and could easily do without it.
I don’t believe that people have children purely for benefits. I do believe that without benefits an increased number of families would feel less confident to have children for financial fears - real or imagined. And we’d probably see an increase in abortion rates as well.
If people have financial fears then having children is the last thing they should be contemplating.
Re. Abortions. What's the problem with increased abortion rates?
I don’t recall saying it was a problem. I said it would be a likely consequence.
OK, what was the purpose of the statement?"
To point out that some people may fall accidentally pregnant and removed benefits may impact their decision to carry or to terminate.
Seems logical, no? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Starmer said Labour will not change the policy of not being able to claim for children after the second one.
He's now on the receiving end of some of his own party.
What do you think, should there be a cap on benefits to 2 children or not?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/17/labour-mps-keir-starmer-tories-two-child-benefit-limit
Why should the state (i.e. us as taxpayers) pay for anyone else's children? There shouldn't be any benefits at all for any children.
Also in the news, some residents in South Wales are having to pay for meal vouchers for other people's children over the summer as their councils have decided to fund the vouchers from their own budgets. What other services are they cutting to fund this?
No child benefits = fewer children = work/pensions crisis, unless of course replaced by *mass* immigration.
This is slightly odd.
No child benefits = fewer children. Sounds very much like you're saying people have children for the benefits. We had children because we wanted children, have only ever received child benefit and could easily do without it.
I don’t believe that people have children purely for benefits. I do believe that without benefits an increased number of families would feel less confident to have children for financial fears - real or imagined. And we’d probably see an increase in abortion rates as well.
If people have financial fears then having children is the last thing they should be contemplating.
Re. Abortions. What's the problem with increased abortion rates?
I don’t recall saying it was a problem. I said it would be a likely consequence.
OK, what was the purpose of the statement?
To point out that some people may fall accidentally pregnant and removed benefits may impact their decision to carry or to terminate.
Seems logical, no? "
Not for me. If people are relying on benefits when deciding to have a child, they shouldn't be having said child. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Starmer said Labour will not change the policy of not being able to claim for children after the second one.
He's now on the receiving end of some of his own party.
What do you think, should there be a cap on benefits to 2 children or not?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/17/labour-mps-keir-starmer-tories-two-child-benefit-limit
Why should the state (i.e. us as taxpayers) pay for anyone else's children? There shouldn't be any benefits at all for any children.
Also in the news, some residents in South Wales are having to pay for meal vouchers for other people's children over the summer as their councils have decided to fund the vouchers from their own budgets. What other services are they cutting to fund this?
No child benefits = fewer children = work/pensions crisis, unless of course replaced by *mass* immigration.
This is slightly odd.
No child benefits = fewer children. Sounds very much like you're saying people have children for the benefits. We had children because we wanted children, have only ever received child benefit and could easily do without it.
I don’t believe that people have children purely for benefits. I do believe that without benefits an increased number of families would feel less confident to have children for financial fears - real or imagined. And we’d probably see an increase in abortion rates as well.
If people have financial fears then having children is the last thing they should be contemplating.
Re. Abortions. What's the problem with increased abortion rates?
I don’t recall saying it was a problem. I said it would be a likely consequence.
OK, what was the purpose of the statement?
To point out that some people may fall accidentally pregnant and removed benefits may impact their decision to carry or to terminate.
Seems logical, no?
Not for me. If people are relying on benefits when deciding to have a child, they shouldn't be having said child. "
That’s why I said fall accidentally pregnant in that example.
You can squabble over your personal beliefs all you like - if child support was withdrawn, we’d see a fall in births and likely an increase in abortions.
This would have an enormous knock-on effect years down the line. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"In response to several recent posts:
1. Geo-political/worldwide economics provide wider context (both negative and positive) for how any govt of the day performs.
2. The 1970s had several crises that impacted the UK economy.
3. Thatcher’s govt did inherit a shitshow of an economy but you cannot lay all the blame at Labour’s feet and need to also look at what got us to that point all the way back to WWII.
4. Thatcher’s govt’s solution to an “empty treasury” was to sell off the family silver at knock down prices. It was a finite resource to gain “cash” and in some cases has stored up problems for the future as it was really only a short-term one-off solution. They also deregulated the financial markets that ultimately led to the 2007/8 crash.
5. Major, despite being “grey man and boring” actually got the UK into a fair state by the mid 90s but in the eyes of the electorate the damage was done.
6. Blair’s govt inherited an ok position and while they did a lot of good, the economic growth they enjoyed was building on a worldwide positive trend and was not of their making.
7. Brown (like Major) was dull and workmanlike and unpopular. He did make some mistakes (IMHO) as Chancellor but if you do some reading be is to be lauded for his actions on the international stage during the 07/08 financial crisis (actions that actually prevented financial armageddon and led the world).
8. However, those actions came at a cost (don’t they all - looking at you Covid).
The point is that when discussing whether Labour or the Conservatives are better with the economy it is highly inaccurate to make sweeping statements in attack or defence if either without taking into consideration the exogenous events that took place during (or prior to) their term in govt.
4. That's statement is true. Isn't it also true that Labour had the opportunity to tighten those controls again? They had been in power for over 10 years.
You're last paragraph is 100% true but unfortunately no one cares, its so much more about point scoring and laying blame. "
Point 4 absolutely. Labour could have (re)regulated the financial markets BUT (always a but)...
Times were good. The economy was the most buoyant in decades (not just in the UK but around the world). The champagne was flowing. The exchequer was milking it. Public services were well funded. Plenty of jobs etc etc. Now imagine tinkering with that? The free market capitalists would be frothing at the mouth pointing out that the economic good times were all linked to the deregulation. It is only with hindsight people are able to say “why didn’t they do XYZ”.
As an aside, have you watched The Big Short? I recommend it. Great film, well made, and in layperson terms demystifies the financial crash. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Starmer said Labour will not change the policy of not being able to claim for children after the second one.
He's now on the receiving end of some of his own party.
What do you think, should there be a cap on benefits to 2 children or not?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/17/labour-mps-keir-starmer-tories-two-child-benefit-limit
Why should the state (i.e. us as taxpayers) pay for anyone else's children? There shouldn't be any benefits at all for any children.
Also in the news, some residents in South Wales are having to pay for meal vouchers for other people's children over the summer as their councils have decided to fund the vouchers from their own budgets. What other services are they cutting to fund this?
No child benefits = fewer children = work/pensions crisis, unless of course replaced by *mass* immigration.
This is slightly odd.
No child benefits = fewer children. Sounds very much like you're saying people have children for the benefits. We had children because we wanted children, have only ever received child benefit and could easily do without it.
I don’t believe that people have children purely for benefits. I do believe that without benefits an increased number of families would feel less confident to have children for financial fears - real or imagined. And we’d probably see an increase in abortion rates as well.
If people have financial fears then having children is the last thing they should be contemplating.
Re. Abortions. What's the problem with increased abortion rates?
I don’t recall saying it was a problem. I said it would be a likely consequence.
OK, what was the purpose of the statement?
To point out that some people may fall accidentally pregnant and removed benefits may impact their decision to carry or to terminate.
Seems logical, no?
Not for me. If people are relying on benefits when deciding to have a child, they shouldn't be having said child.
That’s why I said fall accidentally pregnant in that example.
You can squabble over your personal beliefs all you like - if child support was withdrawn, we’d see a fall in births and likely an increase in abortions.
This would have an enormous knock-on effect years down the line. "
People should probably take some personal responsibility. But the reality is that they don't.
Removing child support for the kids would likely push families and children further into poverty. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
Back on Child Benefits, should that be a universal benefit or is it right that you lose it if one partner in the household earns between £50-60k per year?
Is it right that a household where two partners both earn £49,999 keep it but another household where one partner earns £60k lose it? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Back on Child Benefits, should that be a universal benefit or is it right that you lose it if one partner in the household earns between £50-60k per year?
Is it right that a household where two partners both earn £49,999 keep it but another household where one partner earns £60k lose it?"
That was definitely the case, I believe it still is. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Back on Child Benefits, should that be a universal benefit or is it right that you lose it if one partner in the household earns between £50-60k per year?
Is it right that a household where two partners both earn £49,999 keep it but another household where one partner earns £60k lose it?
That was definitely the case, I believe it still is."
It is the case. Is it fair? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Back on Child Benefits, should that be a universal benefit or is it right that you lose it if one partner in the household earns between £50-60k per year?
Is it right that a household where two partners both earn £49,999 keep it but another household where one partner earns £60k lose it?
That was definitely the case, I believe it still is.
It is the case. Is it fair?"
No, far from it. Household income would be the only fair way to effectively means test such a system. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Starmer said Labour will not change the policy of not being able to claim for children after the second one.
He's now on the receiving end of some of his own party.
What do you think, should there be a cap on benefits to 2 children or not?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/17/labour-mps-keir-starmer-tories-two-child-benefit-limit
Why should the state (i.e. us as taxpayers) pay for anyone else's children? There shouldn't be any benefits at all for any children.
Also in the news, some residents in South Wales are having to pay for meal vouchers for other people's children over the summer as their councils have decided to fund the vouchers from their own budgets. What other services are they cutting to fund this?
No child benefits = fewer children = work/pensions crisis, unless of course replaced by *mass* immigration.
This is slightly odd.
No child benefits = fewer children. Sounds very much like you're saying people have children for the benefits. We had children because we wanted children, have only ever received child benefit and could easily do without it.
I don’t believe that people have children purely for benefits. I do believe that without benefits an increased number of families would feel less confident to have children for financial fears - real or imagined. And we’d probably see an increase in abortion rates as well.
If people have financial fears then having children is the last thing they should be contemplating.
Re. Abortions. What's the problem with increased abortion rates?
I don’t recall saying it was a problem. I said it would be a likely consequence.
OK, what was the purpose of the statement?
To point out that some people may fall accidentally pregnant and removed benefits may impact their decision to carry or to terminate.
Seems logical, no?
Not for me. If people are relying on benefits when deciding to have a child, they shouldn't be having said child.
That’s why I said fall accidentally pregnant in that example.
You can squabble over your personal beliefs all you like - if child support was withdrawn, we’d see a fall in births and likely an increase in abortions.
This would have an enormous knock-on effect years down the line. "
Of course, accidental pregnancy.
How about personal responsibility, you have an 'accident', you deal with the consequences. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Back on Child Benefits, should that be a universal benefit or is it right that you lose it if one partner in the household earns between £50-60k per year?
Is it right that a household where two partners both earn £49,999 keep it but another household where one partner earns £60k lose it?
That was definitely the case, I believe it still is.
It is the case. Is it fair?"
Is it fair? Probably not but life isn't fair.
Do away with child benefit. That fixes that conundrum. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"In response to several recent posts:
1. Geo-political/worldwide economics provide wider context (both negative and positive) for how any govt of the day performs.
2. The 1970s had several crises that impacted the UK economy.
3. Thatcher’s govt did inherit a shitshow of an economy but you cannot lay all the blame at Labour’s feet and need to also look at what got us to that point all the way back to WWII.
4. Thatcher’s govt’s solution to an “empty treasury” was to sell off the family silver at knock down prices. It was a finite resource to gain “cash” and in some cases has stored up problems for the future as it was really only a short-term one-off solution. They also deregulated the financial markets that ultimately led to the 2007/8 crash.
5. Major, despite being “grey man and boring” actually got the UK into a fair state by the mid 90s but in the eyes of the electorate the damage was done.
6. Blair’s govt inherited an ok position and while they did a lot of good, the economic growth they enjoyed was building on a worldwide positive trend and was not of their making.
7. Brown (like Major) was dull and workmanlike and unpopular. He did make some mistakes (IMHO) as Chancellor but if you do some reading be is to be lauded for his actions on the international stage during the 07/08 financial crisis (actions that actually prevented financial armageddon and led the world).
8. However, those actions came at a cost (don’t they all - looking at you Covid).
The point is that when discussing whether Labour or the Conservatives are better with the economy it is highly inaccurate to make sweeping statements in attack or defence if either without taking into consideration the exogenous events that took place during (or prior to) their term in govt.
4. That's statement is true. Isn't it also true that Labour had the opportunity to tighten those controls again? They had been in power for over 10 years.
You're last paragraph is 100% true but unfortunately no one cares, its so much more about point scoring and laying blame.
Point 4 absolutely. Labour could have (re)regulated the financial markets BUT (always a but)...
Times were good. The economy was the most buoyant in decades (not just in the UK but around the world). The champagne was flowing. The exchequer was milking it. Public services were well funded. Plenty of jobs etc etc. Now imagine tinkering with that? The free market capitalists would be frothing at the mouth pointing out that the economic good times were all linked to the deregulation. It is only with hindsight people are able to say “why didn’t they do XYZ”.
As an aside, have you watched The Big Short? I recommend it. Great film, well made, and in layperson terms demystifies the financial crash. "
I think that's the point. There is always a BUT.
Not one governement is responsible for everything and anything, BUT people want to score points. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Back on Child Benefits, should that be a universal benefit or is it right that you lose it if one partner in the household earns between £50-60k per year?
Is it right that a household where two partners both earn £49,999 keep it but another household where one partner earns £60k lose it?
That was definitely the case, I believe it still is.
It is the case. Is it fair?
Is it fair? Probably not but life isn't fair.
Do away with child benefit. That fixes that conundrum."
And the future economic impact of fewer births?
How are you solving the pension crisis you just created?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Back on Child Benefits, should that be a universal benefit or is it right that you lose it if one partner in the household earns between £50-60k per year?
Is it right that a household where two partners both earn £49,999 keep it but another household where one partner earns £60k lose it?
That was definitely the case, I believe it still is.
It is the case. Is it fair?
Is it fair? Probably not but life isn't fair.
Do away with child benefit. That fixes that conundrum.
And the future economic impact of fewer births?
How are you solving the pension crisis you just created?
"
Is there data to support your assertion or is it just your belief that we would see fewer births?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Back on Child Benefits, should that be a universal benefit or is it right that you lose it if one partner in the household earns between £50-60k per year?
Is it right that a household where two partners both earn £49,999 keep it but another household where one partner earns £60k lose it?
That was definitely the case, I believe it still is.
It is the case. Is it fair?
Is it fair? Probably not but life isn't fair.
Do away with child benefit. That fixes that conundrum.
And the future economic impact of fewer births?
How are you solving the pension crisis you just created?
Is there data to support your assertion or is it just your belief that we would see fewer births?
"
Here’s some data from Spain
https://bse.eu/file/8108/download?token=j4sLFbkf |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Back on Child Benefits, should that be a universal benefit or is it right that you lose it if one partner in the household earns between £50-60k per year?
Is it right that a household where two partners both earn £49,999 keep it but another household where one partner earns £60k lose it?
That was definitely the case, I believe it still is.
It is the case. Is it fair?
Is it fair? Probably not but life isn't fair.
Do away with child benefit. That fixes that conundrum.
And the future economic impact of fewer births?
How are you solving the pension crisis you just created?
Is there data to support your assertion or is it just your belief that we would see fewer births?
Here’s some data from Spain
https://bse.eu/file/8108/download?token=j4sLFbkf"
Isn't that about them removing the 'lump sum'? Of course a lump sum would increase idiots having kids.
Let me ask you, yesterday you said this "We need to have fewer children, not more. Not just the U.K. but worldwide."
How does this square with you now arguing we shouldn't get rid of benefits because it'll do exactly what you think we should do anyway?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Back on Child Benefits, should that be a universal benefit or is it right that you lose it if one partner in the household earns between £50-60k per year?
Is it right that a household where two partners both earn £49,999 keep it but another household where one partner earns £60k lose it?
That was definitely the case, I believe it still is.
It is the case. Is it fair?
Is it fair? Probably not but life isn't fair.
Do away with child benefit. That fixes that conundrum.
And the future economic impact of fewer births?
How are you solving the pension crisis you just created?
Is there data to support your assertion or is it just your belief that we would see fewer births?
Here’s some data from Spain
https://bse.eu/file/8108/download?token=j4sLFbkf
Isn't that about them removing the 'lump sum'? Of course a lump sum would increase idiots having kids.
Let me ask you, yesterday you said this "We need to have fewer children, not more. Not just the U.K. but worldwide."
How does this square with you now arguing we shouldn't get rid of benefits because it'll do exactly what you think we should do anyway?
"
We do need to have fewer kids, globally. I’m just not naive enough to think it’s going to happen any time soon.
Ideally we need a slow reduction in global birth rates managed carefully to avoid future financial collapse in individual nations and increased poverty in low income areas.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Back on Child Benefits, should that be a universal benefit or is it right that you lose it if one partner in the household earns between £50-60k per year?
Is it right that a household where two partners both earn £49,999 keep it but another household where one partner earns £60k lose it?
That was definitely the case, I believe it still is.
It is the case. Is it fair?
Is it fair? Probably not but life isn't fair.
Do away with child benefit. That fixes that conundrum.
And the future economic impact of fewer births?
How are you solving the pension crisis you just created?
Is there data to support your assertion or is it just your belief that we would see fewer births?
Here’s some data from Spain
https://bse.eu/file/8108/download?token=j4sLFbkf
Isn't that about them removing the 'lump sum'? Of course a lump sum would increase idiots having kids.
Let me ask you, yesterday you said this "We need to have fewer children, not more. Not just the U.K. but worldwide."
How does this square with you now arguing we shouldn't get rid of benefits because it'll do exactly what you think we should do anyway?
We do need to have fewer kids, globally. I’m just not naive enough to think it’s going to happen any time soon.
Ideally we need a slow reduction in global birth rates managed carefully to avoid future financial collapse in individual nations and increased poverty in low income areas.
"
I've given you an option that you say will reduce birth rates. Not good enough, never is. That's the socialist in you.
'we need a slow reduction in global birth rates managed carefully'
Tbh, that sounds more like communism than socialism. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Back on Child Benefits, should that be a universal benefit or is it right that you lose it if one partner in the household earns between £50-60k per year?
Is it right that a household where two partners both earn £49,999 keep it but another household where one partner earns £60k lose it?
That was definitely the case, I believe it still is.
It is the case. Is it fair?
Is it fair? Probably not but life isn't fair.
Do away with child benefit. That fixes that conundrum.
And the future economic impact of fewer births?
How are you solving the pension crisis you just created?
Is there data to support your assertion or is it just your belief that we would see fewer births?
Here’s some data from Spain
https://bse.eu/file/8108/download?token=j4sLFbkf
Isn't that about them removing the 'lump sum'? Of course a lump sum would increase idiots having kids.
Let me ask you, yesterday you said this "We need to have fewer children, not more. Not just the U.K. but worldwide."
How does this square with you now arguing we shouldn't get rid of benefits because it'll do exactly what you think we should do anyway?
We do need to have fewer kids, globally. I’m just not naive enough to think it’s going to happen any time soon.
Ideally we need a slow reduction in global birth rates managed carefully to avoid future financial collapse in individual nations and increased poverty in low income areas.
I've given you an option that you say will reduce birth rates. Not good enough, never is. That's the socialist in you.
'we need a slow reduction in global birth rates managed carefully'
Tbh, that sounds more like communism than socialism."
It’s not controversial to point out that the population trend can’t continue indefinitely.
And the socialist in me wants to save what we can of the planet for future generations without forcing people into poverty. I don’t feel the need to apologise for that. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Back on Child Benefits, should that be a universal benefit or is it right that you lose it if one partner in the household earns between £50-60k per year?
Is it right that a household where two partners both earn £49,999 keep it but another household where one partner earns £60k lose it?
That was definitely the case, I believe it still is.
It is the case. Is it fair?
Is it fair? Probably not but life isn't fair.
Do away with child benefit. That fixes that conundrum.
And the future economic impact of fewer births?
How are you solving the pension crisis you just created?
Is there data to support your assertion or is it just your belief that we would see fewer births?
Here’s some data from Spain
https://bse.eu/file/8108/download?token=j4sLFbkf
Isn't that about them removing the 'lump sum'? Of course a lump sum would increase idiots having kids.
Let me ask you, yesterday you said this "We need to have fewer children, not more. Not just the U.K. but worldwide."
How does this square with you now arguing we shouldn't get rid of benefits because it'll do exactly what you think we should do anyway?
We do need to have fewer kids, globally. I’m just not naive enough to think it’s going to happen any time soon.
Ideally we need a slow reduction in global birth rates managed carefully to avoid future financial collapse in individual nations and increased poverty in low income areas.
I've given you an option that you say will reduce birth rates. Not good enough, never is. That's the socialist in you.
'we need a slow reduction in global birth rates managed carefully'
Tbh, that sounds more like communism than socialism.
It’s not controversial to point out that the population trend can’t continue indefinitely.
And the socialist in me wants to save what we can of the planet for future generations without forcing people into poverty. I don’t feel the need to apologise for that. "
No, it's not controversial. The controversy is the flip flopping.
You're looking for utopia which doesn't exist, there has to be some give and take. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Back on Child Benefits, should that be a universal benefit or is it right that you lose it if one partner in the household earns between £50-60k per year?
Is it right that a household where two partners both earn £49,999 keep it but another household where one partner earns £60k lose it?
That was definitely the case, I believe it still is.
It is the case. Is it fair?
Is it fair? Probably not but life isn't fair.
Do away with child benefit. That fixes that conundrum.
And the future economic impact of fewer births?
How are you solving the pension crisis you just created?
Is there data to support your assertion or is it just your belief that we would see fewer births?
Here’s some data from Spain
https://bse.eu/file/8108/download?token=j4sLFbkf
Isn't that about them removing the 'lump sum'? Of course a lump sum would increase idiots having kids.
Let me ask you, yesterday you said this "We need to have fewer children, not more. Not just the U.K. but worldwide."
How does this square with you now arguing we shouldn't get rid of benefits because it'll do exactly what you think we should do anyway?
We do need to have fewer kids, globally. I’m just not naive enough to think it’s going to happen any time soon.
Ideally we need a slow reduction in global birth rates managed carefully to avoid future financial collapse in individual nations and increased poverty in low income areas.
"
I know you know this...Birth rates in first world countries are generally lower than in third world countries. That is partly cultural and reflects the traditional needs of having children to look after you in old age and to address infant mortality rates. Nothing will change until more third world countries are lifted out of poverty (as there is a correlation between a countries wealth and birth rates).
In terms of the first world state pension conundrum, some radical thinking is required.
While I accept, based on historical precedents, that innovation (automation) doesn’t necessarily reduce/destroy jobs but in fact creates new jobs, combining that shift with reduced birthrates could still lead to a smaller workforce. So that results in either higher taxes or a requirement for immigration (assuming the jobs are there). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Back on Child Benefits, should that be a universal benefit or is it right that you lose it if one partner in the household earns between £50-60k per year?
Is it right that a household where two partners both earn £49,999 keep it but another household where one partner earns £60k lose it?
That was definitely the case, I believe it still is.
It is the case. Is it fair?
Is it fair? Probably not but life isn't fair.
Do away with child benefit. That fixes that conundrum.
And the future economic impact of fewer births?
How are you solving the pension crisis you just created?
Is there data to support your assertion or is it just your belief that we would see fewer births?
Here’s some data from Spain
https://bse.eu/file/8108/download?token=j4sLFbkf
Isn't that about them removing the 'lump sum'? Of course a lump sum would increase idiots having kids.
Let me ask you, yesterday you said this "We need to have fewer children, not more. Not just the U.K. but worldwide."
How does this square with you now arguing we shouldn't get rid of benefits because it'll do exactly what you think we should do anyway?
We do need to have fewer kids, globally. I’m just not naive enough to think it’s going to happen any time soon.
Ideally we need a slow reduction in global birth rates managed carefully to avoid future financial collapse in individual nations and increased poverty in low income areas.
I know you know this...Birth rates in first world countries are generally lower than in third world countries. That is partly cultural and reflects the traditional needs of having children to look after you in old age and to address infant mortality rates. Nothing will change until more third world countries are lifted out of poverty (as there is a correlation between a countries wealth and birth rates).
In terms of the first world state pension conundrum, some radical thinking is required.
While I accept, based on historical precedents, that innovation (automation) doesn’t necessarily reduce/destroy jobs but in fact creates new jobs, combining that shift with reduced birthrates could still lead to a smaller workforce. So that results in either higher taxes or a requirement for immigration (assuming the jobs are there). "
*country’s wealth (oh dear bad me) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Back on Child Benefits, should that be a universal benefit or is it right that you lose it if one partner in the household earns between £50-60k per year?
Is it right that a household where two partners both earn £49,999 keep it but another household where one partner earns £60k lose it?
That was definitely the case, I believe it still is.
It is the case. Is it fair?
Is it fair? Probably not but life isn't fair.
Do away with child benefit. That fixes that conundrum.
And the future economic impact of fewer births?
How are you solving the pension crisis you just created?
Is there data to support your assertion or is it just your belief that we would see fewer births?
Here’s some data from Spain
https://bse.eu/file/8108/download?token=j4sLFbkf
Isn't that about them removing the 'lump sum'? Of course a lump sum would increase idiots having kids.
Let me ask you, yesterday you said this "We need to have fewer children, not more. Not just the U.K. but worldwide."
How does this square with you now arguing we shouldn't get rid of benefits because it'll do exactly what you think we should do anyway?
We do need to have fewer kids, globally. I’m just not naive enough to think it’s going to happen any time soon.
Ideally we need a slow reduction in global birth rates managed carefully to avoid future financial collapse in individual nations and increased poverty in low income areas.
I've given you an option that you say will reduce birth rates. Not good enough, never is. That's the socialist in you.
'we need a slow reduction in global birth rates managed carefully'
Tbh, that sounds more like communism than socialism.
It’s not controversial to point out that the population trend can’t continue indefinitely.
And the socialist in me wants to save what we can of the planet for future generations without forcing people into poverty. I don’t feel the need to apologise for that.
No, it's not controversial. The controversy is the flip flopping.
You're looking for utopia which doesn't exist, there has to be some give and take."
I’ve not flip-flopped - you’re the one trying to pretend this is a simple binary issue.
We can’t simply stop child credits without dramatically changing the economy of the future. That doesn’t mean we don’t have to look at a means of reducing birth rates for the greater good of the planet.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Back on Child Benefits, should that be a universal benefit or is it right that you lose it if one partner in the household earns between £50-60k per year?
Is it right that a household where two partners both earn £49,999 keep it but another household where one partner earns £60k lose it?
That was definitely the case, I believe it still is.
It is the case. Is it fair?
Is it fair? Probably not but life isn't fair.
Do away with child benefit. That fixes that conundrum.
And the future economic impact of fewer births?
How are you solving the pension crisis you just created?
Is there data to support your assertion or is it just your belief that we would see fewer births?
Here’s some data from Spain
https://bse.eu/file/8108/download?token=j4sLFbkf
Isn't that about them removing the 'lump sum'? Of course a lump sum would increase idiots having kids.
Let me ask you, yesterday you said this "We need to have fewer children, not more. Not just the U.K. but worldwide."
How does this square with you now arguing we shouldn't get rid of benefits because it'll do exactly what you think we should do anyway?
We do need to have fewer kids, globally. I’m just not naive enough to think it’s going to happen any time soon.
Ideally we need a slow reduction in global birth rates managed carefully to avoid future financial collapse in individual nations and increased poverty in low income areas.
I've given you an option that you say will reduce birth rates. Not good enough, never is. That's the socialist in you.
'we need a slow reduction in global birth rates managed carefully'
Tbh, that sounds more like communism than socialism.
It’s not controversial to point out that the population trend can’t continue indefinitely.
And the socialist in me wants to save what we can of the planet for future generations without forcing people into poverty. I don’t feel the need to apologise for that.
No, it's not controversial. The controversy is the flip flopping.
You're looking for utopia which doesn't exist, there has to be some give and take.
I’ve not flip-flopped - you’re the one trying to pretend this is a simple binary issue.
We can’t simply stop child credits without dramatically changing the economy of the future. That doesn’t mean we don’t have to look at a means of reducing birth rates for the greater good of the planet.
"
As I said already, it's never good enough. You want population reduced, there's an option. You reject the option (your right) but offer nothing else, nothing at all. Just an idealistic look at the world.
As I've also said, something has to give. The world isn't fair. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Back on Child Benefits, should that be a universal benefit or is it right that you lose it if one partner in the household earns between £50-60k per year?
Is it right that a household where two partners both earn £49,999 keep it but another household where one partner earns £60k lose it?
That was definitely the case, I believe it still is.
It is the case. Is it fair?
Is it fair? Probably not but life isn't fair.
Do away with child benefit. That fixes that conundrum.
And the future economic impact of fewer births?
How are you solving the pension crisis you just created?
Is there data to support your assertion or is it just your belief that we would see fewer births?
Here’s some data from Spain
https://bse.eu/file/8108/download?token=j4sLFbkf
Isn't that about them removing the 'lump sum'? Of course a lump sum would increase idiots having kids.
Let me ask you, yesterday you said this "We need to have fewer children, not more. Not just the U.K. but worldwide."
How does this square with you now arguing we shouldn't get rid of benefits because it'll do exactly what you think we should do anyway?
We do need to have fewer kids, globally. I’m just not naive enough to think it’s going to happen any time soon.
Ideally we need a slow reduction in global birth rates managed carefully to avoid future financial collapse in individual nations and increased poverty in low income areas.
I've given you an option that you say will reduce birth rates. Not good enough, never is. That's the socialist in you.
'we need a slow reduction in global birth rates managed carefully'
Tbh, that sounds more like communism than socialism.
It’s not controversial to point out that the population trend can’t continue indefinitely.
And the socialist in me wants to save what we can of the planet for future generations without forcing people into poverty. I don’t feel the need to apologise for that.
No, it's not controversial. The controversy is the flip flopping.
You're looking for utopia which doesn't exist, there has to be some give and take.
I’ve not flip-flopped - you’re the one trying to pretend this is a simple binary issue.
We can’t simply stop child credits without dramatically changing the economy of the future. That doesn’t mean we don’t have to look at a means of reducing birth rates for the greater good of the planet.
As I said already, it's never good enough. You want population reduced, there's an option. You reject the option (your right) but offer nothing else, nothing at all. Just an idealistic look at the world.
As I've also said, something has to give. The world isn't fair. "
Your option creates a pension crisis. Happy to go without your pension because we have a shortage of workers in 20-25 years time?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Back on Child Benefits, should that be a universal benefit or is it right that you lose it if one partner in the household earns between £50-60k per year?
Is it right that a household where two partners both earn £49,999 keep it but another household where one partner earns £60k lose it?
That was definitely the case, I believe it still is.
It is the case. Is it fair?
Is it fair? Probably not but life isn't fair.
Do away with child benefit. That fixes that conundrum.
And the future economic impact of fewer births?
How are you solving the pension crisis you just created?
Is there data to support your assertion or is it just your belief that we would see fewer births?
Here’s some data from Spain
https://bse.eu/file/8108/download?token=j4sLFbkf
Isn't that about them removing the 'lump sum'? Of course a lump sum would increase idiots having kids.
Let me ask you, yesterday you said this "We need to have fewer children, not more. Not just the U.K. but worldwide."
How does this square with you now arguing we shouldn't get rid of benefits because it'll do exactly what you think we should do anyway?
We do need to have fewer kids, globally. I’m just not naive enough to think it’s going to happen any time soon.
Ideally we need a slow reduction in global birth rates managed carefully to avoid future financial collapse in individual nations and increased poverty in low income areas.
I've given you an option that you say will reduce birth rates. Not good enough, never is. That's the socialist in you.
'we need a slow reduction in global birth rates managed carefully'
Tbh, that sounds more like communism than socialism.
It’s not controversial to point out that the population trend can’t continue indefinitely.
And the socialist in me wants to save what we can of the planet for future generations without forcing people into poverty. I don’t feel the need to apologise for that.
No, it's not controversial. The controversy is the flip flopping.
You're looking for utopia which doesn't exist, there has to be some give and take.
I’ve not flip-flopped - you’re the one trying to pretend this is a simple binary issue.
We can’t simply stop child credits without dramatically changing the economy of the future. That doesn’t mean we don’t have to look at a means of reducing birth rates for the greater good of the planet.
As I said already, it's never good enough. You want population reduced, there's an option. You reject the option (your right) but offer nothing else, nothing at all. Just an idealistic look at the world.
As I've also said, something has to give. The world isn't fair.
Your option creates a pension crisis. Happy to go without your pension because we have a shortage of workers in 20-25 years time?
"
I won't be relying on a state pension.
What is your suggestion? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Back on Child Benefits, should that be a universal benefit or is it right that you lose it if one partner in the household earns between £50-60k per year?
Is it right that a household where two partners both earn £49,999 keep it but another household where one partner earns £60k lose it?
That was definitely the case, I believe it still is.
It is the case. Is it fair?
Is it fair? Probably not but life isn't fair.
Do away with child benefit. That fixes that conundrum.
And the future economic impact of fewer births?
How are you solving the pension crisis you just created?
Is there data to support your assertion or is it just your belief that we would see fewer births?
Here’s some data from Spain
https://bse.eu/file/8108/download?token=j4sLFbkf
Isn't that about them removing the 'lump sum'? Of course a lump sum would increase idiots having kids.
Let me ask you, yesterday you said this "We need to have fewer children, not more. Not just the U.K. but worldwide."
How does this square with you now arguing we shouldn't get rid of benefits because it'll do exactly what you think we should do anyway?
We do need to have fewer kids, globally. I’m just not naive enough to think it’s going to happen any time soon.
Ideally we need a slow reduction in global birth rates managed carefully to avoid future financial collapse in individual nations and increased poverty in low income areas.
I've given you an option that you say will reduce birth rates. Not good enough, never is. That's the socialist in you.
'we need a slow reduction in global birth rates managed carefully'
Tbh, that sounds more like communism than socialism.
It’s not controversial to point out that the population trend can’t continue indefinitely.
And the socialist in me wants to save what we can of the planet for future generations without forcing people into poverty. I don’t feel the need to apologise for that.
No, it's not controversial. The controversy is the flip flopping.
You're looking for utopia which doesn't exist, there has to be some give and take.
I’ve not flip-flopped - you’re the one trying to pretend this is a simple binary issue.
We can’t simply stop child credits without dramatically changing the economy of the future. That doesn’t mean we don’t have to look at a means of reducing birth rates for the greater good of the planet.
As I said already, it's never good enough. You want population reduced, there's an option. You reject the option (your right) but offer nothing else, nothing at all. Just an idealistic look at the world.
As I've also said, something has to give. The world isn't fair.
Your option creates a pension crisis. Happy to go without your pension because we have a shortage of workers in 20-25 years time?
I won't be relying on a state pension.
What is your suggestion?"
Ah well that’s ok then. The pension crisis won’t matter because you don’t be relying on a state pension.
As it happens, nor will I - I’m very fortunate in that sense, but the vast majority aren’t. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Your option creates a pension crisis. Happy to go without your pension because we have a shortage of workers in 20-25 years time?
"
I won't be relying on a state pension.
What is your suggestion?"
If the decision was made to have a smaller population (lower birthrate, less immigration, AND less jobs = less taxpayers) then a radical state pension overhaul would be needed.
There would need to be a short term guarantee on the pensions for today’s workers, with the shortfall in the tax revenues that will be funding their pensions when they retire covered by stare borrowing. Anyone entering the workforce after a cut off point will then have to have a new pension arrangement (ie some of the money they pay in tax/NI actually gets put into a pension pot just for them). This would then eventually even back out (might take a generation to sort out) and would need some kind of constitutional protection so no govt with short term objectives could overturn it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Your option creates a pension crisis. Happy to go without your pension because we have a shortage of workers in 20-25 years time?
"
I won't be relying on a state pension.
What is your suggestion?
If the decision was made to have a smaller population (lower birthrate, less immigration, AND less jobs = less taxpayers) then a radical state pension overhaul would be needed.
"
This isn't what he wants though.
From what I can make out he'd like a lower birth rate/less worldwide population, whilst having no borders.
I would argue that open borders will increase our local population. And his view on AI is that we will have less jobs.
You just can't square that. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Back on Child Benefits, should that be a universal benefit or is it right that you lose it if one partner in the household earns between £50-60k per year?
Is it right that a household where two partners both earn £49,999 keep it but another household where one partner earns £60k lose it?
That was definitely the case, I believe it still is.
It is the case. Is it fair?
Is it fair? Probably not but life isn't fair.
Do away with child benefit. That fixes that conundrum.
And the future economic impact of fewer births?
How are you solving the pension crisis you just created?
Is there data to support your assertion or is it just your belief that we would see fewer births?
Here’s some data from Spain
https://bse.eu/file/8108/download?token=j4sLFbkf
Isn't that about them removing the 'lump sum'? Of course a lump sum would increase idiots having kids.
Let me ask you, yesterday you said this "We need to have fewer children, not more. Not just the U.K. but worldwide."
How does this square with you now arguing we shouldn't get rid of benefits because it'll do exactly what you think we should do anyway?
We do need to have fewer kids, globally. I’m just not naive enough to think it’s going to happen any time soon.
Ideally we need a slow reduction in global birth rates managed carefully to avoid future financial collapse in individual nations and increased poverty in low income areas.
I've given you an option that you say will reduce birth rates. Not good enough, never is. That's the socialist in you.
'we need a slow reduction in global birth rates managed carefully'
Tbh, that sounds more like communism than socialism.
It’s not controversial to point out that the population trend can’t continue indefinitely.
And the socialist in me wants to save what we can of the planet for future generations without forcing people into poverty. I don’t feel the need to apologise for that.
No, it's not controversial. The controversy is the flip flopping.
You're looking for utopia which doesn't exist, there has to be some give and take.
I’ve not flip-flopped - you’re the one trying to pretend this is a simple binary issue.
We can’t simply stop child credits without dramatically changing the economy of the future. That doesn’t mean we don’t have to look at a means of reducing birth rates for the greater good of the planet.
As I said already, it's never good enough. You want population reduced, there's an option. You reject the option (your right) but offer nothing else, nothing at all. Just an idealistic look at the world.
As I've also said, something has to give. The world isn't fair.
Your option creates a pension crisis. Happy to go without your pension because we have a shortage of workers in 20-25 years time?
I won't be relying on a state pension.
What is your suggestion?
Ah well that’s ok then. The pension crisis won’t matter because you don’t be relying on a state pension.
As it happens, nor will I - I’m very fortunate in that sense, but the vast majority aren’t. "
Still no actual ideas then? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Back on Child Benefits, should that be a universal benefit or is it right that you lose it if one partner in the household earns between £50-60k per year?
Is it right that a household where two partners both earn £49,999 keep it but another household where one partner earns £60k lose it?
That was definitely the case, I believe it still is.
It is the case. Is it fair?
Is it fair? Probably not but life isn't fair.
Do away with child benefit. That fixes that conundrum.
And the future economic impact of fewer births?
How are you solving the pension crisis you just created?
Is there data to support your assertion or is it just your belief that we would see fewer births?
Here’s some data from Spain
https://bse.eu/file/8108/download?token=j4sLFbkf
Isn't that about them removing the 'lump sum'? Of course a lump sum would increase idiots having kids.
Let me ask you, yesterday you said this "We need to have fewer children, not more. Not just the U.K. but worldwide."
How does this square with you now arguing we shouldn't get rid of benefits because it'll do exactly what you think we should do anyway?
We do need to have fewer kids, globally. I’m just not naive enough to think it’s going to happen any time soon.
Ideally we need a slow reduction in global birth rates managed carefully to avoid future financial collapse in individual nations and increased poverty in low income areas.
I've given you an option that you say will reduce birth rates. Not good enough, never is. That's the socialist in you.
'we need a slow reduction in global birth rates managed carefully'
Tbh, that sounds more like communism than socialism.
It’s not controversial to point out that the population trend can’t continue indefinitely.
And the socialist in me wants to save what we can of the planet for future generations without forcing people into poverty. I don’t feel the need to apologise for that.
No, it's not controversial. The controversy is the flip flopping.
You're looking for utopia which doesn't exist, there has to be some give and take.
I’ve not flip-flopped - you’re the one trying to pretend this is a simple binary issue.
We can’t simply stop child credits without dramatically changing the economy of the future. That doesn’t mean we don’t have to look at a means of reducing birth rates for the greater good of the planet.
As I said already, it's never good enough. You want population reduced, there's an option. You reject the option (your right) but offer nothing else, nothing at all. Just an idealistic look at the world.
As I've also said, something has to give. The world isn't fair.
Your option creates a pension crisis. Happy to go without your pension because we have a shortage of workers in 20-25 years time?
I won't be relying on a state pension.
What is your suggestion?
Ah well that’s ok then. The pension crisis won’t matter because you don’t be relying on a state pension.
As it happens, nor will I - I’m very fortunate in that sense, but the vast majority aren’t.
Still no actual ideas then?"
I gave an idea  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Back on Child Benefits, should that be a universal benefit or is it right that you lose it if one partner in the household earns between £50-60k per year?
Is it right that a household where two partners both earn £49,999 keep it but another household where one partner earns £60k lose it?
That was definitely the case, I believe it still is.
It is the case. Is it fair?
Is it fair? Probably not but life isn't fair.
Do away with child benefit. That fixes that conundrum.
And the future economic impact of fewer births?
How are you solving the pension crisis you just created?
Is there data to support your assertion or is it just your belief that we would see fewer births?
Here’s some data from Spain
https://bse.eu/file/8108/download?token=j4sLFbkf
Isn't that about them removing the 'lump sum'? Of course a lump sum would increase idiots having kids.
Let me ask you, yesterday you said this "We need to have fewer children, not more. Not just the U.K. but worldwide."
How does this square with you now arguing we shouldn't get rid of benefits because it'll do exactly what you think we should do anyway?
We do need to have fewer kids, globally. I’m just not naive enough to think it’s going to happen any time soon.
Ideally we need a slow reduction in global birth rates managed carefully to avoid future financial collapse in individual nations and increased poverty in low income areas.
I've given you an option that you say will reduce birth rates. Not good enough, never is. That's the socialist in you.
'we need a slow reduction in global birth rates managed carefully'
Tbh, that sounds more like communism than socialism.
It’s not controversial to point out that the population trend can’t continue indefinitely.
And the socialist in me wants to save what we can of the planet for future generations without forcing people into poverty. I don’t feel the need to apologise for that.
No, it's not controversial. The controversy is the flip flopping.
You're looking for utopia which doesn't exist, there has to be some give and take.
I’ve not flip-flopped - you’re the one trying to pretend this is a simple binary issue.
We can’t simply stop child credits without dramatically changing the economy of the future. That doesn’t mean we don’t have to look at a means of reducing birth rates for the greater good of the planet.
As I said already, it's never good enough. You want population reduced, there's an option. You reject the option (your right) but offer nothing else, nothing at all. Just an idealistic look at the world.
As I've also said, something has to give. The world isn't fair.
Your option creates a pension crisis. Happy to go without your pension because we have a shortage of workers in 20-25 years time?
I won't be relying on a state pension.
What is your suggestion?
Ah well that’s ok then. The pension crisis won’t matter because you don’t be relying on a state pension.
As it happens, nor will I - I’m very fortunate in that sense, but the vast majority aren’t.
Still no actual ideas then?
I gave an idea "
You did. I responded |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Your option creates a pension crisis. Happy to go without your pension because we have a shortage of workers in 20-25 years time?
"
I won't be relying on a state pension.
What is your suggestion?
If the decision was made to have a smaller population (lower birthrate, less immigration, AND less jobs = less taxpayers) then a radical state pension overhaul would be needed.
This isn't what he wants though.
From what I can make out he'd like a lower birth rate/less worldwide population, whilst having no borders.
I would argue that open borders will increase our local population. And his view on AI is that we will have less jobs.
You just can't square that."
Climate change is going to force populations away from central regions and increase population density in the north (and to a lesser extent the south) - Whether anyone likes it or not.
Not in our lifetime, but a problem that’s coming regardless.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Your option creates a pension crisis. Happy to go without your pension because we have a shortage of workers in 20-25 years time?
"
I won't be relying on a state pension.
What is your suggestion?
If the decision was made to have a smaller population (lower birthrate, less immigration, AND less jobs = less taxpayers) then a radical state pension overhaul would be needed.
This isn't what he wants though.
From what I can make out he'd like a lower birth rate/less worldwide population, whilst having no borders.
I would argue that open borders will increase our local population. And his view on AI is that we will have less jobs.
You just can't square that.
Climate change is going to force populations away from central regions and increase population density in the north (and to a lesser extent the south) - Whether anyone likes it or not.
Not in our lifetime, but a problem that’s coming regardless.
"
Agreed. So any ideas how to address that while also squaring a potential reduced number of jobs due to tech innovation therefore less taxpayers therefore a state pension funding crisis?
I actually think we are reaching a tipping point. I remember reading articles 20 years ago saying the Earth could not sustainably support a human population above 10bn. Combine that with the effects of climate change (making some regions too difficult to live in) and the future looks pretty tough!
Makes me wonder why I brought a child into the world anyway! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Your option creates a pension crisis. Happy to go without your pension because we have a shortage of workers in 20-25 years time?
"
I won't be relying on a state pension.
What is your suggestion?
If the decision was made to have a smaller population (lower birthrate, less immigration, AND less jobs = less taxpayers) then a radical state pension overhaul would be needed.
This isn't what he wants though.
From what I can make out he'd like a lower birth rate/less worldwide population, whilst having no borders.
I would argue that open borders will increase our local population. And his view on AI is that we will have less jobs.
You just can't square that.
Climate change is going to force populations away from central regions and increase population density in the north (and to a lesser extent the south) - Whether anyone likes it or not.
Not in our lifetime, but a problem that’s coming regardless.
Agreed. So any ideas how to address that while also squaring a potential reduced number of jobs due to tech innovation therefore less taxpayers therefore a state pension funding crisis?
I actually think we are reaching a tipping point. I remember reading articles 20 years ago saying the Earth could not sustainably support a human population above 10bn. Combine that with the effects of climate change (making some regions too difficult to live in) and the future looks pretty tough!
Makes me wonder why I brought a child into the world anyway! "
Nope |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Your option creates a pension crisis. Happy to go without your pension because we have a shortage of workers in 20-25 years time?
"
I won't be relying on a state pension.
What is your suggestion?
If the decision was made to have a smaller population (lower birthrate, less immigration, AND less jobs = less taxpayers) then a radical state pension overhaul would be needed.
This isn't what he wants though.
From what I can make out he'd like a lower birth rate/less worldwide population, whilst having no borders.
I would argue that open borders will increase our local population. And his view on AI is that we will have less jobs.
You just can't square that.
Climate change is going to force populations away from central regions and increase population density in the north (and to a lesser extent the south) - Whether anyone likes it or not.
Not in our lifetime, but a problem that’s coming regardless.
Agreed. So any ideas how to address that while also squaring a potential reduced number of jobs due to tech innovation therefore less taxpayers therefore a state pension funding crisis?
I actually think we are reaching a tipping point. I remember reading articles 20 years ago saying the Earth could not sustainably support a human population above 10bn. Combine that with the effects of climate change (making some regions too difficult to live in) and the future looks pretty tough!
Makes me wonder why I brought a child into the world anyway!
Nope "
Nope what? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Your option creates a pension crisis. Happy to go without your pension because we have a shortage of workers in 20-25 years time?
"
I won't be relying on a state pension.
What is your suggestion?
If the decision was made to have a smaller population (lower birthrate, less immigration, AND less jobs = less taxpayers) then a radical state pension overhaul would be needed.
This isn't what he wants though.
From what I can make out he'd like a lower birth rate/less worldwide population, whilst having no borders.
I would argue that open borders will increase our local population. And his view on AI is that we will have less jobs.
You just can't square that.
Climate change is going to force populations away from central regions and increase population density in the north (and to a lesser extent the south) - Whether anyone likes it or not.
Not in our lifetime, but a problem that’s coming regardless.
Agreed. So any ideas how to address that while also squaring a potential reduced number of jobs due to tech innovation therefore less taxpayers therefore a state pension funding crisis?
I actually think we are reaching a tipping point. I remember reading articles 20 years ago saying the Earth could not sustainably support a human population above 10bn. Combine that with the effects of climate change (making some regions too difficult to live in) and the future looks pretty tough!
Makes me wonder why I brought a child into the world anyway!
Nope
Nope what?"
Nope in answer to the any ideas question |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"In response to several recent posts:
1. Geo-political/worldwide economics provide wider context (both negative and positive) for how any govt of the day performs.
2. The 1970s had several crises that impacted the UK economy.
3. Thatcher’s govt did inherit a shitshow of an economy but you cannot lay all the blame at Labour’s feet and need to also look at what got us to that point all the way back to WWII.
4. Thatcher’s govt’s solution to an “empty treasury” was to sell off the family silver at knock down prices. It was a finite resource to gain “cash” and in some cases has stored up problems for the future as it was really only a short-term one-off solution. They also deregulated the financial markets that ultimately led to the 2007/8 crash.
5. Major, despite being “grey man and boring” actually got the UK into a fair state by the mid 90s but in the eyes of the electorate the damage was done.
6. Blair’s govt inherited an ok position and while they did a lot of good, the economic growth they enjoyed was building on a worldwide positive trend and was not of their making.
7. Brown (like Major) was dull and workmanlike and unpopular. He did make some mistakes (IMHO) as Chancellor but if you do some reading be is to be lauded for his actions on the international stage during the 07/08 financial crisis (actions that actually prevented financial armageddon and led the world).
8. However, those actions came at a cost (don’t they all - looking at you Covid).
The point is that when discussing whether Labour or the Conservatives are better with the economy it is highly inaccurate to make sweeping statements in attack or defence if either without taking into consideration the exogenous events that took place during (or prior to) their term in govt. "
Great post  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Starmer said Labour will not change the policy of not being able to claim for children after the second one.
He's now on the receiving end of some of his own party.
What do you think, should there be a cap on benefits to 2 children or not?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/17/labour-mps-keir-starmer-tories-two-child-benefit-limit"
Birth control is free in this country. Better education could assist with the uptake of its use.
Personally I would limit it to two “births” the second pregnancy could be twins.
After that two or three children and you’re on your own.
Poor wages in this country has resulted in a benefits culture where someone in a full time job still relies on child tax credits and benefits to make up their income to a manageable level.
If we’re going to have fewer people we need skilling up for better paid jobs.
Less extracting of our wealth to foreign holdings or offshore tax havens would help with this.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Starmer said Labour will not change the policy of not being able to claim for children after the second one.
He's now on the receiving end of some of his own party.
What do you think, should there be a cap on benefits to 2 children or not?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/17/labour-mps-keir-starmer-tories-two-child-benefit-limit
Why should the state (i.e. us as taxpayers) pay for anyone else's children? There shouldn't be any benefits at all for any children.
Also in the news, some residents in South Wales are having to pay for meal vouchers for other people's children over the summer as their councils have decided to fund the vouchers from their own budgets. What other services are they cutting to fund this?
No child benefits = fewer children = work/pensions crisis, unless of course replaced by *mass* immigration.
This is slightly odd.
No child benefits = fewer children. Sounds very much like you're saying people have children for the benefits. We had children because we wanted children, have only ever received child benefit and could easily do without it. "
So if people are not having children for benifits why do they have them in over crowded social housing hoping to get more points to getting a bigger property.
One I went in to today was a 3 bed flat with 5 children and 2 perants. Is this normal in your opinion. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Starmer said Labour will not change the policy of not being able to claim for children after the second one.
He's now on the receiving end of some of his own party.
What do you think, should there be a cap on benefits to 2 children or not?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/17/labour-mps-keir-starmer-tories-two-child-benefit-limit
Why should the state (i.e. us as taxpayers) pay for anyone else's children? There shouldn't be any benefits at all for any children.
Also in the news, some residents in South Wales are having to pay for meal vouchers for other people's children over the summer as their councils have decided to fund the vouchers from their own budgets. What other services are they cutting to fund this?
No child benefits = fewer children = work/pensions crisis, unless of course replaced by *mass* immigration.
This is slightly odd.
No child benefits = fewer children. Sounds very much like you're saying people have children for the benefits. We had children because we wanted children, have only ever received child benefit and could easily do without it.
So if people are not having children for benifits why do they have them in over crowded social housing hoping to get more points to getting a bigger property.
One I went in to today was a 3 bed flat with 5 children and 2 perants. Is this normal in your opinion."
Are you asking me or the poster I replied to? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man
over a year ago
Terra Firma |
"Starmer said Labour will not change the policy of not being able to claim for children after the second one.
He's now on the receiving end of some of his own party.
What do you think, should there be a cap on benefits to 2 children or not?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/17/labour-mps-keir-starmer-tories-two-child-benefit-limit
Why should the state (i.e. us as taxpayers) pay for anyone else's children? There shouldn't be any benefits at all for any children.
Also in the news, some residents in South Wales are having to pay for meal vouchers for other people's children over the summer as their councils have decided to fund the vouchers from their own budgets. What other services are they cutting to fund this?
No child benefits = fewer children = work/pensions crisis, unless of course replaced by *mass* immigration.
This is slightly odd.
No child benefits = fewer children. Sounds very much like you're saying people have children for the benefits. We had children because we wanted children, have only ever received child benefit and could easily do without it.
So if people are not having children for benifits why do they have them in over crowded social housing hoping to get more points to getting a bigger property.
One I went in to today was a 3 bed flat with 5 children and 2 perants. Is this normal in your opinion."
Immaturity, eduction, what is expected, couldn’t give a damn the list is endless. But it should set alarm bells ringing if they keep having children and do not have the infrastructure or means to support them |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *yth11Couple
over a year ago
newark |
It may not be the reason the labour leader backs this but to rejoin the EU the government will have to get its fiscal books in order and this will mean a max deficit of 3% of GDP and a max debt of 60% of GDP or at least an EU agreed plan to get there for the debt part.
The UK is currently at 5.5% deficit and above 100% debt. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Starmer said Labour will not change the policy of not being able to claim for children after the second one.
He's now on the receiving end of some of his own party.
What do you think, should there be a cap on benefits to 2 children or not?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/17/labour-mps-keir-starmer-tories-two-child-benefit-limit
Why should the state (i.e. us as taxpayers) pay for anyone else's children? There shouldn't be any benefits at all for any children.
Also in the news, some residents in South Wales are having to pay for meal vouchers for other people's children over the summer as their councils have decided to fund the vouchers from their own budgets. What other services are they cutting to fund this?
No child benefits = fewer children = work/pensions crisis, unless of course replaced by *mass* immigration.
This is slightly odd.
No child benefits = fewer children. Sounds very much like you're saying people have children for the benefits. We had children because we wanted children, have only ever received child benefit and could easily do without it.
So if people are not having children for benifits why do they have them in over crowded social housing hoping to get more points to getting a bigger property.
One I went in to today was a 3 bed flat with 5 children and 2 perants. Is this normal in your opinion.
Are you asking me or the poster I replied to?"
Was stating a fact to meany people now in the UK and that includes children in the last 100 years the population has doubled so by 2120 we should be at about 120 million and it will not be a green and pleasant land. Don't know about stop oil stop population growth. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It may not be the reason the labour leader backs this but to rejoin the EU the government will have to get its fiscal books in order and this will mean a max deficit of 3% of GDP and a max debt of 60% of GDP or at least an EU agreed plan to get there for the debt part.
The UK is currently at 5.5% deficit and above 100% debt."
Think this is a debate for a new post and would be a grate debate at that. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Starmer said Labour will not change the policy of not being able to claim for children after the second one.
He's now on the receiving end of some of his own party.
What do you think, should there be a cap on benefits to 2 children or not?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/17/labour-mps-keir-starmer-tories-two-child-benefit-limit"
2 and done.
No further benefits. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Yes there should be a cap. If you can’t afford kids don’t have them!
UNLESS (getting a bit meta here)...
1. We have a workforce shortage (long term)
2. We do not want the long term solution to this being increased immigration
3. We therefore want to encourage more indigenous births so we have more British born workers for the future
That would take at least 20-25 years to come to fruition, that's never gonna happen imo.
Agreed but that is a reason to incentivise people to have more children.
Yeah, I agree. It's just not feasible, which I think we also I agree on.
We do agree. I think it is useful and interesting to put that out there though.
The UK has a negative indigenous birth rate. We have an ageing population and a state pension that is little better than a Ponzi scheme. So we face two challenges:
1. Not enough workers to do the jobs.
2. Not enough taxpayers to fund state pension.
So there are only two answers (well three actually)
A) We increase immigration.
B) We have more babies.
or
C) We automate more and do away with State Pension"
Automate, increase retirement age, any one who has a private pension that pays over £15k per annum or has assets over 500k Their entitlement to a state pension removed.
The pension deficit problem derived from their generation never paying enough in tax. They should be aprr of the solution.
Any migrants that arrive
You must work the equivalent of a 21year old to ( future retirement age) or upon entry to the uk you pay a lump sum that covers your expect pension contribution shortfall.
Redirect some universal credits into pensions.
When working in the banking sector( before UC) I saw how much a person with learning difficulties earned a month.
People wothndown syndrome on several benefits payment such as personal independence epayments etc. Took hom more than me after tax.
One I investigated on benefits never worked but could afford to save for a boob job (£6.5k)
UC will hopefully close a lot of these loopholes.
Pensions might take another virus to save the deficit.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Yes there should be a cap. If you can’t afford kids don’t have them!
UNLESS (getting a bit meta here)...
1. We have a workforce shortage (long term)
2. We do not want the long term solution to this being increased immigration
3. We therefore want to encourage more indigenous births so we have more British born workers for the future
That would take at least 20-25 years to come to fruition, that's never gonna happen imo.
Agreed but that is a reason to incentivise people to have more children.
Yeah, I agree. It's just not feasible, which I think we also I agree on.
We do agree. I think it is useful and interesting to put that out there though.
The UK has a negative indigenous birth rate. We have an ageing population and a state pension that is little better than a Ponzi scheme. So we face two challenges:
1. Not enough workers to do the jobs.
2. Not enough taxpayers to fund state pension.
So there are only two answers (well three actually)
A) We increase immigration.
B) We have more babies.
or
C) We automate more and do away with State Pension
Automation is the answer, the other 2 things are doomed to fail through irregular human behaviours.
Automation doesn't mean the end of jobs for people, it will move jobs into other sectors that might not exist yet, it is how it has worked for years.
In all likelihood yes but do you really not see automation reducing the size of the required workforce? If it is reduced there will be fewer taxpayers to fund the pensions of todays workers.
No, the work will change, to what I'm not sure.
TBF the IT industry has more than doubled in the UK since 2011 so as we get even more technology I'd assume that opens up more positions in that industry.
That is of course a guess, I don't know the exact breakdown
Best start investing more in education for all these higher skilled jobs automation will bring!"
Ironically. The uk is searching for more basic jobs currently. As the uk move toward desk jobs without consideration
We need more plumbers, builder, electricians etc.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Yes there should be a cap. If you can’t afford kids don’t have them!
UNLESS (getting a bit meta here)...
1. We have a workforce shortage (long term)
2. We do not want the long term solution to this being increased immigration
3. We therefore want to encourage more indigenous births so we have more British born workers for the future
That would take at least 20-25 years to come to fruition, that's never gonna happen imo.
Agreed but that is a reason to incentivise people to have more children.
Yeah, I agree. It's just not feasible, which I think we also I agree on.
We do agree. I think it is useful and interesting to put that out there though.
The UK has a negative indigenous birth rate. We have an ageing population and a state pension that is little better than a Ponzi scheme. So we face two challenges:
1. Not enough workers to do the jobs.
2. Not enough taxpayers to fund state pension.
So there are only two answers (well three actually)
A) We increase immigration.
B) We have more babies.
or
C) We automate more and do away with State Pension
Automate, increase retirement age, any one who has a private pension that pays over £15k per annum or has assets over 500k Their entitlement to a state pension removed.
The pension deficit problem derived from their generation never paying enough in tax. They should be aprr of the solution.
Any migrants that arrive
You must work the equivalent of a 21year old to ( future retirement age) or upon entry to the uk you pay a lump sum that covers your expect pension contribution shortfall.
Redirect some universal credits into pensions.
When working in the banking sector( before UC) I saw how much a person with learning difficulties earned a month.
People wothndown syndrome on several benefits payment such as personal independence epayments etc. Took hom more than me after tax.
One I investigated on benefits never worked but could afford to save for a boob job (£6.5k)
UC will hopefully close a lot of these loopholes.
Pensions might take another virus to save the deficit.
"
So as a self employed electrician having paid Ni all my life I would not get state pension if I also pay in to a private pension do I get a rebate for that.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
