Doing my head in....

[Denzark]

I can't see Denzark's posts either,

I'll take that as a compliment, I love it when the left acknowledge they are incapable of debating me.


It has to be asked where the money's going, really, looking at the figures. Is America just stingy with their money? Given the Tory squeeze on claimants these last few years, I'm loathe to believe we're overspending right now.

We are - by about, mmm, let's see, £12bn I reckon.

The one that doesn't end with kids being abandoned through no fault of their own. Pretty simple.

If the kids are 'abandoned' that means left on their own. Therefore they have no parents. That makes them orphans. The state should look after orphans. That's semantics for sure because 'abandonment' is not the scenario being discussed, as full well you know. What is being discussed, is parents either not looking at their finances, or looking at them and deciding the method of providing care for their children is to sub-contract it out to the state.

Children shouldn't be made to answer for the sins of the parents.

True.

And as Cap brought up, everyone said they're fine supporting an existing family short-term that's hit hard times, but how long is too long? When do we decide to cut that life line? There are some places in the country where the work simply isn't there. Hell, we just put out an advert for an absurdly specialised role at work, and got 120 applicants. My friend applied for an internship after finishing Chemistry in Uni, and lost out as 1000 other applicants had applied for the same role.

That being the case I hope the people in those regions take the eminently responsible and reasonable decision not to have children until they are financially able to take care of them.

Work is insanely competitive, and the worst thing you can do to your CV is add a period of unemployment. I've been made redundant through no fault of my own before. Luckily, I bounced back, even if it meant working soul-destroying jobs to make ends meet until I found my current job, but that was still a case of lucky opportunities at just the right time. I could very well have been a minimum wage toilet scrubber struggling to keep the bills paid.

I've been on jobseeker's back in the day. While on it I lived within my means of around £40 per week (1999-2000).

Let's put it this way: my town of 97,000 people has, according to the local paper most jobs are advertised in, 83 jobs going. This is during summer at a British seaside town, as well. I'd search it on Job Centre Online for a second opinion, but the site is frigging terrible.

My town has a population of 42800. According to the first site on google, there are 1161 jobs within a 21 mile radius. Maybe people in areas with no jobs should consider moving to areas with jobs. As if they have no job they are probably having their housing paid for them so what's the difference?

[Alaric]

I fail to see how this is a bad thing. And actually, this is just the reverse side of the prejudice coin of rich people thinking having no money is a negative indicator of 'worth'.

Its bad because money shouldnt factor in, I admit I was a bit vague there

[40kGamer]

Children shouldn't be made to answer for the sins of the parents.

Agreed. But the truly bad/irresponsible parents should answer for these sins and they don't.

[grimmas]

Agreed. But the truly bad/irresponsible parents should answer for these sins and they don't.

So much this, it is not somebodies "right" to expect others to take on their responsibilities.

In the UK the system isn't free contrary to popular belief you're supposed to pay into it through Tax and NI contributions, the original statement on the NHS explicitly states this.

Also it isn't "The Rich" who pay for it, the greatest burden of taxation falls upon the Working and Middle classes not bigwigs but the employed. They are paying into a system that is meant to protect them. They're being responsible and let's face it it's not hard to be responsible with the UK system. The thing is every person who decides they don't fancy working or trying to find work or decides to exercise their "right" to have children funded by the state, is taking money from those who deserve it the most those who have paid in and who have fallen on hard times or those genuinely unable to work. Benefits are not a career option.

There are many ways for the state to assist people on low income and that's only right, but picking up the tab so some may chose to live by the means of others ain't right. Also more people working actually creates more jobs which means more employment which means more money in the system which is good for everyone. The problem is we've managed to twist the system so it In fact encourages the exact opposite of what it should do.

Also you aren't "lucky" if you've got a job, you earned it you don't owe anybody for that. You do a job for someone and they pay you for it they aren't doing you a favour.

This isn't right wing by the way this is proper left wing stuff not the stupid guardian reading, hand wringing Blairite rubbish the left has become in this country.

Loathe as I am to agree with Coffeegrunt, despite all the austerity measures there is still a deficit and one which does appear to have risen so there is a question of where is the money going ?

[Mr Mystery]

My town has a population of 42800. According to the first site on google, there are 1161 jobs within a 21 mile radius. Maybe people in areas with no jobs should consider moving to areas with jobs. As if they have no job they are probably having their housing paid for them so what's the difference?

Really not that easy dude.

Depends on housing being available, and to the best of my knowledge that depends on finding someone else in social housing to swap with.

Whilst fairly common, good luck finding anyone willing to move to an area with no jobs. Not to mention having to find the money to pay for the move.

Or we could look at cracking down on tax evasion and avoidance. Because there's a lot of gold waiting when we do.

[Denzark]

Really not that easy dude.

Depends on housing being available, and to the best of my knowledge that depends on finding someone else in social housing to swap with.

Whilst fairly common, good luck finding anyone willing to move to an area with no jobs. Not to mention having to find the money to pay for the move.

Or we could look at cracking down on tax evasion and avoidance. Because there's a lot of gold waiting when we do.

True, OK, true, not easy.

Tax evasion - roger that, there is gelt to be had. I am not sure where I am morally on tax avoidance schemes, because clever use of loopholes whilst remaining legal just shows the byzantine system for what it is - and I am always amused when a doyen of the left wing intelligentsia like Jimmy Carr is caught using one.

I think I am, as a father of one with another on the way, sick of being aware that some people did not weigh up all the odds before emptying their ballons into fertile territory - and separate, otherwise fairly well spoken and presumably educated people think it is OK to bring new life onto this sh*tty planet without knowing AT THE TIME that you could look after it.

There is a difference between someone getting made redundant having paid in to NI, with kis who need funding - and people with no steady income deciding to sprog. And this isn't eugenics - a philosophy of keeping the genepool the best it can be - it is a mater of social responsibility and living within one's own means. (same for pet ownership).

[Mr Mystery]

Oh I agree.

Whilst everyone has a right to have kids, a greater right is that of a kid to at least a half decent start in life.

That doesn't mean 'middle class only'. It's an attitude thing (hey look! Dodgy territory!). The work ethic of the parents gets passed on to the kid. Even really simple basic stuff - like reading your sprog a bedtime story - doesn't happen in some families because the parents just don't care that much. Again, nothing to do with the relative incomes. Somebody dirt poor, living hand to mouth can make a far, far better parent than some workaholic big earner.

We need a culture shift, but it's difficult to change the system we have without penalising the kids, who don't have any say in who their parents are.

[CoffeeGrunt]

Agreed. But the truly bad/irresponsible parents should answer for these sins and they don't.

The crackdown currently going on in the Benefits system seems about to change that. Anecdotal, but I know a lot of people on Jobseekers and Disability Allowance. Many of the Jobseekers are being forced into unpaid labour for, "experience," [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2_klXoTLKw"]or as Kevin Bridges jokes, "self esteem."[/URL] (That guy's hilarious, by the way.)

Disability Allowances are getting cut to the bone as well, at least here they are. I know a lot of people who are being taken off it. The Conservative government effectively has the view that if you can sit in a chair you can work, which on the one hand is fair, but on the other it's been noted their new policies are harsh on mental health issues - which are difficult to prove - and one can argue that they're squeezing the disabled a bit too much. There's also the question of whether suitable jobs for said disabled people are even available. Not to mention that with a long employment gap, finding work will be difficult.

My town has a population of 42800. According to the first site on google, there are 1161 jobs within a 21 mile radius. Maybe people in areas with no jobs should consider moving to areas with jobs. As if they have no job they are probably having their housing paid for them so what's the difference?

On the one hand, yeah that's fair. On the other hand, you didn't note where you live. Is the cost of living itself higher? How easily could you even get the work? Is there even housing available within a feasible distance? How will they commute?

Moving across the country for the possibility of work is a pretty big thing to ask of a family. What if the family has kids that aren't old enough for school, can they afford day care while they're at work? Is moving town to a new school, new friend groups and no family support going to be good for your kids in school? How will it disrupt their education? Do you have to move, will more jobs arrive locally? Decisions, decisions, decisions...

Also you aren't "lucky" if you've got a job, you earned it you don't owe anybody for that. You do a job for someone and they pay you for it they aren't doing you a favour.

I'm lucky the opportunity even existed at the time I was looking, or again, I'd be scrubbing toilets. I'm also lucky that my haphazard collection of job experience and qualifications happened to line up with said job, and that said job was somewhere I could feasibly commute to.

Loathe as I am to agree with Coffeegrunt, despite all the austerity measures there is still a deficit and one which does appear to have risen so there is a question of where is the money going ?

Indeed, our expenditure compared to America's is ridiculous. It really does beg the question of where all that money's going...

[Mr Mystery]

Biggest issue for me is how lopsided the Tory efforts have been.

Lots and lots of benefit cuts, without doing anything to increase tax revenues from those with the most money - indeed, they've had some tasty little breaks worked in.

But this is the problem with party politics. Never mind the will of the people, they've got an ideology to execute

[Denzark]

Biggest issue for me is how lopsided the Tory efforts have been.

Lots and lots of benefit cuts, without doing anything to increase tax revenues from those with the most money - indeed, they've had some tasty little breaks worked in.

But this is the problem with party politics. Never mind the will of the people, they've got an ideology to execute

Everyone can produce figures out of their fobosities so I won't bother - but I'm sure figures from either OBR or ONS (or similar) showed that the 50% rate didn't actually bring in sufficient extra to meet the cost of collection. Is that what you mean by tasty breaks, reducing that to 45%?

The problem is that it ain't the megarich who tax increases affect the most - they can afford lawyers to hide the cash. It is the moderately well off - the middle classes. Who (as one of them) get justifiably pissed off when their contribution, already proportionately higher, is deemed insufficient for reasons they cannot grasp.

The last report I saw in the news was that in the UK the top 5% pay 75% of the tax. Now again, this was DT, I'm sure someone can find a grauniad or dailymash quote to oppose that, but the idea that the rich aren't already pulling their weight is deficient in logic.

And as to the 'will of the people' MM, didn't that get exercised back in May (Thank the Gods)?