Politics The Politics thread

Discussion in 'Gravel Trap' started by Jen, Jul 14, 2011.

  1. Brogan

    Brogan Leg end Staff Member

    Featured Threads:
    5
    In shock news, a committee of self-appointed MPs, set up to investigate the IPSA committee which was itself set up to manage expenses in the wake of the scandal, has decided that IPSA doesn't work, they want to go back to the old way and are threatening to "override IPSA's independent board if they do not act as the committee demands".

    I knew it wouldn't take them long to get back on the gravy train.
     
    Fenderman likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to remove all adverts.
  3. Brogan

    Brogan Leg end Staff Member

    Featured Threads:
    5
    Yeah, well done Ed.
    It's only taken you two years to finally realise what the Tories have been saying all along - there's no money left and cuts are a necessity.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16473548
     
    jenov2003, gethinceri and canis like this.
  4. canis

    canis Race Winner Valued Member

    Fantasy F1 Profile:
    FF1 Profile
    I saw that this morning and just had an image of our Olympic cycling team peddling in reverse...
     
  5. Brogan

    Brogan Leg end Staff Member

    Featured Threads:
    5
    I have to say I strongly disagree with the proposed changes to child benefit.

    Couple 1, each earning £44,000 each, making a total of £88,000 income will continue to receive it.
    Couple 2, with a single earner earning £44,001 will get nothing.

    Yeah, that's fair.

    I don't care how difficult or complicated it is to factor in both salaries, this is just blatantly unfair and ends up penalising those who need it more.

    How about cutting it altogether for all but the most needy?
     
    canis likes this.
  6. canis

    canis Race Winner Valued Member

    Fantasy F1 Profile:
    FF1 Profile
    I have to say I agree with you. This will also stop people applying for promotions and payrises when they get close to the ceiling especially if they are a single income family, as under the current proposal a payrise from £43,000 to £44,001 will end up costing the family thousands per year.

    Firstly it should be based upon total family income, not just on whether one earner pays higher rate tax or not. Set an earnings limit for the family so if combined they earn over £88,000 then they loose it.

    Secondly, the impact upon business should be taken into account, so use last years P60 figure to wok it out, not current quoted income. This means that should someone slide over the income limit then they have a year to take into acount the loss, rather than suddenly loosing the income they already have, plus within a year the chances are they will have moved up the payscale again thus negating the loss of child benefits.

    Is not a hard system to work out the details for to make it fairer than current, they just seem to have a omplete lack of thought behind it.
     
  7. Jen

    Jen Here be dragons. Contributor

    Dare I be a bit radical here and say that any household which has an income of £44k should be able to manage without Child Benefit! Never mind households which have £87k coming in.

    Should we turn this into a bureaucratic nightmare and insist on proof of earnings, and by doing so, turn it into another means tested benefit or do we bite the bullet and reduce the basic allowance for all and those who are truly struggling can apply for an enhanced sum?
     
    F1ang-o, Bill Boddy and Vortex like this.
  8. Brogan

    Brogan Leg end Staff Member

    Featured Threads:
    5
    Well I did say cut it for all but the most needy.

    However, just because you have someone earning £44K, that doesn't necessarily mean they are well off or even able to cope.
    They could have 4 or 5 kids.
     
    F1ang-o likes this.
  9. gethinceri

    gethinceri Daniil Kvyat Fan. Alfa Romeo Fan. Contributor

    Featured Threads:
    2
    Cap the number of children permitted to be claimed for.
    Tell the pope to permit his underlings to use contraceptive methods that are sensible.
     
  10. Galahad

    Galahad Not a Moderator Valued Member

    Featured Threads:
    6
    Assuming that income support is already means-tested based on the number of dependents in a household, why not get rid of child support altogether and roll the money across?

    The idea of the government encouraging procreation through the tax and benefits system always seems ridiculous to me, particularly given the paltry sums involved.
     
  11. Jen

    Jen Here be dragons. Contributor

    Not arguing with anyone here. It is a bizarre system which was introduced as part of Beveridge's changes in 1942, came into being in 1946 (along with the NHS) and was designed to reduce child poverty. Tellingly, it was paid direct to the mother - for whatever reason!!

    In the same vein, council housing was meant to be a stop-gap - housing people relatively cheaply until they were in a position to pay market rates to private landlords or buy their own property.

    Both are eminently sound socialist ideals - sadly both are now defunct, in that there has not been a proper regulation of either.

    I was appalled to hear that some council tenants sublet their rented property at market rates and there are at least 6000 council tenants who have a household income of £100,000k+.
     
    GeoffP likes this.
  12. Bill Boddy

    Bill Boddy Professional layabout Premium Contributor

    With the current state of the world population and it's rate of growth I would start taxing at an increasingly heavy rate starting with the third child. Just to be fair it would not come into being retrospectively but start in two years time, all children alive already not taxed.
     
  13. Brogan

    Brogan Leg end Staff Member

    Featured Threads:
    5
    Having watched the film Idiocracy, I'd go for enforced neutering of certain sections of the society, but that's a whole 'nother thread...
     
  14. FB

    FB Not my cup of cake Valued Member

    Featured Threads:
    54
    Fantasy F1 Profile:
    FF1 Profile
    Fantasy F1 Team-mate:
    FF1 Team-mate
    Fantasy F1 Rival:
    FF1 Rival
    My problem with many of the current governments proposed cuts (some of which I agree with such as high earners not getting child benefit) is that it doesn't actually redistribute the money saved to those that actually need it most. I have a big problem with all universal benefits as there are many who receive money from the government who patently don't need it but many socialist still cling to the idea that universal benefits are necessary. All government hand outs should be means tested including the old age pension.

    Not a very good socialist am I :embarrassed:
     
  15. Brogan

    Brogan Leg end Staff Member

    Featured Threads:
    5
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16562966

    :rolleyes:
     
  16. Slyboogy

    Slyboogy World Champion Contributor

    Who voted for the Tories?

    I know my best friend did, think I might assassinate him!

    Okay am out...
     
  17. FB

    FB Not my cup of cake Valued Member

    Featured Threads:
    54
    Fantasy F1 Profile:
    FF1 Profile
    Fantasy F1 Team-mate:
    FF1 Team-mate
    Fantasy F1 Rival:
    FF1 Rival
    Government defeated in the House of Lords on benefit reform. Oops, time for a guillotine motion...

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16675314
     
  18. Brogan

    Brogan Leg end Staff Member

    Featured Threads:
    5
    This is where UK politics gets very murky,

    Who amongst the electorate voted for those who sit in the house of lords?
     
  19. FB

    FB Not my cup of cake Valued Member

    Featured Threads:
    54
    Fantasy F1 Profile:
    FF1 Profile
    Fantasy F1 Team-mate:
    FF1 Team-mate
    Fantasy F1 Rival:
    FF1 Rival
    Don't let CaT see you writing things like that....
     
  20. tooncheese

    tooncheese Hans Heyer Contributor

    The HoL are mostly upstanding citizens who earn't there place, and don't forget the people elected the Tories who in turn choose Lords. But there are about 90 Lords who are just sons/daughters of powerful families for the last 1000 years, and a few Lords Spiritual too. No-one elected them.
     
  21. Jen

    Jen Here be dragons. Contributor

    The Lords are meant to be our defining intelligentsia - the fact that most don't 'engage' in real life is neither here nor there, but it does mean they really don't have a clue when it comes to 'proper' politics.
     

Share This

  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use it, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice