Politics The Politics thread

Brogan

Leg end
Staff member
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.
 

canis

Race Winner
Valued Member
I saw that this morning and just had an image of our Olympic cycling team peddling in reverse...
 

Brogan

Leg end
Staff member
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

Race Winner
Valued Member
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.
 

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?
 

Brogan

Leg end
Staff member
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!
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.
 

gethinceri

Daniil Kvyat Fan. Alfa Romeo Fan.
Contributor
Cap the number of children permitted to be claimed for.
Tell the pope to permit his underlings to use contraceptive methods that are sensible.
 

Galahad

Not a Moderator
Valued Member
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.
 

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+.
 

Bill Boddy

Professional layabout
Premium Contributor
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.
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.
 

Brogan

Leg end
Staff member
Having watched the film Idiocracy, I'd go for enforced neutering of certain sections of the society, but that's a whole 'nother thread...
 

FB

Not my cup of cake
Valued Member
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:
 

Brogan

Leg end
Staff member
Unions have accused Labour of failing to speak up for "ordinary people" after shadow chancellor Ed Balls indicated the party would support a pay freeze for public sector workers.

The government has said public sector pay will rise by 1% in the two years to 2015, which is likely to amount to a pay cut once inflation is factored in.

PCS union leader Mark Serwotka said the comments were "hugely disappointing".

The RMT rail union suggested the stance could cost the party votes.

Mr Serwotka accused the Labour Party of "emulating the Tories" on many issues.
"It's hugely disappointing that the Labour Party are just emulating the Tories on many issues," he told the BBC.

"On the one hand, Labour seem to be saying the coalition are going too far, too fast... but on the other hand saying we would have to make the same tough decisions," he said.

"Instead of matching them on the cuts they should be articulating a clear alternative and speaking up for public sector workers and ordinary people in society."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16562966

:rolleyes:
 

Slyboogy

World Champion
Contributor
Who voted for the Tories?

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

Okay am out...
 

Brogan

Leg end
Staff member
This is where UK politics gets very murky,

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

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.
 

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.
 
Top Bottom