The Labour Government

[bluenova]

If you're are at a point where you're on benefits then you're also probably at a point in your life where having more kids is a bad choice.

The benefit system is a safety net, it does not exist to encourage people to have more kids to double their payouts..

I worked for years at an advice agency, and met thousands of people who had claimed benefits. The scenario you're describing isn't common at all.

That's a tabloid's version of the benefit system - when the reality is that most people don't want to claim. Most people don't want to have lost a job, separate from a partner, have to look after a sick relative, or one of the myriad of other reasons why most people actually claim benefits. The world is full of people who mostly want to get on, and have a good life that doesn't involve that kind of hardship. Most people didn't plan to claim benefits, but when circumstances change, they have to, and we shouldn't be punishing kids for that.

 

[PragueBlue]

And child benefit is universal, not only for those on benefits.

It is to a degree but is clawed back if you earn over a certain amount:

For tax years up to and including the year ended 5 April 2024, child benefit is effectively withdrawn at a rate of 1% for each £100 earned over £50,000 a year by the partner with the higher adjusted net income. Therefore, the benefit is fully withdrawn where income of the higher-income partner reaches £60,000 a year.

From https://www.litrg.org.uk/tax-nic/income-tax/high-income-child-benefit-charge

 

[bluenova]

Not every Labour MP, no. There were at least 7 who voted to try and take kids out of poverty. I'm different to those who didn't though, thankfully.


No, I wanted you to give me evidence that this current Labour government give a shit. I should've been more clear, my apologies.

It's a policy that sadly is supported by twice as many people as oppose it. Even amongst Labour voters, a lot more want to keep it.

Just about everyone on the Labour front bench will have said they're against it at some point. They've argued that they want to get rid of it once the money is there, and they've just won an election on the back of promising not to be "reckless" with money.

Clearly it's a cruel policy, it's also nonsense that the Government can't afford to get rid of it, but that's where we are right now. Labour have let it be known, even in the last few days, that they plan to get rid of it. The people voting tonight, know that their votes make fuck all difference, beyond telling people that they care the most. The reality is that it will go, but this is a policy that has been in place for 7 years, and a few more months won't make a huge difference, if the result is that voters believe Labour are being doing it "responsibly", and are able to keep the Tories out of power for at least another term.

 

[inbetween]

You just completely ignored my point about lower income tax for working parents. And child benefit is universal, not only for those on benefits.

Your post comes across like a daily mail benefit scroungers headline.

People on lower incomes already pay very little tax so tax isn't going to change much.

If you give people cash then the result is always inflation. This also defacto subsidises low wages because you're only on a low income if you're paid poorly or can't do many hours. Companies don't need to pay people more if the state is paying them instead.

I worked for years at an advice agency, and met thousands of people who had claimed benefits. The scenario you're describing isn't common at all.

That's a tabloid's version of the benefit system - when the reality is that most people don't want to claim. Most people don't want to have lost a job, separate from a partner, have to look after a sick relative, or one of the myriad of other reasons why most people actually claim benefits. The world is full of people who mostly want to get on, and have a good life that doesn't involve that kind of hardship. Most people didn't plan to claim benefits, but when circumstances change, they have to, and we shouldn't be punishing kids for that.

I actually don't think that giving people money is the right idea at all. The most critical issue facing working families right now is the cost of childcare so why not help them with that directly instead?

We need to be creative and not just view everything in terms of money in pockets, if so then we may as well subscribe to the next cost of living crisis because that's what will happen.

 

[meltonblue]

If you’ve got that cash to spare you’d be better off giving it him to use as a deposit on a house or to invest which would likely yield a bigger amount than the extra salary deductions apportioned to the loan. 83% of students don’t pay off their full student loan anyway, so it’s a bit pointless wasting your money like that.

That’s expected to significantly increase with the current cohort though. We’ve got a plan for the future depending on how he does after Uni. It was more a choice where to put the money myself and I’m making that decision year on year.

 

[bluenova]

I actually don't think that giving people money is the right idea at all. The most critical issue facing working families right now is the cost of childcare so why not help them with that directly instead?

We need to be creative and not just view everything in terms of money in pockets, if so then we may as well subscribe to the next cost of living crisis because that's what will happen.

People who have disabilities, are ill, or have lost their job, or are caring for a sick relative, or whose partner has left, or died, need money, not just help with childcare.

A single parent with three young kids, whose earning potential is minimum wage, or even just under median earnings, is going to need a hell of a childcare package to make work pay. Even the Tories would have said it makes sense for that parent to be at home with the kids, even if means the state are paying benefits.

 

[meltonblue]

You’d pay his fees off after tax?!?!! Are you actually insane?

After what tax?

 

[Don Karleone]

It's a policy that sadly is supported by twice as many people as oppose it. Even amongst Labour voters, a lot more want to keep it.

Just about everyone on the Labour front bench will have said they're against it at some point. They've argued that they want to get rid of it once the money is there, and they've just won an election on the back of promising not to be "reckless" with money.

Clearly it's a cruel policy, it's also nonsense that the Government can't afford to get rid of it, but that's where we are right now. Labour have let it be known, even in the last few days, that they plan to get rid of it. The people voting tonight, know that their votes make fuck all difference, beyond telling people that they care the most. The reality is that it will go, but this is a policy that has been in place for 7 years, and a few more months won't make a huge difference, if the result is that voters believe Labour are being doing it "responsibly", and are able to keep the Tories out of power for at least another term.

It's a policy that's supported by heartless knobheads. This Labour government has the funds and majority to scrap it, they chose not to. That puts them into the same category for me.

You say the policy will go but I've seen no evidence of that and a few more months can make a huge difference. Where is the "change" promised by Labour? Thoughts and feelings aren't going to cut it now, they have genuine power.

 

[bluenova]

It's a policy that's supported by heartless knobheads. This Labour government has the funds and majority to scrap it, they chose not to. That puts them into the same category for me.

You say the policy will go but I've seen no evidence of that and a few more months can make a huge difference. Where is the "change" promised by Labour? Thoughts and feelings aren't going to cut it now, they have genuine power.

Heartless knobheads maybe, but it's a significant majority of the country, which is why Labour have to be careful.



As for "evidence", it sound like you need Rachel Reeves to come to your door and tell you personally that it'll go. There are quotes from loads of Labour ministers, saying it's something that they would want to get rid of as soon as they can show the money is there. We know it's there, but we know that Labour didn't bankrupt the country and that austerity wasn't needed in 2010. But the majority of voters don't think that way, and Labour need to convince them that they're the party for the next 10-15 years, not just 5.

 

[Don Karleone]

Heartless knobheads maybe, but it's a significant majority of the country


What evidence do you want?

What do you have? You said "Labour have let it be known, even in the last few days, that they plan to get rid of it". The taskforce stuff is bollocks as well btw.