Gideon wields his axe [The UK's Comprehensive Review Thread]

Darat said:
And what sort of life do (and will) those children have?
Click to expand...
One that provides the basics one requires to ensure quality of live: food and clothing, which as I've explained doesn't have to expensive. Above and beyond that a decent upbringing depends on parents and caregivers providing a loving and nurturing environment within which children can grow, and this costs nothing.

By providing the current levels of child benefit certain sections of the population think nothing of having families in the full knowledge that they won't have to work to provide for them. This is wrong in my book.
 
andyandy said:
• £215m by extending "shared room", a housing benefit rule. This says people can only claim for the cost of a single room in a shared house. Originally it applied to claimants under the age of 25. Now it will apply to claimants under the age of 35. In other words, single people aged 25 to 35 won't be able to claim housing benefit for a flat.
Click to expand...
richardm said:
Surely there must be other options:

"Are there no prisons? And the Union workhouses - are they still in operation?"
Click to expand...
There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. I applaud this move. I live in the south-east. It has taken me until my 40s to earn a high enough wage to afford to rent a one-bedroomed flat of my own in the town where I live and work. I lived in a shared house for a period in my 30s for a short while after I separated from my ex-husband. House share in your late 20s and early 30s is common where I live. Why should someone 10 to 15 years my junior have the state pay for accommodation much more luxurious than that which they could afford were they working? You want your own place, then work for it.
 
23_Tauri said:
This is not relevant in the modern UK state where people have pensions and savings to see them into their retirement. People don't have children nowadays because they need security when they are no longer able to work, as was the case historically in the West or some parts of the developing world today.
Click to expand...
Agreed but the negative income-fertility relationship is pretty robust, and my point therefore is that in general having children is an economically rational "lifestyle" choice. Data for the UK [source: World Bank] would suggest this has plateaued at national level (see chart).

127464cbffe8a12799.jpg


See also Jones et al, 2008 (NBER)

Indeed modern liberal democracies should not as the idea that there is a right to have children is patently absurd.
Click to expand...
By "right" I mean that it is in large part a government legislated protected interest, not a natural or inalienable right. And this is the case in all (that I can think of) modern liberal democracies.

£20 a week will buy sufficient clothing and food for a young child
Click to expand...
I doubt that.

Clearly the current system does provide enough for people to support children because many people do it, without the need to work.
Click to expand...
I agree.
 
Darat said:
I like how those in the top 10% of earners, i.e. those earning above £44,000 a year, have managed to have themselves classed as representing the "middle class" rather than being described as what they are which is the wealthiest of people in the UK.
Click to expand...
The Don said:
Well, they are middle class [ . . . ]
Click to expand...
lionking said:
FWIW, 44,000 pounds is around $A70,000. This is right smack bang in the middle of middle class here. [ . . . ]
Click to expand...
I don't see any merit in calling this income point "middle class" and the label appears to be mostly used to invoke "ordinary", as in things like: "should not have to bear a disproportionate burden of funding current state spending". Better to call them "10th income percentile" or whatever it actually is.
 
Darat said:
I like how those in the top 10% of earners, i.e. those earning above £44,000 a year, have managed to have themselves classed as representing the "middle class" rather than being described as what they are which is the wealthiest of people in the UK.
Click to expand...
Lothian said:
I recall reading the average wage is around £24k. Therefore a couple on the average wage will earn more than a couple with one earner owning £44k. You also mix up wealth with earnings.
Click to expand...
Median wage for men £531 = £27,612 pa; for women £426 = £22,152 pa

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=285

So families earning the average wage are still entitled to child benefit. I know some folks her disagree with me, but state benefits should be there to ensure parents can provide the basics for their child's survival (food and clothing), not balancing out relative poverty. If you're bringing in £30 - £50k between you, you can afford food and clothing for your kids without the need for state benefits.

How about replacing child benefit with system of tokens for food and children's clothes? I know the left will talk about how this stigmatises the poor, but personally I don't give a hoot for such arguments. If you need something enough you don't care what other people think.
 
Under 35s will -from 2012- only be allowed to claim for shared room rate. Apply this to someone suffering from severe mental health issues. How is it going to benefit them living with a group of total strangers?
 
Francesca R said:
Agreed but the negative income-fertility relationship is pretty robust, and my point therefore is that in general having children is an economically rational "lifestyle" choice. Data for the UK [source: World Bank] would suggest this has plateaued at national level (see chart).
Click to expand...
But this is skewed by those who decide to have children not on the basis of their income (because they don't have one) but because they know the state will pay child benefit, housing benefit, prescriptions charges...... :rolleyes:

Francesca R said:
I doubt that.
Click to expand...
You been to Lidl lately? A can of beans is about 5p. Clothing is bought in charity shops or jumble sales. Of course you can feed and clothe a child on £20 a week.

Francesca R said:
I agree.
Click to expand...
So you contradict your above statement that it isn't possible. Now you say it is.
 
Last edited:
23_Tauri said:
So you contradict your above statement that it isn't possible. Now you say it is.
Click to expand...
No, my statement was that child benefit has rather little to do with the full cost of raising children, thus, you can't (plausibly) support a child on child benefit alone. The "system", however, provides enough. You agree with me because you called in housing benefit as a supplement.
 
Undesired Walrus said:
Under 35s will -from 2012- only be allowed to claim for shared room rate. Apply this to someone suffering from severe mental health issues. How is it going to benefit them living with a group of total strangers?
Click to expand...
But if they're under 25 then it's ok? You cherry pick one rare scenario to try and justify the view that the 25 - 35s should be entitled to something that much of the working population of that age can't afford. This is a nonsense. Who's to say that living on their own, with the loneliness they might suffer as a result, would be any kinder to them than a house share arrangement?
If someone has such severe mental health issues that they can't live with other people then surely they would be a special case and the system would treat them as such, giving that person sheltered housing with some sort of support network?
 
23_Tauri said:
Median wage for men £531 = £27,612 pa; for women £426 = £22,152 pa

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=285

So families earning the average wage are still entitled to child benefit. I know some folks her disagree with me, but state benefits should be there to ensure parents can provide the basics for their child's survival (food and clothing), not balancing out relative poverty. If you're bringing in £30 - £50k between you, you can afford food and clothing for your kids without the need for state benefits.
How about replacing child benefit with system of tokens for food and children's clothes? I know the left will talk about how this stigmatises the poor, but personally I don't give a hoot for such arguments. If you need something enough you don't care what other people think.
Click to expand...
I agree with the part in bold. Elsewhere I supported a universal benefit where those unemployed are given a basic allowance and those earning less than a recommended minimum wage receive a top up. Families earning £30K would not get additional state income.
 
23_Tauri said:
You cherry pick one rare scenario to try and justify the view that the 25 - 35s should be entitled to something that much of the working population of that age can't afford. This is a nonsense.
Click to expand...
There are a lot of newspaper column inches and web pages to be populated and sold each day. That isn't possible without this level of detail :D
 
Francesca R said:
No, my statement was that child benefit has rather little to do with the full cost of raising children, thus, you can't (plausibly) support a child on child benefit alone. The "system", however, provides enough. You agree with me because you called in housing benefit as a supplement.
Click to expand...
Ok, fair point, apologies Francesca as I misunderstood. It reaffirms my fundamental point though, which is that the system pays people to have children, and is generous enough to allow whole families to live on nothing but benefits. I also stand by my assertion that you can feed and clothe a child on £20 a week. You talk about the full cost of raising a child, but what else does a child actually need when the state pays for a child's health care and education?
 
23_Tauri said:
There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. I applaud this move. I live in the south-east. It has taken me until my 40s to earn a high enough wage to afford to rent a one-bedroomed flat of my own in the town where I live and work. I lived in a shared house for a period in my 30s for a short while after I separated from my ex-husband. House share in your late 20s and early 30s is common where I live. Why should someone 10 to 15 years my junior have the state pay for accommodation much more luxurious than that which they could afford were they working? You want your own place, then work for it.
Click to expand...

Are you familiar with the fable of the Dog in the Manger?
 
23_Tauri said:
Ok, fair point, apologies Francesca as I misunderstood. It reaffirms my fundamental point though, which is that the system pays people to have children, and is generous enough to allow whole families to live on nothing but benefits.
Click to expand...
Since you railed against another member "cherry picking" to justify something broader, I assume you are not doing this . . . but the highlight is frequently wheeled out in similar fashion to invoke popular outrage that something must be stamped out now.

In truth, it does not threaten the viability of the economy or the public finances if there are a few thousand deadbeats living it up on benefits, and it is probably not pareto-optimal for policy to be over-engineered to root them out. Same as it is probably not optimal to right the unfairness in the new child benefit rule about a couple earning £43,874 each.
 
Francesca R said:
Data for the UK [source: World Bank] would suggest this has plateaued at national level (see chart).

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/127464cbffe8a12799.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...
I'd like to see what this graph does in the years 1946 - 1960, reflecting the post-War baby boom, as maybe income-fertility doesn't show the same relationship for these years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom