|
Post by Jade on Jan 4, 2010 9:39:52 GMT
Cameron is unveiling a massive poster campaign today, firing the first shot of the election In the Telegraph he is reported thus:
He will also put the family at the heart of his policies and make a commitment to handing power back to the electorate, saying: “We need to bring down the deficit so we can start to regain our position as a world-leading economy.
“We have to strengthen families and reform schools so we can start to build the big society.
“And we need to give people real power and control over their lives so we can have a political system to be proud of.”
what on earth can he mean?
|
|
|
Post by lark descending on Jan 5, 2010 9:05:13 GMT
Well, exactly. But policies seem to be unimportant these days; fine rhetoric which lifts the spirits will win the votes.
|
|
|
Post by Jade on Jan 5, 2010 9:24:32 GMT
I see the cons are all for Marriage, and want to "support marriage" but not by giving tax breaks. What do you think they will do then?
|
|
|
Post by alanseago on Jan 5, 2010 9:43:52 GMT
Ban co-habitation and extra-marital sex?
|
|
|
Post by Jade on Jan 5, 2010 9:54:15 GMT
you need a little extra in a marriage, surely?
|
|
|
Post by iamspecial on Jan 5, 2010 9:55:08 GMT
“And we need to give people real power and control over their lives so we can have a political system to be proud of.” [/color] what on earth can he mean?[/quote] Money = power The rich will win and the public school boys will inherit the country
|
|
|
Post by sweetjessicajane on Jan 5, 2010 13:30:37 GMT
I caught this programme on Radio4 last night (Monday 4th Jan): www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00pk8z8As it was background I missed the name of someone being interviewed,(about 14 mins in) but they were saying that it was known that the current benefit system penalises couples with children that stay together, couples are better off apart. I wouldn't necessarily want married/co-habiting having "extra", but I'm concerned that you are penalised for being married.
|
|
|
Post by Jade on Jan 5, 2010 13:46:51 GMT
SJJ couples might be better off in terms of nett income, but surely with two sets of costs to bear that swallows any supposed benefit surely?
Imagine two rents, council tax, gas / electricity, phone / internet etc?
|
|
|
Post by sweetjessicajane on Jan 5, 2010 14:18:04 GMT
jade SJJ couples might be better off in terms of nett income, but surely with two sets of costs to bear that swallows any supposed benefit surely? Imagine two rents, council tax, gas / electricity, phone / internet etc? As I said in was something I heard on the radio, the woman speaking made the statement, but was unclear about how this conclusion was arrived at. The main point of the programme was about the work ethic, and the main comment was how the benefit system can "trap" people in unemployment, the issue about couples was secondary. Having listen again I believe the person speaking was from Centre for Social Justice:- www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/I've had a brief look at their web site, but can't at this moment see how they have worked out the sums. There is a comment about "low income" www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/default.asp?pageRef=312
|
|
|
Post by Jade on Jan 5, 2010 15:00:18 GMT
it is certainly true that anyone with dependants who are surviving on benefits needs a decent level of motivation to get out to work, and I can see that anyone on a minwage job wont see the point if £ for £ it gets taken off the family income
to me that just talks to the need for better pay, well above subsistence levels, in order that people are more motivated to find work
Some people would prefer the nobility of bringing home a wage, but they are either of a different class or origin to the "normal" (stereotypical?) long term benefit recipient I think.
|
|
|
Post by sweetjessicajane on Jan 5, 2010 15:53:01 GMT
Jade it is certainly true that anyone with dependants who are surviving on benefits needs a decent level of motivation to get out to work, and I can see that anyone on a minwage job wont see the point if £ for £ it gets taken off the family income to me that just talks to the need for better pay, well above subsistence levels, in order that people are more motivated to find work Some people would prefer the nobility of bringing home a wage, but they are either of a different class or origin to the "normal" (stereotypical?) long term benefit recipient I think. " if £ for £ it gets taken off the family income" It seems more complicated than that, one woman interviewed on the programme was looking for work, but was concerned about how much she would have to earn to make up the additional benefits like free school meals and housing benefit. The impression I received was that as soon as she started working these benefits would just stop there appear to be no gradual transition period to even take her to her first wage packet - it might be Ok if you are paid weekly, but monthly? Also depending when you starting working yiour first pay day might not be until the end of the following month. How are you support to manage in that interim period?
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jan 5, 2010 16:10:21 GMT
SJJ couples might be better off in terms of nett income, but surely with two sets of costs to bear that swallows any supposed benefit surely? Imagine two rents, council tax, gas / electricity, phone / internet etc? at the risk of being pelted with rotten tomatoes, in my experience, the couples who know how to get the best out of the benefits system, will often be getting two sets of rent and two sets of council tax paid for by the working council tax payer. i know of too many people playing the system, so can only assume that there many millions more who i don't know personally, doing similar.
|
|
|
Post by lark descending on Jan 5, 2010 17:27:41 GMT
There are apparently many children being brought up in families where neither of their parents or any of their grandparents worked. That is scary.
But I was naive enough to believe that the tax credits system ensures that a working person always has more income than s/he would on benefits. However I recently did a calculation for a single mother who had taken a part time (16 hours a week) job, and she was better off on benefits... and that was before taking into account her travel to work costs. This was because she now has to pay for some of her rent, which she didn't before.
Oh, and it wasn't my maths at fault, because it was done on an on-line benefits calculator.
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jan 5, 2010 18:45:27 GMT
i was shocked when a self employed worker in a local industry told me that i should get mr bets to apply for tax credits. - This person was getting paid £37,000 in tax credits .... was i misunderstanding? can such a thing be true?
if so, no wonder the country is bankrupt.
|
|
|
Post by lark descending on Jan 5, 2010 19:04:06 GMT
On Friday, Bets, I may have access to the magic calculator. If you can tell me roughly the circumstances of this family -( how many children, is anyone disabled, how much does s/he eanr, is there a partner) - I could tell you if they are telling porkies. It doesn't sound right to me.....but at least they are working !
|
|