14 million in poverty

[Dekers]

4 minutes ago, team tractor said:

We are born to breed. If no one had kids , the human race would die out. 

Anyone that’s trying to work should get help in my eyes. 

My mrs is currently clocking a few hours while I sleep at night protecting us all but it’s a few hours between sleep . She wants to do it full time. 

Help those that try to help themselves.

 

 

2 adults making 4 children doubles the population, it causes grief, nature deals with numbers but apparently I have to pay a load of tax to support those that can't support themselves.  People make lifestyle choices, but why am I meant to pay for them?   The Social system in this country was designed to deal with those in hardship from unforeseen/tragic circumstances, it was not intended for people to have as many children as they wanted and others to pay for them.  If everyone took that attitude just who will pay, the Government has no money, its mine, so if I have loads of children and don't pay into the Government kitty and expect to be paid out, where does the money come from?

I had the children I could afford, the lifestyle I could afford and planned for my retirement, along the road it seems I also paid for a lot of other peoples.

Just saying!

 

[Rewulf]

14 minutes ago, Dekers said:

2 adults making 4 children doubles the population, it causes grief, nature deals with numbers but apparently I have to pay a load of tax to support those that can't support themselves.  People make lifestyle choices, but why am I meant to pay for them?   The Social system in this country was designed to deal with those in hardship from unforeseen/tragic circumstances, it was not intended for people to have as many children as they wanted and others to pay for them.  If everyone took that attitude just who will pay, the Government has no money, its mine, so if I have loads of children and don't pay into the Government kitty and expect to be paid out, where does the money come from?

I had the children I could afford, the lifestyle I could afford and planned for my retirement, along the road it seems I also paid for a lot of other peoples.

Just saying!

 

That's it in a nutshell 

[Lloyd90]

32 minutes ago, Dekers said:

2 adults making 4 children doubles the population, it causes grief, nature deals with numbers but apparently I have to pay a load of tax to support those that can't support themselves.  People make lifestyle choices, but why am I meant to pay for them?   The Social system in this country was designed to deal with those in hardship from unforeseen/tragic circumstances, it was not intended for people to have as many children as they wanted and others to pay for them.  If everyone took that attitude just who will pay, the Government has no money, its mine, so if I have loads of children and don't pay into the Government kitty and expect to be paid out, where does the money come from?

I had the children I could afford, the lifestyle I could afford and planned for my retirement, along the road it seems I also paid for a lot of other peoples.

Just saying!

 

Exactly what I was saying! 

Its not natural to breed and breed kids that you can’t support.

If we are basing it on natural selection then if you couldn’t support your kids they would starve, but that’s not civilised, so instead we step in and support people who have CHOSEN to have more kids than they can afford. 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Watching this thread with great interest, someone will cry foul soon!

[Lord Geordie]

Credit card debt through borrowing , and lending from other creditors is one area causing misery! They live beyond their means! Then can’t afford to pay it back! 

I see loads of people outside food banks waiting to get in with an iPhone X pressed to their head and their fingers adorned with around £3k of sleeper rings etc!

 

then they blame others for the fact their kids are going hungry? Pawn or sell your jewellery for crying out loud? Your kids are worth more than a handful of gold surely?

 

and more recently the News saying doctors and nurses are having to rely on food banks because they can’t afford to live? What?

I earn NLW and pay a mortgage, run a car, have a holiday once a year and have what I would class as a very comfortable lifestyle. 

I really don’t understand this piffle about poverty! 

 

In in my view poverty is to have NOTHING but the clothes on your back, no regular food, no income of ANY kind. Maybe the government can pay oxfam to help? if they can help foreign people out of poverty for £5 a month I am sure the government could fund that

[Lloyd90]

51 minutes ago, team tractor said:

We are born to breed. If no one had kids , the human race would die out. 

Anyone that’s trying to work should get help in my eyes. 

My mrs is currently clocking a few hours while I sleep at night protecting us all but it’s a few hours between sleep . She wants to do it full time. Should she sit at home receiving £120 a fortnight? Or would that be better spent on child care so she can pay tax and NI back into the system ? 

Help those that try to help themselves.

 

 

Sorry mate but your making out that your Mrs only 2 options are to either sit at home and claim benefits or work part time. 

Youve ignored all the options you’ve taken on your way to getting there. 

Surely you and your Mrs knew what you earned and knew how much childcare costs before you had kids? As I said previously you must of because you already had 2. 

Then you went and had not only 1 child, knowing you make set amount and what childcare costs, but at some point you also decided that you’d even have another child. You also knew you already have 2 kids that you likely pay towards. 

Many people would say - I earn X amount - can I afford to have that many kids? 

My mates dad had 2 kids then had a vasectomy. 

Many people on here have posted laughing about having one also, so sorry we will have to disagree, we are not born to breed, some people think it through carefully before making those decisions. 

 

Lots of people think it through and decide that they will be not very well off whilst their kids are young, but they can go back to work when they’re older. 

[12gauge82]

I believe the report if you take poverty to mean relative wealth, the gap between the very rich and your average working person in this country is shocking and the funny thing is it's often the working class that continue the status quo by berating the poor, while the rich get richer. It's like a magicians slight of hand, while everyone is pointing at those on benefits, the super rich have their hand in the countrys pocket pulling money out of it.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

21 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said:

Sorry mate but your making out that your Mrs only 2 options are to either sit at home and claim benefits or work part time. 

Youve ignored all the options you’ve taken on your way to getting there. 

Surely you and your Mrs knew what you earned and knew how much childcare costs before you had kids? As I said previously you must of because you already had 2. 

Then you went and had not only 1 child, knowing you make set amount and what childcare costs, but at some point you also decided that you’d even have another child. You also knew you already have 2 kids that you likely pay towards. 

Many people would say - I earn X amount - can I afford to have that many kids? 

My mates dad had 2 kids then had a vasectomy. 

Many people on here have posted laughing about having one also, so sorry we will have to disagree, we are not born to breed, some people think it through carefully before making those decisions. 

 

Lots of people think it through and decide that they will be not very well off whilst their kids are young, but they can go back to work when they’re older. 

Bang on the money Lloyd!

[Vince Green]

Its a political expedient for left wing politicians to be able to bandy about figures like this. Its an empty statistic. 

[Retsdon]

1 hour ago, Dekers said:

2 adults making 4 children doubles the population, 

It doesn't actually because early deaths, childless couples, infertility, etc, etc need to  be factored in. Anyway, never mind. There should always be plenty of immigrants to make up slack.

[JohnfromUK]

Expectations and 'bad management' play a big part.  There is a young person here earning 40K (which is a LOT more than I live on) and she has to borrow money to 'keep living'.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-6380821/Bournemouth-account-director-30-admits-borrows-parents-month-despite-40k-salary.html

There is some genuine poverty about - and in fact I suspect much of it is with the elderly (whose costs for fuels and looking after themselves have risen a lot) and who don't have subscription TV, fancy mobile phones etc.

Some months ago there was a programme about people struggling on benefits.  One thing I remember was a person who lived alone and struggled with his budget, so the programme presenters looked at what he could cut down (figures are my rough guesses).

• average of 100 cigarettes a week cost about £40 (he was 'unable' to quit, despite having poor health)
• average of 5 pints a week cost about £15 (essential to socialise)
• Sky subscription £6 (essential to keep occupied)

All in - the individual concerned was spending about £75 a week on unnecessary 'luxury' items.

[Dekers]

3 minutes ago, Retsdon said:

It doesn't actually because early deaths, childless couples, infertility, etc, etc need to  be factored in. Anyway, never mind. There should always be plenty of immigrants to make up slack.

It more than doubles the population as those children can have 2 each (OR MORE) and even the grandchildren and great grandchildren can have 2 each whilst the original parents are still alive, that more than takes care of early deaths, childless couples, infertility, etc, etc.

[Retsdon]

I don't know about poverty, but I'm curious how anyone in Britain can get by on a £10 an hour wage, particularly with a family. There must be a whole  strata of society that lives from hand to mouth.

[Dekers]

3 minutes ago, Retsdon said:

I don't know about poverty, but I'm curious how anyone in Britain can get by on a £10 an hour wage, particularly with a family. There must be a whole  strata of society that lives from hand to mouth.

Maybe a few but the reality is most live within their means and do their best to balance the books, they have to, as they are supporting an element that doesn't give a toss about society as a whole, just themselves!

Edited November 13, 2018 by Dekers

[Retsdon]

6 minutes ago, Dekers said:

It more than doubles the population as those children can have 2 each (OR MORE) and even the grandchildren and great grandchildren can have 2 each whilst the original parents are still alive, that more than takes care of early deaths, childless couples, infertility, etc, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility  

[Hamster]

1 minute ago, Dekers said:

Maybe a few but the reality is most live within their means and do their best to balance the books, they have to, as they are supporting an element that doesn't give a toss about society as a whole, just themselves!

Thats a bit harsh, even I think we shouldn't just blame the rich. 😂 😜 😴 

[Dekers]

2 minutes ago, Retsdon said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility  

That quite clearly shows that even below the 2 and a bit children per couple the population is growing, as it is in the entire world, we need to cut down, not have more!

[Retsdon]

1 minute ago, Dekers said:

That quite clearly shows that even below the 2 and a bit children per couple the population is growing, as it is in the entire world, we need to cut down, not have more!

Well. globally I wouldn't argue with you. But as far as Britain and the rest of Europe is concerned there is a  significant negative replacement rate. So the choice is either to accept a falling and aging population with the attendant economic contraction, or import immigrants en masse to make up the shortfall. For the last 30 years, Europe has chosen the latter course. As to how that will probably work out in the long term remains to be seen. But if history is any guide.....

[Lloyd90]

5 minutes ago, Hamster said:

Thats a bit harsh, even I think we shouldn't just blame the rich. 😂 😜 😴 

It’s all down to perspective. 

Some people shout about numbers - “Mr X earns £2,000,000 a year and after taxes he takes home £1,000,000 a year! A million pound a year!! That’s obscene! No one should earn that!!” 

Another perspective is that person pays 50% of their income in tax! And £1,000,000 in tax is more than most people will ever pay in their lifetimes. 

Dont the top 1% pay over 90% of all income tax? 

Income tax brought in from the middle class is a drop in the ocean compared to the tax payed by a few individuals. 

Ive also read that when you account for free school, roads, public health etc etc, everything you benefit from in society, your a net drain until you earn over something like £50k a year, meaning you get out more than you put in. 

The average household income in the U.K. is £28k, so most households let alone individuals are benefitting from taxes payed by these elitist rich folk that some despise so much. 

 

 

3 minutes ago, Retsdon said:

Well. globally I wouldn't argue with you. But as far as Britain and the rest of Europe is concerned there is a  significant negative replacement rate. So the choice is either to accept a falling and aging population with the attendant economic contraction, or import immigrants en masse to make up the shortfall. For the last 30 years, Europe has chosen the latter course. As to how that will probably work out in the long term remains to be seen. But if history is any guide.....

German has a terrible ratio of aging population ha young people - Merkel had a second ‘final solution’ by bringing in loads of young cheap labour, she thought it was a great idea at the time.!

what is it with the Germans and their ‘final solutions’ blowing up in their faces? 

[JohnfromUK]

4 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said:

Another perspective is that person pays 50% of their income in tax

Actually, this 50% 'cuts in' quite low down if you take the true tax burden into account. 

Before I retired I was (a little) over the 'basic rate' limit for tax, so was paying 40% tax, plus National Insurance. - So for any pay increase I had, I paid near enough 50% of that rise in tax.  In addition much of what I spent had VAT at 20%, and some had excise duty at £X a gallon of motor fuel, or £Y a bottle of good cheer.  Plus I paid motor vehicle tax, insurance premium tax, council tax.  I reckon that overall I probably paid 50% or more to the government in some form or another - and I was not far into the higher (not top) tax bracket.

[Retsdon]

2 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said:

Another perspective is that person pays 50% of their income in tax! And £1,000,000 in tax is more than most people will ever pay in their lifetimes. 

Sorry, but that's not necessarily how it works. If half of the CEO's couple of million compensation was redistributed instead among the company's workforce, would total tax revenues fall? I very much doubt it because not only would it bring employees into higher tax brackets, but  the less people earn the greater the proportion of their income that they spend  - so for a start VAT revenue would be way higher. Also, most of the million the CEO has left after tax will probably be squirreled away in either a stock or property portfolio that doesn't really contribute a huge amount to the economic well being of the country. 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

the plan to redistribute wealth would take away any incentive for people to excel!

[JohnfromUK]

1 minute ago, Retsdon said:

Also, most of the million the CEO has left after tax will probably be squirreled away in either a stock or property portfolio that doesn't really contribute a huge amount to the economic well being of the country.

Much of the 'working capital' of the whole economy is provided by peoples savings, partly from pensions and life assurance etc.  Savings are an essentail part of the UK's pool of working capital that finances all business.

[Lloyd90]

3 minutes ago, Retsdon said:

Sorry, but that's not necessarily how it works. If half of the CEO's couple of million compensation was redistributed instead among the company's workforce, would total tax revenues fall? I very much doubt it because not only would it bring employees into higher tax brackets, but  the less people earn the greater the proportion of their income that they spend  - so for a start VAT revenue would be way higher. Also, most of the million the CEO has left after tax will probably be squirreled away in either a stock or property portfolio that doesn't really contribute a huge amount to the economic well being of the country. 

So we should just cease all the CEO’s earning and redistribute it to the workers? 

Sounds good comrade! 

 

Whats stopping all those workers going and becoming CEO’s themselves? 

After all it’s easy isn’t it?

The man on the factory floor has invested and put in the same as the company CEO has he not, since he’s equal to a share of the CEO’s pay?

[JohnfromUK]

2 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

the plan to redistribute wealth would take away any incentive for people to excel!

People should be allowed to save and build wealth - and to pass it on to the following generations.  It is this that provides the working capital for the UK economy.  To balance that - the wealthy should bear a responsibility to support those less fortunate and in genuine need such as the disabled, ill, injured and elderly.  This is what the taxation and benefits systems should do.  In fact, and accepted with some problems, that is what actually happens.

Those that are simply plain bone idle don't deserve help and should receive at best a 'subsistence' level.  At present the system doesn't weed them out very well, and tends to be inaccurate in separating the needy from the lazy.

A system that encourages people into bringing children into this world just to 'farm the benefits system' is sheer folly and will have dire consequences on the society as a whole in the longer term.