What is the point of labour ?

[101]

Dunfermline’s new lad seems pretty proud to keep the cap in place. 
 

 

[Plumpy]

1 hour ago, aDONisSheep said:

Fvk me, do you live on Walton's Mountain.  Do circumstances never change in your world, do people never die, get divorced, become ill, become unemployed?

Also, whilst I'm at it, how does any of your logic work.  If I have a problem with you, do I get to take it out on your kids?

Yours

aDONis

Of course circumstances change but that doesn't automatically make me think the government needs to financially back me up because of it.

I've no idea what you mean by that example, none whatsover.

[Granny Danger]

1 hour ago, Lukovic said:

Judging from your way of thinking, I can imagine some children are accidents.

It’s not an accident that he’ll ever have to worry about…

[Plumpy]

14 minutes ago, aDONisSheep said:

I absolutely agree, but as you describe it, it's a policy decision, but that policy decision has a direct impact on those that have no voice and have absolutely no input into their situation (children of poor families). 

It feels like you're pretending that the government finances are the same as household finances, they aren't.  The government has lots of levers (and resources are not so limited, that we "can't" make these decisions).  It's that we choose not to.  

For example, we (the UK) have just committed to £3.6bn  p.a. of military funding for Ukraine, 'for as long as it takes'.  (I don't think this is a bad thing).  But the fact is, we don't have to do that, it's outside of our NATO commitments.

For less money, we could alleviate the curse of poverty for hundreds of thousands of children.  We choose not to.  Just the same as we choose not to impose wealth taxes, or balance out capital gains tax rates, to get more money into the system from the top.

Ultimately, it all leads back to the fact that the people who suffer most, are the poorest in our society.  In the real world, there are more children going to bed hungry (which leads to all sorts of longer term issues), than there would otherwise be, because we (the UK Gov) have decided that they can wait for pink austerity to deliver some jam tomorrow, rather than pulling the other levers available to help them.

Yours, gooooo Labour!  Your thrifty-ness means I will get that bigger fvk-off telly sooner, and that's more important, than some piss-poor childs welfare!

aDONis

 

The victim card played perfectly. Never, ever take responsibility for your actions and expect folk to fall over backward to finance your lifestyle. Usual p1sh of I can't get a job that pays me to come off benefits, the education system let me down etc etc

[carpetmonster]

3 minutes ago, Plumpy said:

The victim card played perfectly. Never, ever take responsibility for your actions and expect folk to fall over backward to finance your lifestyle. Usual p1sh of I can't get a job that pays me to come off benefits, the education system let me down etc etc

Given you highlighted his part about it being the children of poor families, I’m curious to know where the kids working 40 hours a week at an income level that they won’t get working tax credits are at. 

[Wee-Bey]

[aDONisSheep]

6 minutes ago, Plumpy said:

The victim card played perfectly. Never, ever take responsibility for your actions and expect folk to fall over backward to finance your lifestyle. Usual p1sh of I can't get a job that pays me to come off benefits, the education system let me down etc etc

 

You say 'victim card' I say, "that's pretty ill informed",

As for, "Fall over backwards to finance your lifestyle".

You do know that nearly 40% of Universal Credit claiments have jobs don't you (well according to the DWP that is) and 69% of children in poverty were in working households.

Single parents (predominantly women) are expected to fulfill the 'Claimant Commitment' in which if your children are 3yrs + you spend 30 hour per week looking for work (or else you get 'sanctioned').

Don't fall into the trap of intolerance and think that poor people are all scroungers, they aren't.

 

The following is from the House of Lords Library on Child Poverty, it's a really good report I recommend that people read it, it's not long or particularly dry. 

https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/child-poverty-statistics-causes-and-the-uks-policy-response/#:~:text=It added that this meant,from 36% in 2011%2F12

"1.2 Selected stakeholder comment

In a press release issued following the DWP release, the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) said the estimates represented a “record high” for child poverty in the UK.[6] The group said the release showed that “100,000 more children were pulled into relative poverty (after housing costs)” when compared with a year earlier. It added that this meant “4.3 million children (30% of all UK children) were in poverty” in 2022/23, “up from 3.6 million in 2010/11”. The group’s press release continued:

69% of poor children lived in working families

46% of children in families with three or more children were in poverty, up from 36% in 2011/12

poor families have fallen deeper into poverty: 2.9 million children were in deep poverty (ie with a household income below 50% of after-housing-costs equivalised median income), 600,000 more than in 2010/11

36% of all children in poverty were in families with a youngest child aged under five

47% of children in Asian and British Asian families were in poverty, 51% of children in Black/African/Caribbean and Black British families, and 24% of children in white families

44% of children in lone parent families were in poverty

34% of children living in families where someone has a disability were in poverty"

[Buzz Killington]

34 minutes ago, Cheese said:

Spot the difference

 

[Buzz Killington]

Also a big shout out to the "ThEIr JUst aCtiNg rIghT wINg UntLL tHEy GeT eLecTEd" crew.  Your visit from the wallet inspector is scheduled for next week.

[AndyM]

2 hours ago, 101 said:

Dunfermline’s new lad seems pretty proud to keep the cap in place. 
 

 

Absolutely staggering this cretin is actually proud of that.  

I despair at what Dunfermline has done in electing this forelock tugger.

 

 

 

[HTG]

2 hours ago, 101 said:

Dunfermline’s new lad seems pretty proud to keep the cap in place. 
 

 

When they're posting this shite they'd be as well retaining the instruction from on high that sets out exactly what they've to say and when. There were dozens of these on Labour MP timelines. They'll not need to think for the next 5 years. 

[DeeTillEhDeh]

16 minutes ago, Rosey1889 said:

Following on for your disgusting Kate Forbes comments you're now commenting on a posters ability to have children.

What an absolute joy you are.

I hardly think VT needs white knighting.

 

[Granny Danger]

25 minutes ago, Rosey1889 said:

Following on for your disgusting Kate Forbes comments you're now commenting on a posters ability to have children.

What an absolute joy you are.

Thank you.

I see you’re relatively new to P&B, check out the ignore function.  No need to thank me.

 

[Theroadlesstravelled]

White people having tons of kids is fashy Blood and Soil stuff.

I can see why our resident Brexiteer is into it.

[Todd_is_God]

4 hours ago, ford prefect said:

That's extremely short sighted. We need more people having families to deal with supporting an ageing population. We're wedded to a capitalist system so that means we have to support people in lower income groups to have families.

The best way to do so is to help reduce their outgoings, though, rather than supplement their income. No-one should be better off not working or by choosing to work less.

[itzdrk]

2 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

The best way to do so is to help reduce their outgoings, though, rather than supplement their income. No-one should be better off not working or by choosing to work less.

Everyone*

[Todd_is_God]

2 minutes ago, itzdrk said:

Everyone*

Lol. No.

[coprolite]

I'd be interested to see up to date research about how this has affected people's decisions to have babies. 

Two years ago, it was marginal. https://cpag.org.uk/news/has-two-child-limit-affected-how-many-children-families-have

Incidentally, the relaxation in the high income child benefit restriction will cost half a billion a year and rising. That's a price worth paying though. People could get a week at centre parcs out of that. 

[Michael W]

27 minutes ago, coprolite said:

I'd be interested to see up to date research about how this has affected people's decisions to have babies. 

Two years ago, it was marginal. https://cpag.org.uk/news/has-two-child-limit-affected-how-many-children-families-have

Incidentally, the relaxation in the high income child benefit restriction will cost half a billion a year and rising. That's a price worth paying though. People could get a week at centre parcs out of that. 

The cost of childcare is surely much more of a determining factor. I suppose not for everyone, right enough, but certainly for couples where both parents are in work. 

The threshold leading to the charge was likely only increased because it had been the same since it was introduced 11 years and the Tories realised that a quarter of taxpayers in England will fall into that bracket within the next 5 years. It's an administrative pain in the arse as well. 

 

[vikingTON]

5 hours ago, ford prefect said:

That's extremely short sighted. We need more people having families to deal with supporting an ageing population. We're wedded to a capitalist system so that means we have to support people in lower income groups to have families.

1) Weirdo pro-natal state policies belong in 1930s Germany.

2) Even by your logic, a two child cap per family easily fulfils the replacement rate. 

3) There are more young, working age adults on this planet than at any previous point in history, so the state has no need to subsidise Jamie-Lee in Possil to produce sprog no. 3 and bring it through comprehensive health and education. 

Which takes us neatly back to 1) unless you're a 1930s German level nativist.  

Edited July 24 by vikingTON