to think we're all going to pay for stuff we don't access, so suck it up (a bit)?

[Diamondback]

Sorry, long title, but I am getting so narked with all the divisive rows over university fees/Child Benefit/benefits in general with people taking sides and making broad DailyMaily generalisations.

So, is it fair that people who don't go to uni contribute to people who do? Well, yes, because people who never have children still contribute to WTC and CB, SureStart, etc. People who never claim benefits will support those who do. People whose parents died early will still pay for loads of other people's parents' care homes and nursing care, without ever knowing if they'll need these services themselves. People without disabilities support those who do.

Sure, there's tweaks to be made and the odd, rare, ligger to be weeded out, but the whole point of the welfare state is so that we're not a Big Society of Cunts, leaving the weak and the poor to be picked apart and trapped in poverty.

Hmph.

PInkieMinx - It isn't a simplistic view. We don't do earmarking.

I agree, but can't help remembering those MPs who claim/claimed for things that came to light in one broadsheet and also the bankers/CEOs who reap huge benefits in payoff settlements/bonuses while the layperson has to once again foot the bill and like someone said earlier, the rich who know how to work the system to keep their millions which if they all had to pay a little bit more could make more of a difference than those losing out on CB, uni fees etc etc ever can.

i agree with the principle of paying taxes towrds services you will never access. Especially those you never want to access, like the NHS, DLA, JSA, IB...

i think the existing government would also agree with that assessment.

university fees do raise a real problem though. when i worked in a factory in order to fund my university escapades, i did realise my co-workers were paying tax to fund my three years of jollity. That isn't entirely fair, and it is particularly unfair when you consider that that three years would enable me to earn above average in future. The negative aspect of not helping graduates, an especially graduates whoare the children of wealthy families (adults choosing a route) is rather different to that of, say, not helping people with children (children who, after all, never asked to get born..).

Disagree Edgar, a) wouldn't call it three years of jollity though couldn't claim it was all hard work either! more importantly b)A large number of jobs require degree level entry e.g. medicine, teaching, social work, midwifery etc- these jobs are vital in society and of benefit to all other workers and their families. Also not all of these jobs are highly paid also c)As the child of a factory worker and a decorator, I would never have gained a degree without a full grant, for which I am eternally grateful. But I think I've shown that gratitude by working in education, paying my taxes, putting everything into my work so that I can encourage other young working class kids to aspire to be the best they can.

op yanbu
otherwise if people are not happy with that the alternative is to just abolish taxes, abolish any government support and just let people get on with it - which is not a great alternative as it will leave many people in poverty and leave most people without basic services unless they could pay for it privately

"I like the idea that if you don't contribute you should have no access to public services, like the NHS, libraries, etc - everyone can contribute in some way."
So children would not be able to access these facilities given that they do not contribute. Are you joking Pinkie?