To be sick of politicians using 'fairness' as justification for tax rises?

[Itchthescratch]

Fairness is completely subjective and I notice that this is often shorthand for giving more money to those that contribute the least.

Of course there will always be those that can't contribute much due to factors outside of their control, but we are kidding ourselves if we pretend that there aren't already lots of people that are scraping by doing the bare minimum (sometimes even less) and making completely irresponsible decisions knowing the state will ultimately insulate them from the consequences.

I personally know people that have had lots of children that they can't afford and can't parent properly simply because they wanted to. They are now on an incredible amount of money as the two child cap has been lifted. I know people that have stopped working because they weren't much better off than being on benefits and they couldn't be bothered with the hassle. I know young people that are already planning to stay on disability benefits their whole lives for mental health issues as they want to stay home and game.

Is it really 'fair' to charge the rest of us more to subsidise all of this?

'personal responsibility' as if it's some weird construct designed by the powerful to suppress the poor when in reality it liberates the poor.

I have to challenge this. Obviously in all areas of life there is personal responsibility, but using that as a reason for problems leads to fascism and it is ridiculous to say it liberates the poor when the system is against them.

A prime example is another thread yesterday about teenagers setting fire to a station. There were people on the thread saying that the causes were bad parenting and the teenagers just being little shits - both 'individual responsibility' that absolves the state of any responsibility.

This led to people suggesting we need to implement a licence to have children where you have to pass a test and be approved. This is literally eugenics which is a tool of fascism - saying that the government should have control of who can and can't have children.

Real freedom is freedom of choice, which is assisted by governments helping to remove obstacles of choice. I'd say a rise in instances like the fire etc are due to decades of underfunding services for both parents and youth, austerity, a terrible job and housing market, a general lack of prospects, support, and options.

If we continue to ignore the SYSTEMIC issues caused by the government and just place an emphasis on issues being caused by individual responsibility, this leads to people wanting the government to have more control over the individual, which leads to fascism.

Gosh you're far into it aren't you?

No, that isn't the same as what I'm referencing which is studies that show how much the welfare state is abused. No large scale study has ever been undertaken on the abuse of PIP for example.

That LSE study proves that people frequently overestimate unemployment benefits but underestimate unemployment benefits for families with children and pensioners.

So which bit do you think is wrong?

Well they were delighted when the two child cap was lifted and weren't shy in letting everyone know how much they would be getting as a result. To be honest I would genuinely rather not know as it has utterly enraged me. Some people are oversharers. I also know two her kids have worms so there you go.

Ok time to make your mind up because whenever anyone addresses your point you claim you're talking about something else. Here it is, in brief.

You claimed evidence exists to prove that "people know other people that take advantage of the welfare state". It doesn't.

You claimed that there wasn't quality, peer reviewed research on people's attitudes towards benefits and whether those attitudes reflect the actual situation. There is. Loads.
.
You need to be able to keep up and make your points clearly. It's an important skill to have, and avoids people getting so fed up with the shifting sands of your argument that they give up and go and have a cup of tea instead. Like I'm about to.

Are you really doing this? Deliberately posting rubbish and slop and asking people to take apart that rubbish and slop point by point? Behave. See what I said about a cup of tea? I suggest you do the same.

All I see is a slightly conspiracist take from someone who folds when asked to clarify their view. It's all so tiresome, isn't it, being expected to take other people's views at face value and engage with them. The sheeple. Why don't they all just concede how wrong they are and how uniquely enlightened Clarke is.

I’m a higher rate taxpayer. We have private health insurance through DH’s work but we’ve never used it because barely anything is actually covered under it. You still require the NHS for emergencies for example. We use the library frequently and DC are in state schools.

You need to work on your comprehension skills.

1. I haven't actually stated that I had evidence that people know people that take advantage of the welfare system but plenty exists. For a starter, why is the results of the poll of this thread indicate that most people agree with the sentiment of my OP. If nobody had come across the type of people I referenced then there would be much more sceptivismLots of other polls have shown that people believe the rules are not strict enough and it's too easy to defraud the system.

https://yougov.com/en-gb/articles/50921-how-do-britons-feel-about-benefits-and-welfare-recipients
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/majority-voters-benefits-payouts-too-easy-fraud-smq0p58tb

1. I stated there wasn't a large scale peer revised study that focussed the true level of fraud for benefits like PIP. Someone else hijacked this to discuss attitudes towards benefits which is a completely different issue and there are loads of studies and polls on this including the ones I have linked.

One where the middle-ground are not totally rinsed.
We are absolutely not all paying our way.
Its an entitled expectation from certain demographics that someone else will pick up the tab.
Apparently Burnham may be asking people for 'a little bit more' .
But its always the same fucking people getting 'asked' isn't it??

If the tax free allowance has remained the same for 6 years its already cost all those over it about 4k each assuming a 4% only increase and considering inflation is so much higher…
So a holiday, or car even!
Assuming you would pay 20%

I dont think a average 34k person could afford to live with the costs as they are even without housing costs.

Throwing money at UC and removing the cap doesnt help because many of the families do not work and dont intend to so just get more and more expensive.

I think i would put a suggested limit of number of x more a company can pay the top vs bottom employee. (Unless they own the company).

Companies should have to be sent a list of how much the lowest paid employee will have to claim from uc if they have / kids but work FT.

Assuming people need to pay minimum 12k year just for housing.

Dh has two nieces. One has never worked one day, has two dcs (no fathers involved - well, I suppose they were for two minutes!), a three-bed council house in a desirable commuter village, anxiety and a new motability car. She has plenty of time to do her own thing, walk her dogs, garden, meet friends etc.

Other niece went to university, got married, rents a 2-bed flat, pays childcare, has little free time and she and her dh live frugally to save up for a property in a meh area.

Who is the mug?

You're at it again! Do you not realise that what you've said is there for everyone to read?

Tell you what, don't bother wasting my time replying directly to me any more unless you can (a) remember what you've already said and (b) answer sensibly and appropriately to the point being made.

TTFN.

I suppose the counter argument to that is:

1. We live in a global economy with a rapid rise in automation and AI. We are at risk of basically pricing out lots of jobs if we expect one FT NMW job to support a family with potentially multiple children. This could look like paying someone £40k plus in London to work in a cafe. It's obviously completely unrealistic and unsustainable. Nobody will buy our exports as they will be too expensive. Everyone will question if you need to hire a human or if it can be automated using AI for much cheaper.
2. I think Child Maintenance is a huge issue and irresponsible parents being allowed to shirk most of the responsibility for their kids in terms of childcare and the associated sacrifices. This should be cracked down on much more.

@ClarkeandNewman

Ah, found the post you referenced. You said:

You need to be able to keep up and make your points clearly. It's an important skill to have

So, can you? Do you have this skill?

Quote me then. I challenge you. Find the exact statements that prove what you're suggesting. It should be easy if you're right.

Im sure i'll get flamed for saying it but

Lower earners in the uk actually dont pay enough tax & social security contribution, compared to most other developed countries.

Our personal allowances encourage people to get used to earning a part time wage & paying very little tax. Then it can feel hard to progress to higher incomes where you lose more in tax.

In most other countries, social contributions (equivalent to NI) are higher and start from "the first euro".

In the uk a huge slice of the workforce contribute very little in tax & NI.

The government cant invest to grow the economy unless more money can be raised

Oh shush now. I'm sure you have imagined your nieces or completely exaggerated their circumstances. Where is your definitive proof that they exist?

I'm saying your argument changes any time someone refutes it. It's all there in the thread.

Remember what I said about not wasting my time?

No, you have made a few very specific accusations that should be easy to prove. Here's one:

You claimed that there wasn't quality, peer reviewed research on people's attitudes towards benefits and whether those attitudes reflect the actual situation. There is. Loads

So find the post where I claim this. You won't be able to because I never did. You have constructed your own straw man arguments and ignored what I've actually written and then suggested I've forgotten my own arguments.

No, you haven't forgotten your own arguments. You rely on the hope that other people will have forgotten what you've said.

This is getting beyond tedious now. I won't be answering you regarding your poor form on this thread any more so feel free to have the final say. Bonus points if you insinuate I'm condescending or don't know what I'm talking about.

Thought so. I don't really need to insinuate anything. People can draw their own conclusions

Same here. But we have to accept that a lot of high earners, especially if they are expats/immigrants, simply don’t use these services and don’t see why they should pay for them. I’ve had these conversations with work colleagues and it can be infuriating.

What do they use if their house catches fire or they’re burgled? What do they drive their cars on?