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?

Can you explain your workings?

I cant see at all how £6.75 of every £10 you earn goes on tax/deductions.

A lot of this must be on deductions which you are choosing to pay.
Is this pensions? Student loan? Other employee scheme?

How much is on tax? Which is really what we are discussing here?

For most purposes they are. There was a brief period around 2021 when people thought governments could just print money and not be constrained by debt limits (modern monetary theory). 2022 proved that idea incorrect.

At what point do “innocent children” become “feckless adults”?

We’re looking for good politicians over here - interested?

You compared national finances to household finances, when they work in entirely different ways.

What will happen to the £45, where will it go? Will it leave the economy or be used within the economy?

There’s a cap on benefits.

You were using an example of exaggeration. I get it. It just wasn't a good one. I'm sure others found it titillating.

I never said it was good satire 😉

Impossible to say. If it's spent on holidays and cheap imports then the majority will leave our economy. If it stays within the UK then it may stimulate growth or it may simply go in people's bank accounts. Ultimately we know that we will not see this amount back in tax receipts.

Until you realise the £100bn pa debt servicing is out of the tax take. And we’re at the limit of any more borrowing.

Not if a member of the household is on disability benefits.

Shush now with your facts

.

Can also be a child.

Would you want your child to be disabled?

When someone's first port of call for societal problems is to blame poor and disabled people it really does make me questions their morals

There are ways for example that you can directly help children in poverty without giving more money to the parents
And then comes the other problem. To manage an efficient system to ensure that funds are adequately distributed cost more than the cost of the actual benefit. Take CA as a perfect instance. Available to anyone who cares for someone receiving DLA/PIP. They have to provide 35 hours of direct care. How do you monitor this? Doing so not only would cost much more than the CA budget but would be so open to interpretation that you could then double the cost again in legal fees.

Yet carers deserve to be supported. So the government closes a blind eye to it and people abuse the system.

There is then the issue of investment. Any system that COULD make a difference will involve reducing funds somewhere to invest into it...to only hopefully see benefits in the far future. Which politician would want to do that? They'll be booted out in no time for having reduce one area, showing no benefit elsewhere, and then it would be the new person that would get all the rewards of the longer term having done nothing themselves!

So no politician go there, every decision is only looking at instant benefits. There is nothing left that can be fixed quickly, so we are where we are, politicians who come to have a bit of fun and sane for a bit until they disappear, replaced by another puppet and people who elect them, or not, full of hope they will be different....

I really hate this line of argument. 1/16 children qualify for DLA. When you start having lots of children then your odds of having a disabled child increase accordingly

Remember also that you can qualify for the lowest level of DLA and have the capacity lifted. We are not always talking about severe disability.

Also, if one parent is disabled or works 16 hours then the cap is lifted. This is true for a two parent household.

I’ve got one going spare, if anyone wants the DLA.

But they can also take the 10 years of sleepless nights, the marks currently all up my arms, the bite mark on my partner’s shoulder, everything we own being broken or covered in bodily fluids, the constant shouting.

I mean I obviously love the kid. He’s a turd, but he’s our turd.

But if people are so keen to get disability benefit, they really ought to have tried the life that comes with it for size too.

Maybe we should bring in a cap on the amount of children you have and force sterilisation and abortion?

DLA by the way isn’t means tested. David Cameron claimed it for his son.

Is he a benefit scrounger?

❤️

I question the morals of anyone that can't debate without reducing their argument to this. The poor and disabled are human like everyone else. You will have genuine cases and those that are abusing the system. To pretend otherwise is beyond patronising and implies they're a different species when I can assure you they are not. I grew up as one of them. I know exactly who they are.

We must aim to stamp out abuse of the system at all levels. Just because rich people do bad things, it doesn't mean the rest of us are off the hook.

Imagine how much free money someone would get if they were disabled, had a child with someone disabled, AND the kid was disabled too!!! Cha ching!!! How lucky!!

Yeah. As the parent of a child in receipt of DLA, I hate that argument too.

Your argument.

Like disabled children are somehow money makers. They’re money sappers. They cost a fortune.

You wouldn’t trade the life of a disabled person, or SENd parent, for all the benefits in the world.

Over how many years are you measuring the possible return?
Same number of years as you measure the interest payments on the debt, or a different number of years?

(I see you do accept a national economy is not comparable to household finances)