Benefits...following on from unfit parents thread...

[anais]

Well, who wants to start?

beetroot to be fair I am not a rascist. I grew up in a multi cultural society and rascists sicken me.The point I was making that it is about time this Govt started looking after its own.
Yes you are right about this being one world (I feel very strongly on that point you made) but until we can all flit fom country to country living and working, it will not happen.

If I had no children I would love to go and live and work in other countries and sample their cultures and lifestyles without the hassle of work permits or getting kicked out after 2 years as you do in Australia.
There are needy people in this country so the govt should sort them out first.
I will start up another thread.

Batters what I mean is that like with threads like this you see people and problems. From a single parent to someone who has to give up work etc etc.
Children, disabled, elderly get a crap deal from this govt too.
People are paying enough in taxes why cant they get the help they need!!!when they need it.
We can all be productive citizens without worrying where the next penny comes from. It saddens me to see people working extremely hard for low pay and being worse off than being on benefits. It sickens me.Working should be praised not penalised.
As for single parents I have been one. Through no fault of my own.They should be admired instead of criticized.

For anyone who's interested, in 2000/01 there were around 27.9 million taxpayers in the United Kingdom and of these, 2.7 million were higher rate taxpayers (so 10%, more than you thought bells) The amount of tax payable averaged £72,800 for those with incomes of £100,000 and above.

Oh I really hope that I forget who wrote the "less tolerant" posts on this thread! Prufrock I agree with the cost of childcare being tax deductable - but for EVERONE - not just the self-employed! Overall, I think WWW, Tinker and Jimjams have said it all for me and have done it far more eloquently than I could have

BTW, Jimjams, I think your ds is a cutie too.

That's a really good point about lots of people working hard for not such high rewards - certainly nurses have stressful jobs, which are NOT rewarded by big pay-packets. I work very part-time, mainly for my own sanity, because it isn't really economically viable once childcare has been paid for (and ds just goes to an ordinary nursery).

People can contribute to society in ways other than financial ones - for example, someone on benefits might do some sort of voluntary evening work, which may not pay the bills, but will contribute to the well being of the world. (I'm thinking of things like being a Samaritan). And surely bringing up your children well is an important role, and just because you're on benefits doesn't mean you're not capable of doing that, or that your children won't work. In fact, these children of mums on benefits might pay all our pensions!

prufrock, there is no way of asking this without sounding patronising, which I don't mean to be, but you won't believe me, so here goes anyway.
How old are you? How long have you been working in the city? Because your main points - "People in the City work much harder than people elsewhere - people in the city deserve their salaries for working so hard -" and the fact that despite your hard work you aren't even earning £4k per month makes me assume you are pretty new to it all. It is really only 20-something yr olds with a few years in the CIty and who think they know it all who come out with stuff like that. 3 years qualified junior lawyers, analysts with a couple of years under their belts. The sort of people who think they are masters of the universe and look back on themselves 5 years later with cringing embarrassment on the arrogance of their youth.
Yes, I'm sure you work hard, but so do people all over the country. Yes, I have no problem with people earning as much as they possibly can, but please don't think that what people in the city earn bears any relation whatsoever to how hard they work. The only reason a trader is worth 1.5m a year is because he has made 15m a year for his bank, not because he has put 50 times more effort into it than someone earning 30k a year working all hours as - oh, I don't know - a junior doctor. The reason a partner in a City law firm makes between 500k and 1m a year as opposed to his provincial counterpart who is lucky to get 100k is because he is working for bigger companies on bigger deals with more money sloshing around. Zero to do with the complexity of the transaction or the hours he works.

There is a lot of money floating around there, and if you can get into the city, get a decent job, hold it down and hit good times then you will make a lot. I'm sure you know a lot of complete tossers with few braincells who still get paid 100k (slave wage for the city). I know I certainly do. Again, can we have a little reality check here?

Oh pph I do wish I worked in your city. 100k is not a slave wage here anymore - not for us back and middle office grunts who do all the work so the tosser traders can swan about earning millions. And I have been here a while and am old enough not to be an arrogant tosser. But the firms still expect their pound of flesh from us. And we haven't had decent bonuses for a couple of years now. (Yes I know some people don't get any)

My point is not so much that I work harder than anyone else, as that you can't expect anyone to work that much harder unless they get rewarded for it. And if you are going to take all of that extra reward from people in tax, they will just not do the jobs, or do them somewhere else. Or decide it's just not worth it, have more kids and give up work as you and bells2 have done, and I will soon be doing. Now you can't say that taking us, our taxes and the jobs we provide to childcarers out of the economy is good for it.

I am still working! just not in the city - moved to industry as a company director.
wasn't including back office people in discussion of enormous salaries, which explains why you aren't earning what your hours would suggest I guess. which makes me wonder why you do it but that is for another thread I suppose!

coddy is looking cheery this afternoon!

It's middle office not back - We grunts are very sensitive about that sort of thing I decided 2 years ago to not take a front office role as I was trying to get pregnant and didn't want the extra stress of that lifestyle - at least now working mainly on project based stuff I do get to work from home when more than the 8-5 needs to be done, and have some down times when I can spend all day on Mumsnet. And I'm only doing it now because the maternity package which I'll hopefully be using soon is bloody brilliant (That and the fact 'd be a terrible SAHM - I don't like babies )

use the maternity packages as much as possible and then get out, that's my advice! worked for me

Boe wrote: "As we are a democratic society I feel that I should have a say in where my taxes are being spent"

I would like to ask whether as a democratic society we should penalise children for their parents being irresponsible?? If you refuse to support people who are having children whilst on benefits, then you are placing the children into the 4 million children who are already living in actual proverty in this country now.

Most people probably wouldn't bring a child into such a situation. But for whatever reasons they do, and I don't begin to understand or judge them all, how can you justify punnishing the children with financial restrictions? In relation to this would you hold that "All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection."? This is stated in the Convention Article 25.

I would also like to quickly address the issue of having children as a right. According to The Geneva Convention of Human Rights Article 16 "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family...The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State." This, as far as I know is the article that China is held to be in violation of, and as such has one of the worst human rights records in the modern world. Interestingly enough the Convention, in Article 22 holds "Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality." But on the issue of the right to have children, would people here rather see a policy along the lines of China's, which is ecomically based?

One thing I was wondering about, and this is said tongue in cheek. Those of you working yet posting on mumsnet are you doing this on your employers time??? Are you taking advantage of the system?

Good stuff pie. I've got to go now, school pick up, but good post.

bloody 'ell, pie is quoting the human rights convention at us. I'm off to sunbathe!!

pie

Just logging in - have to be quick, but beetroot, completely agree with your post about govt (and us as a society) having a responsibilty for everyone, especially those in need. And what a boring country it would be.

See that old chestnut, 'I've worked hard therefore I've earned my inflated salary' argument has cropped up. Nurses, teachers,lecturers (highly qualified people)'work hard'. Not everyone is motivated by money.

Bells - so sorry you're having a vile time but, can't help asking, why have you stayed for so long?

PPH - not sure we're disagreeing at all. I'll have to check later And yes, the Mapeley scandal is indeed, deeply embarassing.

Good post pie. Liked the one earlier about forcing the unemployed to work and the govt then having to pay minimum wage as well.

WWW, I actually meant that less than 1% of taxpayers earn more than £100k, not that 1% are in the 40% bracket.

The point I was trying to make was certainly not that people in the city deserve anything in particular, just that highly paid jobs whether they be in the city of elsewhere inevitably come with huge demands in terms of commitment, pressure and most important personal sacrifice. If the tax rate for high earners was to rise over say 50%, you would inevitably find fewer people willing to make that sacrifice with the result likely to be no increase in tax revenue. Don’t get me wrong, I have never begrudged a single penny I have paid in tax as I don’t think a 40% top rate is especially onerous.

Jimjams, of course my Nanny earns less than me. Over and above her salary though she does have accommodation in central London paid for entirely by us (including food and all bills). Again this is a necessary cost of my husband and I both having city jobs. We both start work at 7am, so clearly we need someone who lives close by.

As to why have I stayed in the city, well obviously it was all fine and dandy until I had a child but as he is not yet 4, that is a relatively recent development. I would also say that when you have built up a career over 16 years and a level of seniority and financial independence, it is quite hard to give it all up to be a SAHM. If I didn’t have children, I would have been more than happy to continue as long as the financial reward was there

So of course, people in the city have a choice. My point was simply that from the perspective of the inland revenue, they need to ensure that people continue to make that choice because the net effect of people giving up the city (and similar high earning careers) is a loss of tax revenue.

This isn't meant to cause offence and is a purely personal position (tho' in my defence can I say from the outset that we were told we couldn't have children so do have experience of this being a factor in a marriage) - I don't think that the Geneva Convention is right in stating that we have a right to found a family in that I don't think that it's something we can demand to have made possible. I don't think anything should be done to stop people having children if they want them (like China) but I don't think that people can demand to have children regardless of anything else.

bells - just another point (really not having a go at you, it's just that you're able to answer) but won't your job simply be filled by someone else? The Revenue won't lose that tax? In fact, should supply of staff reduce due to a reform of the tax system, won't salaries need to increase and, therefore, revenue increase? There will always be people (not saying you) who are motivated by money so posts would get filled, non? I realise there is a cut-off point but what is it? Rhetorical question, that last one.