Dave's cuts are going be deep and they will hurt

[FellatioNelson]

I've been hearing this all day on the radio. I can't take the suspense any longer. They are going to affect the lives of 'every one of us'

I feel like a person wincing and clenching my teeth in anticipation of the big fuck-off needle the school nurse is wielding, and I'm next in the queue....

Come on then, what's it going to be?

My references are to long term claimants. People who expect the state to act as a father for their children.

Not people who lose their jobs, I actually think that there needs to be a tax rebate system for the suddenly unemployed who have contributed.

Yes I was waiting for the Fstv thing to bite me on the bum but I agree with jollypirate the tv is less of an issue than the sky subscription.

Obviously when I am Prime Minister things will be so much better

told you.

It is paying for a service you don't use though wubblybubbly and the fact is if everyone who used private education suddenly demanded a state school place it would add pressure to already cut budgets, where do you think those people live, next door to the crap schools or in catchment for the best in the area ?

No one pays for education twice. You pay to educate everybody's children. If you choose not to take up the free place for your child that does not reduce your responsibility to the state.

We do not pay x, y and z to the governtment for a,b and c. We pay X to the state. The state then decides (in theory at our behest) how to spend that money.

Did you do that thing where you pressed send and then simultaneously thought 'um...ok, maybe I should rephrase a tad...'

I do that all the time.

I don't have (or want) Sky, I am safe LOl

OK so the tax rebate seems a good idea; what then do we do about people like myself who have paid for years but will noe be LT claimants through no fault? Tax rebates wouldn't cover it (saldy) so what?

I mean, I could hand the kids over to the state at an apparent cost of up to £4k per week for te two (seriously- based on gigures from a few eyars ago I referenced in an essay recently).

Now if they wanted to get me off benefits ASAP £900 would let me complete my MA so I could start my ;little business from home and be self employed, but that wopuld take A) logic and B) of course ridiculous man hours to investigate for every claimant.

I'd be mortified by vouchers though; we got some when I was on maternity elave with ds3 (DH lost his job at 36 weeks pg, was back shortly but obv. I couldn't return until after baby came, despite suggestion of council to do exactly that!) and every time you tried to use them shops would make a right fuss, waving them about and drawing attention. Used to be very humiliating. Actually soemtomes they would refuse them just to be awkward. Bastards.

TCNY OK. I s'pose.

At the moment there is a lack of jobs. Loads of people WANT to work, but cannot find jobs.

OI - the sky subs was MY point

By Alouiseg Wed 09-Jun-10 18:03:03
'My references are to long term claimants.

People who expect the state to act as a father for their children. '

So basically single mothers? Not single fathers then I take it...and we're not allowed to buy a 2.99 DVD I suppose.

Okaaay

Really SMA ? Because my SIL sent me to get some formula for her baby in Tesco's to pay for with those tokens and nobody batted an eyelid.

I think part of the POINT of vouchers is to add some stigma. Whether that is a good or a bad thing is debatable, as is if that stigma would remain if it covered a large % of people, especailly within a small geography.

But if 7% of the school age population go ouytside of the state sytem for schooling and they were all placed into the state system for schooling - that would cost the goverment an extra 7%- money they have already taken in the way of tax

Where we lived formula had to be collected from a special clinic

It was the local Sainsburys for real milk; no tesco or asda back then, not where we were. Used to be a nightmare. In teh end I used to send Dh who has the hide of a rhino.

Of course, we are talking a LONG time ago- well, 7 years, system could be completely different from then. We certainly don't get anything like that now, thank god.

Oh yeh deffo a good thing

How can that be a good thing?!

Oh yeh deffo a good thing

How can that be a good thing?!

I'm not sure where the cuts will fall or, even, where they should fall. I know that we'll be affected in some way, either through tax rises or through cuts in services.

My husband is a higher-rate tax payer and works in the public sector (Army officer) and there are cuts coming their way. About a 1,000 posts are going from the Officer Corps - some of these will come from natural wastage (as people retire they won't be replaced) and some from restructuring. I believe that DC has already stated that Forces pay and pensions are untouchable but that cuts will come from other areas within the MOD. I don't work and I don't intend to work (we have two small children and a third on the way), so we are reliant on my husband's income alone.

I don't mind if we lose the little tax credits we do get but the loss of child benefit would bite a little.

It's really hard to say what we should cut as the public sector provides the vital services we all use and need (NHS, education, welfare etc).

I know we're lucky to be able to afford what we can and we have some wriggle room in our budget. I do believe wholeheartedly in the existence of the welfare state but that has to be tempered by realism and we have to find better ways of getting people off benefit dependency. I'm glad I'm not the one making the decisions.

That was to coalition bte. Sorry for double post - no idea how that happened. My mouse is obviously using vouchers and is not as good as the other sort.

Coalition- do you think we deserved stigma? Or should I have returned to work at 39 weeks pg perhaps?

A great many people in need are temporarily there only, or not tehre through any fault or choice. It is undoubtedly a bad thing to stigmatise them. Whetehr it is to stigmatise LT claimants is of course different but I woudl argue that when you do so you push people outside society and make them less likely to fulfil a societal norm of working. Plus, I always felt huge stigma to claim anything- presumably those who do not care won't feel increased stigma, hsurely tehy must be immune? So you could well end up punishing only those who actually care and would have it differently fi they could?

Mamatomany, we all pay for services we don't use.

I've never set fire to my house, can I have a discount from the fire brigade? I buy my own books, don't go swimming, can I have a leisure refund? When I worked, I had PHI and PMI cover incase I became sick, should my NI have been refunded in part?

As much as we might like to, we cannot pick and choose which benefits we want and will pay for.

If people want to send their children to public school, they can, but they can't also expect a refund from the taxpayer because they are exercising their freedom of choice.

I don't buy for one minute that public schools would go to the wall if they introduced VAT on fees. The schools would have to make efficency savings just like the rest of the education system in order to keep pupils on their books.

For those who decided not to continue on with private education, I doubt they'd just waltz into a place at their local super school. They've most probably missed the boat there, they'd have to go wherever would take them and get their names on the waiting list.

But don't worry, it isn't going to happen.

ruckyrunt - it would be 7.5% as it's on top of the 93% in the state system rather than the 100% of school children. Obviously that would be a burden, but they havn't taken money for that in tax. They have taken money to run the state. Part of the states job is to ensure the next generation is educated. We all pay towards that even if we don't have children, let alone if we do have them and choose to educate them privatly.

To Fathers who don't support.

To mothers who breed with reckless abandon.

To people who have a sense of entitlement and no sense of responsibility.

I have 2 children, we can provide for 2 children. Why should our tax burden go up because some baby daddy can't keep his cock in his pants?

I am responsible for my children and it is a responsibility that I and the vast majority on mn take extremely seriously. I don't want to be responsible for more children, if I did I would have had more of my own.

SanciMoanyArse - I don't think any of it has anything to do with what anyone deserves. It has to do with what works. The question of whether those whom you wish to be motivated by the stigma would fell stigmatised is a significant one, which is one thing I was trying to say in my post.

Certainly using them with Asylum seekers who are already stigmatised is less than helpful.

But I would be happy to see the idea TRIED. As long as you can measure the effects and back out of it doesn't work instead of plowing on to save face.

I don't want a refund of school fee's knowing I've excercised a choice is enough for me but if you push those children into the state system, which would happen in our case and several other parents I know then the children already in those classes are going to suffer. And they will walk into the best schools because the parents will use their influence to make sure of it. I've seen it happen.

what exactly do you propose happen to those children of the feckless and reckless?

vouchers all the way, is it?