Canvas, How about some suggestions as to what would satisfy you.

I must say i think this argument is a storm in a teacup. The way I see it is that anything that no longer effectively rewards single girls for having children, and making single motherhood a career choice is a positive step.

I will agree that the balance shouldn't swing the other way.. neutrality in these things would be best with all politicians and taxmen out of the home.

Jonjii - what would satisfy me is if DC agreed to redress the balance with neutral policies and treated everyone equally and fairly. No favouritism.



Emily - when 'encouragement' is done with financial incentives (even token ones) it's called social engineering. Politicians/the state should not interfere with our personal/private lives. Our personal relationships are none of their business.

No Argument

It can when:

Women live with kids in a house with no men.
Men need somewhere to live too.

Therefore housing crisis.

In the "old days" men & women lived together in a house with kids.

These days lots of women live in houses without men so more houses have to be built.

Another problem with a neutral policy is this.

Some women do not want to work that are married. With your policy they could just claim unemployment with no intention of a job then keep signing on & off as appropriate (perfectly legal to do, you dont need a reason to sign off it is your right).

So there will be more claims and when the new deal comes aroudn they will sign off. That is 18 months of "free benefit" money for them.

Cliff

Chulcoop - please stop trolling.

Think about it.

At present if you are a couple earning more than a certain amount of money and/or have a specific amount in savings you cannot claim unemployment benefit.

Under your scheme, they could. Therefore all they would need to do is spend 18 months not getting a job.

They would apply for jobs (badly) and turn up for interviews (badly) and not get employed.

Then when the new deal turns up, after 18 months of unemployment for those over 25 (i was on it so i do know) they just sign off.

Are you not up for this canvas? I am raising real concerns.

The tax bill will be higher as housewives will start legally scamming the system by suddenly deciding they want to work part time & demanding unemployment benefit until they do.

If they have not worked in 10 years realistically they have no chance. And if they dye their hair pink & green (which is their legal right) it will further reduce their chances of getting a job.

If you don't believe me, analyse Jade Goody.

Jade is a millionaire. Her mother claims benefits from the government.

Why? It is legitimate free extra money.

Cliff

Chulcoop, out of courtesy, will you please post your comments regarding benefit, new deal etc on a welfare thread - we are discussing the definition of family - and DC's married couples tax break. thank you.

PS> Your trolling is becoming boring - and if you want to kill this site then you are succeeding. Cheers.

IT IS RELAVANT

As Dave Cameron talks about how families are being split up by the TAX SYSTEM/WELFARE (Benefits/unemployment to you canvas).

You believe that men & women should not be penalised for living together or sepeately is that right?

A "neutral position" as it were, yes?

Well, I raised the issue of a non working housewife.

If she stays with her husband she gets nothing from the state.

If she dumps him, then she can claim benefit from the state.

SOME FAMILIES HAVE SPLIT UP FOR THIS REASON.

it is a legitimate comment.

I am not trolling, I am providing alternative viewpoints.

And telling me off for "trolling" (I call it debating) is different.

I was pointing out to have totally neutral poicies you desire "across the board" might increase the welfare bill, and as such would mean MOST working people having to pay more tax.

If what people do could affect the tax bill then it is the government's business.

Maybe you are rich Canvas, and could not be bothered to claim the pittance. But many will given the chance.

Canvas said


Dave Cameron above said:

THIS WAS WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT.

Blame Dave for trolling if you dare Canvas. Afterall, he mentioned it first.

I pointed out that to DO SO WOULD MEAN MANY HOUSEWIFES COULD NOW SUDDENLY CLAIM MONEY THEY COULD NOT BEFORE by deciding to start work (officially) and get unemployment benefit or until they sign off (they say they have changed thier mind if things start getting too hot with the benefits office).

I was talking about BENEFITS for "stay at home" mothers living with a PARTNER that works.

If Dave's prosposals are implemented then people will start cliaming and the tax bill will increase to pay for it.

SO IT IS RELEVANT CANVAS.

Canvas said

A neutral policy would allow someone not working living with a working partner to claim benefits if they cannot do so now due to combined savings and earnings limits.

This WILL INCREASE THE TAX BILL.

SO IT IS RELEVANT.

Unless you think some that will be able to claim it won't bother.

chulcoop - sometimes 'less is more'.
OK, you've made your point, many thanks. Sadly, I can't understand it.

In plain english Canvas, if you have neutral policies you have approximately 2 choices (more are available but this it simply).

Reduce the amount most people are EACH paid for benefits/tax credits that can claim, but increase the number that can claim them. This would not increase the total amount of tax PAID BY EVERYONE ELSE.

Or increase the amoung of tax paid by EVERYONE ELSE without reducing the benefit.

E.g.

Situation: Stay at home mom.

Current situation: Man earns 30k, wife can't get any benefit money if she stays with him.

If she split from him, excluding any housing benefit she woulod get 60 pounds a week jobseekers allowance.

So, to not penalise her (neutral policy) you have to allow her to claim jobseekers allowance, which she could not previously have done.

Situation: Part time worker(staying with same man).

Currently she cant get jobseekers allowance from the state.

Similar to above, mother earns 25 pounds a week part time. She can get the rest from the government as this would be topped up to 60. She would however be expected to apply for other jobs. Many others may decide if the government pays 60 pounds for doing nothing why take a part time job?

(You CAN claim jobseekers allowance from the state if you work providing it is less than 16 hrs a week part time and you declare it).

Some women take part time jobs to suppliment income as if their partner earns over a specific amount she can't claim.

For example

Jobseekers Allowance



Canvas: Less is better.

I agree but this is the only way i know how to put my points accross and if you want neutral policies you must be prepared to PAY MORE IN TAX to fund it.

Cliff

Chulcoop, I had no idea you were an economist.

I am always happy to pay tax, especially when I know it's being spent wisely.

You live on a different planet to me - and as hard as I try to understand your logic - I can't. I think your comments are best suited to a thread on welfare reform. I am talking about philosophy.

Less is not better, sometimes it is more.

But will it be?

Suppose her husband earns 30k.

What do you think she is going to spend the jobseeker's allowance on.

Bills? Food? Essentials. Charity even?

No she will use your government tax money (which she could not use before) to spend on luxuries such as a new pair of shoes (even though she has 50), savings or similar.

So other people's money tax money will be spent paying for luxuries of housewives that do not want to work.

Cliff