|
Post by nelly on Jul 24, 2024 22:28:52 GMT
I got made redundant in early 2009 from a reasonably payed job. I had 3 Children and was worried sick about paying the mortgage, bills, food etc. Tax credits saved the whole family from poverty and for that I am truly thankful. Didn't feel guilty because I'd payed my taxes over the years. It was also the first time I'd been unemployed. I've never been in that position but always had the fear of it. I'm not sure how I would have coped. I'm glad that you were assisted. I've gladly paid my taxes and not once, ever, complained from age 21 precisely because I support a social safety net. And of course 'there but for the grace of God go I'. You know that I'm not advocating against YOUR children being fed and kept warm right? Or indeed any children being fed and kept warm. I do think people get angered at the very idea that there might be alternative, but perhaps better, ways of cracking a particular nut. My hope, theory (or call it whatever you will) is that MORE kids would be brought out of poverty by tackling the issue more tangentially, rather than less. For example, if there are nine families in your position and one family where the parents are hopeless. Throw money at the situation and there will...still be nine families in your position and one family where the parents are hopeless. Some children in this ridiculously hypothetical scenario will get left behind. If you bypass the parents and expressly look towards helping the children in a more direct way, you ensure that ALL children of ALL ten families get looked after. That's what I'm advocating. Gordon Brown bought tax credits in and it worked. I don't think families should keep banging kids out just to get more money. There has to be a limit.
|
|
Mozzer
Contributor
Posts: 1,300
|
Post by Mozzer on Jul 25, 2024 5:28:19 GMT
You're saying they shouldn't get the money because they're irresponsible parents. So you're lumping them all in together, along with trotting out a trope beloved of the RW media, as I alluded to earlier, that you give these parents money and they piss it away. Do I think those parents exist? Yes, of course I do. Do I think they're the majority? No. Do I think we should be seeking better ways to ensure people don't find themselves in a position where they have families and can't afford to eat or heat? Yes, of course I do. Do I see that since 2010 this country has cut back on the support networks that were there to help people? Yes. Do I think you can reinstate those immediately when you've spent the last 14 years doing what has been done? No. Nearly right. I'm saying irresponsible parents shouldn't have more money handed to them. Because, guess what? They're irresponsible and it won't reach the kids. You've accepted those type of people exist, so basically what you're advocating is that THOSE particular kids can freeze or starve but at least we'll help some kids. Hmm. And yes, that means you are bypassing great, responsible, parents fallen onto hard times or working for poverty as you put it earlier. But their children STILL benefit. Whereas your way leaves a percentage of kids (and we can argue what that percentage would be, but you've accepted they do exist, right?) in precisely the same situation. As I said earlier by using a blanket, one size fits all solution (ie. throwing the panacea of more money at people) you're literally starving and freezing some kids with your kindness. I just don't think it works. I think there's a better way. And, when I listened to Starmer earlier, I got the impression that alternative way is what they are investigating. You've just made an argument for providing no benefits to anyone, because someone, somewhere is abusing the system. 'Sorry, son, I know your parents are decent people, but as someone else's parents are shithouses according to me, I'm not giving your parents sufficient money to support you. Whilst you're going hungry please be assured that those shithouses have got less money with which to do what I consider to be inappropriate. There's a better way, which I'll tell you just as soon as I've worked it out. If you'd been lucky enough for your parents to have previously decided to stick at an arbitrary number of children, this wouldn't be an issue for you.' It appears that at present most experts in child poverty agree that lifting this cap is the best way of addressing child poverty from where we are now. That does not mean, as I keep saying, that we should not be seeking other ways to address it so that fewer people are reliant on such benefits. It is a fairly blunt instrument to deal with a complex issue, I agree with that. But whilst we're all wondering what those other, more targeted, nuanced methods might be and getting things in place to deliver them, real children in real lives will be living out the real effects of not having enough money to get enough of the basics. And that comes at a financial and social cost, not to mention the direct personal effects. But still, at least we've not given an indeterminate number of subjectively undeserving people some money in the meantime. www.bigissue.com/news/social-justice/two-child-benefit-cap-poverty-taskforce/On the plus side, what you've got here is two people, who are no doubt regarded as woke lefties (whether we are or not), disagreeing with each other without falling out, which feels like a timely reminder that some people really do talk nonsense about how this thread operates to try to justify their own positions.
|
|
tvor
Frequenter
Posts: 185
|
Post by tvor on Jul 25, 2024 7:22:04 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Nik on Jul 25, 2024 7:35:40 GMT
If they're trans-women, they aren't blokes.
|
|
|
Post by Count de Stockport on Jul 25, 2024 7:43:12 GMT
If they're trans-women, they aren't blokes. Pub bore biology says otherwise
|
|
|
Post by timberwolf on Jul 25, 2024 7:53:16 GMT
It all sounded so good until “to cutting benefits”. This country needs to stop punishing people on benefits. They are a critical lifeline to many people and an actually robust benefit system where people are properly supported will do more towards helping them get their life in order which means that they can re enter the workforce. A lot of people who have fallen into benefits in recent years due to mental health issues have those issues exacerbated by the draconian and woefully inadequate benefits system. PiP assessments are horrendous and carried out by people wholly unsuitable to do them. I’ve had many conversations with people in the last few months about how helpless they feel from the way they were treated by the Job Centre. I’ve had my own run ins with the pen pushers at that institution while the pandemic was still keeping industries closed. Tories talked about a carrot and stick approach. I say get rid of the f*cking stick. Nobody bar a handful of insignificant outlier cases actually want to be on benefits. The welfare state needs to care for people, not chastise them for falling on hard times. To clarify what I meant, there are 8 million people on the NHS waiting list. 2.6m of those are economically active. Cutting benefits may have been a clumsy term, but what I meant is that there is a massive economic cost to a waiting list of that size. It costs £150bn per year and 7% of GDP. I'm not talking about punishing people. If you can help people back to full health and they can return to work, then the state won't need to pay sickness benefits and that individual can contribute to the economy. Equally someone who is not economically active, but can be returned to health, is less likely to need additional support from the state. Not to mention removing pain, stress, etc for the individual. Invest in getting people back to full health, plus challenge the causes of ill health tobacco, processed foods, fast food, lack of exercise, etc, will significantly reduce the cost to the state massively, without penalising or harming anyone. Finding and treating the root cause of mental health issues that seem to have increased quicker than anything else over recent years might go along way in reducing benefits and waiting lists. Chucking pills and s ick note at somebody is not the answer but finding the cause is.
|
|
|
Post by timberwolf on Jul 25, 2024 8:00:18 GMT
I've never been in that position but always had the fear of it. I'm not sure how I would have coped. I'm glad that you were assisted. I've gladly paid my taxes and not once, ever, complained from age 21 precisely because I support a social safety net. And of course 'there but for the grace of God go I'. You know that I'm not advocating against YOUR children being fed and kept warm right? Or indeed any children being fed and kept warm. I do think people get angered at the very idea that there might be alternative, but perhaps better, ways of cracking a particular nut. My hope, theory (or call it whatever you will) is that MORE kids would be brought out of poverty by tackling the issue more tangentially, rather than less. For example, if there are nine families in your position and one family where the parents are hopeless. Throw money at the situation and there will...still be nine families in your position and one family where the parents are hopeless. Some children in this ridiculously hypothetical scenario will get left behind. If you bypass the parents and expressly look towards helping the children in a more direct way, you ensure that ALL children of ALL ten families get looked after. That's what I'm advocating. Gordon Brown bought tax credits in and it worked. I don't think families should keep banging kids out just to get more money. There has to be a limit. Totally agree even though its not the fault of the kids. Its the single person on benfits i feel more sorry about who get far far less but still have to heat a home and use electric lighting when needed. It does not matter if their is 1 or 8 in a household these costs should not vary much. Do know somebody with 4 kids who lost a good job with well over 40k a year earned but said taking everything in like rent allowance, costs of travelling to work his money was little different by less to pay out. Surely this cannot be right.
|
|
|
Post by timberwolf on Jul 25, 2024 8:04:03 GMT
Can't say I'm thrilled about the 2 children benefit cap remaining, taking children out of poverty was the spin, time will tell. On the face of it it's awful but I'm waiting to see what other measures they bring in to lift kids out of poverty, I don't care if the parents are feckless, the kids haven’t chosen to be in these families and they deserve all the support we can give them, the breakfast clubs are a good start but we need to see much more. The big problem is with poverty its not the poverty as many think of but is taken much higher than that were without certain things available they are classed as being in poverty. Possibly something many of us could have fallen into when as kids we were just part of an average northern household.
|
|
|
Post by HTC on Jul 25, 2024 8:29:19 GMT
If they're trans-women, they aren't blokes. but they aren't female.
female sport exists for a reason. A quick look at this website shows you the physical differences. To use track and field events as an example, the male record for 14 year old boys is faster than the adult womens record in 7 events.
You can't have biological men, however they identify, in female sports without destroying them.
The way around it is to create an 'open' category, in which everyone can compete, no matter their gender identity, which a lot of sports have already done.
|
|
|
Post by desmond on Jul 25, 2024 8:33:35 GMT
If they're trans-women, they aren't blokes. Is that an argument for them to be involved in Women’s sport ?
|
|
|
Post by herbiedumplings on Jul 25, 2024 8:44:54 GMT
If they're trans-women, they aren't blokes. but they aren't female.
female sport exists for a reason. A quick look at this website shows you the physical differences. To use track and field events as an example, the male record for 14 year old boys is faster than the adult womens record in 7 events.
You can't have biological men, however they identify, in female sports without destroying them.
The way around it is to create an 'open' category, in which everyone can compete, no matter their gender identity, which a lot of sports have already done.
That much is true, but for me the main issue was the “cheat in sport” bit, which implies certain individuals’ sole reason to transition is to gain an advantage over cis women. Comes across like the “all gay men are paedophiles” trope that did the rounds in the past.
|
|
|
Post by Count de Stockport on Jul 25, 2024 8:46:56 GMT
but they aren't female.
female sport exists for a reason. A quick look at this website shows you the physical differences. To use track and field events as an example, the male record for 14 year old boys is faster than the adult womens record in 7 events.
You can't have biological men, however they identify, in female sports without destroying them.
The way around it is to create an 'open' category, in which everyone can compete, no matter their gender identity, which a lot of sports have already done.
That much is true, but for me the main issue was the “cheat in sport” bit, which implies certain individuals’ sole reason to transition is to gain an advantage over cis women. Comes across like the “all gay men are paedophiles” trope that did the rounds in the past. I also think we should let female athletes decide for themselves. A fair few support trans women competing in female competitions
|
|
|
Post by vicar on Jul 25, 2024 8:49:16 GMT
On the face of it it's awful but I'm waiting to see what other measures they bring in to lift kids out of poverty, I don't care if the parents are feckless, the kids haven’t chosen to be in these families and they deserve all the support we can give them, the breakfast clubs are a good start but we need to see much more. The big problem is with poverty its not the poverty as many think of but is taken much higher than that were without certain things available they are classed as being in poverty. Possibly something many of us could have fallen into when as kids we were just part of an average northern household. We could argue all day about what constitutes poverty but kids are going hungry and going through winters without heating, that shouldn't be happening in a modern European country.
|
|
|
Post by herbiedumplings on Jul 25, 2024 8:51:09 GMT
That much is true, but for me the main issue was the “cheat in sport” bit, which implies certain individuals’ sole reason to transition is to gain an advantage over cis women. Comes across like the “all gay men are paedophiles” trope that did the rounds in the past. I also think we should let female athletes decide for themselves. A fair few support trans women competing in female competitions At least in that regard, it’s two women having it out on the matter: (NSFW)
|
|
|
Post by HTC on Jul 25, 2024 8:54:51 GMT
problem is they are cheating.
Whether that's the sole reason they're transitioning or not doesn't matter to the women who are losing out on scholarships / being injured / not making the Olympic team etc by these males.
|
|