2 kids max, £8k benefit cap - would you vote this? (other ideas too)

[Tradescanthia 10]

So how many would actually vote for these policies if put forward by a political party?

 

Benefits cap

An absolute maximum of £8000 per annum if you choose not to work. If you want more money, then get a job.

 

Two children maximum paid for by the benefit system, one is an accident, if it happens again, OK - its another accident. If it happens again, then you need to think about condoms. Also, after baby number 3,the father needs to provide.

 

Housing - a maximum cap of £75 a week regardless of the circumstances. This would force down the cost of renting for those in work,as private landlords would not be able to ramp up rent costs, knowing the benefits will pick up the tab.

 

These would be implemented from Aprl 2013 - this would allow people who have taken advantage of the system to contunie to recieve payments (implementing it now would be inhumane to 1000s of children). It would give people enough warning as to what is in the pipeline.

 

 

Foregn aid

To be slashed to the minimum - this to be paid for by a 50p cut in a litre of petrol.

 

The money from foregn aid would be directed to our elderly who have paid into the system all their lives.

 

Also a cut in fuel duty would put additional cash into peoples pockets which would then be spent in the economy. The businesses would benefit from additional spending, who would then earn more money, who in turn would be paying additional tax - this would also offset the loss of revenue caused by the 50p a litre fuel duty cut. (the high petrol prices are self defeating)

 

 

The EU

An "in or out" referendum.

 

No fudging of the issue, the vote is given and is people say "we want out" we get out. If people vote to "stay in" then we pay into the pot of the EU and people have to stop moaning.

 

Vote "to get out" we get out, vote to stay in "we stay in". End of argument.

 

 

Quangos

If they serve no purpose, they get binned.

 

If they stifle business, they get binned.

 

anti-social behavior

If a tennant is being given free housing and they cause anti social behavior (noise etc...) they are given 2 warnings. On the 3rd offence, they are kicked out.

 

If given a free home, then a behavior contracts must be adhered to. If tennants wish not to do this, then the option is to get a job and pay for your own housing.

 

 

 

 

I'll think of other ideas, but what do you think of these, would you vote for them?

 

Carry on thinking, youv'e a way to go yet. What about hanging and flogging and 'everone knowing their place'???? A trifle oversimplified in my view.......

[southcoast 10]

Why have children if you can't afford to pay for them?

 

The taxpayer can't be relied to bail out the feckless, we are out of money

 

 

Yeh but they dont care,we mugs the taxpayers are expected to pay for them and the rest,enough is enough,like I said just a shame the political parties here are so scared of implementing sound policies like yours,thats why they will never get my vote.

[Mister M 1,608]

OK, the cap at 2 children maximum, people have asked "what about people who have worked and suddenly found themselves out of work?"

 

The answer is this.

 

The benefit system would be flexible and look into each case in turn, we would need people employed in the benefit system who would judge each case on merits and decide accordingly, so for example

 

case 1

Overseas migrant into the country, never contributed has 5 kids and needs accomodation as well as money to maintain a lifestyle

 

case 2

male or female aged 25 (regardless of race) worked for 7 years, paid tax and national insurance into the system.. Recently been made redundant, fully intends to return to work but is struggling finacially at present

 

case 3

layabout, refuses work, antisocial behavior, breeds kids like a rabbit on viagra, in the pub or on the x-box

 

Now, you have to look at each case in turn and decide where best the money would be spent. If you have 3 cases like these people, I would allocate money (8k) and perhaps a little extra. Case 2, society would have to decide if allowing them to lose everything benefits the country in the long run, perhaps a defered loan until they get back on their feet to be repaid at a very low rate of interest

 

It sounds like you'd only want this system if the benefit panel agreed with your ideas. And the above examples are rather extreme....

[Mister M 1,608]

I agree with your comments, but I did laugh at number 3! 'Women should stay at home freeing up jobs'! Jobs for whom?

 

For the immigrants that the OP is clearly in favour of!

[southcoast 10]

By the way just watch all the benefit scroungers come on now and give it some,lol.just ignore the stick your going to get,those who dont pay in should take nothing out.

[ronthenekred 10]

That post by me was a silly comment, I retracted it as I don't mean it

 

Sorry, it's there in Black n White...no u-turns as this loses you credibility.

 

 

Not that you have any to start with but some are warming to you and you must treat them with respect and consistency. :hihi:

[Mister M 1,608]

Don't agree with the 3rd one I'm afraid.

 

Another option is this

 

The minimum income guarantee - for a full time worker a guarantee of a minimum income of £250 a week for a full time worker (part time worker would be £125 a week).

 

Lets say someone earns £220 a week, the state would top them up to £250 by giving £30, someone earning £190 each week would get £60 etc.....

 

This would be funded by a cut to benefits to people who refuse work, foregn aid would also be cut to fund this. There would also be the raising of the tax threashold to £12000 a year so work always pays

 

Cuts to drug addition programmes as well as alcohol abuse victims - this money would be diverted to people suffering illnesses that are not lifestyle choices (illnesses through sheer bad luck, cancer dementia etc....)

 

The retirement age would be cut back to 60, which would free up jobs for our young. So in effect, instead of funding young people to not work, we now fund old people to not work (and the young would pay taxes - on earnings after £12000 per annum -) This money would allow people to retire at 60.

 

People in specialised jobs who are 55, would then be given a youth who they would train up so they can do the job when they reach 60. Money would be cut from the FE system, and diverted into training young people to do real jobs. For example, a plumber approaching retirement would be given funding to teach up to 5 young people a trade, passing on his skills.

 

The young people would be learning on the job. Accepted they would not get a nice qualification, but they would gain hands on trade skills which they could then use for paid work in the future.

 

Grammer schools to be funded and only the best (regardless of background) be given scolarships. The current system of favouring the rich is not fair (internships - not good if you don't have rich parents), good schools in good areas and lets not forget private schools for the truely rich.

 

But you do know that by cutting drug and alcohol programmes you would potentially increase the crime rate. Lots of research points to a genetic component to alcoholism, which although doesn't reduce their choices, does make them victims of circumstance to an extent too.

Some people would like to carry on working past retirement age, however your ideas on apprenticeships and grammars are worthy of consideration.

Edited August 30, 2012 by Mister M

[Mister M 1,608]

Sorry, it's there in Black n White...no u-turns as this loses you credibility.

 

Not that you have any to start with but some are warming to you and you must treat them with respect and consistency. :hihi:

 

Oh I don't know, nothing wrong with admitting you've changed your mind!

But when you change your mind as often as Cameron has, you stop taking him seriously!

[*_ash_* 88]

Money we spend on foregn aid would go to the elderly.

 

Petrol cut by 50p a litre, which would give car owners/familys additional spare cash to spend in the economy, more money in businesses means more money for businesses - the chancellor gets more money because the business has greater takings and pays more tax as a consequqnce.

 

As it stands now, a huge chunk of peoples spare cash goes on petrol/fuel - money which cannot be spent elsewhere

 

Fuel duty raises nearly £30billion a year. Much of this wouldn't be raised. Where would you make up the shortfall?

 

The way you say business will pay much more in tax implies that the fuel-cost savings aren't being passed on to the customer. I'm sure shareholders would like this, but I wouldn't.

[boyfriday 21]

Fuel duty raises nearly £30billion a year. Much of this wouldn't be raised. Where would you make up the shortfall?

 

The way you say business will pay much more in tax implies that the fuel-cost savings aren't being passed on to the customer. I'm sure shareholders would like this, but I wouldn't.

 

Well said ash, that's the problem with knee jerk policies, they rarely address the problems of modern society from a 3 dimensional point of view.

[ronthenekred 10]

Oh I don't know, nothing wrong with admitting you've changed your mind!

But when you change your mind as often as Cameron has, you stop taking him seriously!

 

:hihi: He didn't change his mind, he admitted to a retard statement, but hell, you go and vote for him.

 

A u-turn in an hour or so takes some beating.

[ronthenekred 10]

Well said ash, that's the problem with knee jerk policies, they rarely address the problems of modern society from a 3 dimensional point of view.

 

Especially when you knock policies out in adverts time.