Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

"welfare State"


vinny
 Share

Recommended Posts

Sorry I have not posted for a while – busy.

Some good points people, I may not agree but I see where you are coming from.

Kitten, you seem to have been the first to understand my (partial) defence of BTL’ers. Thanks!!!!

Again though I don’t think I’ve explained myself clearly. I actually don’t think in the majority of cases that there are enough consequences for majority of women upon divorce. This is especially true when initially divorcing. This is the most important time, as it seems to easy (perhaps) to continue to Decree Nisi when you know that you are going to get at least half the marital assets. Many women may have found that, as has been implied here, that it is bloody hard work being a single working parent. Did you fully understand that at the start? Be honest now, when you knew you would end up with the house, some capital and a stake in your ex’s future earnings?

You also presume that my ex had half of the assets. Nope, try approx 97% excluding my (admittedly large) pension pot. Then She also gets 33% of my take home pay. Then she drops another kid – denies His father lives with her – more tax credits/family allowance. How much do you think this costs YOU and I? I do not resent paying some maintenance, or sharing in the care for the kids (wish I had more time with them). I do not want the state telling me (or even us as a family) how much money I should pay and when I can see our children (I blame the Ex for the court’s involvement – but let’s leave that one there)

I have indeed got an axe to grind; this post is probably angrier and less balanced than others. But I again think there should be EQUAL consequences for men and women. Indeed, I’m not bothered in any relationship who does the cleaning vs. breadwinning, or how these things are shared out. Sadly, Tatty is right in at least (his)? Sentiment. How many women disagreeing with me have boys? Would you like them to get married? Would you still think the way you do if they were to be divorced?

Bluelady have I read your last post correctly? Is Mr BL’s ex having a laugh? How can you disagree with me? Another point is the effect of too much maintenance having on second families, but I think I will leave that one there!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Sorry I have not posted for a while – busy.

Some good points people, I may not agree but I see where you are coming from.

Kitten, you seem to have been the first to understand my (partial) defence of BTL’ers. Thanks!!!!

Again though I don’t think I’ve explained myself clearly. I actually don’t think in the majority of cases that there are enough consequences for majority of women upon divorce. This is especially true when initially divorcing. This is the most important time, as it seems to easy (perhaps) to continue to Decree Nisi when you know that you are going to get at least half the marital assets. Many women may have found that, as has been implied here, that it is bloody hard work being a single working parent. Did you fully understand that at the start? Be honest now, when you knew you would end up with the house, some capital and a stake in your ex’s future earnings?

You also presume that my ex had half of the assets. Nope, try approx 97% excluding my (admittedly large) pension pot. Then She also gets 33% of my take home pay. Then she drops another kid – denies His father lives with her – more tax credits/family allowance. How much do you think this costs YOU and I? I do not resent paying some maintenance, or sharing in the care for the kids (wish I had more time with them). I do not want the state telling me (or even us as a family) how much money I should pay and when I can see our children (I blame the Ex for the court’s involvement – but let’s leave that one there)

I have indeed got an axe to grind; this post is probably angrier and less balanced than others. But I again think there should be EQUAL consequences for men and women. Indeed, I’m not bothered in any relationship who does the cleaning vs. breadwinning, or how these things are shared out. Sadly, Tatty is right in at least (his)? Sentiment. How many women disagreeing with me have boys? Would you like them to get married? Would you still think the way you do if they were to be divorced?

Bluelady have I read your last post correctly? Is Mr BL’s ex having a laugh? How can you disagree with me? Another point is the effect of too much maintenance having on second families, but I think I will leave that one there!!

No Mr BL's ex isn't having a laugh. My earnings were taken into account when the court determined how much she should get. In addition, she got 70% of the equity in their house when they divorced.

Why would I agree with you that people should stay together for the sake of the money? If they'd stayed together, not only would they and the kids have been bloody miserable, but he and I would never have met, let alone married.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again though I don’t think I’ve explained myself clearly.

No, your posts are crystal clear.

This is slightly off at a tangent, but I think it is relevant:

Any tax should be fair. But it must also be collectible. The "welfare state" has become unfair. But it is collectible (PAYE, CSA, traffic fines etc.) The rich don't pay much tax relative to their net wealth as compared to those wage-slaves stuck in the middle. It's a sorry state of affairs and could make you wish to leave the country.

JY

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a rant yesterday, so why should today be any different? This stuff is being discussed on another thread but, being a presumptuous so and so, I’d like to start another with a slight, but perhaps significant slant.

What is this stuff? – It’s the “welfare system”

The way I see it is that the welfare system is the cause of most of our social and economic problems. That is to say, rich or poor, it disadvantages nearly EVERYBODY including net recipients of benefits. The only exceptions (perhaps) are the genuinely vulnerable, i.e. the genuinely ill or infirm etc.

We now have a system where the benefit of working v.s “playing the system” is only seen if you can earn significantly more than the average national wage. The system is skewed in favour of certain sets of individuals. This may not be a popular view but……Women are favoured more than men, mainly via the sort of  “best interest of the children” nonsense as I had the misfortune to come across during my divorce. Indeed how much cash do we need to throw at “families”? Child poverty DOES NOT EXIST (as I would understand poverty) IN BRITAIN UNLESS NEGLECT IS ALSO PRESENT. Also have you seen recently the latest storm around the CSA? Mentioned the amount the agency has failed to collect, but not the incompetence that has driven many men to their ruin (and/or suicide).  It positively encourages recklessness, single parent families and idleness and discourages fatherhood. Problems for children ensue, can anyone see where I’m going with this?

Some think they are clever sitting on their backsides and claiming all they can. Are they happy? Probably. But they are being held back by the situation. Yep, they will have more leisure time than I ever will. But that’s about all. They will, barring a lottery win, never have any more than the government will let them have. Sad really.

Their burden on the taxpayer (plus also employers) will make their “it’s not worth working” mantra become a truism – more tax and NI for those working.

Sadly too much government time is taken up by tax and redistribution. Sadly elections are won and lost  with too much emphasis on the welfare state, rather than who is better at running the country (including taking us to into wars by lying). Therefore, I’d suppose, govenance itself is undermined.

Shall I stop the rant and reveal the slant?  The welfare state may have added fuel to the housing boom!!!

Well, if its not worth working on an average wage v.s being on the dole then how can individuals make it worth their while being employed? I genuinely believe being able to invest is the trick. Many BTL’ers have been branded greedy (amongst other things). My supposition is rather that they (some of them) would like to better themselves in some way, rise above the idle who are being given near financial parity by benefits, and become self sufficient from the state. Am I wrong?

Oh BTW I don't see why I have a moral duty towards others or other's off spring. I'm not a bad lad and may help those less fortunate than myself. BUT don't presume I have any duty towards you unless the law says so. So there!

David marsland writes against the crime known has "the welfare state"

http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/polin/polin065.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet again I’ve not replied in good time so this thread has probably been drawn out too far – sorry.

Crystal Ball; Thanks for the link. Marsland and I are in almost total agreement. He has expanded the argument to include many more areas that I had not touched upon whilst putting a more cogent, concise and cutting case forward (I’m jealous).

I have been accused of stirring things, being on my soapbox and it has been implied that I am uncaring. Marsland perhaps also explains why many of these accusations may have been thrown my way. Perhaps he also explains why, in actual fact, all I have achieved here has been to stir things (again – not my intent). Those who do not see my points - never were going to see them!

No doubt I’ll be drawn into a similar argument somewhere down the line, but for now I intend this to be my last post on this thread.

Lastly, JY; It does make me want to leave the country and my background (oil industry) lends itself to that. If two conditions are met, those being:

1/ My relationship with our children being stopped by the Ex (She has tried before – cue 2 years / 30K ish in court).

2/ CSA / Tax going up to the point where it is not worth working.

Then I may just leave the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

to those who don't want to 'pay for other peoples mistakes'

i think it is correct that families (one or two parent) should be given non-discretionary help towards raising children.

if you want a pension (regardless of which scheme you invest) you need workers tomorrow to pay it for you.

rasing kids is necessary for the future of us all and is a hell of a commitment!

either raise children yourself (and be party to it) or pay someone else to do all the work for you. isn't that how most things work anyway?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.