General Election December, 2019 (U.K.)

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

babies - who, if we are honest, are very expensive.

No, they're not. Old people are expensive, babies cost next to nothing.

CelticRambler

CelticRambler wrote: »

No, they're not. Old people are expensive, babies cost next to nothing.

Yes, they are.

Average cost of a baby in year one

You’re already £500 down in the first month but add in the costs from the other eleven months and it brings the total for year one of having a baby to a whopping £11,498, according to LV.

With many having taken maternity leave and therefore a cut in their pay it’s likely to be putting a strain on your budget. It’s estimated that in years one to four parents are typically spending on average £63,224 in childcare fees.

Don't get me started on old people.

boggerman1

England deserves everything that’s coming there way with a lying pm and Tory party.hope they get a whopping majority to own their own sh1t.saw Boris this morning on the mart show.unbelieveable stuff from him

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, they are..

£23.52 on nappies - optional
£243 on clothing - optional
£53.51 on feeding equipment - optional
£183.51 on things like toys and furniture - optional

You can buy a car for 50000€; doesn't mean that's how much it costs to get from A to B

CelticRambler

CelticRambler wrote: »

You can buy a car for 50000€; doesn't mean that's what how much it costs to get from A to B

That is precisely my point.

If you cannot afford to give a child a decent quality of life, you should not be having that baby.

If someone was at the level you propose, where they consider almost everything optional and therefore can be sidelined, it reduces the quality of life of the child, as well as making that child - by definition - unaffordable.

People can afford a 50,000 pound car. It doesn't mean that it's a financially prudent or responsible decision to buy it. It may leave them with next to nothing.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

If you cannot afford to give a child a decent quality of life, you should not be having that baby.

If someone was at the level you propose, where they consider almost everything optional and therefore can be sidelined, it reduces the quality of life of the child, as well as making that child - by definition - unaffordable.

Everything is optional. Just because you decide that something contributes to the "quality of life" of the child doesn't mean it is, in fact, something the child should have; it may, instead, have a better long-term quality of life by being shielded from the excesses of "modern" life.

Sam Russell

Deleted User wrote: »

That is precisely my point.

If you cannot afford to give a child a decent quality of life, you should not be having that baby.

If someone was at the level you propose, where they consider almost everything optional and therefore can be sidelined, it reduces the quality of life of the child, as well as making that child - by definition - unaffordable.

People can afford a 50,000 pound car. It doesn't mean that it's a financially prudent or responsible decision to buy it. It may leave them with next to nothing.

It is obvious that if you are poor, then you cannot afford a nanny. Therefore babies are out for the poor. Of course, many nannies started out in a poor household as babies. Oh, then where do the nannies come from if the poor cannot have babies?

I knew there must be a catch there somewhere.

Sam Russell

Sam Russell wrote: »

It is obvious that if you are poor, then you cannot afford a nanny. Therefore babies are out for the poor. Of course, many nannies started out in a poor household as babies. Oh, then where do the nannies come from if the poor cannot have babies?

I knew there must be a catch there somewhere.

It's about bringing poverty into sustainable levels.

Clearly, you still need nannies and cleaners and so forth, and with a managed poverty policy like mine, you can eliminate vast swathes of poverty whilst also bringing in a managed migration policy if there are any gaps within market sectors.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

Clearly, you still need nannies and cleaners and so forth ...

Need? Why can't people mind their own children, or clean up after themselves? Surely your "quality vs quantity" protocols should only allow for the breeding and import of people who have the capacity to carry out these basic functions?

Bannasidhe

Sam Russell wrote: »

It is obvious that if you are poor, then you cannot afford a nanny. Therefore babies are out for the poor. Of course, many nannies started out in a poor household as babies. Oh, then where do the nannies come from if the poor cannot have babies?

I knew there must be a catch there somewhere.

Indeed.

Wonder who is going to be expected to do all the vital but menial jobs when there isn't a ready supply of the 'poor' available?

Immigrants?

Put can't let 'poor' immigrants in obviously.

It's a conundrum.

hometruths

Sam Russell wrote: »

Why are people rich? Why are people poor?

Well, most people are rich because their parents were rich. Most people who are poor had parents of very limited means.

Rich people usually have a good education, and those at the bottom of society do not generally have education beyond the lowest level allowed - compulsory leaving age.

There are exceptions, but exceptions are generally exceptional. Most of those who are in the top 5%, did not get there solely by their own efforts.

@ Eskimo So, if you want a society where the poor are thrown to the wolves, do not expect many to agree with you.

Whilst this may appear to be true it fails to acknowledge the obvious fact that at some stage in the past the parents, or the grandparents, or the great grand parents or whoever were indeed poor and became richer.

i.e people who are rich because their parents were rich did not come from some magic line of rich people, evolved from rich chimpanzees as it were. Or if your beliefs prefer, God did not suddenly create rich people on the sixth day after creating the poor people.

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Indeed.

Wonder who is going to be expected to do all the vital but menial jobs when there isn't a ready supply of the 'poor' available?

Immigrants?

Put can't let 'poor' immigrants in obviously.

It's a conundrum.

Then you've had it both ways.

When you complain about poverty, I find a solution.

When you have my solution, you complain it'll mean insufficient poor people to do menial jobs.

CelticRambler

Hmmm. I'm wondering if a potential immigrant (or aspiring poor person) could pass eskimo's quality control by promising to be able to afford their children in the future? Applying Johnsonian logic - so admired by eskimo - everything that they've failed to achieve in the last 10 years is the fault of someone else (mainly the Labour Party, but probably the EU too - shared sovereignty and all that ) and "what people need to focus on is how we're going to unlock our potential, just as soon as we get Breeding done!" We're going to build 40 new houses for our six children, provide them each with 50 new housekeepers, and strike brilliant new deals with all those employers who are just waiting to sign lucrative contracts.

pixelburp

I can't think of a more reductionist and odious invocation of a Dickensian cliché than the idea that the poor have only themselves to blame. Coupled with the arrogance that one person's path out of poverty works for everyone. Individualism taken to an inhumane degree IMO. Might as well accuse the ill of health that it's their own fault for getting sick, and go full Wealth Bible.

pixelburp

pixelburp wrote: »

I can't think of a more reductionist and odious invocation of a Dickensian cliché than the idea that the poor have only themselves to blame. Coupled with the arrogance that one person's path out of poverty works for everyone. Individualism taken to an inhumane degree IMO. Might as well accuse the ill of health that it's their own fault for getting sick, and go full Wealth Bible.

If you must know, that's precisely my view.

If you choose the lifestyle, you choose the consequences of that lifestyle. It's not complicated to understand the link between cause and effect.

Of course, in some cases, disease is entirely genetically-based, such as Down's syndrome, in which case individual responsibility does not apply.

90% of lung cancers are caused by smoking. So yes, statistically speaking, it is the fault of the smoker if they contract that disease. That's one of thousands of possible examples.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

If you must know, that's precisely my view.

If you choose the lifestyle, you choose the consequences of that lifestyle. It's not complicated to understand the link between cause and effect.

Well, in that case, you've just argued against your own policy - because there are many diseases attributed to the various excessive consumptions associated with increased disposable income and/or average wealth ... all of which place an extra burden on any society that has a mutualised health service.

CelticRambler

CelticRambler wrote: »

Well, in that case, you've just argued against your own policy - because there are many diseases attributed to the various excessive consumptions associated with increased disposable income and/or average wealth ... all of which place an extra burden on any society that has a mutualised health service.

I completely agree with the latter half of your statement.

It's not arguing against my own policy, though.

Managed poverty is one problem, healthcare is quite another - and involves a new set of policies to tackle.

Individuals should, as much as possible, take responsibility for their actions - rather than relying on the State to pay. In the case of those with the means to pay, they should not receive free healthcare. Tax incentives should be proposed to encourage them to adopt private healthcare - particularly re: NHS.

Sam Russell

pixelburp wrote: »

I can't think of a more reductionist and odious invocation of a Dickensian cliché than the idea that the poor have only themselves to blame. Coupled with the arrogance that one person's path out of poverty works for everyone. Individualism taken to an inhumane degree IMO. Might as well accuse the ill of health that it's their own fault for getting sick, and go full Wealth Bible.

In Dicken's time, there was the concept of 'the deserving poor'. I am not sure how one is deemed 'deserving, but it qualified the wretch to charity, otherwise, the unfortunate was left to the inevitable result of poverty.

Sam Russell

schmittel wrote: »

Whilst this may appear to be true it fails to acknowledge the obvious fact that at some stage in the past the parents, or the grandparents, or the great grand parents or whoever were indeed poor and became richer.

i.e people who are rich because their parents were rich did not come from some magic line of rich people, evolved from rich chimpanzees as it were. Or if your beliefs prefer, God did not suddenly create rich people on the sixth day after creating the poor people.

Poverty is relative - a poor person today is not as poor as someone considered poor in the Ireland of the 1930s.

One can move out of poverty by being fortunate, by being given opportunities not generally available to others, or just getting up enough above the rabble to haul oneself out of the mire. Working hard tends to help as well.




Also, the rich tend to look after their wealth.

IFS release a damning statement that Labour's spending plans are not deliverable without taxing the 95%, nevermind the 5%, among many other problems with their insane spending plans.

Labour are lying to the public, pure and simple. I wonder how many people here will defend that lie?

LeinsterDub

[Deleted User] wrote: »

IFS release a damning statement that Labour's spending plans are not deliverable without taxing the 95%, nevermind the 5%, among many other problems with their insane spending plans.

Labour are lying to the public, pure and simple. I wonder how many people here will defend that lie?

Not defending Labour, because honestly I don't care but haven't both parties spending plans been widely dismissed as requiring massing debt or tax increases?

A Dub in Glasgo

No no no, only Labour because Johnson and the Tories would never lie to the voting public. The party political adverts that masquerade as some posts on here is getting tiresome, time for me to research the infamous ignore list

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

No no no, only Labour because Johnson and the Tories would never lie to the voting public. The party political adverts that masquerade as some posts on here is getting tiresome, time for me to research the infamous ignore list

I'm trying to tease out the consistency.

Are those on here - who excoriate Johnson for his tepid relationship with the truth - willing to admit that, at the very least, Labour are misleading the public into believing that their manifesto pledges will have no tax/material effect on "the 95%", which they are claiming to protect from tax and spending implications.

If justifications are made for this misleading behaviour - or, in my view, outright lie - then we can separate who is being objectively honest and who is not.

robinph

I'll happily pay a few extra quid to pay for services, and also pay a bit more in corporation tax for the same.

If it also stops brexit as a side effect of that then even better.

McGiver

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Indeed.

Wonder who is going to be expected to do all the vital but menial jobs when there isn't a ready supply of the 'poor' available?

Immigrants?

Put can't let 'poor' immigrants in obviously.

It's a conundrum.

Lot of supply in the ex-colonies. That's what "Commonwealth" is mostly for...

robinph

robinph wrote: »

I'll happily pay a few extra quid to pay for services, and also pay a bit more in corporation tax for the same.

If it also stops brexit as a side effect of that then even better.

That wasn't the question!

Deleted User wrote: »

Are those on here - who excoriate Johnson for his tepid relationship with the truth - willing to admit that, at the very least, Labour are misleading the public into believing that their manifesto pledges will have no tax/material effect on "the 95%", which they are claiming to protect from tax and spending implications.

The question is not asking what you are willing to accept, but rather how truthful Labour are being with the electorate.

No diversions to Johnson, either - because this question is purely focussing on Labour and Labour alone.

Rjd2

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Not defending Labour, because honestly I don't care but haven't both parties spending plans been widely dismissed as requiring massing debt or tax increases?

They slagged the tories spending plans as well that lot.

Few parties whether right or left cares about fiscal sensibility whatsoever.

I'd probably say that's the story in many nations where populism is on the charge.

robinph

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That wasn't the question!

Yes it is. Its the question people of the UK are being asked on December 12th.

robinph

robinph wrote: »

Yes it is. Its the question people of the UK are being asked on December 12th.

When Johnson lies, it's pulled up on here.

When Labour lie, it's reframed as "well, it's what we want anyway"...

Sam Russell

Deleted User wrote: »

When Johnson lies, it's pulled up on here.

When Labour lie, it's reframed as "well, it's what we want anyway"...

The only time Johnson did not lie is when the JCBs were heading for the third runway at Heathrow Airport. He said he would but had an urgent appointment elsewhere.