Keir Starmer's definition of working class

Germanshepherdsmum

I see it as acceptable for a woman to stay at home with her children if her husband is earning a good salary and they don’t have to resort to benefits. The husband is providing for the whole family without recourse to the state - and it’s singularly unlikely that a man paying at least higher rate, or more likely additional rate, income tax will be able to do that. This is in stark contrast to illegal immigrants who simply take from the state, contributing nothing.

It’s not logical as an argument if the dependence on migrant labour is to be ceased. Life isn’t all about money, it’s about the contribution people make to society as well.

This is in stark contrast to illegal immigrants who simply take from the state, contributing nothing

.Illegal immigrants are a very small proportion of all immigrants. most immigrants are here legally to occupy the jobs that we cannot fill.

Nor can it be said that illegal immigrants, take form the state and give nothing. The majority get in without being caught by by the authoritites. Once here they do as much as they can to avoid contact with the authorities. Most are bound to black market employers where they are paid considerably less than the minimum wage, often live and work in appalling conditions. They steer clear of involvement with thNHS except in the most exceptional cases.

Those who are caught are then tied into a asylum review system that is very very slow, during that time they cannot take ajob, rent a property or do anything to help themselves. Many end up as rough sleepers.

Most are thengranted assylum and become normal contributing members of te community, working and paying taxes.

I actually said parents rather than women, I dont actually care which sex benefits from this.
As I have said all of those I know with young children all work part time, what are we to do with those people? I worked part time when my children were young, I was absolutely funded by DH!

Germanshepherdsmum

A couple can only afford for one of them to stay at home if the one working is earning enough to pay at least higher rate, probably additional rate, income tax. With higher earnings comes higher NI too. Much as I would have loved to have been able to stay at home when my son was small, or even to work part time, that wasn’t possible but I don’t resent those whose partners earn enough to make it possible, nor do I wish to penalise them as you do. My only beef is with people who could work but don’t, or who could work more hours, and claim benefits. That is not, in my book, acceptable.

We know a young couple where the wife earns many more times than the husband can ever do.

He has stayed home and cared for their children, she is making a very large contribution to both society through her job and HMRC.

People tend to forget that behind parents who are high flyers there is usually a stay at home parent running the home, caring for the children, looking after aging parents etc.,

I do find it ironic that we have threads on GN bemoaning that women have children and dump them in nurseries as soon as, in order to return to work.

The usual moan/rant is why bother to have them…

I’m not sure quite what you mean by what are we to do with the people who work part time Galaxy, but as long as everybody who can work does work, whether part time or full time, they are making a contribution, which is important in my opinion both for them and for society.

GrannyGravy13

Germanshepherdsmum

A couple can only afford for one of them to stay at home if the one working is earning enough to pay at least higher rate, probably additional rate, income tax. With higher earnings comes higher NI too. Much as I would have loved to have been able to stay at home when my son was small, or even to work part time, that wasn’t possible but I don’t resent those whose partners earn enough to make it possible, nor do I wish to penalise them as you do. My only beef is with people who could work but don’t, or who could work more hours, and claim benefits. That is not, in my book, acceptable.

We know a young couple where the wife earns many more times than the husband can ever do.

He has stayed home and cared for their children, she is making a very large contribution to both society through her job and HMRC.

People tend to forget that behind parents who are high flyers there is usually a stay at home parent running the home, caring for the children, looking after aging parents etc.,

I do find it ironic that we have threads on GN bemoaning that women have children and dump them in nurseries as soon as, in order to return to work.

The usual moan/rant is why bother to have them…

I know lots of couples who are both high flyers, and they make it work, both for their children and themselves. It’s tough, but by no means impossible. I wouldn’t ever condone anybody dumping their child though, wherever/whoever it was with - back up arrangements are essential.

They are making less of a financial contribution though, I paid no tax at all for years, exactly the same as if I had stayed at home. And if we want to nit pick I was putting.more strain on roads, commuting, etc.

If a mother wants to stay home with her child/children ?
She must pay contributions. She must be forced to work.
Noooooo

I think

I think my fingers are very clumsy tonight 🤣

Doodledog

Sorry, that was in reply to Dickens. I lost track of time when writing the post

Thanks Doodledog - lots to ponder if your reply!

Germanshepherdsmum

A couple can only afford for one of them to stay at home if the one working is earning enough to pay at least higher rate, probably additional rate, income tax. With higher earnings comes higher NI too. Much as I would have loved to have been able to stay at home when my son was small, or even to work part time, that wasn’t possible but I don’t resent those whose partners earn enough to make it possible, nor do I wish to penalise them as you do. My only beef is with people who could work but don’t, or who could work more hours, and claim benefits. That is not, in my book, acceptable.

And there's the rub.

Someone earning enough to pay additional rate tax (higher rate kicks in very low) should be paying more than others. That's how the system works, IMO rightly.

That couple already have the benefit of at least one high salary, which is fine by me, incidentally - I am not a communist. Why should they also get a tax break that allows one of them not to pay for the services they are getting free?

Benefits are there to help those who have paid into the insurance that the welfare state provides. I know not all claimants have paid in, but most will. Again, why should legitimate claimants be treated differently from others who are 'economically inactive' simply on the basis of their differing household incomes? Women are no longer chattels. We should be treated as individuals when it comes to our place in society, and that should mean that capable adults are expected to put something in, in return for all the things we take out.

Force women who want to stay home to get a job ?

When our 3 sons were small, my husband used to go to work for a rest.

If a couple have a child or children and one of them, either mother or father, decides to stay at home to care for them, then I don’t know why this is seen as a problem. Isn’t the care and nature of your own child valuable?

Sorry,

care and nurture

maddyone

If a couple have a child or children and one of them, either mother or father, decides to stay at home to care for them, then I don’t know why this is seen as a problem. Isn’t the care and nature of your own child valuable?

Well it should be valued but all the current and next Government seem to talk about is more nursery places so that both parents can work. The economy and growth are all they seem bothered about, not the care and welfare of children.

Ilovecheese

maddyone

If a couple have a child or children and one of them, either mother or father, decides to stay at home to care for them, then I don’t know why this is seen as a problem. Isn’t the care and nature of your own child valuable?

Well it should be valued but all the current and next Government seem to talk about is more nursery places so that both parents can work. The economy and growth are all they seem bothered about, not the care and welfare of children.

Wrong.
The Labour policy for young children is for their development and care if poverty exists, if you read the policy it's made clear first and foremost it's about a better start in life, as well as "childcare" if relevant. It doesnt allude to women having to go back to work etc etc

Can be read here

labour.org.uk/updates/stories/labours-plan-for-childcare-and-early-education/

Doodledog

An interesting concept (if that's the right word?) and I do understand the principle of everyone contributing to the society they live in as well as availing themselves of its benefits and services.

GSM has also said frequently that she believes, similarly, that people should work unless they are genuinely too ill or disabled - or too old.

I subscribe to both of you.

But I don't believe Doodledog that your idea would work.

Why? Because it is, to all intents and purposes, a form of adult conscription and I think society generally has become too developed / sophisticated for such an egalitarian system.

I didn't study politics or economics formally (you can probably guess that!), but have taken a great interest in both as a political animal.

However, I think your 'plan' goes against the fundamental ideology of 21st Century Capitalism. It might work in a less advanced society, but not in ours.

Say, for example, a group of us GNetters were together on a cruise and we became shipwrecked on a desert island somewhere - I'm sure we'd all pull together contributing what we could and what we were 'good' at to make life comfortable for all of us until we were rescued. Because we'd be in a primitive set of circumstances and environment, and our survival would depend on such co-operation.

To carry the analogy further - we would not be controlled by the market forces of Capitalism on our desert island - just the vagaries of the weather and the availability of any resources necessary for survival - we'd sit down and among us decide who was going to do what by general consensus.

... I'd be quite happy though for either you or GSM to be the Prime Leader of our little group !

On a more serious note, I think there are two 'issues' that are currently plaguing us as a nation and causing division and unrest.

One is the ever widening gap between the very wealthy and the impoverished. Because I believe that social mobility - advancement - for the individual is what gives people the impetus to strive and I think we've reached the point now where those at the bottom of the heap realise that no matter how hard they work, their horizon will always be the same. With stagnating wages, gig and contract work, they are in a poverty trap. And this causes resentment to the extent that people look around for scapegoats creating division.

The other matter is - and I really hate to say this but I think it's true - political correctness and identity politics. I think we are now so severely limited in what we are 'allowed' to say and what is deemed acceptable to say (I think Doodledog you will know what I am referring to here) that we now have this ridiculous situation where 'group-think' overrides common sense, logic, facts and even biological science, which has created a damaging and even dangerous (to democracy) polarity of wokes on the one hand, and those who tell it like it is on the other. So more division, more scapegoating.

... and hence the rise of those like Tice, Farage et al.

I wish we could put the clock back a bit. To the point where the 'alarm' went off and we just put our hand on it to turn it off, without looking at the time. If you see what I mean.

The government is interested in making poorer people into ‘hard working families’ who can be taxed, but not in getting taxes from those who can afford not to work.

I’m not interested in forcing anyone to do anything - that really is twisting what I am saying. I am suggesting that there is no difference between someone claiming benefits when not working (and many people also complain about claimants who are working but not earning enough) and those staying at home and getting child benefit and NI contributions paid. When children are babies it’s one thing, but why is it ok when they are at school?

Nobody has answered that. People are defensive and talk about what they did and why, but avoid the central question.

Greyisnotmycolour

I think

... therefore I am?

René Descartes?

Sorry, Dickens, we cross posted - I wasn't ignoring you. I'm in the break part of a meeting just now, but will read your post properly later and reply.

Doodledog

Sorry, Dickens, we cross posted - I wasn't ignoring you. I'm in the break part of a meeting just now, but will read your post properly later and reply.

... in your own time Doodledog - or even not at all, they are just thoughts for pondering!

Dickens
Thanks for making these two points.
One is the ever widening gap between the very wealthy and the impoverished. Because I believe that social mobility - advancement - for the individual is what gives people the impetus to strive and I think we've reached the point now where those at the bottom of the heap realise that no matter how hard they work, their horizon will always be the same. With stagnating wages, gig and contract work, they are in a poverty trap. And this causes resentment to the extent that people look around for scapegoats creating division.

Very true and the no matter how hard they work
applies to housing in particular.

The other matter is - and I really hate to say this but I think it's true - political correctness and identity politics. I think we are now so severely limited in what we are 'allowed' to say and what is deemed acceptable to say (I think Doodledog you will know what I am referring to here) that we now have this ridiculous situation where 'group-think' overrides common sense, logic, facts and even biological science, which has created a damaging and even dangerous (to democracy) polarity of wokes on the one hand, and those who tell it like it is on the other. So more division, more scapegoating.

This is very worrying and detracts from focus on the economy.

Dickens I agree with Molly that you have raised some interesting points regarding lack of social mobility and constraints on freedom of speech.

I take your point about conscription, and agree that it would be difficult to find a way to ensure that everyone contributes to society without some form of compulsion, but at the same time, those who claim benefits are compelled to prove that they are looking for work, declare sources of income that lift them above subsistence and so on, even if they are working and producing goods or services.

This is supposedly done in the name of 'the taxpayer who pays their benefits', but the same taxpayer is also subsidising those who don't work but are lucky enough not to have to claim. Not in direct payments of cash, but by providing the infrastructure of the country, as well as the literal fruits of their labours. I would like someone who disagrees with me to explain the difference.

When I say that everyone should contribute something to society, I don't mean that everyone should necessarily work for an employer. There are many other ways that people can be useful, and of course many people already are. If young people can be called upon to perform National Service, I see no reason why adults who are not otherwise 'paying in' couldn't be asked to do similar.

Oh, and none of this is to say that 'caring for your own child' is not valuable. Of course it is saying nothing of the sort. To suggest that is to suggest that working parents (who make up most of the workforce) don't care for their children, which is ridiculous and offensive. When children are at school, however, there is no more reason for their parents to be 'supported by the taxpayer' than there is reason for anyone else to get such support if they are capable of making a contribution.