State of the parties as 2015 General Election looms.

[ahinton]

We taxpayers pay at least that part of his income that is his salary as an MP, don't we?

Yes, that is of course correct, although we'd do that to the same extent irrespective of whether he had dependants.

[jean]

Why although? That's the whole point.

[ahinton]

Why although? That's the whole point.

Because I was seeking to point out that the taxpayer doesn't pay any more for him just because he does have dependants.

[Serial_Apologist]

When it suits them, it's "behavioural change"; when it doesn't, "social engineering".

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Because I was seeking to point out that the taxpayer doesn't pay any more for him just because he does have dependants.

No, but the taxpayer provides him with sufficient income to have 4 children. If it's OK for him to help double the population each generation, it's OK for those he seeks to penalise.

[Richard Barrett]

No, but the taxpayer provides him with sufficient income to have 4 children. If it's OK for him to help double the population each generation, it's OK for those he seeks to penalise.

This is what I was saying.

[ahinton]

No, but the taxpayer provides him with sufficient income to have 4 children. If it's OK for him to help double the population each generation, it's OK for those he seeks to penalise.

Exactly - which is why I made the point about the divisiveness of his deplorable proposals. He, like other reasonably well off parents, doesn't need to claim benefits to help fund his children, so he is exposing himself to risk in announcing such an intent and will undoubtedly be putting up many poorer people's backs by so doing.

[Beef Oven!]

This is what I was saying.

The difference is that he works for his salary.

[Beef Oven!]

No, but the taxpayer provides him with sufficient income to have 4 children. If it's OK for him to help double the population each generation, it's OK for those he seeks to penalise.

Like Fire-fighters, Nurses, doctors, teachers, IDS works for his salary, the funding of which comes from the public spend.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

... which is why the public should sack him for being such an incompetent

[Richard Barrett]

The difference is that he works for his salary.

No, that isn't the difference; most people receiving benefits are also in work, as you must surely know.

[Beef Oven!]

No, that isn't the difference; most people receiving benefits are also in work, as you must surely know.

No. About 4.3 million workers have their income supplemented with tax-credit, housing benefit, council tax reduction, non means-tested benefits such as disability living allowance etc. They do not receive these benefits for working, they receive it because they do not earn enough money, or are disabled. They get paid benefits despite their work, unlike IDS who gets paid because of his work. Big difference - surely you can see that.

[Beef Oven!]

... which is why the public should sack him for being such an incompetent

You may not be the only person who believes that.

[jean]

No. About 4.3 million workers have their income supplemented with tax-credit, housing benefit, council tax reduction, non means-tested benefits such as disability living allowance etc. They do not receive these benefits for working, they receive it because they do not earn enough money, or are disabled. They get paid benefits despite their work, unlike IDS who gets paid because of his work. Big difference - surely you can see that.

What a bizarre argument.

Even assuming the 'work' IDS does is of equal social value to that of the firefighters etc., the salary he receives is so high compared to theirs that the fact that he doesn't receive benefits and they do has nothing to do with any match-up between salary and useful work.

[Beef Oven!]

What a bizarre argument.

Even assuming the 'work' IDS does is of equal social value to that of the firefighters etc., the salary he receives is so high compared to theirs that the fact that he doesn't receive benefits and they do has nothing to do with any match-up between salary and useful work.

Nothing bizarre. It's logical. If you want to challenge demand and supply as the determinator of salaries, go right ahead.