Child Poverty

[Polygon48k]

A specific Child Poverty section is needed as many people have asked for it, I have included views from others and an exclusion that means that benefits cannot just be constantly raised when there is a clear and present danger for the child in the home.

[openpolitics-bot]

This proposal is open for discussion and voting. If you are a contributor to this repository (and not the proposer), you may vote on whether or not it is accepted.

How to vote

Vote by entering one of the following symbols in a comment on this pull request. Only your last vote will be counted, and you may change your vote at any time until the change is accepted or closed.

vote	symbol	type this	points
Yes	✅	:white_check_mark:	1
No	❎	:negative_squared_cross_mark:	-1
Abstain	🤐	:zipper_mouth_face:	0
Block	🚫	:no_entry_sign:	-1000

Proposals will be accepted and merged once they have a total of 2 points when all votes are counted. Votes will be open for a minimum of 7 days, but will be closed if the proposal is not accepted after 90.

Votes are counted automatically here, and results are set in the merge status checks below.

Changes

@Polygon48k, if you want to make further changes to this proposal, you can do so by clicking on the pencil icons here. If a change is made to the proposal, no votes cast before that change will be counted, and votes must be recast.

[philipjohn]

Good thinking on the new section! We should check whether there are similar/conflicting bits elsewhere in the manifesto as well - we might have addressed some of this stuff in some way elsewhere, so good to check.

Could you explain a little more about the intention behind this please?:

demonstrated to be the source of poverty and or abuse.

The wording sounds a little funny to me. I think I know what you're getting at, but want to be sure :)

[Polygon48k]

Yeah, you're right, perhaps malnutrition and/or physical/mental abuse.

Was inspired by an email from ecpc.org, I agree with their three commitments, I just wanted to include some kind of safeguarding against some of the situations I have encountered. You can give the parents all the money in the world but if it doesn't get to the children then it is of no use.

[LudovicD]

Regarding housing costs support, it important to specify at the same time that this supports should be accounted in 2 parts:
part for Land & part for the building/Long-term maintenance costs of the Landlord, & the bulk (>50%, quickly going up to 62.5% above 2 times median level, and more according to the principle that taxing the return of economic rent does not affect any economic decision at all, all the way up to 100% of the Land rental value effectively received - adminstration costs of paying that tax) of the Land part (at least above the level of the median household of the Landlord) has to be taxed (to the the total LVT, national+local), whereas the part for the building/Long-term maintenance costs of the Landlord has to remain entirely untaxed, a must regardless of private bankers charging interests to the Landlord.
(obviously the priviledge of charging interest [as the money for the loan amount did not exist before the approbation of the loan] should be subordonate to as much as the interest needed being used to pay the LVT in porportion of the Land value & in proportion the capital not yet paid back by the borower, ie. as the money was created out of nothing else than the contract signature, to buy the land with the property, the interest on it includes the obligation of the part of LVT, in proportion of the part borrowed & not paid yet).
very important to specify that a high rate of LVT is a must, because if it not done, paying housing support is a huge subsidy the the landlord = the policy increases inequalities & poverty, which is totally inacceptable & we want to avoid that at ALL costs, as much as nuclear war & full collaspse of all civilisation (it is important to have strong words for this). it certainly is very unacceptable that any Landlord treat any economic rent (above median level), as ordinary income (it is a sure way of playing monopoly -> which only leads in the end to just the one person ends up owning 100% of all the UK) (even if what currently happens is very close to exactly what we want to avoid). So the principle of no subsidy to the rich is the more important one here.

[Floppy]

Might need a reorganisation later to fit in with other things, but I'm in favour of the policies.

I think that the housing-benefit-rise-in-line-with-rent is a license to inflate prices as it stands, so we'll need to add some sort of rent control as well. Which I also think is a good idea, so I'm not objecting on that basis.

Vote: ✅

[openpolitics-bot]

Closed automatically: maximum age exceeded. Please feel free to resubmit this as a new proposal, but remember you will need to base any new proposal on the current policy text.