FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Linking universal benefits to earnings
Linking universal benefits to earnings
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Is anyone else a little confused by all this talk of child benefit/child tax benefit cuts.
On the one hand we're hearing it's the universal child benefit being cut to families earning over £44,000, and then we're hearing things about child tax benefit being cut for higher rate tax payers. So what's going on?
Also, by linking child/child tax benefit to taxpayer brackets, isn't it going to make moving those ceilings in future budgets a tad more complicated?
For example, if the higher rate taxpayer lower limit is currently £44,000 and the chancellor decides to give middle earners a tax break by raising that limit to say £50,000, all those people that WEREN'T elegible for child tax benefits/child benefit will suddenly find themselves within the qualifying lower limit.
I think we'll find tax brackets remaining static for the foreseeable future under this scheme to link universal benefits to taxpayer brackets. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Ah, more info about it has come out now.
The child benefit cut applies to families where one or both parents earn over £44,000. What it doesn't address is those families where both parents earn £30,000 for example, yet a family where one parent earns £44,000 and the other earns £16,000 faces a cut in child benefit - yet both families have a joint income of £60k. That doesn't seem fair at all. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Ah, more info about it has come out now.
The child benefit cut applies to families where one or both parents earn over £44,000. What it doesn't address is those families where both parents earn £30,000 for example, yet a family where one parent earns £44,000 and the other earns £16,000 faces a cut in child benefit - yet both families have a joint income of £60k. That doesn't seem fair at all."
no matter which way its looked at, the cuts in benefits will never be fair.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Ah, more info about it has come out now.
The child benefit cut applies to families where one or both parents earn over £44,000. What it doesn't address is those families where both parents earn £30,000 for example, yet a family where one parent earns £44,000 and the other earns £16,000 faces a cut in child benefit - yet both families have a joint income of £60k. That doesn't seem fair at all."
I spotted that flaw immediately when George Osborne was talking about it this morning.
Unfair indeed...but as Mally has said, there will always be unfairness where benefits are involved. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Simlarly, a couple on £40k salaries each (£80k joint income) will keep their Child Benefit, but a single wage earner on £45k loses his/hers.
That's not fair at all.
We fall into the first example (both under £44k but jointly way over it), but I still think it's grossly unfair to single wage high earners. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
its worse in ireland,there is talk of cutting the cild benefit and just giving vouchers instead,and the jobseekers allowance for under 21s in ireland,is just 100euro,some might might say,thats not bad,well consider this,i know a lad hes 19,he lost his parents last year,so the house is gone,he cant get a flat as most in this area cost 120,per week to rent,,and he cant claim the benefit unless he has a place to live,so he feeds himself and lives on the street or gets a roof over his head and starves and gets a debt of 20pw till he can get a job,,
and guess what more cuts to the unemployed in the next budget,what a world,i worked most of my life in various jobs,unemployed now,not looking forward to xmas,as the budget i think happens in november,and lat year they brought the cuts in in the first week of december  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"We all knew a conservative government wasn't going to help the middle earners but still voted for them. We only have our selves to blame."
This isn't about who voted for who. It would be a naive fool who agreed with every single policy a government makes even if they did vote them in.
This proposal is not fair. Cutting benefit of any description to v.high earners over £100k IS fair, as they clearly do not need state handouts, but cutting benefits to a single wage family and leaving a double wage £60k/£80k/£100k families with their child benefits is so obviously disproportionally unfair. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"We all knew a conservative government wasn't going to help the middle earners but still voted for them. We only have our selves to blame.
This isn't about who voted for who. It would be a naive fool who agreed with every single policy a government makes even if they did vote them in.
This proposal is not fair. Cutting benefit of any description to v.high earners over £100k IS fair, as they clearly do not need state handouts, but cutting benefits to a single wage family and leaving a double wage £60k/£80k/£100k families with their child benefits is so obviously disproportionally unfair."
Non of it is fair! But we voted for them so you can't complain just yet. It would have been better just to put taxes up.
But if your talking fair why should someone who pays £20k on earnings from 50k to 100k subsidise people who didn't make the effort to study in their youth? Life isn't fair but it will be less fair with a conservative government! But that is something we knew before hand. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andcCouple
over a year ago
London and Cheshire |
"We all knew a conservative government wasn't going to help the middle earners but still voted for them. We only have our selves to blame.
This isn't about who voted for who. It would be a naive fool who agreed with every single policy a government makes even if they did vote them in.
This proposal is not fair. Cutting benefit of any description to v.high earners over £100k IS fair, as they clearly do not need state handouts, but cutting benefits to a single wage family and leaving a double wage £60k/£80k/£100k families with their child benefits is so obviously disproportionally unfair."
IMHO the reasoning behind the 40% tax earners loosing out and not the joint over £44000 earners not loosing out is simplicity of the system, if your a 40% tax payer, it's easy to define and stop payments but asking people their incomes and then working it out means we have to contact them or search everyone's tax details then marry them up to their partners etc... that makes it overly complicated and more costly, when they are trying to reduce spending!
On a person point I think it's right that people(us included) who pay higher tax should not receive Child Benefit, also I think they should look also at the richer pensioners and their ability to get winter fuel payment when they can well afford them!
This comes from a hardened Tory, benefits should be for those that need them and not universal for all! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"This comes from a hardened Tory, benefits should be for those that need them and not universal for all!"
Part of me thinks 'stuff em' - why should I hand over my hard earned to someone I don't even know, wouldn't give me the time of day if I bumped into them in Sainsbury's but would bleat like a sheep if I stopped giving in the form of my tax.
They had the same chances as me at school and if they chose to waste their time instead of getting on and securing a decent job then that's their own goddam fault.
I don't need benefits of any kind from the state so I don't really give a damn if they stop them for us in all honesty, but I do care about loafers, wasters and scroungers holding out their grubby little paws for yet more dosh and everyone else being expected to foot the bill for it - on an unfair basis. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"We all knew a conservative government wasn't going to help the middle earners but still voted for them. We only have our selves to blame.
This isn't about who voted for who. It would be a naive fool who agreed with every single policy a government makes even if they did vote them in.
This proposal is not fair. Cutting benefit of any description to v.high earners over £100k IS fair, as they clearly do not need state handouts, but cutting benefits to a single wage family and leaving a double wage £60k/£80k/£100k families with their child benefits is so obviously disproportionally unfair.
IMHO the reasoning behind the 40% tax earners loosing out and not the joint over £44000 earners not loosing out is simplicity of the system, if your a 40% tax payer, it's easy to define and stop payments but asking people their incomes and then working it out means we have to contact them or search everyone's tax details then marry them up to their partners etc... that makes it overly complicated and more costly, when they are trying to reduce spending!
On a person point I think it's right that people(us included) who pay higher tax should not receive Child Benefit, also I think they should look also at the richer pensioners and their ability to get winter fuel payment when they can well afford them!
This comes from a hardened Tory, benefits should be for those that need them and not universal for all!"
quite honestly in this day and age child benefits are a bit of an outmoded concept aren't they. would it not be more efficient to phase them out? People on benefits are assessed according to need in any case and those of us who work might like the ideas of being allowed to keep more of our hard-earned money instead of taking it with one hand and then giving us a "benefit" in the other. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
You won't see a reduction in the amount of tax you pay even if you stop receiving child benefit. The two aren't linked in that way, which is convenient for the govt. You pay, they say where it goes and if you don't get none back then tough shit basically.
It's a bit like Britain's rebate in Europe: We cough up billions only to reclaim part of it later (or did someone called Blair fuck all that up a few years ago)  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"You won't see a reduction in the amount of tax you pay even if you stop receiving child benefit. The two aren't linked in that way, which is convenient for the govt. You pay, they say where it goes and if you don't get none back then tough shit basically.
It's a bit like Britain's rebate in Europe: We cough up billions only to reclaim part of it later (or did someone called Blair fuck all that up a few years ago) "
ha ha tell me something I don't know. Moving the goalposts is a wonderfully confusing tactic. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ig badMan
over a year ago
Up North :-) |
To me its all complete bollocks. It will cost millions to implement changes, sort out who can claim what. New pamphlets to be printed etc. Is it justified? Is it hell!
Why not just up the 40% rate to 41%. Little added cost as the infrastructure is there, pennies can be saved, more govt income, the rich basically loose the equivalent of the child benefit.
Why won't they do it as it makes sense? Because the high and mighty in govt don't want to be seen to be raising taxes.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"To me its all complete bollocks. It will cost millions to implement changes, sort out who can claim what. New pamphlets to be printed etc. Is it justified? Is it hell!
Why not just up the 40% rate to 41%. Little added cost as the infrastructure is there, pennies can be saved, more govt income, the rich basically loose the equivalent of the child benefit.
Why won't they do it as it makes sense? Because the high and mighty in govt don't want to be seen to be raising taxes.
"
yep, moving the goalposts is a great smokescreen and quite honestly most peeps are too busy trying to juggle their lives to make a fuss. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ig badMan
over a year ago
Up North :-) |
"To me its all complete bollocks. It will cost millions to implement changes, sort out who can claim what. New pamphlets to be printed etc. Is it justified? Is it hell!
Why not just up the 40% rate to 41%. Little added cost as the infrastructure is there, pennies can be saved, more govt income, the rich basically loose the equivalent of the child benefit.
Why won't they do it as it makes sense? Because the high and mighty in govt don't want to be seen to be raising taxes.
yep, moving the goalposts is a great smokescreen and quite honestly most peeps are too busy trying to juggle their lives to make a fuss."
I always wonder if they stopped all the different NI, Tax, VAT etc and had one tax how much would we save on bureaucrats wages. I am dam sure we wouldn't end up paying any more. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"This comes from a hardened Tory, benefits should be for those that need them and not universal for all!
Part of me thinks 'stuff em' - why should I hand over my hard earned to someone I don't even know, wouldn't give me the time of day if I bumped into them in Sainsbury's but would bleat like a sheep if I stopped giving in the form of my tax.
They had the same chances as me at school and if they chose to waste their time instead of getting on and securing a decent job then that's their own goddam fault.
I don't need benefits of any kind from the state so I don't really give a damn if they stop them for us in all honesty, but I do care about loafers, wasters and scroungers holding out their grubby little paws for yet more dosh and everyone else being expected to foot the bill for it - on an unfair basis. "
What about those who worked hard in school, secured good jobs in manufacturing, financial services, civil service etc and have been made redundant because of a globally driven banking crisis that they had no control over, these individuals are desperate to work but if there are no jobs or only very low paid employment options......should we just 'stuff em' |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"To me its all complete bollocks. It will cost millions to implement changes, sort out who can claim what. New pamphlets to be printed etc. Is it justified? Is it hell!
Why not just up the 40% rate to 41%. Little added cost as the infrastructure is there, pennies can be saved, more govt income, the rich basically loose the equivalent of the child benefit.
Why won't they do it as it makes sense? Because the high and mighty in govt don't want to be seen to be raising taxes.
yep, moving the goalposts is a great smokescreen and quite honestly most peeps are too busy trying to juggle their lives to make a fuss.
I always wonder if they stopped all the different NI, Tax, VAT etc and had one tax how much would we save on bureaucrats wages. I am dam sure we wouldn't end up paying any more."
What about all the unemployment caused by making the administration staff redundant? One solution causes other problems. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"To me its all complete bollocks. It will cost millions to implement changes, sort out who can claim what. New pamphlets to be printed etc. Is it justified? Is it hell!
Why not just up the 40% rate to 41%. Little added cost as the infrastructure is there, pennies can be saved, more govt income, the rich basically loose the equivalent of the child benefit.
Why won't they do it as it makes sense? Because the high and mighty in govt don't want to be seen to be raising taxes.
"
I agree with you |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ig badMan
over a year ago
Up North :-) |
"To me its all complete bollocks. It will cost millions to implement changes, sort out who can claim what. New pamphlets to be printed etc. Is it justified? Is it hell!
Why not just up the 40% rate to 41%. Little added cost as the infrastructure is there, pennies can be saved, more govt income, the rich basically loose the equivalent of the child benefit.
Why won't they do it as it makes sense? Because the high and mighty in govt don't want to be seen to be raising taxes.
yep, moving the goalposts is a great smokescreen and quite honestly most peeps are too busy trying to juggle their lives to make a fuss.
I always wonder if they stopped all the different NI, Tax, VAT etc and had one tax how much would we save on bureaucrats wages. I am dam sure we wouldn't end up paying any more.
What about all the unemployment caused by making the administration staff redundant? One solution causes other problems. "
Well if they don't have admin work to do with all the different methods of taxes they could be employed to chase down the tax evaders! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This comes from a hardened Tory, benefits should be for those that need them and not universal for all!
Part of me thinks 'stuff em' - why should I hand over my hard earned to someone I don't even know, wouldn't give me the time of day if I bumped into them in Sainsbury's but would bleat like a sheep if I stopped giving in the form of my tax.
They had the same chances as me at school and if they chose to waste their time instead of getting on and securing a decent job then that's their own goddam fault.
I don't need benefits of any kind from the state so I don't really give a damn if they stop them for us in all honesty, but I do care about loafers, wasters and scroungers holding out their grubby little paws for yet more dosh and everyone else being expected to foot the bill for it - on an unfair basis.
What about those who worked hard in school, secured good jobs in manufacturing, financial services, civil service etc and have been made redundant because of a globally driven banking crisis that they had no control over, these individuals are desperate to work but if there are no jobs or only very low paid employment options......should we just 'stuff em'"
what about myself worked all my life but recently had my leg off is it stuff me too? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Two simple steps for starters :
Restrict Child Benefit to 2 or 3 children at the most.
Increase Income Tax allowance to at least the minimum wage approx £13,000 per year.
Contentious srep :
Split Child Benefit between both parents.
Maybe then we will see how much the moaning "single parents" start to include rather than exclude the child care input from the other parent.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"To me its all complete bollocks. It will cost millions to implement changes, sort out who can claim what. New pamphlets to be printed etc. Is it justified? Is it hell!
Why not just up the 40% rate to 41%. Little added cost as the infrastructure is there, pennies can be saved, more govt income, the rich basically loose the equivalent of the child benefit.
Why won't they do it as it makes sense? Because the high and mighty in govt don't want to be seen to be raising taxes.
"
Flob off!
Why should I pay more tax so a bunch of people who don't need child benefit can keep it? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"This comes from a hardened Tory, benefits should be for those that need them and not universal for all!
Part of me thinks 'stuff em' - why should I hand over my hard earned to someone I don't even know, wouldn't give me the time of day if I bumped into them in Sainsbury's but would bleat like a sheep if I stopped giving in the form of my tax.
They had the same chances as me at school and if they chose to waste their time instead of getting on and securing a decent job then that's their own goddam fault.
I don't need benefits of any kind from the state so I don't really give a damn if they stop them for us in all honesty, but I do care about loafers, wasters and scroungers holding out their grubby little paws for yet more dosh and everyone else being expected to foot the bill for it - on an unfair basis.
What about those who worked hard in school, secured good jobs in manufacturing, financial services, civil service etc and have been made redundant because of a globally driven banking crisis that they had no control over, these individuals are desperate to work but if there are no jobs or only very low paid employment options......should we just 'stuff em'"
I think there will be a lot of decent, hardworking people, who through no fault of their own will need help from the benefit system. But for the grace of God...!!
I hope I never become so cold that because I'm alright I look down my nose at others less fortunate. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Ah, more info about it has come out now.
The child benefit cut applies to families where one or both parents earn over £44,000. What it doesn't address is those families where both parents earn £30,000 for example, yet a family where one parent earns £44,000 and the other earns £16,000 faces a cut in child benefit - yet both families have a joint income of £60k. That doesn't seem fair at all."
i think we need to wait for more clarification , there has been no mention yet about those claiming child benefit where both the children and the spouse live outside the united kingdom
in those cases it will be very dificult to asertain the level of income of the spouse that lives overseas with the children
as for the benifit itself , we have a world that is fast becoming overpopulated , thats if it isnt already
so anything that makes procreation more affordable should be scrapped |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
there are two statements I agree with:
1) it is unfair if there are 2 x household earners on £43k, they retain benefits whereas, if there is one earner at £44k, there are no benefits.
2) scrap the benefit
I'm not sure what the intent of the benefit is other than...you have a baby, here's some money. To me, parenthood is a personal obligation.
Asides from that, we now have in place the working tax credit and the child tax credit.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
WISHY WROTE::::::
"
but I do care about loafers, wasters and scroungers holding out their grubby little paws for yet more dosh and everyone else being expected to foot the bill for it - on an unfair basis.
"
............................
"What about those who worked hard in school, secured good jobs in manufacturing, financial services, civil service etc and have been made redundant because of a globally driven banking crisis that they had no control over, these individuals are desperate to work but if there are no jobs or only very low paid employment options......should we just 'stuff em'what about myself worked all my life but recently had my leg off is it stuff me too?"
You didn't read what I posted properly (I started another thread about this very thing).
Loafers, wasters & scroungers... I've spelled it out ... twice.. clearly..
NOT the disabled, NOT the redundant workers put out to pasture after 25 years loyal service, NOT the carers who look after the sick & infirm.
The absolute bottom of the heap, bone idle lazy tossers like that dozy bint in the news this weekend who revel in life on the social, who laugh at workers on their lunch breaks "cos they look so miserable" - those parasites who are given £160 a week for doing fuck all, surplus to housing, council tax, fuel bills benefits to spend on £150 Louis Vitton handbags and a quart of vodka every evening ffs! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"WISHY WROTE::::::
but I do care about loafers, wasters and scroungers holding out their grubby little paws for yet more dosh and everyone else being expected to foot the bill for it - on an unfair basis.
............................
What about those who worked hard in school, secured good jobs in manufacturing, financial services, civil service etc and have been made redundant because of a globally driven banking crisis that they had no control over, these individuals are desperate to work but if there are no jobs or only very low paid employment options......should we just 'stuff em'what about myself worked all my life but recently had my leg off is it stuff me too?
You didn't read what I posted properly (I started another thread about this very thing).
Loafers, wasters & scroungers... I've spelled it out ... twice.. clearly..
NOT the disabled, NOT the redundant workers put out to pasture after 25 years loyal service, NOT the carers who look after the sick & infirm.
The absolute bottom of the heap, bone idle lazy tossers like that dozy bint in the news this weekend who revel in life on the social, who laugh at workers on their lunch breaks "cos they look so miserable" - those parasites who are given £160 a week for doing fuck all, surplus to housing, council tax, fuel bills benefits to spend on £150 Louis Vitton handbags and a quart of vodka every evening ffs! "
hic, i like my louey vuton handbag thank you, hic
thank you, |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" i was a single parent bringing up a young daughter and put her through uni
on £15k makes me laugh at all the people on £44 grand winging on about benifits being cut "
Post of the year. Well done Jim |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I think child benefit and old age peoples fuel allowance Should be means tested.
I also think it should be on a households total income, this 45 grand thing is a very odd figure.
Are we seriously saying that if you "only' earn 45k (i wish), then the grand or so a year per child that the Government gives you, is that bigger deal?
To the lone parent, like the one posted above, that grand can make a hell of a difference though, and likewise for the not well off elderly.
In a democratic society, if you earn more, you pay more tax, and by definition, give more back, for which I thank you, but thats the price of a free society! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"WISHY WROTE::::::
but I do care about loafers, wasters and scroungers holding out their grubby little paws for yet more dosh and everyone else being expected to foot the bill for it - on an unfair basis.
............................
What about those who worked hard in school, secured good jobs in manufacturing, financial services, civil service etc and have been made redundant because of a globally driven banking crisis that they had no control over, these individuals are desperate to work but if there are no jobs or only very low paid employment options......should we just 'stuff em'what about myself worked all my life but recently had my leg off is it stuff me too?
You didn't read what I posted properly (I started another thread about this very thing).
Loafers, wasters & scroungers... I've spelled it out ... twice.. clearly..
NOT the disabled, NOT the redundant workers put out to pasture after 25 years loyal service, NOT the carers who look after the sick & infirm.
The absolute bottom of the heap, bone idle lazy tossers like that dozy bint in the news this weekend who revel in life on the social, who laugh at workers on their lunch breaks "cos they look so miserable" - those parasites who are given £160 a week for doing fuck all, surplus to housing, council tax, fuel bills benefits to spend on £150 Louis Vitton handbags and a quart of vodka every evening ffs! "
I did read your post 'properly' Wishy, why did you feel the need to cut three quarters of it out in this response? Are you suggesting that people should not read your whole post but try to guess which small parts they should pick out to comment on? If I chose to copy and paste the rest of the post you made (by far the majority of the post) it would paint a completely different picture to the one I think you're now trying to portray.
I happen to agree with much of your view on 'Loafers, wasters & scroungers', but disagree with the rest of what you said. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Because quoting and requoting the same passage of text makes the thread too long and is a waste of server space/download.
My OP was clear in what I was driving but yet you've now implied I have some sort of ulterior motive because I've not requoted everything word for word.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Because quoting and requoting the same passage of text makes the thread too long and is a waste of server space/download.
My OP was clear in what I was driving but yet you've now implied I have some sort of ulterior motive because I've not requoted everything word for word.
"
one of the flaws that exist in the "quote" facility , is that it can grow and gwow in length as one quote is added on to another
to the point that one canb be quoted as saying something that somebody else has added to what you have said
if it is 2 people debating they know where they are , but when these long multiquotes are read by 3rd partys ( who might add to them )they can be forgiven for becoming totaly confused |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Because quoting and requoting the same passage of text makes the thread too long and is a waste of server space/download.
My OP was clear in what I was driving but yet you've now implied I have some sort of ulterior motive because I've not requoted everything word for word.
"
I'm not implying an ulterior motive, just commenting on the facts of what you chose to quote and importantly chose not to quote which in my opinion would have portrayed a very different picture.........anyway, I genuinely do like reading most of your posts and would hate to fall out over this, so lets move on. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ofakindCouple
over a year ago
Running with Monkeys |
"This comes from a hardened Tory, benefits should be for those that need them and not universal for all!
Part of me thinks 'stuff em' - why should I hand over my hard earned to someone I don't even know, wouldn't give me the time of day if I bumped into them in Sainsbury's but would bleat like a sheep if I stopped giving in the form of my tax.
They had the same chances as me at school and if they chose to waste their time instead of getting on and securing a decent job then that's their own goddam fault.
I don't need benefits of any kind from the state so I don't really give a damn if they stop them for us in all honesty, but I do care about loafers, wasters and scroungers holding out their grubby little paws for yet more dosh and everyone else being expected to foot the bill for it - on an unfair basis.
What about those who worked hard in school, secured good jobs in manufacturing, financial services, civil service etc and have been made redundant because of a globally driven banking crisis that they had no control over, these individuals are desperate to work but if there are no jobs or only very low paid employment options......should we just 'stuff em'
I think there will be a lot of decent, hardworking people, who through no fault of their own will need help from the benefit system. But for the grace of God...!!
I hope I never become so cold that because I'm alright I look down my nose at others less fortunate."
just thought i'd input my opinion on this one... we wouldn't be able to survive if we didn't get help... we are both working me full time and k part-time but still struggle to hit £1100 a month.
i read in the paper last week about a guy who'd not worked for xx amount of years and is now recieving state pension... which got me thinking maybe there should be ony a certain amount of time in which people should be able to claim certain benefits (job seekers allowance for example) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Two simple steps for starters :
Restrict Child Benefit to 2 or 3 children at the most.
Increase Income Tax allowance to at least the minimum wage approx £13,000 per year.
Contentious srep :
Split Child Benefit between both parents.
Maybe then we will see how much the moaning "single parents" start to include rather than exclude the child care input from the other parent.
"
I would go a step further only give benifit for the first child that will stop the spongers who live on the benefits instead of working to support their large families ( I know of 3 families in the local area with 8 kids and no they are not coloured they are all English). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ofakindCouple
over a year ago
Running with Monkeys |
"
just thought i'd input my opinion on this one... we wouldn't be able to survive if we didn't get help...
I suspect you would. 100's of millions "survive" on a $ a day or less. "
rent, council tax, food for 3 = £25 a day then theres gas electric water etc etc |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
Two simple steps for starters :
Restrict Child Benefit to 2 or 3 children at the most.
Increase Income Tax allowance to at least the minimum wage approx £13,000 per year.
Contentious srep :
Split Child Benefit between both parents.
Maybe then we will see how much the moaning "single parents" start to include rather than exclude the child care input from the other parent.
I would go a step further only give benifit for the first child that will stop the spongers who live on the benefits instead of working to support their large families ( I know of 3 families in the local area with 8 kids and no they are not coloured they are all English)."
i'm not sure why you think we would assume they coloured because of the quantities of children in the family???! 
...and what about the family that are a big number due to religious purposes? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"
one of the flaws that exist in the "quote" facility , is that it can grow and gwow in length as one quote is added on to another
to the point that one canb be quoted as saying something that somebody else has added to what you have said
if it is 2 people debating they know where they are , but when these long multiquotes are read by 3rd partys ( who might add to them )they can be forgiven for becoming totaly confused "
Which is why I trim posts when I'm quoting, as I've just done here - I trimmed my own quote from the page.
My 'stuff em' attitude a few posts above is borne out of total frustration that so many people are revelling in living off the state and are featured in newspaper articles (which proves their total stupidity as the DSS should be thinking, "uh huh, ok then, we'll have a looksee at you!"), yet the authorities don't seem to be doing anything about these people. I'm exasperated by it all and while I do believe in the welfare system we have in this country I also believe that a system that envelops millions of people is going to be open to abuse by a some of them.
We can't take away their benefits else we have to put up with soaring crime rates (starving people have to eat something).
We can't means test them as most of them are blatantly lying about their circumstances already, so that won't change.
We can't force them onto companies just for the sake of giving them a job as what kind of employer would want the added burden and financial cost of having to double check the work of a completely disinterested employee.
We can't deport foreigners abusing the system if their country of origin can't be determined or if they are from an EU country.
We can't put them in chain gangs (ok, community service) as that contravenes their human rights and we'll end up paying them wads of cash in compo.
In short, we can't do sod all about them, and they know it.
All the govt (and us) will end up with is the same people claiming different benefits for different things but the figures will show something completely different to what they show now and be hailed a success.
We're screwed basically. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
one of the flaws that exist in the "quote" facility , is that it can grow and gwow in length as one quote is added on to another
to the point that one canb be quoted as saying something that somebody else has added to what you have said
if it is 2 people debating they know where they are , but when these long multiquotes are read by 3rd partys ( who might add to them )they can be forgiven for becoming totaly confused
Which is why I trim posts when I'm quoting, as I've just done here - I trimmed my own quote from the page.
My 'stuff em' attitude a few posts above is borne out of total frustration that so many people are revelling in living off the state and are featured in newspaper articles (which proves their total stupidity as the DSS should be thinking, "uh huh, ok then, we'll have a looksee at you!"), yet the authorities don't seem to be doing anything about these people. I'm exasperated by it all and while I do believe in the welfare system we have in this country I also believe that a system that envelops millions of people is going to be open to abuse by a some of them.
We can't take away their benefits else we have to put up with soaring crime rates (starving people have to eat something).
We can't means test them as most of them are blatantly lying about their circumstances already, so that won't change.
We can't force them onto companies just for the sake of giving them a job as what kind of employer would want the added burden and financial cost of having to double check the work of a completely disinterested employee.
We can't deport foreigners abusing the system if their country of origin can't be determined or if they are from an EU country.
We can't put them in chain gangs (ok, community service) as that contravenes their human rights and we'll end up paying them wads of cash in compo.
In short, we can't do sod all about them, and they know it.
All the govt (and us) will end up with is the same people claiming different benefits for different things but the figures will show something completely different to what they show now and be hailed a success.
We're screwed basically."
sorry to say but you are correct "we ARE screwed"
unfotunately its far too late to do anything about it now
i also get pissed off and have started threads about people geting £2000 A WEEK housing benifit ( now a mere £400 a week )
and various others
i dont just complain about it i also suggested a solution
cap all benefits so they dont rise with inflation untill the day comes there not worth the shoe leather bothering to claim them
you cant keep handing out benefits like youve got 2 loaves and 5 fishes
because with a country thats broke
THE MONEY WILL RUN OUT
i dont care anymore , as far as im concerned they can get on with it , its a bloody joke
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
