Child benefit to be cut Page 3

  • Page

    of 22 First / Last

  • nickthegun 4 Oct 2010 09:54:44 55,866 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    We should bring back workhouses

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    He totally called it

  • Inertia 4 Oct 2010 09:56:20 675 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    Probably working + benefits is the problem but I'm quite sure our benefit system isn't quite as generous as people think.

    But working + benefits + council home = win

  • morriss 4 Oct 2010 09:57:42 70,749 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    S.J.Rogers wrote:
    Seems fair to me, if people cant afford to have kids then DONíT HAVE THEM..!
    Lol
  • Gregolution 4 Oct 2010 09:58:09 3,116 posts
    Seen 17 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Well that's conclusive then... :s
  • Red-Moose 4 Oct 2010 09:58:40 5,345 posts
    Seen 1 week ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    S.J.Rogers wrote:
    Seems fair to me, if people cant afford to have kids then DONíT HAVE THEM..!

    The way it works though, is that your pop-psychology and understanding of how people work, is in fact entirely wrong.

    The people who have kids the most, are precisely the ones that definitely cannot afford them. Those who lose child benefits will have less children, those with child benefit will have more, because that second group is being paid to have children whereas the middle class aren't.
  • Ignatius_Cheese Moderator 4 Oct 2010 10:01:46 10,785 posts
    Seen 17 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    ecosse_011172 wrote:
    The use of "our boys" when referring to the armed forces should be a punishable offence.
    Capital




    idea, what what!!
  • Ignatius_Cheese Moderator 4 Oct 2010 10:03:46 10,785 posts
    Seen 17 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    nickthegun wrote:
    We should bring back workhouses
    Brilliant idea! I mean, Oliver Twist turned out fine, right?

    /singing mode on
    I'd do anything for you mate, anything. As long as that doesn't mean gaying it up...

    /singing mode off

    It was something like that anyway...
  • Ignatius_Cheese Moderator 4 Oct 2010 10:05:59 10,785 posts
    Seen 17 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    THFourteen wrote:

    dunno how they do it, but walking past the council houses on my street, they ALL have sky dishes on em.
    Basic Sky package is what £15? If you manage to wangle free installation of your mate, Karl (you know that one with 3 kids, each by different birds whose been on the inside) then that's child benefit will spent! Jeremy Kyle is a fine educational establishment.
  • DaM 4 Oct 2010 10:11:19 12,611 posts
    Seen 11 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Gregolution wrote:
    I completely agree with the change. There are way too many benefits handed out to people who don't need them. Unfortunately it won't effect everyone that it should. Contractors for example, will still be able to claim since they generally keep themselves on low salaries and take money in the form of corporate dividends.

    You'll have to declare on your tax return so you can't get out this way.

    Apart from the 2 highish income aberration, I can't see the problem with this, I've long proposed it.

    For some people, the money must be really vital in helping the household get by.

    For us, it probably gets us a takeaway on a Saturday night, and a few bottles of wine :)

    So we will lose it, but I don't have a problem with that.
  • Deleted user 4 October 2010 10:12:34
    Yeah Sky is pretty cheap tbh. £20 a week for a baby is basically nothing. Nobody gets a free house. 'Young single mothers' are as entitled to a council house as everyone else in this thread, if they are regarded priority need they will be rushed to the front of the queue. You know, if they have kid to look after. But it is still the same list as everyone else shares. If their income is low enough they are entitled to Housing benefit and Council Tax benefit which will help pay for the rent (if not all of it), like EVERYONE ELSE IN THE UK.
  • Fake_Blood 4 Oct 2010 10:30:09 3,834 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    That's it, I'm not paying any taxes any more.
    I decided that the state doesn't need it.
  • montywithnail 4 Oct 2010 10:57:04 430 posts
    Seen 3 days ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    CosmicFuzz wrote:
    Surely the issue here isn't the people who sit about doing nothing and claiming benefits, but the point Dougs made in the OP, that single parents or families with only one parent who works making just over the threshold to get their child benefit cut off, whilst two separate parents who both make just under the threshold (and thus almost twice as much as the former) still getting it fine.

    Yes this is the point. I am one of the lucky few who earns enough to pay high rate tax, whose partner was made redundant at the end of her first maternity leave and is now pregnant and not expecting to go back to work. I generally agree with means testing this sort of benefit if it saves money and i understand the motivating nature of the policy as it would potentially force my partner back to work thus benefitting the economy.

    It does cause me something of a conflict however, that as a left leaning liberal I crave a return to 'traditional conservative values' that allowed the mother to stay at home while father brings home the bacon :)
  • Tonka 4 Oct 2010 11:59:02 19,840 posts
    Seen 3 days ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    I think it sends a slightly worrying signal. It says that some should pay for others instead of "Let's all work together". It might put a wedge in the class divide.

    Stinky chavs plopping out kids like there's no tomorrow and I have to pay for it. etc etc

    If you can read this you really need to fiddle with your forum settings.

  • thelzdking 4 Oct 2010 12:02:41 3,962 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    The Coalition is desperate to cut government spending to cut the deficit, right? So why is this not happening until 2013?
  • Ignatius_Cheese Moderator 4 Oct 2010 12:06:02 10,785 posts
    Seen 17 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    thelzdking wrote:
    The Coalition is desperate to cut government spending to cut the deficit, right? So why is this not happening until 2013?

    Because this is not going to save the government much money in the long run. This is just a softener before the true bum rush of the 20th. Batten down the bum sphincters peeps! Maggie's back in town!!!
  • TheSaint 4 Oct 2010 12:10:06 13,629 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    It will save a billion apparently and considering the vast majority who are losing it never needed it in the first place that is money that can be put to better use elsewhere.
  • Dougs 4 Oct 2010 12:11:30 64,910 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Ignatius_Cheese wrote:
    Because this is not going to save the government much money in the long run. This is just a softener before the true bum rush of the 20th. Batten down the bum sphincters peeps! Maggie's back in town!!!

    Indeed. I don't think people have any idea what is going to hit them. There will be few public services to speak of
  • Lutz 4 Oct 2010 12:12:28 48,854 posts
    Seen 10 months ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    There's barely any public services as it is, and those that do exist are pretty shocking.
  • morriss 4 Oct 2010 12:12:50 70,749 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    TheSaint wrote:
    It will save a billion apparently and considering the vast majority who are losing it never needed it in the first place that is money that can be put to better use elsewhere.
    How do you know who needs what?
  • Mr_Sleep 4 Oct 2010 12:14:43 16,258 posts
    Seen 38 minutes ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    I was reading an article in the Guardian weekend section about what is going to happen on the 20th and it's pretty scary. Interestingly it does seem a bit of an excuse for the tories to instigate their need to have a small state.

    Coupled with normal tory shit, history suggests that trying to get out of recessions with cuts is actually counter productive, the great depression was caused my cuts. Growth is required to get out of recessions. That's if this author is to be believed.

    Also, saving a billion is fuck all in the sea of debt that the UK currently has.

    You are a factory of sadness.

  • Lutz 4 Oct 2010 12:18:00 48,854 posts
    Seen 10 months ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    I think I've missed something, but then I've not seen a newspaper or read the news for about a week... what's happening on the 20th? 20th of what?
  • Mr_Sleep 4 Oct 2010 12:18:42 16,258 posts
    Seen 38 minutes ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Lutz wrote:
    I think I've missed something, but then I've not seen a newspaper or read the news for about a week... what's happening on the 20th? 20th of what?

    It's the end of the world!!!!

    You are a factory of sadness.

  • Ignatius_Cheese Moderator 4 Oct 2010 12:18:54 10,785 posts
    Seen 17 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Lutz wrote:
    There's barely any public services as it is, and those that do exist are pretty shocking.
    Some is better than none. Reform is all they need. Cutting the chaff (read: chav) but not the services. If this backfires (and the strikes/riots will probably mean it has) then the Lib Dems have signed their way into political oblivion as they will be the fall guys for the mess we will shortly find ourselves in.
  • Ignatius_Cheese Moderator 4 Oct 2010 12:20:42 10,785 posts
    Seen 17 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    20th October is the result of the Departmental Spending Review and the probable announcements of where the axe will fall heaviest.

    Predictions: Not Defence/Home Office but probably International/Education/Transport/Environment
  • Lutz 4 Oct 2010 12:22:08 48,854 posts
    Seen 10 months ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Ah right! Cheers. :)
  • TheSaint 4 Oct 2010 12:22:17 13,629 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    morriss wrote:
    TheSaint wrote:
    It will save a billion apparently and considering the vast majority who are losing it never needed it in the first place that is money that can be put to better use elsewhere.
    How do you know who needs what?

    I really fail to see that people earning 44k a year won't be able to budget for the loss of child benefit in 2013. I'm surprised EG is so disgusted at what amounts to a middle class tax cut.
  • Ignatius_Cheese Moderator 4 Oct 2010 12:25:03 10,785 posts
    Seen 17 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    It's the way it has been gone about. If a flawed system doesn't produce the right results for society, you fix it. You do not however move the goalposts for the existing system to plug a much wider hole.

    Tax/Don't tax the middle classes. I care not but at least get some thinkers on the case to produce a fairer, more equal system.
  • TheSaint 4 Oct 2010 12:25:07 13,629 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Mr Sleep wrote:
    I was reading an article in the Guardian weekend section about what is going to happen on the 20th and it's pretty scary. Interestingly it does seem a bit of an excuse for the tories to instigate their need to have a small state.

    Coupled with normal tory shit, history suggests that trying to get out of recessions with cuts is actually counter productive, the great depression was caused my cuts. Growth is required to get out of recessions. That's if this author is to be believed.

    Also, saving a billion is fuck all in the sea of debt that the UK currently has.

    It's hard to say the great depression is one example of it not working while Canada in the 90s cut savagely and they are now booming.
  • Page

    of 22 First / Last

Log in or register to reply