March against child poverty
04 October 2008, 10:27 PM
#31
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I tired to resist, I really did, I didn't want to post in here, but I had to reply to that one.
I am comfortable in the knowledge that we will always have some form of contribution to the common good, and no amount of bellyaching from demonstrably somewhat selfish people wont change that. I am sure they will be pleased of the saftey net is god fobid they ever have to claim some form of benefit.
I am comfortable in the knowledge that we will always have some form of contribution to the common good, and no amount of bellyaching from demonstrably somewhat selfish people wont change that. I am sure they will be pleased of the saftey net is god fobid they ever have to claim some form of benefit.
I've found some of the comments on this thread to be truly tragic, bordering on the despicable
04 October 2008, 10:44 PM
#32
The fact of the matter is life is rarely simple, or black and white. Of course there are people who end up in situations, totally through their own doing, but there are probably a fair amount who find themselves in a certain boat for reasons beyond their control. I don't think it's ever fair to tar everyone with the same brush, nor is it fair to judge others absolutely, who are experiencing things most of us never have or will have to.
I, by my own addmission, have issues with those in society who want a free ride etc. but there are people out there, who aren't like that, that we will have no true understanding of their plight (sp). Life is unpredictable, and sometimes **** happens. I'm not going to air my personal experiences, but trust me, you never know what hand you may be dealt in life, and until you are faced with a really tough situation, you don't really have a place to judge. (btw, those experiences don't include benefits etc/poverty, but I'm talking from the stance of not having 'an easy life').
There are people on this forum, commenting on how they are struggling, despite earning a good wage, so before going hell for leather condeming anyone less fortunate, give a bit thought to how hard it can really get.
No offence, but did a little bit of a caring attitude go out of the window at the same time as respect?
I, by my own addmission, have issues with those in society who want a free ride etc. but there are people out there, who aren't like that, that we will have no true understanding of their plight (sp). Life is unpredictable, and sometimes **** happens. I'm not going to air my personal experiences, but trust me, you never know what hand you may be dealt in life, and until you are faced with a really tough situation, you don't really have a place to judge. (btw, those experiences don't include benefits etc/poverty, but I'm talking from the stance of not having 'an easy life').
There are people on this forum, commenting on how they are struggling, despite earning a good wage, so before going hell for leather condeming anyone less fortunate, give a bit thought to how hard it can really get.
No offence, but did a little bit of a caring attitude go out of the window at the same time as respect?
05 October 2008, 08:13 AM
#33
I work in an area of high economic need, where there are plenty of families on benefits.
Some of their children appear well looked after and some do not.
The difference between the two is that the well looked after children have parent/s that can manage their affairs and prioritise their spending in a responsible manner. They probably even use the additional available spare time to the benefit of their children.
I don't think anyone is going to suggest that children be taken away from parents who lack life skills to bring them up responsibly.
It is easier to throw money at them and walk away feeling good about it.
The thing is - how many of these children in poverty are there because of the consequences of social welfare?
Not all obviously, but I am really surprised no one has tried to quantify the unfortunate "side effect" of social welfare dependence.
The costs of socialism are more than just economic.
Some of their children appear well looked after and some do not.
The difference between the two is that the well looked after children have parent/s that can manage their affairs and prioritise their spending in a responsible manner. They probably even use the additional available spare time to the benefit of their children.
I don't think anyone is going to suggest that children be taken away from parents who lack life skills to bring them up responsibly.
It is easier to throw money at them and walk away feeling good about it.
The thing is - how many of these children in poverty are there because of the consequences of social welfare?
Not all obviously, but I am really surprised no one has tried to quantify the unfortunate "side effect" of social welfare dependence.
The costs of socialism are more than just economic.
05 October 2008, 08:43 AM
#34
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree that there will be some otherwise decent folk who fall on hard times and need to be helped.
I am sure though that the vast majority are just a bunch of lazy chavs who have not worked for generations and spend their money on booze and ****. Then there are the more recent arrivals, who also look as though they have no intention of bettering themselves.
Why should they when we are happy to take near 50% of some hardworking peoples incomes and give it to others so they can **** out kids (that will grow up to mug you) and watch daytime TV.
This is a great way for Labour to increase its voting fodder, its always done that and nothing has changed.
Apart from tragic circumstance, there is no excuse in this country to be in poverty if you act responsibly and hence for most it is of their own making.
This may should uncaring but it is the simple truth, we've just become to scared in this country to say it, and NL has encouraged it
I am sure though that the vast majority are just a bunch of lazy chavs who have not worked for generations and spend their money on booze and ****. Then there are the more recent arrivals, who also look as though they have no intention of bettering themselves.
Why should they when we are happy to take near 50% of some hardworking peoples incomes and give it to others so they can **** out kids (that will grow up to mug you) and watch daytime TV.
This is a great way for Labour to increase its voting fodder, its always done that and nothing has changed.
Apart from tragic circumstance, there is no excuse in this country to be in poverty if you act responsibly and hence for most it is of their own making.
This may should uncaring but it is the simple truth, we've just become to scared in this country to say it, and NL has encouraged it
05 October 2008, 09:12 AM
#35
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree that there will be some otherwise decent folk who fall on hard times and need to be helped.
I am sure though that the vast majority are just a bunch of lazy chavs who have not worked for generations and spend their money on booze and ****. Then there are the more recent arrivals, who also look as though they have no intention of bettering themselves.
Why should they when we are happy to take near 50% of some hardworking peoples incomes and give it to others so they can **** out kids (that will grow up to mug you) and watch daytime TV.
This is a great way for Labour to increase its voting fodder, its always done that and nothing has changed.
Apart from tragic circumstance, there is no excuse in this country to be in poverty if you act responsibly and hence for most it is of their own making.
This may should uncaring but it is the simple truth, we've just become to scared in this country to say it, and NL has encouraged it
I am sure though that the vast majority are just a bunch of lazy chavs who have not worked for generations and spend their money on booze and ****. Then there are the more recent arrivals, who also look as though they have no intention of bettering themselves.
Why should they when we are happy to take near 50% of some hardworking peoples incomes and give it to others so they can **** out kids (that will grow up to mug you) and watch daytime TV.
This is a great way for Labour to increase its voting fodder, its always done that and nothing has changed.
Apart from tragic circumstance, there is no excuse in this country to be in poverty if you act responsibly and hence for most it is of their own making.
This may should uncaring but it is the simple truth, we've just become to scared in this country to say it, and NL has encouraged it
Where are your facts to support this outrageous claim
05 October 2008, 09:34 AM
#37
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The facts to support this claim? I have ears and eyes. I work and live in the real world. I have been on all rungs of the social ladder myself, my father was an immigrant who came here with £3 in his pocket that he duly paid to the taxi driver at the airport. He NEVER EVER claimed a single penny in any benefit. He would not even accept stat child benefit as he found it insulting.
I believe neither the extremes of the right or left wing press, but I know what see.
05 October 2008, 09:40 AM
#38
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right wing? I'll accept that label if it means someone who believes in putting something into society rather than just taking from it. Or if it means individual responsibilty rather than supposed rights.
The facts to support this claim? I have ears and eyes. I work and live in the real world. I have been on all rungs of the social ladder myself, my father was an immigrant who came here with £3 in his pocket that he duly paid to the taxi driver at the airport. He NEVER EVER claimed a single penny in any benefit. He would not even accept stat child benefit as he found it insulting.
I believe neither the extremes of the right or left wing press, but I know what see.
The facts to support this claim? I have ears and eyes. I work and live in the real world. I have been on all rungs of the social ladder myself, my father was an immigrant who came here with £3 in his pocket that he duly paid to the taxi driver at the airport. He NEVER EVER claimed a single penny in any benefit. He would not even accept stat child benefit as he found it insulting.
I believe neither the extremes of the right or left wing press, but I know what see.
But to say that 'most' or 'ALL' who are living below the poverty line are there because the choose to be is ridiculous and utterly unsubstantiated.
Also remember we are talking about children here, not adults, do we have to hold the children responsible for the actions of their parents?
05 October 2008, 09:41 AM
#39
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
05 October 2008, 09:43 AM
#40
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Children only live in poverty due to the spending habits of their parents.
Either on booze or **** or un neccessities like Sky TV, broadband, mobile phone etc.
The amount of child related income for those on low incomes is already very very substantial.
There is no way they should get any more as if they cant spend their money wisely just now, there's no way they'll do it with an extra £10-20pw etc, that will just be spent on themselves and the children will still be in poverty.
The child benefit rate is £18.80pw
I have a baby boy, he costs £8pw in milk, £5pw in nappies and £2pw in wipes. That leaves £3.80pw left over.
Thats before low income benefits like child tax credit comes into equation, CTC for 1 child is currently at £2630 and rises by £2085 every additional child you have on top. That is another £50pw on top of the CB for 1 child, £91pw for 2 children etc
That is clearly more than enough to clothe them and put warmth in the home, and as they get older a little bit more food expenditure that CB does not cover.
Forget about cost of the home, council tax etc as 99% of the time they will get this funded for them, the 1% that do loss their job and have a mortgage to pay for etc are the 1's i feel for, the state should help more.
But the state does all it should do and more with the CTC system for those unemployed or on the sicklist with 'depression'
Give them more and the subscriptions for sky HD will go through the roof and the children will still be in poverty.
Vouchers is the only way to go here, many parents just cant be trusted especially when they have a £12 pd smoking habit.
I shall not be supporting anything regarding child poverty as i would say the majority of it is caused by the selfishness of the parents.
Either on booze or **** or un neccessities like Sky TV, broadband, mobile phone etc.
The amount of child related income for those on low incomes is already very very substantial.
There is no way they should get any more as if they cant spend their money wisely just now, there's no way they'll do it with an extra £10-20pw etc, that will just be spent on themselves and the children will still be in poverty.
The child benefit rate is £18.80pw
I have a baby boy, he costs £8pw in milk, £5pw in nappies and £2pw in wipes. That leaves £3.80pw left over.
Thats before low income benefits like child tax credit comes into equation, CTC for 1 child is currently at £2630 and rises by £2085 every additional child you have on top. That is another £50pw on top of the CB for 1 child, £91pw for 2 children etc
That is clearly more than enough to clothe them and put warmth in the home, and as they get older a little bit more food expenditure that CB does not cover.
Forget about cost of the home, council tax etc as 99% of the time they will get this funded for them, the 1% that do loss their job and have a mortgage to pay for etc are the 1's i feel for, the state should help more.
But the state does all it should do and more with the CTC system for those unemployed or on the sicklist with 'depression'
Give them more and the subscriptions for sky HD will go through the roof and the children will still be in poverty.
Vouchers is the only way to go here, many parents just cant be trusted especially when they have a £12 pd smoking habit.
I shall not be supporting anything regarding child poverty as i would say the majority of it is caused by the selfishness of the parents.
05 October 2008, 09:53 AM
#41
05 October 2008, 09:55 AM
#42
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But no one is claiming that there aren't SOME people abusing the system, and I believe that we should crack-down on these with all vengence.
QUOTE:
But to say that 'most' or 'ALL' who are living below the poverty line are there because the choose to be is ridiculous and utterly unsubstantiated.
I did not say ALL, so please don't misrepresent me. I believe more than 75% though
QUOTE;
Also remember we are talking about children here, not adults, do we have to hold the children responsible for the actions of their parents?
QUOTE:
But to say that 'most' or 'ALL' who are living below the poverty line are there because the choose to be is ridiculous and utterly unsubstantiated.
I did not say ALL, so please don't misrepresent me. I believe more than 75% though
QUOTE;
Also remember we are talking about children here, not adults, do we have to hold the children responsible for the actions of their parents?
05 October 2008, 10:01 AM
#43
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[quote][quote=Mitchy260;8177076]Children only live in poverty due to the spending habits of their parents.[Any evidence to back this up?]
[quote]Either on booze or **** or un neccessities like Sky TV, broadband, mobile phone etc.[backed up by what facts?]
The amount of child related income for those on low incomes is already very very substantial.
[quote]There is no way they should get any more as if they cant spend their money wisely just now, there's no way they'll do it with an extra £10-20pw etc, that will just be spent on themselves and the children will still be in poverty.[where are you getting this info from, again some facts would be nice]
The child benefit rate is £18.80pw
I have a baby boy, he costs £8pw in milk, £5pw in nappies and £2pw in wipes. That leaves £3.80pw left over.
Thats before low income benefits like child tax credit comes into equation, CTC for 1 child is currently at £2630 and rises by £2085 every additional child you have on top. That is another £50pw on top of the CB for 1 child, £91pw for 2 children etc
That is clearly more than enough to clothe them and put warmth in the home, and as they get older a little bit more food expenditure that CB does not cover.
[quote]Forget about cost of the home, council tax etc as 99% of the time they will get this funded for them, the 1% that do loss their job and have a mortgage to pay for etc are the 1's i feel for, the state should help more.[is the 1% a fact or just the way you try and justify your position?]
But the state does all it should do and more with the CTC system for those unemployed or on the sicklist with 'depression'
[quote]Give them more and the subscriptions for sky HD will go through the roof and the children will still be in poverty.[again this comment says more about you than it does about the poorly off]
[quote]Vouchers is the only way to go here, many parents just cant be trusted especially when they have a £12 pd smoking habit.[they ALL have a £12 per day smoking habit?]
[quote]I shall not be supporting anything regarding child poverty as i would say the majority of it is caused by the selfishness of the parents.[/][/are you going to give any evidence for any of these claims?]
[quote]Either on booze or **** or un neccessities like Sky TV, broadband, mobile phone etc.[backed up by what facts?]
The amount of child related income for those on low incomes is already very very substantial.
[quote]There is no way they should get any more as if they cant spend their money wisely just now, there's no way they'll do it with an extra £10-20pw etc, that will just be spent on themselves and the children will still be in poverty.[where are you getting this info from, again some facts would be nice]
The child benefit rate is £18.80pw
I have a baby boy, he costs £8pw in milk, £5pw in nappies and £2pw in wipes. That leaves £3.80pw left over.
Thats before low income benefits like child tax credit comes into equation, CTC for 1 child is currently at £2630 and rises by £2085 every additional child you have on top. That is another £50pw on top of the CB for 1 child, £91pw for 2 children etc
That is clearly more than enough to clothe them and put warmth in the home, and as they get older a little bit more food expenditure that CB does not cover.
[quote]Forget about cost of the home, council tax etc as 99% of the time they will get this funded for them, the 1% that do loss their job and have a mortgage to pay for etc are the 1's i feel for, the state should help more.[is the 1% a fact or just the way you try and justify your position?]
But the state does all it should do and more with the CTC system for those unemployed or on the sicklist with 'depression'
[quote]Give them more and the subscriptions for sky HD will go through the roof and the children will still be in poverty.[again this comment says more about you than it does about the poorly off]
[quote]Vouchers is the only way to go here, many parents just cant be trusted especially when they have a £12 pd smoking habit.[they ALL have a £12 per day smoking habit?]
[quote]I shall not be supporting anything regarding child poverty as i would say the majority of it is caused by the selfishness of the parents.[/][/are you going to give any evidence for any of these claims?]
05 October 2008, 10:07 AM
#44
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately you cannot seperate the two, in a perfect world you could, but we can't. The children are in the charge of those parents and so are inextricably linked. Just giving the children/parents money would not be enough, you would have to remove the children from those parents and teach them work ethics and morals, this is obviously impossible. Therefore any money used for this would be more of hard working peoples tax money flushed down the lav
Sure a minority, but the majority???
To summarise you views, in order to deal with those bad parents claiming benefits when they shouldn't the state should, punish thier children, plus punish those who are not irresponsible parents and their children too.
05 October 2008, 10:15 AM
#45
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Martin, yes your points are getting boring now.
Tell you what to do...
Confirm the rates on the HMRC website, i can guarantee you that they are 110% correct, and then tell me how much 1 child costs to clothe, feed and heat for 1 year.
Everyone i know has a mobile phone, everyone including my 80yr old grandparents. That is a luxury item not a life neccessity. Again the majority of people have sky tv that i know.
Tell you what to do here, go to your local council estate and see how many dishes are bolted to the walls.
Now work out the figures that it costs to keep 1 child and then compare that to how much a benefit claimant is given and please tell me how they can possibly live in poverty.
Its not about backing it up here, its about bloody common sense. You know my post is majority correct but all you've replied is ''back it up''
Swing it the other way, You back it up with facts and figures and tell me why children are in poverty.
Its purely the fault of the parent, they should go without, child shouldn't. There is absoloutely no excuse.
A lot of parents are selfish (How can i back this up Martin? You know its true, you dont need a news article link telling you this)
Tell you what to do...
Confirm the rates on the HMRC website, i can guarantee you that they are 110% correct, and then tell me how much 1 child costs to clothe, feed and heat for 1 year.
Everyone i know has a mobile phone, everyone including my 80yr old grandparents. That is a luxury item not a life neccessity. Again the majority of people have sky tv that i know.
Tell you what to do here, go to your local council estate and see how many dishes are bolted to the walls.
Now work out the figures that it costs to keep 1 child and then compare that to how much a benefit claimant is given and please tell me how they can possibly live in poverty.
Its not about backing it up here, its about bloody common sense. You know my post is majority correct but all you've replied is ''back it up''
Swing it the other way, You back it up with facts and figures and tell me why children are in poverty.
Its purely the fault of the parent, they should go without, child shouldn't. There is absoloutely no excuse.
A lot of parents are selfish (How can i back this up Martin? You know its true, you dont need a news article link telling you this)
05 October 2008, 10:22 AM
#46
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 1% thing, normally if someone loses their job through redundancy they will try and try and try for further employment straight away, not conceed themselves to a life on benefits. I shall not mention the long term unemployed lame and lazy or those on the Incapacity with nothing wrong with them.
A lot of people do have sky tv a lot of people do have a costly smoking habit, i cannot back it up with facts and figures and a URL link but that does not mean it is not a valid point. You prove to me that unemployed benefit claimants spend their money wisely.
Post up a link and prove this.
Again YOU cannot.
My points are valid and i suspect a lot of people feel the same way i do.
Child poverty is parent neglect, simple as. The state does a very very very good job at supporting the low income residents of this country.
The US of A is worlds superpower, search for their benefit welfare package, you'll be in for a massive shock. Britain does a fantastic job already at supporting those that cannot support themselves.
A lot of people do have sky tv a lot of people do have a costly smoking habit, i cannot back it up with facts and figures and a URL link but that does not mean it is not a valid point. You prove to me that unemployed benefit claimants spend their money wisely.
Post up a link and prove this.
Again YOU cannot.
My points are valid and i suspect a lot of people feel the same way i do.
Child poverty is parent neglect, simple as. The state does a very very very good job at supporting the low income residents of this country.
The US of A is worlds superpower, search for their benefit welfare package, you'll be in for a massive shock. Britain does a fantastic job already at supporting those that cannot support themselves.
05 October 2008, 10:23 AM
#47
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Martin, yes your points are getting boring now.
Tell you what to do...
Confirm the rates on the HMRC website, i can guarantee you that they are 110% correct, and then tell me how much 1 child costs to clothe, feed and heat for 1 year.
Everyone i know has a mobile phone, everyone including my 80yr old grandparents. That is a luxury item not a life neccessity. Again the majority of people have sky tv that i know.
Tell you what to do here, go to your local council estate and see how many dishes are bolted to the walls.
Now work out the figures that it costs to keep 1 child and then compare that to how much a benefit claimant is given and please tell me how they can possibly live in poverty.
Its not about backing it up here, its about bloody common sense. You know my post is majority correct but all you've replied is ''back it up''
Swing it the other way, You back it up with facts and figures and tell me why children are in poverty.
Its purely the fault of the parent, they should go without, child shouldn't. There is absoloutely no excuse.
A lot of parents are selfish (How can i back this up Martin? You know its true, you dont need a news article link telling you this)
Tell you what to do...
Confirm the rates on the HMRC website, i can guarantee you that they are 110% correct, and then tell me how much 1 child costs to clothe, feed and heat for 1 year.
Everyone i know has a mobile phone, everyone including my 80yr old grandparents. That is a luxury item not a life neccessity. Again the majority of people have sky tv that i know.
Tell you what to do here, go to your local council estate and see how many dishes are bolted to the walls.
Now work out the figures that it costs to keep 1 child and then compare that to how much a benefit claimant is given and please tell me how they can possibly live in poverty.
Its not about backing it up here, its about bloody common sense. You know my post is majority correct but all you've replied is ''back it up''
Swing it the other way, You back it up with facts and figures and tell me why children are in poverty.
Its purely the fault of the parent, they should go without, child shouldn't. There is absoloutely no excuse.
A lot of parents are selfish (How can i back this up Martin? You know its true, you dont need a news article link telling you this)
The poverty figure is a government stat based upon living standards in the UK.
Most of the 'facts' stated on this thread are just Daily Mail inspired nonsense.
05 October 2008, 10:32 AM
#48
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did not for 1 minute say that 99% of those living purely on benefits were selfish parents with sky tv and smoking addictions
I did say ''99%'' of those claiming child poverty are, the both are not the same thing, some families on benefits survive very well in fact, running cars, foreign holidays etc...
Now i know the government use figures to determine child poverty or not but even this is misleading....
2 families with the same benefit related income....
1 family in real poverty, sending kids to school with ripped trousers, really scruffy and poor looking, cant afford to feed them ...Sky dish on the wall, mobile phone in the pocket..You get the picture
The other family, well presented, no said luxuries, well fed and clothed, couldn't tell if they were low income or not.
Now if 1 family can do this and the other cant, where does the fault lie?
That then applies to them all up and down the country, if 1 single family can survive off their benefit payments well, then why cant everyone (Using same number of children for comparison etc)
The only answer here is spending habits, or is there something else
Its how you portion off the money you have is what i believe determines if a child is poor or not.
Like i said above with the benefit awards already on offer, there really is no excuse.
My OPINION, just like your OPINION
Last edited by Mitchy260; 05 October 2008 at 10:42 AM.
05 October 2008, 02:24 PM
#50
Ah, now you've spun this round into daily mail garbage.
I did not for 1 minute say that 99% of those living purely on benefits were selfish parents with sky tv and smoking addictions
I did say ''99%'' of those claiming child poverty are, the both are not the same thing, some families on benefits survive very well in fact, running cars, foreign holidays etc...
Now i know the government use figures to determine child poverty or not but even this is misleading....
2 families with the same benefit related income....
1 family in real poverty, sending kids to school with ripped trousers, really scruffy and poor looking, cant afford to feed them ...Sky dish on the wall, mobile phone in the pocket..You get the picture
The other family, well presented, no said luxuries, well fed and clothed, couldn't tell if they were low income or not.
Now if 1 family can do this and the other cant, where does the fault lie?
That then applies to them all up and down the country, if 1 single family can survive off their benefit payments well, then why cant everyone (Using same number of children for comparison etc)
The only answer here is spending habits, or is there something else
Its how you portion off the money you have is what i believe determines if a child is poor or not.
Like i said above with the benefit awards already on offer, there really is no excuse.
My OPINION, just like your OPINION
I did not for 1 minute say that 99% of those living purely on benefits were selfish parents with sky tv and smoking addictions
I did say ''99%'' of those claiming child poverty are, the both are not the same thing, some families on benefits survive very well in fact, running cars, foreign holidays etc...
Now i know the government use figures to determine child poverty or not but even this is misleading....
2 families with the same benefit related income....
1 family in real poverty, sending kids to school with ripped trousers, really scruffy and poor looking, cant afford to feed them ...Sky dish on the wall, mobile phone in the pocket..You get the picture
The other family, well presented, no said luxuries, well fed and clothed, couldn't tell if they were low income or not.
Now if 1 family can do this and the other cant, where does the fault lie?
That then applies to them all up and down the country, if 1 single family can survive off their benefit payments well, then why cant everyone (Using same number of children for comparison etc)
The only answer here is spending habits, or is there something else
Its how you portion off the money you have is what i believe determines if a child is poor or not.
Like i said above with the benefit awards already on offer, there really is no excuse.
My OPINION, just like your OPINION
Any further responses out there?
05 October 2008, 02:51 PM
#51
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Tellins, Home of Super Leagues finest, and where a "split" is not all it seems.
Posts: 5,504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(irony - ace)). I think we agree that if a child is living in poverty it is because the parent is poverished... The parent is poverished because they either choose to be (ie are doley scumtards) or because of bad luck or more aptly, misfortune...
If it is the latter, then it should be a brief blip from which they should be expected to get their ***** into gear and get back back on their feet again (Alan Partridge wrote a good book on this - highly recommended). Being a blip doesnt need people marching demanding more money from the state, it just invoves a bit of time and effort on the part of the parent.
So then back to the Doley scumtard collective, who deserve nothing from the state whatsoever...
So in short, whatever our assumptions, and whatever your ever so warmful liberalist views, there is no cause for the march and absolutely no cause for the government to contribute further. (In my opinion).
Kind Regards
Abdabz
Regular Daily Mail reader
05 October 2008, 05:23 PM
#52
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Other than stirring up the pot my good man, I don't really see your contribution to be directing us toward a solution either. Should we all go on the march and demand that more of our hard earned is taken from us in order to fund these people? That is the point of these contributions that dont conform with your Guardian / Observer view... (Funny that the only people who use the Daily Mail as an "insult" or stereotype are generally Guardian or Independant readers (irony - ace)).
I think we agree that if a child is living in poverty it is because the parent is poverished... The parent is poverished because they either choose to be (ie are doley scumtards) or because of bad luck or more aptly, misfortune...
If it is the latter, then it should be a brief blip from which they should be expected to get their ***** into gear and get back back on their feet again (Alan Partridge wrote a good book on this - highly recommended). Being a blip doesnt need people marching demanding more money from the state, it just invoves a bit of time and effort on the part of the parent.
So then back to the Doley scumtard collective, who deserve nothing from the state whatsoever...
So in short, whatever our assumptions, and whatever your ever so warmful liberalist views, there is no cause for the march and absolutely no cause for the government to contribute further. (In my opinion).
Kind Regards
Abdabz
Regular Daily Mail reader
(irony - ace)). I think we agree that if a child is living in poverty it is because the parent is poverished... The parent is poverished because they either choose to be (ie are doley scumtards) or because of bad luck or more aptly, misfortune...
If it is the latter, then it should be a brief blip from which they should be expected to get their ***** into gear and get back back on their feet again (Alan Partridge wrote a good book on this - highly recommended). Being a blip doesnt need people marching demanding more money from the state, it just invoves a bit of time and effort on the part of the parent.
So then back to the Doley scumtard collective, who deserve nothing from the state whatsoever...
So in short, whatever our assumptions, and whatever your ever so warmful liberalist views, there is no cause for the march and absolutely no cause for the government to contribute further. (In my opinion).
Kind Regards
Abdabz
Regular Daily Mail reader
My point of view has nothing at all to do with politics or any left leaning publication. If you want to be thought controlled by the DM the thats your business, I prefer independent thought.
I don't have a solution to these issues and never claimed to. I was reacting to some of the breath-taking sweeping statements being used on this thread. And I'm STILL waiting for someone to back up these claims wioth facts....
05 October 2008, 05:40 PM
#53
My point of view has nothing at all to do with politics or any left leaning publication. If you want to be thought controlled by the DM the thats your business, I prefer independent thought.
I don't have a solution to these issues and never claimed to. I was reacting to some of the breath-taking sweeping statements being used on this thread. And I'm STILL waiting for someone to back up these claims wioth facts....
I don't have a solution to these issues and never claimed to. I was reacting to some of the breath-taking sweeping statements being used on this thread. And I'm STILL waiting for someone to back up these claims wioth facts....
1) that some people manage fine bringing up children on benifits and some do not.
2) the governments statistical definition of child poverty is meaningless as it does not take into account the intelligence (for want of a better word) of the parent/s
I think post #48 is a pretty good response to the issues raised - don't you?
05 October 2008, 06:05 PM
#54
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Disco, Disco!
Posts: 21,825
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, now you've spun this round into daily mail garbage.
I did not for 1 minute say that 99% of those living purely on benefits were selfish parents with sky tv and smoking addictions
I did say ''99%'' of those claiming child poverty are, the both are not the same thing, some families on benefits survive very well in fact, running cars, foreign holidays etc...
Now i know the government use figures to determine child poverty or not but even this is misleading....
2 families with the same benefit related income....
1 family in real poverty, sending kids to school with ripped trousers, really scruffy and poor looking, cant afford to feed them ...Sky dish on the wall, mobile phone in the pocket..You get the picture
The other family, well presented, no said luxuries, well fed and clothed, couldn't tell if they were low income or not.
Now if 1 family can do this and the other cant, where does the fault lie?
That then applies to them all up and down the country, if 1 single family can survive off their benefit payments well, then why cant everyone (Using same number of children for comparison etc)
The only answer here is spending habits, or is there something else
Its how you portion off the money you have is what i believe determines if a child is poor or not.
Like i said above with the benefit awards already on offer, there really is no excuse.
My OPINION, just like your OPINION
I did not for 1 minute say that 99% of those living purely on benefits were selfish parents with sky tv and smoking addictions
I did say ''99%'' of those claiming child poverty are, the both are not the same thing, some families on benefits survive very well in fact, running cars, foreign holidays etc...
Now i know the government use figures to determine child poverty or not but even this is misleading....
2 families with the same benefit related income....
1 family in real poverty, sending kids to school with ripped trousers, really scruffy and poor looking, cant afford to feed them ...Sky dish on the wall, mobile phone in the pocket..You get the picture
The other family, well presented, no said luxuries, well fed and clothed, couldn't tell if they were low income or not.
Now if 1 family can do this and the other cant, where does the fault lie?
That then applies to them all up and down the country, if 1 single family can survive off their benefit payments well, then why cant everyone (Using same number of children for comparison etc)
The only answer here is spending habits, or is there something else
Its how you portion off the money you have is what i believe determines if a child is poor or not.
Like i said above with the benefit awards already on offer, there really is no excuse.
My OPINION, just like your OPINION
06 October 2008, 08:18 AM
#55
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have recently started to question why the state should support anything or anyone at all for anything...
I am starting to wonder what happens where capitalism and socialism meet. For example, in America, state support seems to be minimal, but over here, healthcare, housing, pocket money (dole) etc are the bare minimum.
Who can honestly believe themselves to be creditable citizens of this country and then EXPECT to be funded by the state?
I was brought up to believe you have to work hard to get things in life - not go on marches to demand more money for problems that can be solved by hard work and effort...
I am starting to wonder what happens where capitalism and socialism meet. For example, in America, state support seems to be minimal, but over here, healthcare, housing, pocket money (dole) etc are the bare minimum.
Who can honestly believe themselves to be creditable citizens of this country and then EXPECT to be funded by the state?
I was brought up to believe you have to work hard to get things in life - not go on marches to demand more money for problems that can be solved by hard work and effort...
06 October 2008, 08:50 AM
#56
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Martin, you are going on and on about us making wild accusations and wanting figures to back them up. We can all see what is going on around us and don't need some govt contrived stats to back this up.
More money given would encourage further 'bad' behaviour, perhaps thats why UK has the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in the WHOLE of Europe (I'm quite sure that is FACT). Why should that be do you think?? I would say its because here people know they will be 'rewarded' for such behaviour and given money/housing
More money given would encourage further 'bad' behaviour, perhaps thats why UK has the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in the WHOLE of Europe (I'm quite sure that is FACT). Why should that be do you think?? I would say its because here people know they will be 'rewarded' for such behaviour and given money/housing
06 October 2008, 09:08 AM
#58
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Stroke it baby!
Posts: 33,828
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are the teenage pregnancies calculated by using a percentage, or amount?
Last edited by cookstar; 06 October 2008 at 09:22 AM. Reason: put underage, meant teenage
06 October 2008, 09:19 AM
#59
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
