Overpopulation is a growing problem in the world.

Les

 

Hello, that's what taxes are there for - well all pay them as a %age of salary (that's fair) & the Govt decide (on our behalf) where to spend it (or indeed take it away)!

How do you know they don't spend that £20 on their kids? The beer money may be from somewhere else. I know we spend a fortune on ours & are grateful for the extra £20 p/w. We don't get much back these days (huge tax & little back) & it'll be even less in the future assuming that this is the thin end of the wedge

TX.

 

'the govt decide (on our behalf)'

It's for the greater good, comrade.

Ahhhh, I remember now. I really wanted all those hundreds of millions of pounds spent on the Scottish parliament building. I'm reaping the benefits of that right now.

Tax money is there to enable people to pay for things for themselves that have been deemed inappropriate for private business to provide. It is not there as some kind of charity that you are forced to donate to and that gets spent at the government's fancy.

 

We would be happy not to receive child benefit IF we could have children. We've spent £15k on IVF so far, unsuccessfully.

People really should count themselves lucky if they have healthy children - missing out on £20/week isn't a big deal unless you're really on the bread line.

 

Is that a serious reply, or are you winding me up? "How do you know they don't spend that £20 on their kids? The beer money may be from somewhere else." They should spend the money they earn themselves on their kids, then if there's nothing left for beer - tough ****!

Children, in the majority of cases, are the responsibility of the parents who have them.

 

The one thing you can say about all this is it is so indicative of how the next few years are going to be.

Before the election this place was awash with how crap Labour had been (not arguing on that one btw so don't start) and how the new (hopefully) Conservative government was going to have to make huge cuts to sort the mess we were in out.

When the coalition got formed and started talking about cuts and reform there were a good few posts pattting them on the back and saying this was what was needed.

Of course as soon as the first major cut gets announced many of those it directly affects get all upset about it. What happened to 'we are all going to have to take some pain' that everyone was trumpeting as the way forward a few months ago. Or is that a case of 'we are all going to have to take some pain as long as it isn't me'?

If you're on a wage of £44K or over and have kids you are losing child benefit - deal with it. That is part of the taking some pain. Many people bring kids up on far less money so stop bleating.

Then of course I have just watched Cameron on the news squirming and saying he will now try and do something to help stay at home mothers... typical Tories - make a big announcment and then let the criticism make them water it down. If they carry on like this the cuts will amount to nothing.

All of the above of course assumes making huge cuts is a good idea which is a whole other discussion in itself.

 

+1

12k a month in rent to an afghan single mum. the girl who took her kids to Raoul Moat's funeral because she said he was a role model gets 33K a year. gary bates has 14 kids to 12 different mothers and pays for none of them, the guy who couldn't walk 20 yards claimed 40K in sick benefit over the last nine years get 24 weeks in prison and has to pay the overpayment back at £100 per month. Sure it will only take him 34 years to pay it off.

WTF is wrong with this country. get these scumbag leeching ******* out of our country, get them into minimum wage jobs for 40 hours a week, get them sterilised. just do something ffs. Can you tell this annoys me a tad

 

+2

I have personal experience of this as i have posted up before: 38 y/o single mum (has live-in (employed) partner which the social know nothing about,, 4 kids ( 3 different fathers) rent free 4 bd council house and has never had to work a day in her life! manages two holidays a year, has 4 or so tv's and assorted games consuls and spends a lot on Vodka and **** with a 20 a day habit (**** that is).

 

do your civic duty, phone the fraud hotline. i work very hard for every penny i earn and you have scrounging ***** like this who expect the state to keep her. just boils my ****

 

Exactly, shop them in. I would!

 

Actually i did report them and guess what - 6 months later it is still going on...

 

I guess the problem is they have to prove he is actually living there and not staying 3 nights a week as a "guest". I knew someone in similar circumstances that had been shopped, he told the authorites he only stayed at his friends house at the weekends and that was the last he heard from them. So instead of paying any rent all his money went on cars jack daniels and cocaine

 

Sad isn't it. I am sure if i tried to defraud them i would end up found out and in jail within a very short time but then again i do not know how the play the system either

 

My kind of guy!

 

Just had a look at this on the BBC website.

£500 a week isn't a bad wage for sitting on your backside watching Jezza K.

I'd like to think that includes housing costs but I doubt it. If you have all your costs paid for because your not working £500 is quite a bit. Hopefully they make it very hard to get the top whack and hopefully they put a time limit on it.

 

Ain't that the truth, and as a small Island we are still letting in more than leave UK had a population of some 20m in the 1930's - now estimated at 67m and growing. We have half the space of France and similar population - this cannot be good.

How exactly do we feed, provide shelter and services for all these people and pay for those who do not and will not work or contribute and we are even letting in more of the same (from the EU and non EU countries, keen to jump on the UK benefits wagon) to in our home grown work-shy, benefit reliant underclass.

 

Not a day later the fudging begins

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11478320

Out of the frying pan, as they say

 

Just cos they don't actually ask you doesn't mean it isn't so ... taxes are there to be spent on our behalf with the Govt (that we all voted in) deciding where, again on our behalf. I really don't understand your 2nd point

TX.

 

Interesting watching the politicians sqirming when being questioned about this today.

Interviewer. " 2 people on 40k keep the benefit, single parent on £46 looses it?"

Politicians response. "fair, tough decisions, fair, deficit, fair, tough choices, fair"

It's ****wits like this that are running our country ffs. Don't they THINK before they announce this ****?

 

Or indeed if people decide not to have kids at all as a result. Big problems for a future Govt if working population starts to contract as a result.

TX.

 

It is weird, unless I am missing something that should have been picked up before it was even mentioned, a couple who earn upto 86 grand keep it yet a single person on a penny more than 44k loses it ?

What did they expect ?

I can deal with losing it, it is annoying and demoralising but we will survive and if its for the greater good then so be it I have two years to make up the shortfall but it would gall me if next door who earn pretty much twice what I do get it because individually they earn less.

 

Doubtless there will be less bleating if we were truly "all in it together". At the moment if you've worked hard to push up your earnings + have kid(s) then you lose whilst everyone else can carry on as they were incl the spongers & scroungers of course. Better IMHO for everyone to have had some cut in child benefit with the better off taking a larger slice of the reduction. That's why tax (VAT hike for example) is a better vehicle IMHO as we all take some pain ...

TX.

 

He is trying to dismantle this system as the long term goal is a reform of the benefits system for a less complex system. Many people have moaned and how people take advantage of it, he's about changing the system and now the first steps of long process has begun.

I will be one of those families loosing the child benefit, but if it will eventually mean that the system will encourage people to work rather than live off the current benefit system, I'm for it.

 

That £20 a week pays for our cleaner

I was reading the daily mail comments yesterday and had to chuckle at this one....

"Good, that will stop the extravagant middle class lifestyles"

 

I'm a high earner without children, I feel double cheated for losing something I would've been previously entitled to..... still I expect this will be the last of my tax troubles moving forward, the tip of the iceberg, that's all this latest step is.

 

My understanding is that a couple earning say 43k* each giving a joint income of *86k will continue to get the allowance. A single parent or 'breadwinner' earning *45k will not get the allowance. *rounded up/down figures

I fail to see how this is making the system easier or as Camoron kep't saying yesterday "Fair", his words!

It looks like a poorly thought through and rushed to get it launched at the Tory conference. I was hoping that the Tories where going to learn from the many mistakes of the NL party but no.

I could quite happily punched Camoron in the face during his interview i saw on the BBC he had the look and feel of Tony Blair.

IMHO If it has to be set then it is based on the household income to make it easy and fairer it would have been simple to say any single or joint incomes over 45k loose the benefit.

How hard is that!

 

But this is the law of the (supposed many) - in other words HMG recognise there may be a few single high earners that suffer but there will probably be far more joint high earners that will lose this benefit. So the needs of the many etc. etc.

 

IMHO to make it easy and fairer it would have been simple to say any single or joint incomes over 45k loose the benefit.


Im guessing this would have happened had we not got a coalition gov , hey ho

What if dad moves out tomorrow , more paperwork to ensure mother isnt immediately destitute