I reckon this is a vote winner, fair and honest ..
#31
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Please excuse my Spelling - its not the best !!
Posts: 2,538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has someone hacks Pete's account - or left himself logged on and the nurses at his nursing home are posting on his behalf ?
As instead of the usual complete twaddle that he spouts, some of it actually makes some sense. Either that or Pete is not the true dye in the bed leftie he like to make us believe ! Or could it be he is as old as he says and he has started to see the world for what it is ?
Richard
As instead of the usual complete twaddle that he spouts, some of it actually makes some sense. Either that or Pete is not the true dye in the bed leftie he like to make us believe ! Or could it be he is as old as he says and he has started to see the world for what it is ?
Richard
#34
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: If you're not braking or accelerating you're wasting time.
Posts: 2,684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#35
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (7)
do you think if people didn't get paid child benefit , they wouldn't have kids ?
They were always having kids , its just at the minute they can claim for them. I don't see much changing in conceptions if the Child Benefit was stopped. I imagine we will always pay for the in some way.
#36
#37
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would rather bang nails through my hand than agree with Lewis on anything but on this subject, there is some validity in the proposal, in my opinion. It raises all sorts of moral questions not least as Martin has mentioned about what State services a 2nd, 3rd child etc would be entitled to, but for me, much like the obesity/smoking/drinking thing, something at some stage will have to give way; you can't expect handout after handout just because "that's the way it's always been".
#38
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Stroke it baby!
Posts: 33,828
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Totally agree with the benefit to be restricted to one child, it's your right to have a child as a human, it's not however your right to have a tax payer funded large family.
I currently have my third on the way, but this was after a lengthy conversation about whether we can afford to provide a good life for them all.
I have had to comletely forgo my child benefit, but in a way I welcome it. It's never been something I have been completely comfortable receiving.
I currently have my third on the way, but this was after a lengthy conversation about whether we can afford to provide a good life for them all.
I have had to comletely forgo my child benefit, but in a way I welcome it. It's never been something I have been completely comfortable receiving.
Last edited by cookstar; 07 January 2013 at 07:52 PM.
#41
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (7)
Totally agree with the benefit to be restricted to one child, it's your right to have a child as a human, it's not however your right to have a tax payer funded large family.
I currently have my third on the way, but this was after a lengthy conversation about whether we can afford to provide a good life for them all.
I have had to comletely forgo my child benefit, but in a way I welcome it. It's never been something I have been completely comfortable receiving.
I currently have my third on the way, but this was after a lengthy conversation about whether we can afford to provide a good life for them all.
I have had to comletely forgo my child benefit, but in a way I welcome it. It's never been something I have been completely comfortable receiving.
The same could happen to someone with 1 child and i just worry what would the outcome be ?
#42
Yes you are right of course. I put it badly and meant that one child's benefit would help with the first child but having twins would be an expensive occurrence. It is fair to say that one cannot expect to deliberately have twins and that it is a bit hard in the above case if you do. I can't see the government making that a special case though.
Les
Les
#43
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Stroke it baby!
Posts: 33,828
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I never suggested there should be NO state benefits, just restricting the child benefit to one child. I believe there are a whole range of other benefits to act as a safety net for the above scenario.
#44
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It appears to been forgotten that it is actually quite important for the future of humanity that we reproduce!
Oh and as for this being a 'vote winner', I'm pretty sure this would go down about as well as the poll tax
Last edited by Martin2005; 08 January 2013 at 05:51 PM.
#45
As iam a single bloke with no kids but work full time and pay tax, it would be nice if i could have instead of child benefit, a monthly contribution to my fuel costs for my pickup as its a thirsty *******!
#47
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Epsom
Posts: 5,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We are not paying people to have kids (not with child benefit anyway). So to answer your question, no obviously we should not pay people to have kids.
It appears to been forgotten that it is actually quite important for the future of humanity that we reproduce!
Oh and as for this being a 'vote winner', I'm pretty sure this would go down about as well as the poll tax
It appears to been forgotten that it is actually quite important for the future of humanity that we reproduce!
Oh and as for this being a 'vote winner', I'm pretty sure this would go down about as well as the poll tax
As for being a vote winner, my opinion is that you are in a minority. The trouble today Martin is as a country spending 170bn pounds a year more than we earn. It simply can't continue. The old ways have to go. Where would you put the knife?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
acemodder
ScoobyNet General
50
01 October 2015 07:01 PM