to be fed up of George sodding Osbourne and his Knobbish Ideas(1000 Posts)
The economy is proving harder to fix than he first thought
Solution- suggest cutting £10bn from the benefits budget and "limit the number of children people can claim for". So- are you supposed to choose your 2 favourite and just feed them then? Or what?
This discussion is exactly what Osbourne wants. Whilst some are demonising the families on benefits, other policies can be slipped into place. Let's have a go at benefit claimants, then we miss out that the taxation of the rich is unchanged.
Let's make all the savings from those who can't afford it. If I phrase it carefully I can make everyone side with me because they're stupid enough to have a knee jerk reaction and not think it through. Then I can claim that they all supported me.
"children are the tax payers of the future."
not all children. What about the generations of families who've never worked?
I have shut my blinds on principle - I vote we all do the same.
Brycie - I do not like your comment about 'incomers'
My great aunt's, cousins, sisters boyfriend is "on he sick" and there's nowt wrong with him because he goes for a walk with his goat.
How comes he has a goat and I don't?
Bye bye.....this thread is pissing me off now.
Off you all go and pull the ladder up quick in case the scroungers try and get aboard.
(stealth boast alert)...
Only mice Meglet? I've got rats!
(It's a lifestyle choice)
You need to withdraw the accusation of racism Dawndonna. You are off the wall with that.
And you need to get your arguments straight. They are all over the place. I wouldn't even call them arguments.
Brycie they saved because they could. I don't buy that one group(particularly a very wealthy one) gets to sit in clover whilst the rest have to take pain it's not fair.
Poor pensioners should get the WFA but the well off and the fabulously wealthy shouldn't.I kind of resent my taxes going on the bar bill on my inlaw's latest cruise.
But lets not forget pensioners vote Tory,that is why they're not touched.
Still agree with Niceguy though on this.
Coming back to the pregnancy being easily preventable, what if you are one of the percentage who did everything by the book but still got pregnant?
What if you are one of the women who can't use the pill?
What if you are one of the women whose partners refuse to use condoms?
It may be 2012 and the age of equality, but the truth is that while it takes two to make a baby, it's frequently the woman only who is made to face up to the consequences. The only way you can make this fair on women is by equipping them and society with the tools to make sure the fathers live up to their responsibilities too. Instead, access to the CSA is being cut and now you'll be charged to use it.
This policy is NOT about making people take personal responsibility. It's a clever piece of social manipulation aimed at dividing and conquering.
He was so incredibly fucking condescending on BBC Breakfast this morning
'I speak directly to your viewers who are probably getting ready for work.. (pause) they are going to work hard all day to provide for their families....'
Yes mate. We work really bloody hard which you have not done one day in your privilidged entitled life. We don't have any handouts or tax credits yet you are fucking clobbering us to the point where yes, it would be financially easier for one of us not to work at the moment. Will we do that - no - but you are not giving some people the option. By all means, put an end to the something for nothing culture yet have a realistic alternative for the millions of people you are affecting. Where exactly are the jobs you expect people to go out and find when there are 20+ applicants for any one job advertised?
What really grates is the news over the weekend that there won't be any mansion tax or wealth tax imposed. No, of course not as then Osbourne and Cameron and all of the other privilidged Tories and funders will have to put their hands in their pockets then. That won't do. Far easier to tax the little people further, isn't that right Gideon?
^"children are the tax payers of the future."
not all children. What about the generations of families who've never worked? ^
Everyone pays tax, whether working or not. Tax is on practically everything we buy.
And it is possible for a child to come from a non-working household and be able to hold down a job themself when they become an adult.
I don't know what to call them then - they were people who came in to Britain to work -- and found employment through determination and looking and not assuming someone else would pay for them. What do you want me to call them? Suggestions?
It scares me that people can't see what this has to do with human rights. It's not about the rights of the parents to have as many kids as they want, it's the right of a child in modern Britain not to live in poverty. What you're supporting is children not having enough money to live adequately. Children being cold and hungry. Children not having shoes that fit or a warm coat in winter. It is very worrying that people think that it is ok to punish children for their parents' inability to find a job in a massive recession.
May I point out again: more than half the population takes more out of the state pot than they put in. What can you say to justify this?
Maynie: don't worry, it's not about that. It's about trying to ensure that children are not born into poverty as you describe.
Yes, some saved because they could; many saved because they decided to go without.
Pensioners vote. That's why governments of all parties look after them.
(as they should)
Serious question: what happens to those children who never asked to be born? Do we abort in the womb like China? Or do we steralise people based on their income? Or are forcible adoptions the answer? Or do we expect these children to go hungry and without other essentials like shoes or heating?
The state has a responsibility to any child living in poverty regardless of the parents' ability to use contraception effectively.
And who are these children living the life on Riley on the state? The amount of money paid to families probably doesn't even cover Gideon's weekly cab bill.
Mainly your post is the entire reason why we're in such a mess.Parents are allowed to think they aren't the ones responsible for their children because they know the state will pick up the tab which unfortunately it can't afford anymore as we have an aging population too.
Brycie, that's exactly what it's about. The intention may ostensibly be to stop children being born, the impact will be to push real, live children who are born, despite government policy, into greater and greater poverty. It's disgusting.
The welfare state is too expensive, more cut backs are inevitable.
I think the state supporting the first 2 kids only is a good idea. But there would need to be exceptions and the change bought in for new parents only.
I know lots of couples who are putting off or choosing not to have kids ( or more kids ) because they know they can't afford it... They don't believe the taxpayer should bring their kids up for them.
No party should be chucking money away on people who don't need it,sorry.
I don't think it's true some went without. Those without don't have savings,there are plenty of pensioners like this.
There are also plenty of pensioners who did alright Jack over the past few years who simply don't need or deserve the WFA,some aren't even in the bloody country during winter!!!!
None of these arguments make sense to me, they really don't. But it's so very sour so I will go, and leave you to it. There is such a lot of misplaced anger but many of you are very upset and I'm just making it worse. I think it's a thread for like-minded people and I should have realised that
Dawndonna: you can withdraw any time or come up with another word for people from outside Britain who come to Britain to work here. I'll continue to look out for that.
What if you get made redundant at 37, have no children but your partner does. This is probably your last chance. So you give up the chance because American banks collapsed 3 years ago? Crazy.
A child brought up with a happy, stable home life, with good access to health care, an excellent education and opportunities to develop their potential, is unlikely to grow up workshy. He or she may possibly end up unemployed if there aren't enough jobs available, or because they can't get adequate childcare, or because they have to care for a partner or relative, but that's not the same as being workshy.
So how do you ensure that all children are brought up with happy, stable home lives, with good access to healthcare, an excellent education and opportunities to develop their potential?
Well, you can deprive those who are least likely to have this of even more money... cos that will help won't it.
Or, you can invest in things like schools, sure start, social services, CSA, community centres. You can increase education about healthy relationships, parental responsibility, etc. Except all this is being cut too in favour of the option above.
Like many, I believe that failing to look at history and learn its lessons means that you are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past. We only need to look at our own country's history to see that demonising the poor - even those who 'deserve' it - does nothing to improve the situation (although it can help the mean spirited feel better). Whereas investing in people and providing them with the means to help themselves, does.
This thread is not accepting new messages.
Please login first.