Tory haters: shouldn't you start reining this in?

[Abitwobblynow]

Because the golden geese who have to pay for what you believe are entitlements and who you despise so much, are flying away:

"Almost half of all Britons who emigrate each year are professionals and company managers, potentially threatening the country?s supply of highly skilled workers, research for the Home Office found.
The attractions of a better lifestyle and climate, as well as career opportunities, meant a ?large and increasing? number of executives, scientists, academics and doctors have chosen to leave Britain in the last 20 years, the report said.
Business leaders blamed high rates of income tax for the ?disturbing? rises in the number of professionals leaving Britain for countries such as Australia, American and Canada. Around 149,000 British citizens emigrated last year, and 4.7 million now live overseas."

What do you think? Has the class resentment poison gone just a bit too far, and isn't it just a bit outdated? And was Labour right to stoke this narrative up?

Why isn't difficult - because they can. More efforts to find them - being done.
And it's not always a life in poverty.

Almost 100% avoidable yes, but not 100%.

So you say to the % it is going to happen to, blame the cheats? We're not helping.

It's not always a life in poverty but it will become that for those families.

Who's going to have three avoidable pregnancies. Seems unlikely.

You only need one if you have 2 children already and lost your job.

And it can happen more than once. Contraception just does not work for some people, but there's only really one way to find out.

Plus we're actually ony really talking about 1% of benefit claimants who are estimated to cheat.

The upper end for tax avoidance etc is a much more juicy pot.

Doesn't make up the great proportion of people exploiting the system though does it. Anyway you wouldn't be assuming that all single family pregnancies or large workless family pregnancies are big old accident? Lot of accidents there when accidents are almost 100 pc avoidable.

It's not the cheating - it's playing the system. Legal exploitation of other people's money, if you like.

The juicy pot is other people's money, don't forget.

If one kind of contraception doesn't work you find out after one accidental pregnancy. The chances of three, four or five different kinds of contraception failing are not very high.

Actually, I think I am correct in saying if one form doesn't work it is quite possible that others won't. But my point isn't about the numbers - one child going hungry in this day and age is not right when it is avoidable - it is not the child's fault. It is too hard a line IMO.

And there will likely be numerous accidents by young and vulnerable people, which with proper support can achieve and contribute. It just takes time.

Other people's money is theirs, of course. But then we're back to wanting to contribute fully and effectively again aren't we?

Which may have to leave to another day as it's now past pumpkin o'clock and it might all kick off again

Children shouldn't go hungry but there is no need for a child to go hungry. All children who are poor will be fed at school and there is a comprehensive system to ensure enough money is paid for them to eat and be warm so long as the parents don't spend it on something else.

I do contribute fully - unfortunately it's not always effectively but that's not my fault. Why do you suggest I don't contribute fully. The top 6 pc contribute 50 pc of tax. How much more of other people's money do you want?

Began a reply and lost in transit.

It is my understanding support is stopping after two children, though you understanding things differently? Is child benefit viewed as a bonus on top of a very basic living benefit that all families could survive without? Crikey. I hope I don?t ever end up there. At a basic level if it is thought child benefit is necessary for one or two children, why not three?

I haven't suggested you don't contribute fully (or legitimately as I think you interpret). I have no idea of your situation. I am talking of wanting to contribute fully and I'd wager there are some in the top bracket that don't through avoidance, or resent the amount they do, which is damaging in other ways.

How much more of other people?s money do I want? Well me personally not a lot, I'd prefer to earn my own, but in general my answer is enough, as much as it takes to ensure a minimum standard at the bottom, which doesn't see children suffer hardship, or people who are disabled or terminally ill, or their carers, forced to work unnecessarily or become collateral damage. Enough so that proper support for victims of abuse and crime is in place and that we invest and build on these Good Things to give people hope. Because a bucket load of hope is needed to inspire people to pull together if we?re going to get out of this mess.

More people pulling together must mean more business for up top long term, no?

There is resentment at the top and the bottom ? both looking at the other as on the take.

One end has it significantly easier that the other, and I?m not sure those living honestly on the very basics have it that easy, unless they are skanking in some way (and I wouldn't imagine that's particularly easy with the threat of prison). There is such a huge chasm of understanding between the two. That needs bridging somehow.

RL is beckoning with a busy weekend but interested to know thoughts on Iceland.

Bogen.

Well, I'll admit to having looked that one up WorriedBetty!

And I was almost offended, until I found these:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2162191/Bogan-fury-Anger-Australian-term-similar-Chav-included-Oxford-Dictionary.html

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/9341563/Bogan-included-in-Oxford-English-Dictionary.html

And yes, I might go with a little uncouth, or maybe unorthodox.

Perhaps it is time to look past the messenger, to the message.

Nooo! I meant Denmark is more economically fair than the UK..:)