Universal benefits

Alan B'Stard

Well-Known Forumite
shoes said:
Colin Grigson said:
zebidee said:
Having children benefits the country, it gives plenty of cannon fodder for our wars, provides future tax payers and people to look after us in old age.
At last, somebody with a reasoned, sensible view.
Our population has been expanding in a healthy way for thousands of years before we had child benefit. or any form of welfare system.
Indeed, back in the days when there were children down t'pit and climbing up chimneys, didn't harm our population levels then either.

Shall we change the legislation that prevents this as well?
 

Gramaisc

Forum O. G.
Colin Grigson said:
shoes said:
Colin Grigson said:
At last, somebody with a reasoned, sensible view.
Our population has been expanding in a healthy way for thousands of years before we had child benefit. or any form of welfare system.
Indeed, back in the days when there were children down t'pit and climbing up chimneys, didn't harm our population levels then either.

Shall we change the legislation that prevents this as well?
Be reasonable, Grigson. There are no pits and bugger all chimneys left. Think of the carbon footprint......
 

Alan B'Stard

Well-Known Forumite
Gramaisc said:
Be reasonable, Grigson. There are no pits and bugger all chimneys left. Think of the carbon footprint......
You are quite right, replace pits & chimneys with handling spent nuclear rods without all that costly and unneccesary health and safety equipment.
 

zebidee

Well-Known Forumite
Withnail said:
It does seem to be a bit of a no-brainer though; after all it will not genuinely affect anybody whom it affects, so to speak.
And people are entitled to be miffed off for losing it, even if they don't realise they don't need it, like anyone having things taken away, it gets their backs up.
 

shoes

Well-Known Forumite
Colin Grigson said:
shoes said:
Colin Grigson said:
At last, somebody with a reasoned, sensible view.
Our population has been expanding in a healthy way for thousands of years before we had child benefit. or any form of welfare system.
Indeed, back in the days when there were children down t'pit and climbing up chimneys, didn't harm our population levels then either.

Shall we change the legislation that prevents this as well?
Nothing is ever exclusive with you is it? I don't want to pay for other's peoples offspring ergo I think they should all be put down pits and up chimneys.

Why not, I don't like spending money on art either so I probably want artists to be destined to a live of poverty and misery too eh?

Find me a pit and I will find you a child.
 

Withnail

Well-Known Forumite
zebidee said:
Withnail said:
It does seem to be a bit of a no-brainer though; after all it will not genuinely affect anybody whom it affects, so to speak.
And people are entitled to be miffed off for losing it, even if they don't realise they don't need it, like anyone having things taken away, it gets their backs up.
True enough.

We are talking about people who are miffed because they may have to consider cancelling the monthly wine order though. Their kids will be devastated.
 

Alan B'Stard

Well-Known Forumite
shoes said:
Colin Grigson said:
shoes said:
Our population has been expanding in a healthy way for thousands of years before we had child benefit. or any form of welfare system.
Indeed, back in the days when there were children down t'pit and climbing up chimneys, didn't harm our population levels then either.

Shall we change the legislation that prevents this as well?
Nothing is ever exclusive with you is it? I don't want to pay for other's peoples offspring ergo I think they should all be put down pits and up chimneys.

Why not, I don't like spending money on art either so I probably want artists to be destined to a live of poverty and misery too eh?

Find me a pit and I will find you a child.
Take your pick, there are five deep mines left, nearest being Coventry http://www.ukcoal.com/dm-locations.

But you would get rid of more cleaning nuclear rods. Ah hang on, that would cost the taxpayer money with NHS bills as their hair falls out. I know, lets round up everybody who does not work and has more than six kids and stick them in a work camp.
 

Gramaisc

Forum O. G.
Colin Grigson said:
lets round up everybody who does not work and has more than six kids and stick them in a work camp.
I fear that if you stood on that manifesto, you wouldn't need AV to get you elected....
 

shoes

Well-Known Forumite
Colin Grigson said:
I know, lets round up everybody who does not work and has more than six kids and stick them in a work camp.
Spiffing idea old chap. Disappointed I didn't think of that.
 

Jade-clothing

Well-Known Forumite
mm, I have been debating whether to comment since yesterday. I'm not good with politics or fancy words, so won't be getting into the debate/criticisms/generalisations that are going on.
The child benefit thing won't really affect me but I do sympathise with those that will be worse off because of it. I DONT agree with people having child after child and living on benefits long term with no intention of getting a job BUT there are circumstances where people have to live on benefits.
We have 6 children between us and until end of last year had been trying to have another together. for the year before meeting mr. Jadeclothing I was living on benefits - I wont go into the reasons on here, but I am not lazy and I have always worked my whole life until then. At the end of last year Mr. JC was made redundant after not having been paid for several months so we were living on benefits until we opened Jade clothing.
Given that we have 6 kids and were trying for another does that make us spongers or just victims of circumtance?
 

tek-monkey

wanna see my snake?
I'm not getting into the whole too many kids thing, as I personally think the gov should only pay for the first 2 but I was in a family of 4 on benefits! As with you though, it was circumstance. Dad walked when I was about 9, leaving mum with sod all, so its not as cut and dry as too many kids so tough.

My issue is paying benefits to people who earn much more than the national average, that is not what benefits are for. They are to help the needy, not the greedy.
 

Gramaisc

Forum O. G.
tek-monkey said:
I'm not getting into the whole too many kids thing, as I personally think the gov should only pay for the first 2 but I was in a family of 4 on benefits!
In the old days of Child Allowance you got nothing for the first one. It was only payed for the second child and any subsequent children..
 

tekkers

Well-Known Forumite
I think it's a good move by Dave, people earning higher wages can afford the child care unlike those who earn less and cannot afford it. Should come in a bit sooner than 2013 imo though.
 

db

#chaplife
shoes said:
This is like trying to have a debate with a four year old.
quite ironic, given that you're the one having a tantrum lol.. seriously homes, i agree with much of what you are saying, but the way you are trying to convey it is terrible lol..

LOOOOOOOOOUD NOOOOOOOOOOOOISES!

Withnail said:
We are talking about people who are miffed because they may have to consider cancelling the monthly wine order though. Their kids will be devastated.
zebidee said:
yes
 

shoes

Well-Known Forumite
db said:
shoes said:
This is like trying to have a debate with a four year old.
quite ironic, given that you're the one having a tantrum lol.. seriously homes, i agree with much of what you are saying, but the way you are trying to convey it is terrible lol..

LOOOOOOOOOUD NOOOOOOOOOOOOISES!
Riiiiiighhhhtht. Yes a tantrum, that's what being matter of fact and not pussyfooting around an issue is called these days, is it?
 

Jenksie

Well-Known Forumite
I've noted on threads like this the regular - some might think older and wiser - posters tend to hang back and take a more considered view.
I few months ago I was lambasted for suggesting that the forum displayed a Right Wing/DM reader bias.
Here we go again with someone raising a perfectly legitimate observation (Zebedee was it?or Blueshirt) and ending up by being insulted by the usual suspects who spout ill thought out drivel, specious personal anecdotes and smug platitudes.

I did chuck a comment in earliar but as is usually the way it was ignored in favour of the slobbering rant about dole scum.

No one has mentioned Childcare much which is at the root of this - Make it Free and what excuse would anyone have for staying at home? - Unless the were rich enough to opt for that.

I'll say this -

This is a catasrophe for the nutters and we are four months in. They now - in desparation hint (HINT mind) at transferable allowence because they are on the back foot.

So you take money off the wealthy - not much just a bit, and when they get angry you give it back via the TAX system.

Unless you are windowed of course. Who do you tranfer it from then? Neighbour? Friend? Workmate?

Means testing we are told is 'Too Difficult' - Do self employed people not do their returns? Working Families Tax Credit? is your house not banded for Tax reasons - and they've only got 3 years to design a form!

We havn't even started cutting yet.

The Conference:

Seems less coverage was given to it than last weeks Labour one.

Everbody is old or weird looking - no new Toryism in evidence here.

It's a Rally for Dave.

The word Conservative is conspicuously absent from the PR boys - using the Liberals as a foil?

The Hall was half empty for Clarkes slavery speech.

What a buch of rank amatuers, what an absolut shower - 14 years to get ready and this is what we get.

Dumbstruck, Arrogant ministers or carping dissenters trying to ameliorate a massive gaff.

Brown lost the plot but Milliband will absolutely rip into this. Cameron is the only person I've seen with any PR savvy and christ they're gonna need him.

Nothing said about the Bankers, Afghanistan or Tuition Fees, The NHS - usual Tory crowd pleasers Law and Order and Low Tax.

Pathetic
 

zebidee

Well-Known Forumite
db said:
shoes said:
This is like trying to have a debate with a four year old.
quite ironic, given that you're the one having a tantrum lol.. seriously homes, i agree with much of what you are saying, but the way you are trying to convey it is terrible lol..

LOOOOOOOOOUD NOOOOOOOOOOOOISES!

Withnail said:
We are talking about people who are miffed because they may have to consider cancelling the monthly wine order though. Their kids will be devastated.
zebidee said:
yes
I see that generalisations work in every direction, if you earn less than 'average Joe' you're scroungers, if you earn more, you're greedy buggers, no accounting for individual situations or actual examples, (of which, I'm yet to see any).

Jenksie said:
Here we go again with someone raising a perfectly legitimate observation (Zebedee was it?or Blueshirt) and ending up by being insulted by the usual suspects who spout ill thought out drivel, specious personal anecdotes and smug platitudes.

I did chuck a comment in earliar but as is usually the way it was ignored in favour of the slobbering rant about dole scum.
sorry to miss your comment, you're right, I guess I'm wet behind the ears!
 
Top