15,000 homes in south have child benefit cut

15,000 homes in south have child benefit cut

15,000 homes in south have child benefit cut

First published in News Daily Echo: Photograph of the Author by , Parliamentary Correspondent

HAMPSHIRE’S Conservative heartlands will be hit hard by cuts to child benefit, new figures show.

The controversial decision to phase out the payment for wealthier households comes into force this week.

More than 15,000 letters have been sent out to homes in the south, warning them they will be losing out.

However the true number affected is much higher, as many families have not yet been warned – with ministers relying on an awareness campaign to keep people informed.

Winchester Tory MP Steve Brine, whose household will be affected, said he had not received any letter, saying this was “ridiculous”.

He said: “I didn’t see the publicity and if I missed it, there’s a pretty good chance that other people did too.”

According to figures published in Parliament, almost 3,000 letters were sent to people in Mr Brine’s Winchester constituency, 1,340 in New Forest East and 1,150 in New Forest West.

This compares to 390 in Labour-held Southampton Itchen and 590 in Southampton Test.

Child benefit is worth £20.30 a week for the oldest or only child and £13.40 a week for other children.

Across the country, around 1.2m families will lose their entitlement.

Any household where one parent earns more than £50,000 will no longer be entitled to the full amount, and it will be removed entirely where one earns £60,000 or above.

Households have been urged to come forward and give up their right to the payments, or will be forced to carry out self-assessment tax returns.

The move has been hugely controversial with some Conservatives, with Tory areas largely the worstaffected.

Mr Brine said alternatives should have been pursued, for example by limiting the payment to two children while appealing for wealthy households to give it up to help cut the deficit.

He added: “This is what deficit reduction looks like.

There is nothing nice about it, and this is a particularly unpleasant measure.”

Comments (69)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:15pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Phil76 says...

Hang on - if Mr Brine really didn't know about a) a flagship Coalition policy which has been heavily publicised for a very long time and b) the impact on his own personal circumstances isn't there a pretty serious question the electorate might want to ask about what he does with his time??!

What is shocking about this isn't so much the removal of the benefit but the utterly inconsistent way it has been done. A household with a couple each earning £35kp.a. get to retain full child benefit, whereas a household with one person earning £70kp.a. and the other nothing does not.

How on earth is that fair? Restrict child benefit based on an assessment of total household income or not at all.
Hang on - if Mr Brine really didn't know about a) a flagship Coalition policy which has been heavily publicised for a very long time and b) the impact on his own personal circumstances isn't there a pretty serious question the electorate might want to ask about what he does with his time??! What is shocking about this isn't so much the removal of the benefit but the utterly inconsistent way it has been done. A household with a couple each earning £35kp.a. get to retain full child benefit, whereas a household with one person earning £70kp.a. and the other nothing does not. How on earth is that fair? Restrict child benefit based on an assessment of total household income or not at all. Phil76
  • Score: 0

12:21pm Tue 8 Jan 13

southy says...

I was reading an artical on line where a News Reporter who earns more than £100,000 a year thinks she as the right to child benfit.
I was reading an artical on line where a News Reporter who earns more than £100,000 a year thinks she as the right to child benfit. southy
  • Score: 0

12:23pm Tue 8 Jan 13

ohec says...

He said: “I didn’t see the publicity and if I missed it, there’s a pretty good chance that other people did too.”

Well finally an admission from an MP that he doesn't know what day it is, Winchester Tory MP Steve Brine must hide in a cave if he was unaware of the change and just illustrates the sheer ignorance of those we are supposed to trust to run our country, is it any wonder we are in such a mess.
He said: “I didn’t see the publicity and if I missed it, there’s a pretty good chance that other people did too.” Well finally an admission from an MP that he doesn't know what day it is, Winchester Tory MP Steve Brine must hide in a cave if he was unaware of the change and just illustrates the sheer ignorance of those we are supposed to trust to run our country, is it any wonder we are in such a mess. ohec
  • Score: 0

12:26pm Tue 8 Jan 13

southy says...

The Capitalist partys intend to lock people into poverity, every thing that our forefathers strugled to get for the future people is slowly being taking away, why you may ask its because of people not willing to fight to keep it.
The Capitalist partys intend to lock people into poverity, every thing that our forefathers strugled to get for the future people is slowly being taking away, why you may ask its because of people not willing to fight to keep it. southy
  • Score: 0

12:33pm Tue 8 Jan 13

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
I was reading an artical on line where a News Reporter who earns more than £100,000 a year thinks she as the right to child benfit.
.. aaahh! But remember you told us 90% of the internet is wrong.

How do we know the bit you were reading was part of the correct 10%?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: I was reading an artical on line where a News Reporter who earns more than £100,000 a year thinks she as the right to child benfit.[/p][/quote].. aaahh! But remember you told us 90% of the internet is wrong. How do we know the bit you were reading was part of the correct 10%? freefinker
  • Score: 0

12:38pm Tue 8 Jan 13

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
The Capitalist partys intend to lock people into poverity, every thing that our forefathers strugled to get for the future people is slowly being taking away, why you may ask its because of people not willing to fight to keep it.
.. perhaps you can inform us how the capitalists will be able to generate their filthy profits if the 'people’ are deliberately kept in poverty; and are thus unable to buy the capitalists products.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: The Capitalist partys intend to lock people into poverity, every thing that our forefathers strugled to get for the future people is slowly being taking away, why you may ask its because of people not willing to fight to keep it.[/p][/quote].. perhaps you can inform us how the capitalists will be able to generate their filthy profits if the 'people’ are deliberately kept in poverty; and are thus unable to buy the capitalists products. freefinker
  • Score: 0

12:42pm Tue 8 Jan 13

southy says...

freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
I was reading an artical on line where a News Reporter who earns more than £100,000 a year thinks she as the right to child benfit.
.. aaahh! But remember you told us 90% of the internet is wrong.

How do we know the bit you were reading was part of the correct 10%?
All I can tell you it was on one of the Yahoo news web pages
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: I was reading an artical on line where a News Reporter who earns more than £100,000 a year thinks she as the right to child benfit.[/p][/quote].. aaahh! But remember you told us 90% of the internet is wrong. How do we know the bit you were reading was part of the correct 10%?[/p][/quote]All I can tell you it was on one of the Yahoo news web pages southy
  • Score: 0

12:45pm Tue 8 Jan 13

southy says...

freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
The Capitalist partys intend to lock people into poverity, every thing that our forefathers strugled to get for the future people is slowly being taking away, why you may ask its because of people not willing to fight to keep it.
.. perhaps you can inform us how the capitalists will be able to generate their filthy profits if the 'people’ are deliberately kept in poverty; and are thus unable to buy the capitalists products.
look at the bigger picture. the worlds wealth is not to be shared to all only the few in a capitalist world making poverity grow and once your in poverity it will keep you there.
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: The Capitalist partys intend to lock people into poverity, every thing that our forefathers strugled to get for the future people is slowly being taking away, why you may ask its because of people not willing to fight to keep it.[/p][/quote].. perhaps you can inform us how the capitalists will be able to generate their filthy profits if the 'people’ are deliberately kept in poverty; and are thus unable to buy the capitalists products.[/p][/quote]look at the bigger picture. the worlds wealth is not to be shared to all only the few in a capitalist world making poverity grow and once your in poverity it will keep you there. southy
  • Score: 0

12:46pm Tue 8 Jan 13

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
I was reading an artical on line where a News Reporter who earns more than £100,000 a year thinks she as the right to child benfit.
.. aaahh! But remember you told us 90% of the internet is wrong.

How do we know the bit you were reading was part of the correct 10%?
All I can tell you it was on one of the Yahoo news web pages
.. so, you’re still effectively saying there is a 90% probability the information is wrong. Why are you posting about it with that amount of unreliability attached to it?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: I was reading an artical on line where a News Reporter who earns more than £100,000 a year thinks she as the right to child benfit.[/p][/quote].. aaahh! But remember you told us 90% of the internet is wrong. How do we know the bit you were reading was part of the correct 10%?[/p][/quote]All I can tell you it was on one of the Yahoo news web pages[/p][/quote].. so, you’re still effectively saying there is a 90% probability the information is wrong. Why are you posting about it with that amount of unreliability attached to it? freefinker
  • Score: 0

12:48pm Tue 8 Jan 13

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
The Capitalist partys intend to lock people into poverity, every thing that our forefathers strugled to get for the future people is slowly being taking away, why you may ask its because of people not willing to fight to keep it.
.. perhaps you can inform us how the capitalists will be able to generate their filthy profits if the 'people’ are deliberately kept in poverty; and are thus unable to buy the capitalists products.
look at the bigger picture. the worlds wealth is not to be shared to all only the few in a capitalist world making poverity grow and once your in poverity it will keep you there.
.. that doesn't answer the dilemma I put to you, does it?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: The Capitalist partys intend to lock people into poverity, every thing that our forefathers strugled to get for the future people is slowly being taking away, why you may ask its because of people not willing to fight to keep it.[/p][/quote].. perhaps you can inform us how the capitalists will be able to generate their filthy profits if the 'people’ are deliberately kept in poverty; and are thus unable to buy the capitalists products.[/p][/quote]look at the bigger picture. the worlds wealth is not to be shared to all only the few in a capitalist world making poverity grow and once your in poverity it will keep you there.[/p][/quote].. that doesn't answer the dilemma I put to you, does it? freefinker
  • Score: 0

12:50pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Outside of the Box says...

Winchester Tory MP Steve Brine, whose household will be affected, said he had not received any letter, saying this was “ridiculous”. He said: “I didn’t see the publicity and if I missed it, there’s a pretty good chance that other people did too.”

Are you taking the mickey Mr Brine?,,,

For your information,,,the policy that introduced these cuts is called The Welfare Reform act,,,your boss has been banging on about it since forever, Ian Duncan-Smith introduced it in 2012, you probably voted in favour of it.

Can I suggest you listening to what's being said in the House of Commons before voting one way or another.

If I was a a Winchester resident I would be well and truly worried that my MP missed publicity on benefit cuts,,,,a truly shocking indictment our political leaders.
Winchester Tory MP Steve Brine, whose household will be affected, said he had not received any letter, saying this was “ridiculous”. He said: “I didn’t see the publicity and if I missed it, there’s a pretty good chance that other people did too.” Are you taking the mickey Mr Brine?,,, For your information,,,the policy that introduced these cuts is called The Welfare Reform act,,,your boss has been banging on about it since forever, Ian Duncan-Smith introduced it in 2012, you probably voted in favour of it. Can I suggest you listening to what's being said in the House of Commons before voting one way or another. If I was a a Winchester resident I would be well and truly worried that my MP missed publicity on benefit cuts,,,,a truly shocking indictment our political leaders. Outside of the Box
  • Score: 0

12:53pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Subject48 says...

Dont be stupid. He didint vote on it. The vote did not happen on one of the 5 days in the year he bothered to go to the house of commons.
Dont be stupid. He didint vote on it. The vote did not happen on one of the 5 days in the year he bothered to go to the house of commons. Subject48
  • Score: 0

12:58pm Tue 8 Jan 13

MGRA says...

some families on £65k per year loose all their child benefit. other families on £99k per year keep ALL of theirs.... THIS is the reason the tories have lost 100,000 votes at a stroke. I personally think this will cost them the election and it will let in labour to ruin our economy once and for all and bancrupt us properly this time, not like their half-hearted attempt last time. Oh and southy,,, you dont know the meaning of the word poverty.... poverty in this country means only being able to afford 20 fags a day and only having a 52 inch plasma, not an LCD one.
some families on £65k per year loose all their child benefit. other families on £99k per year keep ALL of theirs.... THIS is the reason the tories have lost 100,000 votes at a stroke. I personally think this will cost them the election and it will let in labour to ruin our economy once and for all and bancrupt us properly this time, not like their half-hearted attempt last time. Oh and southy,,, you dont know the meaning of the word poverty.... poverty in this country means only being able to afford 20 fags a day and only having a 52 inch plasma, not an LCD one. MGRA
  • Score: 0

12:59pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Outside of the Box says...

Subject48 wrote:
Dont be stupid. He didint vote on it. The vote did not happen on one of the 5 days in the year he bothered to go to the house of commons.
It wouldn't surprise me at all.
[quote][p][bold]Subject48[/bold] wrote: Dont be stupid. He didint vote on it. The vote did not happen on one of the 5 days in the year he bothered to go to the house of commons.[/p][/quote]It wouldn't surprise me at all. Outside of the Box
  • Score: 0

1:09pm Tue 8 Jan 13

southy says...

freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
The Capitalist partys intend to lock people into poverity, every thing that our forefathers strugled to get for the future people is slowly being taking away, why you may ask its because of people not willing to fight to keep it.
.. perhaps you can inform us how the capitalists will be able to generate their filthy profits if the 'people’ are deliberately kept in poverty; and are thus unable to buy the capitalists products.
look at the bigger picture. the worlds wealth is not to be shared to all only the few in a capitalist world making poverity grow and once your in poverity it will keep you there.
.. that doesn't answer the dilemma I put to you, does it?
You have not put me in any dilemma your unable to, the dilemma is the system its slowly taking you towards that spot.
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: The Capitalist partys intend to lock people into poverity, every thing that our forefathers strugled to get for the future people is slowly being taking away, why you may ask its because of people not willing to fight to keep it.[/p][/quote].. perhaps you can inform us how the capitalists will be able to generate their filthy profits if the 'people’ are deliberately kept in poverty; and are thus unable to buy the capitalists products.[/p][/quote]look at the bigger picture. the worlds wealth is not to be shared to all only the few in a capitalist world making poverity grow and once your in poverity it will keep you there.[/p][/quote].. that doesn't answer the dilemma I put to you, does it?[/p][/quote]You have not put me in any dilemma your unable to, the dilemma is the system its slowly taking you towards that spot. southy
  • Score: 0

1:11pm Tue 8 Jan 13

southy says...

Outside of the Box wrote:
Subject48 wrote:
Dont be stupid. He didint vote on it. The vote did not happen on one of the 5 days in the year he bothered to go to the house of commons.
It wouldn't surprise me at all.
MP's should be paid by the hour while in the house of commons and it should be there only means of income
[quote][p][bold]Outside of the Box[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Subject48[/bold] wrote: Dont be stupid. He didint vote on it. The vote did not happen on one of the 5 days in the year he bothered to go to the house of commons.[/p][/quote]It wouldn't surprise me at all.[/p][/quote]MP's should be paid by the hour while in the house of commons and it should be there only means of income southy
  • Score: 0

1:15pm Tue 8 Jan 13

southy says...

MGRA wrote:
some families on £65k per year loose all their child benefit. other families on £99k per year keep ALL of theirs.... THIS is the reason the tories have lost 100,000 votes at a stroke. I personally think this will cost them the election and it will let in labour to ruin our economy once and for all and bancrupt us properly this time, not like their half-hearted attempt last time. Oh and southy,,, you dont know the meaning of the word poverty.... poverty in this country means only being able to afford 20 fags a day and only having a 52 inch plasma, not an LCD one.
They have all ready lost the next election, they lost that the day they first interduce cuts
[quote][p][bold]MGRA[/bold] wrote: some families on £65k per year loose all their child benefit. other families on £99k per year keep ALL of theirs.... THIS is the reason the tories have lost 100,000 votes at a stroke. I personally think this will cost them the election and it will let in labour to ruin our economy once and for all and bancrupt us properly this time, not like their half-hearted attempt last time. Oh and southy,,, you dont know the meaning of the word poverty.... poverty in this country means only being able to afford 20 fags a day and only having a 52 inch plasma, not an LCD one.[/p][/quote]They have all ready lost the next election, they lost that the day they first interduce cuts southy
  • Score: 0

1:20pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Yorkyboy22 says...

"The Government is reforming what it calls the 'something for nothing' welfare culture, by capping the amount one household can get in benefits and capping the amount benefits are increased next year." - Steve Brine 18 Dec 2012.
Not so much fun when it's you eh Steve?
"The Government is reforming what it calls the 'something for nothing' welfare culture, by capping the amount one household can get in benefits and capping the amount benefits are increased next year." - Steve Brine 18 Dec 2012. Not so much fun when it's you eh Steve? Yorkyboy22
  • Score: 0

1:22pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Pikey-Biker says...

southy wrote:
MGRA wrote: some families on £65k per year loose all their child benefit. other families on £99k per year keep ALL of theirs.... THIS is the reason the tories have lost 100,000 votes at a stroke. I personally think this will cost them the election and it will let in labour to ruin our economy once and for all and bancrupt us properly this time, not like their half-hearted attempt last time. Oh and southy,,, you dont know the meaning of the word poverty.... poverty in this country means only being able to afford 20 fags a day and only having a 52 inch plasma, not an LCD one.
They have all ready lost the next election, they lost that the day they first interduce cuts
good or bad the tories will probably win the next election
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MGRA[/bold] wrote: some families on £65k per year loose all their child benefit. other families on £99k per year keep ALL of theirs.... THIS is the reason the tories have lost 100,000 votes at a stroke. I personally think this will cost them the election and it will let in labour to ruin our economy once and for all and bancrupt us properly this time, not like their half-hearted attempt last time. Oh and southy,,, you dont know the meaning of the word poverty.... poverty in this country means only being able to afford 20 fags a day and only having a 52 inch plasma, not an LCD one.[/p][/quote]They have all ready lost the next election, they lost that the day they first interduce cuts[/p][/quote]good or bad the tories will probably win the next election Pikey-Biker
  • Score: 0

1:31pm Tue 8 Jan 13

southy says...

southy wrote:
MGRA wrote:
some families on £65k per year loose all their child benefit. other families on £99k per year keep ALL of theirs.... THIS is the reason the tories have lost 100,000 votes at a stroke. I personally think this will cost them the election and it will let in labour to ruin our economy once and for all and bancrupt us properly this time, not like their half-hearted attempt last time. Oh and southy,,, you dont know the meaning of the word poverty.... poverty in this country means only being able to afford 20 fags a day and only having a 52 inch plasma, not an LCD one.
They have all ready lost the next election, they lost that the day they first interduce cuts
The only reason is that I don't feel the poverity yet.
You coming out with your right wing clap trap about 52 inch plasma and 20 ciggs aday, Try going to the big citys and walk around and count the number of people living and sleeping on the streets, you can see it here in Southampton to.
Poverity starts when you can no longer makes ends meet and you slowly get deeper and deeper into poverity
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MGRA[/bold] wrote: some families on £65k per year loose all their child benefit. other families on £99k per year keep ALL of theirs.... THIS is the reason the tories have lost 100,000 votes at a stroke. I personally think this will cost them the election and it will let in labour to ruin our economy once and for all and bancrupt us properly this time, not like their half-hearted attempt last time. Oh and southy,,, you dont know the meaning of the word poverty.... poverty in this country means only being able to afford 20 fags a day and only having a 52 inch plasma, not an LCD one.[/p][/quote]They have all ready lost the next election, they lost that the day they first interduce cuts[/p][/quote]The only reason is that I don't feel the poverity yet. You coming out with your right wing clap trap about 52 inch plasma and 20 ciggs aday, Try going to the big citys and walk around and count the number of people living and sleeping on the streets, you can see it here in Southampton to. Poverity starts when you can no longer makes ends meet and you slowly get deeper and deeper into poverity southy
  • Score: 0

1:37pm Tue 8 Jan 13

southy says...

****-Biker wrote:
southy wrote:
MGRA wrote: some families on £65k per year loose all their child benefit. other families on £99k per year keep ALL of theirs.... THIS is the reason the tories have lost 100,000 votes at a stroke. I personally think this will cost them the election and it will let in labour to ruin our economy once and for all and bancrupt us properly this time, not like their half-hearted attempt last time. Oh and southy,,, you dont know the meaning of the word poverty.... poverty in this country means only being able to afford 20 fags a day and only having a 52 inch plasma, not an LCD one.
They have all ready lost the next election, they lost that the day they first interduce cuts
good or bad the tories will probably win the next election
No they have deffently lost the next election all ready
[quote][p][bold]****-Biker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MGRA[/bold] wrote: some families on £65k per year loose all their child benefit. other families on £99k per year keep ALL of theirs.... THIS is the reason the tories have lost 100,000 votes at a stroke. I personally think this will cost them the election and it will let in labour to ruin our economy once and for all and bancrupt us properly this time, not like their half-hearted attempt last time. Oh and southy,,, you dont know the meaning of the word poverty.... poverty in this country means only being able to afford 20 fags a day and only having a 52 inch plasma, not an LCD one.[/p][/quote]They have all ready lost the next election, they lost that the day they first interduce cuts[/p][/quote]good or bad the tories will probably win the next election[/p][/quote]No they have deffently lost the next election all ready southy
  • Score: 0

1:43pm Tue 8 Jan 13

hulla baloo says...

southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
I was reading an artical on line where a News Reporter who earns more than £100,000 a year thinks she as the right to child benfit.
.. aaahh! But remember you told us 90% of the internet is wrong.

How do we know the bit you were reading was part of the correct 10%?
All I can tell you it was on one of the Yahoo news web pages
Thats a bit like believing the headlines from the Daily Sport.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: I was reading an artical on line where a News Reporter who earns more than £100,000 a year thinks she as the right to child benfit.[/p][/quote].. aaahh! But remember you told us 90% of the internet is wrong. How do we know the bit you were reading was part of the correct 10%?[/p][/quote]All I can tell you it was on one of the Yahoo news web pages[/p][/quote]Thats a bit like believing the headlines from the Daily Sport. hulla baloo
  • Score: 0

1:44pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Higginz says...

Here's my five-second idea. £30 a week child benefit for households with at least one child living in it where the adults in that household earn no more than £60k combined. No additional benefits for having more than one child. Vote Higginz.
Here's my five-second idea. £30 a week child benefit for households with at least one child living in it where the adults in that household earn no more than £60k combined. No additional benefits for having more than one child. Vote Higginz. Higginz
  • Score: 0

1:47pm Tue 8 Jan 13

hulla baloo says...

southy wrote:
****-Biker wrote:
southy wrote:
MGRA wrote: some families on £65k per year loose all their child benefit. other families on £99k per year keep ALL of theirs.... THIS is the reason the tories have lost 100,000 votes at a stroke. I personally think this will cost them the election and it will let in labour to ruin our economy once and for all and bancrupt us properly this time, not like their half-hearted attempt last time. Oh and southy,,, you dont know the meaning of the word poverty.... poverty in this country means only being able to afford 20 fags a day and only having a 52 inch plasma, not an LCD one.
They have all ready lost the next election, they lost that the day they first interduce cuts
good or bad the tories will probably win the next election
No they have deffently lost the next election all ready
And you know this for definate because...........?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]****-Biker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MGRA[/bold] wrote: some families on £65k per year loose all their child benefit. other families on £99k per year keep ALL of theirs.... THIS is the reason the tories have lost 100,000 votes at a stroke. I personally think this will cost them the election and it will let in labour to ruin our economy once and for all and bancrupt us properly this time, not like their half-hearted attempt last time. Oh and southy,,, you dont know the meaning of the word poverty.... poverty in this country means only being able to afford 20 fags a day and only having a 52 inch plasma, not an LCD one.[/p][/quote]They have all ready lost the next election, they lost that the day they first interduce cuts[/p][/quote]good or bad the tories will probably win the next election[/p][/quote]No they have deffently lost the next election all ready[/p][/quote]And you know this for definate because...........? hulla baloo
  • Score: 0

1:50pm Tue 8 Jan 13

S!monOn says...

Phil76 wrote:
Hang on - if Mr Brine really didn't know about a) a flagship Coalition policy which has been heavily publicised for a very long time and b) the impact on his own personal circumstances isn't there a pretty serious question the electorate might want to ask about what he does with his time??!

What is shocking about this isn't so much the removal of the benefit but the utterly inconsistent way it has been done. A household with a couple each earning £35kp.a. get to retain full child benefit, whereas a household with one person earning £70kp.a. and the other nothing does not.

How on earth is that fair? Restrict child benefit based on an assessment of total household income or not at all.
If you factor in the additional child care costs the working couple would have to incur so that they can go out and earn the £70k p.a. then yes.... it does seem fair.
[quote][p][bold]Phil76[/bold] wrote: Hang on - if Mr Brine really didn't know about a) a flagship Coalition policy which has been heavily publicised for a very long time and b) the impact on his own personal circumstances isn't there a pretty serious question the electorate might want to ask about what he does with his time??! What is shocking about this isn't so much the removal of the benefit but the utterly inconsistent way it has been done. A household with a couple each earning £35kp.a. get to retain full child benefit, whereas a household with one person earning £70kp.a. and the other nothing does not. How on earth is that fair? Restrict child benefit based on an assessment of total household income or not at all.[/p][/quote]If you factor in the additional child care costs the working couple would have to incur so that they can go out and earn the £70k p.a. then yes.... it does seem fair. S!monOn
  • Score: 0

2:04pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Nicole23 says...

When you think about real poverty this act hardly even rates as pathetic.
People dont know how lucky they are, what about the benefit of a free education and healthcare.
Benefits are supposed to be for needy people not those earning a £1000 a week.
When you think about real poverty this act hardly even rates as pathetic. People dont know how lucky they are, what about the benefit of a free education and healthcare. Benefits are supposed to be for needy people not those earning a £1000 a week. Nicole23
  • Score: 0

2:11pm Tue 8 Jan 13

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
****-Biker wrote:
southy wrote:
MGRA wrote: some families on £65k per year loose all their child benefit. other families on £99k per year keep ALL of theirs.... THIS is the reason the tories have lost 100,000 votes at a stroke. I personally think this will cost them the election and it will let in labour to ruin our economy once and for all and bancrupt us properly this time, not like their half-hearted attempt last time. Oh and southy,,, you dont know the meaning of the word poverty.... poverty in this country means only being able to afford 20 fags a day and only having a 52 inch plasma, not an LCD one.
They have all ready lost the next election, they lost that the day they first interduce cuts
good or bad the tories will probably win the next election
No they have deffently lost the next election all ready
.. is that the election you definitely assured us would happen before the end of 2012?

How can anyone trust your political analysis when you get it so hopelessly wrong on so many occasions?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]****-Biker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MGRA[/bold] wrote: some families on £65k per year loose all their child benefit. other families on £99k per year keep ALL of theirs.... THIS is the reason the tories have lost 100,000 votes at a stroke. I personally think this will cost them the election and it will let in labour to ruin our economy once and for all and bancrupt us properly this time, not like their half-hearted attempt last time. Oh and southy,,, you dont know the meaning of the word poverty.... poverty in this country means only being able to afford 20 fags a day and only having a 52 inch plasma, not an LCD one.[/p][/quote]They have all ready lost the next election, they lost that the day they first interduce cuts[/p][/quote]good or bad the tories will probably win the next election[/p][/quote]No they have deffently lost the next election all ready[/p][/quote].. is that the election you definitely assured us would happen before the end of 2012? How can anyone trust your political analysis when you get it so hopelessly wrong on so many occasions? freefinker
  • Score: 0

2:17pm Tue 8 Jan 13

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
The Capitalist partys intend to lock people into poverity, every thing that our forefathers strugled to get for the future people is slowly being taking away, why you may ask its because of people not willing to fight to keep it.
.. perhaps you can inform us how the capitalists will be able to generate their filthy profits if the 'people’ are deliberately kept in poverty; and are thus unable to buy the capitalists products.
look at the bigger picture. the worlds wealth is not to be shared to all only the few in a capitalist world making poverity grow and once your in poverity it will keep you there.
.. that doesn't answer the dilemma I put to you, does it?
You have not put me in any dilemma your unable to, the dilemma is the system its slowly taking you towards that spot.
.. oh yes I did.

You say the capitalists deliberately keep the people in poverty.

I ask, if that is the case, how do the capitalists make profits from a population, that because of their poverty, can't afford to buy the capitalists products?

That, dear southy, is the circle you need to square. A dilemma for your Trotskyist philosophy.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: The Capitalist partys intend to lock people into poverity, every thing that our forefathers strugled to get for the future people is slowly being taking away, why you may ask its because of people not willing to fight to keep it.[/p][/quote].. perhaps you can inform us how the capitalists will be able to generate their filthy profits if the 'people’ are deliberately kept in poverty; and are thus unable to buy the capitalists products.[/p][/quote]look at the bigger picture. the worlds wealth is not to be shared to all only the few in a capitalist world making poverity grow and once your in poverity it will keep you there.[/p][/quote].. that doesn't answer the dilemma I put to you, does it?[/p][/quote]You have not put me in any dilemma your unable to, the dilemma is the system its slowly taking you towards that spot.[/p][/quote].. oh yes I did. You say the capitalists deliberately keep the people in poverty. I ask, if that is the case, how do the capitalists make profits from a population, that because of their poverty, can't afford to buy the capitalists products? That, dear southy, is the circle you need to square. A dilemma for your Trotskyist philosophy. freefinker
  • Score: 0

2:20pm Tue 8 Jan 13

southy says...

hulla baloo wrote:
southy wrote:
****-Biker wrote:
southy wrote:
MGRA wrote: some families on £65k per year loose all their child benefit. other families on £99k per year keep ALL of theirs.... THIS is the reason the tories have lost 100,000 votes at a stroke. I personally think this will cost them the election and it will let in labour to ruin our economy once and for all and bancrupt us properly this time, not like their half-hearted attempt last time. Oh and southy,,, you dont know the meaning of the word poverty.... poverty in this country means only being able to afford 20 fags a day and only having a 52 inch plasma, not an LCD one.
They have all ready lost the next election, they lost that the day they first interduce cuts
good or bad the tories will probably win the next election
No they have deffently lost the next election all ready
And you know this for definate because...........?
To many people are turning against the Torys, and the Torys only just made it in the last election because there was a 2nd year of Labour Party back lash.
what you see happen in England and Wales at last year local elections where the Torys lost a great deal, is going to carry on happening and will show at the next General election, its all ready showing up at the by-elections that have all ready taken place and there is 2 more this mth.
Labour will be back in power at the next general election
[quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]****-Biker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MGRA[/bold] wrote: some families on £65k per year loose all their child benefit. other families on £99k per year keep ALL of theirs.... THIS is the reason the tories have lost 100,000 votes at a stroke. I personally think this will cost them the election and it will let in labour to ruin our economy once and for all and bancrupt us properly this time, not like their half-hearted attempt last time. Oh and southy,,, you dont know the meaning of the word poverty.... poverty in this country means only being able to afford 20 fags a day and only having a 52 inch plasma, not an LCD one.[/p][/quote]They have all ready lost the next election, they lost that the day they first interduce cuts[/p][/quote]good or bad the tories will probably win the next election[/p][/quote]No they have deffently lost the next election all ready[/p][/quote]And you know this for definate because...........?[/p][/quote]To many people are turning against the Torys, and the Torys only just made it in the last election because there was a 2nd year of Labour Party back lash. what you see happen in England and Wales at last year local elections where the Torys lost a great deal, is going to carry on happening and will show at the next General election, its all ready showing up at the by-elections that have all ready taken place and there is 2 more this mth. Labour will be back in power at the next general election southy
  • Score: 0

2:22pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Torchie1 says...

freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
****-Biker wrote:
southy wrote:
MGRA wrote: some families on £65k per year loose all their child benefit. other families on £99k per year keep ALL of theirs.... THIS is the reason the tories have lost 100,000 votes at a stroke. I personally think this will cost them the election and it will let in labour to ruin our economy once and for all and bancrupt us properly this time, not like their half-hearted attempt last time. Oh and southy,,, you dont know the meaning of the word poverty.... poverty in this country means only being able to afford 20 fags a day and only having a 52 inch plasma, not an LCD one.
They have all ready lost the next election, they lost that the day they first interduce cuts
good or bad the tories will probably win the next election
No they have deffently lost the next election all ready
.. is that the election you definitely assured us would happen before the end of 2012?

How can anyone trust your political analysis when you get it so hopelessly wrong on so many occasions?
Prior to the 'end of 2012' prediction there was the equally wrong prediction that the election would be by the end of 2011. The law of averages suggests that one day he will be right, but we will probably be told to 'do our own research' to find out when.
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]****-Biker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MGRA[/bold] wrote: some families on £65k per year loose all their child benefit. other families on £99k per year keep ALL of theirs.... THIS is the reason the tories have lost 100,000 votes at a stroke. I personally think this will cost them the election and it will let in labour to ruin our economy once and for all and bancrupt us properly this time, not like their half-hearted attempt last time. Oh and southy,,, you dont know the meaning of the word poverty.... poverty in this country means only being able to afford 20 fags a day and only having a 52 inch plasma, not an LCD one.[/p][/quote]They have all ready lost the next election, they lost that the day they first interduce cuts[/p][/quote]good or bad the tories will probably win the next election[/p][/quote]No they have deffently lost the next election all ready[/p][/quote].. is that the election you definitely assured us would happen before the end of 2012? How can anyone trust your political analysis when you get it so hopelessly wrong on so many occasions?[/p][/quote]Prior to the 'end of 2012' prediction there was the equally wrong prediction that the election would be by the end of 2011. The law of averages suggests that one day he will be right, but we will probably be told to 'do our own research' to find out when. Torchie1
  • Score: 0

2:28pm Tue 8 Jan 13

TheVoiceOfReason87 says...

One things for sure, we can't keep going at the rate we are now. The current rate of child benefits out is unsustainable. Maybe, just maybe this will lead to people realising that children are an extra expense, and not to be seen as another form of income.
One things for sure, we can't keep going at the rate we are now. The current rate of child benefits out is unsustainable. Maybe, just maybe this will lead to people realising that children are an extra expense, and not to be seen as another form of income. TheVoiceOfReason87
  • Score: 0

2:31pm Tue 8 Jan 13

southy says...

freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
The Capitalist partys intend to lock people into poverity, every thing that our forefathers strugled to get for the future people is slowly being taking away, why you may ask its because of people not willing to fight to keep it.
.. perhaps you can inform us how the capitalists will be able to generate their filthy profits if the 'people’ are deliberately kept in poverty; and are thus unable to buy the capitalists products.
look at the bigger picture. the worlds wealth is not to be shared to all only the few in a capitalist world making poverity grow and once your in poverity it will keep you there.
.. that doesn't answer the dilemma I put to you, does it?
You have not put me in any dilemma your unable to, the dilemma is the system its slowly taking you towards that spot.
.. oh yes I did.

You say the capitalists deliberately keep the people in poverty.

I ask, if that is the case, how do the capitalists make profits from a population, that because of their poverty, can't afford to buy the capitalists products?

That, dear southy, is the circle you need to square. A dilemma for your Trotskyist philosophy.
You have not put any one in a dilemma, you and majority of others are slowly being driven into the dilemma of poverity and once your there you will be stuck in poverity, you just can not see it.
The gap between the haves and have nots is getting wider and every day the have nots are growing in numbers.
Come on finker do some thinking those that will be buying capitalist goods will be those who have not reach poverity yet and with the passing of time they with drift towards poverty.
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: The Capitalist partys intend to lock people into poverity, every thing that our forefathers strugled to get for the future people is slowly being taking away, why you may ask its because of people not willing to fight to keep it.[/p][/quote].. perhaps you can inform us how the capitalists will be able to generate their filthy profits if the 'people’ are deliberately kept in poverty; and are thus unable to buy the capitalists products.[/p][/quote]look at the bigger picture. the worlds wealth is not to be shared to all only the few in a capitalist world making poverity grow and once your in poverity it will keep you there.[/p][/quote].. that doesn't answer the dilemma I put to you, does it?[/p][/quote]You have not put me in any dilemma your unable to, the dilemma is the system its slowly taking you towards that spot.[/p][/quote].. oh yes I did. You say the capitalists deliberately keep the people in poverty. I ask, if that is the case, how do the capitalists make profits from a population, that because of their poverty, can't afford to buy the capitalists products? That, dear southy, is the circle you need to square. A dilemma for your Trotskyist philosophy.[/p][/quote]You have not put any one in a dilemma, you and majority of others are slowly being driven into the dilemma of poverity and once your there you will be stuck in poverity, you just can not see it. The gap between the haves and have nots is getting wider and every day the have nots are growing in numbers. Come on finker do some thinking those that will be buying capitalist goods will be those who have not reach poverity yet and with the passing of time they with drift towards poverty. southy
  • Score: 0

2:38pm Tue 8 Jan 13

southy says...

Torchie1 wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
****-Biker wrote:
southy wrote:
MGRA wrote: some families on £65k per year loose all their child benefit. other families on £99k per year keep ALL of theirs.... THIS is the reason the tories have lost 100,000 votes at a stroke. I personally think this will cost them the election and it will let in labour to ruin our economy once and for all and bancrupt us properly this time, not like their half-hearted attempt last time. Oh and southy,,, you dont know the meaning of the word poverty.... poverty in this country means only being able to afford 20 fags a day and only having a 52 inch plasma, not an LCD one.
They have all ready lost the next election, they lost that the day they first interduce cuts
good or bad the tories will probably win the next election
No they have deffently lost the next election all ready
.. is that the election you definitely assured us would happen before the end of 2012?

How can anyone trust your political analysis when you get it so hopelessly wrong on so many occasions?
Prior to the 'end of 2012' prediction there was the equally wrong prediction that the election would be by the end of 2011. The law of averages suggests that one day he will be right, but we will probably be told to 'do our own research' to find out when.
I am surprise this government have lasted this long, its going to be down to the people to force an early election, the general strike that will be happening this year should of happened last year, but the right wing leadership of the TUC are trying to stop any form of action, they did not want the demo march and rally in London for the last two years, but growing support force the TUC board to give way to the rank and file of the Unions for the demo and rallys to take place which there will be another one this year.
This Government is hanging on by its finger nails
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]****-Biker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MGRA[/bold] wrote: some families on £65k per year loose all their child benefit. other families on £99k per year keep ALL of theirs.... THIS is the reason the tories have lost 100,000 votes at a stroke. I personally think this will cost them the election and it will let in labour to ruin our economy once and for all and bancrupt us properly this time, not like their half-hearted attempt last time. Oh and southy,,, you dont know the meaning of the word poverty.... poverty in this country means only being able to afford 20 fags a day and only having a 52 inch plasma, not an LCD one.[/p][/quote]They have all ready lost the next election, they lost that the day they first interduce cuts[/p][/quote]good or bad the tories will probably win the next election[/p][/quote]No they have deffently lost the next election all ready[/p][/quote].. is that the election you definitely assured us would happen before the end of 2012? How can anyone trust your political analysis when you get it so hopelessly wrong on so many occasions?[/p][/quote]Prior to the 'end of 2012' prediction there was the equally wrong prediction that the election would be by the end of 2011. The law of averages suggests that one day he will be right, but we will probably be told to 'do our own research' to find out when.[/p][/quote]I am surprise this government have lasted this long, its going to be down to the people to force an early election, the general strike that will be happening this year should of happened last year, but the right wing leadership of the TUC are trying to stop any form of action, they did not want the demo march and rally in London for the last two years, but growing support force the TUC board to give way to the rank and file of the Unions for the demo and rallys to take place which there will be another one this year. This Government is hanging on by its finger nails southy
  • Score: 0

2:48pm Tue 8 Jan 13

hulla baloo says...

southy wrote:
hulla baloo wrote:
southy wrote:
****-Biker wrote:
southy wrote:
MGRA wrote: some families on £65k per year loose all their child benefit. other families on £99k per year keep ALL of theirs.... THIS is the reason the tories have lost 100,000 votes at a stroke. I personally think this will cost them the election and it will let in labour to ruin our economy once and for all and bancrupt us properly this time, not like their half-hearted attempt last time. Oh and southy,,, you dont know the meaning of the word poverty.... poverty in this country means only being able to afford 20 fags a day and only having a 52 inch plasma, not an LCD one.
They have all ready lost the next election, they lost that the day they first interduce cuts
good or bad the tories will probably win the next election
No they have deffently lost the next election all ready
And you know this for definate because...........?
To many people are turning against the Torys, and the Torys only just made it in the last election because there was a 2nd year of Labour Party back lash.
what you see happen in England and Wales at last year local elections where the Torys lost a great deal, is going to carry on happening and will show at the next General election, its all ready showing up at the by-elections that have all ready taken place and there is 2 more this mth.
Labour will be back in power at the next general election
Thats not definate, as you boldly predicted, but just your view of the possible outcome.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hulla baloo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]****-Biker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MGRA[/bold] wrote: some families on £65k per year loose all their child benefit. other families on £99k per year keep ALL of theirs.... THIS is the reason the tories have lost 100,000 votes at a stroke. I personally think this will cost them the election and it will let in labour to ruin our economy once and for all and bancrupt us properly this time, not like their half-hearted attempt last time. Oh and southy,,, you dont know the meaning of the word poverty.... poverty in this country means only being able to afford 20 fags a day and only having a 52 inch plasma, not an LCD one.[/p][/quote]They have all ready lost the next election, they lost that the day they first interduce cuts[/p][/quote]good or bad the tories will probably win the next election[/p][/quote]No they have deffently lost the next election all ready[/p][/quote]And you know this for definate because...........?[/p][/quote]To many people are turning against the Torys, and the Torys only just made it in the last election because there was a 2nd year of Labour Party back lash. what you see happen in England and Wales at last year local elections where the Torys lost a great deal, is going to carry on happening and will show at the next General election, its all ready showing up at the by-elections that have all ready taken place and there is 2 more this mth. Labour will be back in power at the next general election[/p][/quote]Thats not definate, as you boldly predicted, but just your view of the possible outcome. hulla baloo
  • Score: 0

2:57pm Tue 8 Jan 13

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
The Capitalist partys intend to lock people into poverity, every thing that our forefathers strugled to get for the future people is slowly being taking away, why you may ask its because of people not willing to fight to keep it.
.. perhaps you can inform us how the capitalists will be able to generate their filthy profits if the 'people’ are deliberately kept in poverty; and are thus unable to buy the capitalists products.
look at the bigger picture. the worlds wealth is not to be shared to all only the few in a capitalist world making poverity grow and once your in poverity it will keep you there.
.. that doesn't answer the dilemma I put to you, does it?
You have not put me in any dilemma your unable to, the dilemma is the system its slowly taking you towards that spot.
.. oh yes I did.

You say the capitalists deliberately keep the people in poverty.

I ask, if that is the case, how do the capitalists make profits from a population, that because of their poverty, can't afford to buy the capitalists products?

That, dear southy, is the circle you need to square. A dilemma for your Trotskyist philosophy.
You have not put any one in a dilemma, you and majority of others are slowly being driven into the dilemma of poverity and once your there you will be stuck in poverity, you just can not see it.
The gap between the haves and have nots is getting wider and every day the have nots are growing in numbers.
Come on finker do some thinking those that will be buying capitalist goods will be those who have not reach poverity yet and with the passing of time they with drift towards poverty.
.. now answer the question. Stop the waffle.

What possible benefit could it be to capitalists to make everyone so poor they can no longer buy the capitalist products?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: The Capitalist partys intend to lock people into poverity, every thing that our forefathers strugled to get for the future people is slowly being taking away, why you may ask its because of people not willing to fight to keep it.[/p][/quote].. perhaps you can inform us how the capitalists will be able to generate their filthy profits if the 'people’ are deliberately kept in poverty; and are thus unable to buy the capitalists products.[/p][/quote]look at the bigger picture. the worlds wealth is not to be shared to all only the few in a capitalist world making poverity grow and once your in poverity it will keep you there.[/p][/quote].. that doesn't answer the dilemma I put to you, does it?[/p][/quote]You have not put me in any dilemma your unable to, the dilemma is the system its slowly taking you towards that spot.[/p][/quote].. oh yes I did. You say the capitalists deliberately keep the people in poverty. I ask, if that is the case, how do the capitalists make profits from a population, that because of their poverty, can't afford to buy the capitalists products? That, dear southy, is the circle you need to square. A dilemma for your Trotskyist philosophy.[/p][/quote]You have not put any one in a dilemma, you and majority of others are slowly being driven into the dilemma of poverity and once your there you will be stuck in poverity, you just can not see it. The gap between the haves and have nots is getting wider and every day the have nots are growing in numbers. Come on finker do some thinking those that will be buying capitalist goods will be those who have not reach poverity yet and with the passing of time they with drift towards poverty.[/p][/quote].. now answer the question. Stop the waffle. What possible benefit could it be to capitalists to make everyone so poor they can no longer buy the capitalist products? freefinker
  • Score: 0

3:00pm Tue 8 Jan 13

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
****-Biker wrote:
southy wrote:
MGRA wrote: some families on £65k per year loose all their child benefit. other families on £99k per year keep ALL of theirs.... THIS is the reason the tories have lost 100,000 votes at a stroke. I personally think this will cost them the election and it will let in labour to ruin our economy once and for all and bancrupt us properly this time, not like their half-hearted attempt last time. Oh and southy,,, you dont know the meaning of the word poverty.... poverty in this country means only being able to afford 20 fags a day and only having a 52 inch plasma, not an LCD one.
They have all ready lost the next election, they lost that the day they first interduce cuts
good or bad the tories will probably win the next election
No they have deffently lost the next election all ready
.. is that the election you definitely assured us would happen before the end of 2012?

How can anyone trust your political analysis when you get it so hopelessly wrong on so many occasions?
Prior to the 'end of 2012' prediction there was the equally wrong prediction that the election would be by the end of 2011. The law of averages suggests that one day he will be right, but we will probably be told to 'do our own research' to find out when.
I am surprise this government have lasted this long, its going to be down to the people to force an early election, the general strike that will be happening this year should of happened last year, but the right wing leadership of the TUC are trying to stop any form of action, they did not want the demo march and rally in London for the last two years, but growing support force the TUC board to give way to the rank and file of the Unions for the demo and rallys to take place which there will be another one this year.
This Government is hanging on by its finger nails
.. oh dear, southy's been having those dreams again.

No southy, wake up!! - it was only a dream.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]****-Biker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MGRA[/bold] wrote: some families on £65k per year loose all their child benefit. other families on £99k per year keep ALL of theirs.... THIS is the reason the tories have lost 100,000 votes at a stroke. I personally think this will cost them the election and it will let in labour to ruin our economy once and for all and bancrupt us properly this time, not like their half-hearted attempt last time. Oh and southy,,, you dont know the meaning of the word poverty.... poverty in this country means only being able to afford 20 fags a day and only having a 52 inch plasma, not an LCD one.[/p][/quote]They have all ready lost the next election, they lost that the day they first interduce cuts[/p][/quote]good or bad the tories will probably win the next election[/p][/quote]No they have deffently lost the next election all ready[/p][/quote].. is that the election you definitely assured us would happen before the end of 2012? How can anyone trust your political analysis when you get it so hopelessly wrong on so many occasions?[/p][/quote]Prior to the 'end of 2012' prediction there was the equally wrong prediction that the election would be by the end of 2011. The law of averages suggests that one day he will be right, but we will probably be told to 'do our own research' to find out when.[/p][/quote]I am surprise this government have lasted this long, its going to be down to the people to force an early election, the general strike that will be happening this year should of happened last year, but the right wing leadership of the TUC are trying to stop any form of action, they did not want the demo march and rally in London for the last two years, but growing support force the TUC board to give way to the rank and file of the Unions for the demo and rallys to take place which there will be another one this year. This Government is hanging on by its finger nails[/p][/quote].. oh dear, southy's been having those dreams again. No southy, wake up!! - it was only a dream. freefinker
  • Score: 0

3:07pm Tue 8 Jan 13

aldermoorboy says...

The standard of living in the UK is 3 times higher than in the 1950's for all of us, fact.
Budget, live within your means and be happy.
The standard of living in the UK is 3 times higher than in the 1950's for all of us, fact. Budget, live within your means and be happy. aldermoorboy
  • Score: 0

3:11pm Tue 8 Jan 13

southy says...

Concept for you free, more poverity the bigger the profits the capitalist make, keeping people on the bread line helps by keeping labour wages down below the bare min to surivive on, cheap paid slave labour.
if things was so rosy with your wonderful capitalist world then familys that have both parents working would be a choice and not force to just to try and make ends meet.
Concept for you free, more poverity the bigger the profits the capitalist make, keeping people on the bread line helps by keeping labour wages down below the bare min to surivive on, cheap paid slave labour. if things was so rosy with your wonderful capitalist world then familys that have both parents working would be a choice and not force to just to try and make ends meet. southy
  • Score: 0

3:14pm Tue 8 Jan 13

southy says...

aldermoorboy wrote:
The standard of living in the UK is 3 times higher than in the 1950's for all of us, fact.
Budget, live within your means and be happy.
I not surprise but then we not long come out of a big major world war and was still in the rebuilding process, but why is there more poverity now than there was in the 1950's.
But then again the standard of living is only 3 times better for some and not all.
[quote][p][bold]aldermoorboy[/bold] wrote: The standard of living in the UK is 3 times higher than in the 1950's for all of us, fact. Budget, live within your means and be happy.[/p][/quote]I not surprise but then we not long come out of a big major world war and was still in the rebuilding process, but why is there more poverity now than there was in the 1950's. But then again the standard of living is only 3 times better for some and not all. southy
  • Score: 0

3:24pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Cyber__Fug says...

southy wrote:
Concept for you free, more poverity the bigger the profits the capitalist make, keeping people on the bread line helps by keeping labour wages down below the bare min to surivive on, cheap paid slave labour.
if things was so rosy with your wonderful capitalist world then familys that have both parents working would be a choice and not force to just to try and make ends meet.
Once again, you have completely missed the point of the question.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Concept for you free, more poverity the bigger the profits the capitalist make, keeping people on the bread line helps by keeping labour wages down below the bare min to surivive on, cheap paid slave labour. if things was so rosy with your wonderful capitalist world then familys that have both parents working would be a choice and not force to just to try and make ends meet.[/p][/quote]Once again, you have completely missed the point of the question. Cyber__Fug
  • Score: 0

3:30pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Subject48 says...

Nicole23 says...
2:04pm Tue 8 Jan 13

When you think about real poverty this act hardly even rates as pathetic.
People dont know how lucky they are, what about the benefit of a free education and healthcare.
Benefits are supposed to be for needy people not those earning a £1000 a week.”


very true. Why a household earning, 60+k should get any kind of benefit is beyond me.

Actualy, why should anyone be entitled to child beenfits is beyond me. If as a memebr of society you cannot sustain your own children and need help from the state; dont have any.
Nicole23 says... 2:04pm Tue 8 Jan 13 When you think about real poverty this act hardly even rates as pathetic. People dont know how lucky they are, what about the benefit of a free education and healthcare. Benefits are supposed to be for needy people not those earning a £1000 a week.” very true. Why a household earning, 60+k should get any kind of benefit is beyond me. Actualy, why should anyone be entitled to child beenfits is beyond me. If as a memebr of society you cannot sustain your own children and need help from the state; dont have any. Subject48
  • Score: 0

3:31pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Stephen J says...

southy wrote:
southy wrote:
MGRA wrote:
some families on £65k per year loose all their child benefit. other families on £99k per year keep ALL of theirs.... THIS is the reason the tories have lost 100,000 votes at a stroke. I personally think this will cost them the election and it will let in labour to ruin our economy once and for all and bancrupt us properly this time, not like their half-hearted attempt last time. Oh and southy,,, you dont know the meaning of the word poverty.... poverty in this country means only being able to afford 20 fags a day and only having a 52 inch plasma, not an LCD one.
They have all ready lost the next election, they lost that the day they first interduce cuts
The only reason is that I don't feel the poverity yet.
You coming out with your right wing clap trap about 52 inch plasma and 20 ciggs aday, Try going to the big citys and walk around and count the number of people living and sleeping on the streets, you can see it here in Southampton to.
Poverity starts when you can no longer makes ends meet and you slowly get deeper and deeper into poverity
A few hundred years ago there was much more equality than now. Nearly everyone lived in extreme poverty, as they still do in countries such as North Korea. State intervention does far more to keep people in poverty than capitalism could ever hope to achieve, even if it wanted to.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MGRA[/bold] wrote: some families on £65k per year loose all their child benefit. other families on £99k per year keep ALL of theirs.... THIS is the reason the tories have lost 100,000 votes at a stroke. I personally think this will cost them the election and it will let in labour to ruin our economy once and for all and bancrupt us properly this time, not like their half-hearted attempt last time. Oh and southy,,, you dont know the meaning of the word poverty.... poverty in this country means only being able to afford 20 fags a day and only having a 52 inch plasma, not an LCD one.[/p][/quote]They have all ready lost the next election, they lost that the day they first interduce cuts[/p][/quote]The only reason is that I don't feel the poverity yet. You coming out with your right wing clap trap about 52 inch plasma and 20 ciggs aday, Try going to the big citys and walk around and count the number of people living and sleeping on the streets, you can see it here in Southampton to. Poverity starts when you can no longer makes ends meet and you slowly get deeper and deeper into poverity[/p][/quote]A few hundred years ago there was much more equality than now. Nearly everyone lived in extreme poverty, as they still do in countries such as North Korea. State intervention does far more to keep people in poverty than capitalism could ever hope to achieve, even if it wanted to. Stephen J
  • Score: 0

3:32pm Tue 8 Jan 13

rich the stitch says...

Subject48 wrote:
Nicole23 says... 2:04pm Tue 8 Jan 13 When you think about real poverty this act hardly even rates as pathetic. People dont know how lucky they are, what about the benefit of a free education and healthcare. Benefits are supposed to be for needy people not those earning a £1000 a week.” very true. Why a household earning, 60+k should get any kind of benefit is beyond me. Actualy, why should anyone be entitled to child beenfits is beyond me. If as a memebr of society you cannot sustain your own children and need help from the state; dont have any.
True: If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em.
[quote][p][bold]Subject48[/bold] wrote: Nicole23 says... 2:04pm Tue 8 Jan 13 When you think about real poverty this act hardly even rates as pathetic. People dont know how lucky they are, what about the benefit of a free education and healthcare. Benefits are supposed to be for needy people not those earning a £1000 a week.” very true. Why a household earning, 60+k should get any kind of benefit is beyond me. Actualy, why should anyone be entitled to child beenfits is beyond me. If as a memebr of society you cannot sustain your own children and need help from the state; dont have any.[/p][/quote]True: If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em. rich the stitch
  • Score: 0

3:35pm Tue 8 Jan 13

ohec says...

The comments section of this paper are ruined by southy's stupid ideas, even somebody as thick and illiterate as southy should be able to make some sort of sense, instead he is locked in his own little world and nothing anybody can say will get through to him. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion but they should also be prepared to listen to other peoples opinions and debate those opinions only a complete and utter fool could think he is right all of the time.
The comments section of this paper are ruined by southy's stupid ideas, even somebody as thick and illiterate as southy should be able to make some sort of sense, instead he is locked in his own little world and nothing anybody can say will get through to him. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion but they should also be prepared to listen to other peoples opinions and debate those opinions only a complete and utter fool could think he is right all of the time. ohec
  • Score: 0

3:48pm Tue 8 Jan 13

sotonboy84 says...

TheVoiceOfReason87 wrote:
One things for sure, we can't keep going at the rate we are now. The current rate of child benefits out is unsustainable. Maybe, just maybe this will lead to people realising that children are an extra expense, and not to be seen as another form of income.
Completely agree. If you can't afford to have children, then don't have them. You shouldn't expect the state to support you.
[quote][p][bold]TheVoiceOfReason87[/bold] wrote: One things for sure, we can't keep going at the rate we are now. The current rate of child benefits out is unsustainable. Maybe, just maybe this will lead to people realising that children are an extra expense, and not to be seen as another form of income.[/p][/quote]Completely agree. If you can't afford to have children, then don't have them. You shouldn't expect the state to support you. sotonboy84
  • Score: 0

4:51pm Tue 8 Jan 13

freefinker says...

Cyber__Fug wrote:
southy wrote:
Concept for you free, more poverity the bigger the profits the capitalist make, keeping people on the bread line helps by keeping labour wages down below the bare min to surivive on, cheap paid slave labour.
if things was so rosy with your wonderful capitalist world then familys that have both parents working would be a choice and not force to just to try and make ends meet.
Once again, you have completely missed the point of the question.
.. indeed Cyber__Fug.

So southy, the question was; What possible benefit could it be to capitalists to make everyone so poor they can no longer buy the capitalist products?

You still haven't answered.

What are all these "people on the bread line” who are “below the bare min to survive on” and are nothing but “cheap paid slave labour" producing if these very same people can’t afford to buy anything?

Answer the question.
[quote][p][bold]Cyber__Fug[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Concept for you free, more poverity the bigger the profits the capitalist make, keeping people on the bread line helps by keeping labour wages down below the bare min to surivive on, cheap paid slave labour. if things was so rosy with your wonderful capitalist world then familys that have both parents working would be a choice and not force to just to try and make ends meet.[/p][/quote]Once again, you have completely missed the point of the question.[/p][/quote].. indeed Cyber__Fug. So southy, the question was; What possible benefit could it be to capitalists to make everyone so poor they can no longer buy the capitalist products? You still haven't answered. What are all these "people on the bread line” who are “below the bare min to survive on” and are nothing but “cheap paid slave labour" producing if these very same people can’t afford to buy anything? Answer the question. freefinker
  • Score: 0

5:17pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Outside of the Box says...

An interesting response from the CEO of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation to today's Uprating Bill
http://www.jrf.org.u
k/media-centre/react
ion-todays-benefits-
rating-bill
An interesting response from the CEO of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation to today's Uprating Bill http://www.jrf.org.u k/media-centre/react ion-todays-benefits- rating-bill Outside of the Box
  • Score: 0

5:33pm Tue 8 Jan 13

rightway says...

freefinker wrote:
Cyber__Fug wrote:
southy wrote: Concept for you free, more poverity the bigger the profits the capitalist make, keeping people on the bread line helps by keeping labour wages down below the bare min to surivive on, cheap paid slave labour. if things was so rosy with your wonderful capitalist world then familys that have both parents working would be a choice and not force to just to try and make ends meet.
Once again, you have completely missed the point of the question.
.. indeed Cyber__Fug. So southy, the question was; What possible benefit could it be to capitalists to make everyone so poor they can no longer buy the capitalist products? You still haven't answered. What are all these "people on the bread line” who are “below the bare min to survive on” and are nothing but “cheap paid slave labour" producing if these very same people can’t afford to buy anything? Answer the question.
Why not have a go at reading the “Ragged Trousered Philanthropists”.
It gives a great insight into how capitalists kept the working classes in a constant state of poverty.
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cyber__Fug[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Concept for you free, more poverity the bigger the profits the capitalist make, keeping people on the bread line helps by keeping labour wages down below the bare min to surivive on, cheap paid slave labour. if things was so rosy with your wonderful capitalist world then familys that have both parents working would be a choice and not force to just to try and make ends meet.[/p][/quote]Once again, you have completely missed the point of the question.[/p][/quote].. indeed Cyber__Fug. So southy, the question was; What possible benefit could it be to capitalists to make everyone so poor they can no longer buy the capitalist products? You still haven't answered. What are all these "people on the bread line” who are “below the bare min to survive on” and are nothing but “cheap paid slave labour" producing if these very same people can’t afford to buy anything? Answer the question.[/p][/quote]Why not have a go at reading the “Ragged Trousered Philanthropists”. It gives a great insight into how capitalists kept the working classes in a constant state of poverty. rightway
  • Score: 0

5:41pm Tue 8 Jan 13

freefinker says...

rightway wrote:
freefinker wrote:
Cyber__Fug wrote:
southy wrote: Concept for you free, more poverity the bigger the profits the capitalist make, keeping people on the bread line helps by keeping labour wages down below the bare min to surivive on, cheap paid slave labour. if things was so rosy with your wonderful capitalist world then familys that have both parents working would be a choice and not force to just to try and make ends meet.
Once again, you have completely missed the point of the question.
.. indeed Cyber__Fug. So southy, the question was; What possible benefit could it be to capitalists to make everyone so poor they can no longer buy the capitalist products? You still haven't answered. What are all these "people on the bread line” who are “below the bare min to survive on” and are nothing but “cheap paid slave labour" producing if these very same people can’t afford to buy anything? Answer the question.
Why not have a go at reading the “Ragged Trousered Philanthropists”.
It gives a great insight into how capitalists kept the working classes in a constant state of poverty.
I think you will find the world has moved on considerably since 1914.
[quote][p][bold]rightway[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cyber__Fug[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Concept for you free, more poverity the bigger the profits the capitalist make, keeping people on the bread line helps by keeping labour wages down below the bare min to surivive on, cheap paid slave labour. if things was so rosy with your wonderful capitalist world then familys that have both parents working would be a choice and not force to just to try and make ends meet.[/p][/quote]Once again, you have completely missed the point of the question.[/p][/quote].. indeed Cyber__Fug. So southy, the question was; What possible benefit could it be to capitalists to make everyone so poor they can no longer buy the capitalist products? You still haven't answered. What are all these "people on the bread line” who are “below the bare min to survive on” and are nothing but “cheap paid slave labour" producing if these very same people can’t afford to buy anything? Answer the question.[/p][/quote]Why not have a go at reading the “Ragged Trousered Philanthropists”. It gives a great insight into how capitalists kept the working classes in a constant state of poverty.[/p][/quote]I think you will find the world has moved on considerably since 1914. freefinker
  • Score: 0

5:43pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Cyber__Fug says...

freefinker wrote:
rightway wrote:
freefinker wrote:
Cyber__Fug wrote:
southy wrote: Concept for you free, more poverity the bigger the profits the capitalist make, keeping people on the bread line helps by keeping labour wages down below the bare min to surivive on, cheap paid slave labour. if things was so rosy with your wonderful capitalist world then familys that have both parents working would be a choice and not force to just to try and make ends meet.
Once again, you have completely missed the point of the question.
.. indeed Cyber__Fug. So southy, the question was; What possible benefit could it be to capitalists to make everyone so poor they can no longer buy the capitalist products? You still haven't answered. What are all these "people on the bread line” who are “below the bare min to survive on” and are nothing but “cheap paid slave labour" producing if these very same people can’t afford to buy anything? Answer the question.
Why not have a go at reading the “Ragged Trousered Philanthropists”.
It gives a great insight into how capitalists kept the working classes in a constant state of poverty.
I think you will find the world has moved on considerably since 1914.
In most peoples eyes it has freefinker......
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rightway[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cyber__Fug[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Concept for you free, more poverity the bigger the profits the capitalist make, keeping people on the bread line helps by keeping labour wages down below the bare min to surivive on, cheap paid slave labour. if things was so rosy with your wonderful capitalist world then familys that have both parents working would be a choice and not force to just to try and make ends meet.[/p][/quote]Once again, you have completely missed the point of the question.[/p][/quote].. indeed Cyber__Fug. So southy, the question was; What possible benefit could it be to capitalists to make everyone so poor they can no longer buy the capitalist products? You still haven't answered. What are all these "people on the bread line” who are “below the bare min to survive on” and are nothing but “cheap paid slave labour" producing if these very same people can’t afford to buy anything? Answer the question.[/p][/quote]Why not have a go at reading the “Ragged Trousered Philanthropists”. It gives a great insight into how capitalists kept the working classes in a constant state of poverty.[/p][/quote]I think you will find the world has moved on considerably since 1914.[/p][/quote]In most peoples eyes it has freefinker...... Cyber__Fug
  • Score: 0

5:49pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Torchie1 says...

southy wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
****-Biker wrote:
southy wrote:
MGRA wrote: some families on £65k per year loose all their child benefit. other families on £99k per year keep ALL of theirs.... THIS is the reason the tories have lost 100,000 votes at a stroke. I personally think this will cost them the election and it will let in labour to ruin our economy once and for all and bancrupt us properly this time, not like their half-hearted attempt last time. Oh and southy,,, you dont know the meaning of the word poverty.... poverty in this country means only being able to afford 20 fags a day and only having a 52 inch plasma, not an LCD one.
They have all ready lost the next election, they lost that the day they first interduce cuts
good or bad the tories will probably win the next election
No they have deffently lost the next election all ready
.. is that the election you definitely assured us would happen before the end of 2012?

How can anyone trust your political analysis when you get it so hopelessly wrong on so many occasions?
Prior to the 'end of 2012' prediction there was the equally wrong prediction that the election would be by the end of 2011. The law of averages suggests that one day he will be right, but we will probably be told to 'do our own research' to find out when.
I am surprise this government have lasted this long, its going to be down to the people to force an early election, the general strike that will be happening this year should of happened last year, but the right wing leadership of the TUC are trying to stop any form of action, they did not want the demo march and rally in London for the last two years, but growing support force the TUC board to give way to the rank and file of the Unions for the demo and rallys to take place which there will be another one this year.
This Government is hanging on by its finger nails
"Hanging on by its finger nails" is a position that your beloved Tusc will never achieve, however bad things seem. How many years will have to pass before people forget that someone like Lenin who may have had the best interests of the population at heart, forced the overthrow of the Czar but because there was nothing in place to prevent it, was in turn replaced by sixty years of lunacy and tyrannical communist dictatorship with no elections to change things and no hope for the people. If you try to mollify people by promising this won't happen with Tusc because there will always be elections, then why can't you get any votes now? It's a bit of a lose-lose situation for you unless you can do what UKIP are doing and appeal to the electorate in a positive way instead of rambling,waffling and sounding like a dangerously unstable alternative that's just been thrown out of Eastern Europe.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]****-Biker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MGRA[/bold] wrote: some families on £65k per year loose all their child benefit. other families on £99k per year keep ALL of theirs.... THIS is the reason the tories have lost 100,000 votes at a stroke. I personally think this will cost them the election and it will let in labour to ruin our economy once and for all and bancrupt us properly this time, not like their half-hearted attempt last time. Oh and southy,,, you dont know the meaning of the word poverty.... poverty in this country means only being able to afford 20 fags a day and only having a 52 inch plasma, not an LCD one.[/p][/quote]They have all ready lost the next election, they lost that the day they first interduce cuts[/p][/quote]good or bad the tories will probably win the next election[/p][/quote]No they have deffently lost the next election all ready[/p][/quote].. is that the election you definitely assured us would happen before the end of 2012? How can anyone trust your political analysis when you get it so hopelessly wrong on so many occasions?[/p][/quote]Prior to the 'end of 2012' prediction there was the equally wrong prediction that the election would be by the end of 2011. The law of averages suggests that one day he will be right, but we will probably be told to 'do our own research' to find out when.[/p][/quote]I am surprise this government have lasted this long, its going to be down to the people to force an early election, the general strike that will be happening this year should of happened last year, but the right wing leadership of the TUC are trying to stop any form of action, they did not want the demo march and rally in London for the last two years, but growing support force the TUC board to give way to the rank and file of the Unions for the demo and rallys to take place which there will be another one this year. This Government is hanging on by its finger nails[/p][/quote]"Hanging on by its finger nails" is a position that your beloved Tusc will never achieve, however bad things seem. How many years will have to pass before people forget that someone like Lenin who may have had the best interests of the population at heart, forced the overthrow of the Czar but because there was nothing in place to prevent it, was in turn replaced by sixty years of lunacy and tyrannical communist dictatorship with no elections to change things and no hope for the people. If you try to mollify people by promising this won't happen with Tusc because there will always be elections, then why can't you get any votes now? It's a bit of a lose-lose situation for you unless you can do what UKIP are doing and appeal to the electorate in a positive way instead of rambling,waffling and sounding like a dangerously unstable alternative that's just been thrown out of Eastern Europe. Torchie1
  • Score: 0

5:50pm Tue 8 Jan 13

solomum says...

sotonboy84 wrote:
TheVoiceOfReason87 wrote:
One things for sure, we can't keep going at the rate we are now. The current rate of child benefits out is unsustainable. Maybe, just maybe this will lead to people realising that children are an extra expense, and not to be seen as another form of income.
Completely agree. If you can't afford to have children, then don't have them. You shouldn't expect the state to support you.
I fully agree that if you have children you should be able to support them. What I do not agree with is the madcap way that child benefit is being withdrawn, This is penalising those who work hard throughout life to have a job that rewards them with a good salary. The fact the some families with one wage earner will lose it, yet families with 2 wage earners who earn less each but more in total will keep it is totally absurd. The Government need to either totally withdraw the benefit altogether and make up the difference in lower income households as part of tax credits or penalise those that chose to have children knowing full well they cannot provide for them. I personally favour the withdrawal of child benefit from those who chose to have children when in no relationship and/or with no income in which to raise a child. My suggestion would be to give 12 months notice that anyone who has a child without 2 parents together, does so knowing they are responsible for providing for the child, For those in a relationship, one party should be a wage earner. I know this will be seen as harsh and will classed as breaching the rights of the child, but their rights to be bought up by 2 loving parents who are together will have already been breached by the parents. Obvious exceptions to this would be the death of a parent or illness that renders them unable to work. We live in a society where people feel it is their right to have a child, but forget that with rights comes responsibilty.
[quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TheVoiceOfReason87[/bold] wrote: One things for sure, we can't keep going at the rate we are now. The current rate of child benefits out is unsustainable. Maybe, just maybe this will lead to people realising that children are an extra expense, and not to be seen as another form of income.[/p][/quote]Completely agree. If you can't afford to have children, then don't have them. You shouldn't expect the state to support you.[/p][/quote]I fully agree that if you have children you should be able to support them. What I do not agree with is the madcap way that child benefit is being withdrawn, This is penalising those who work hard throughout life to have a job that rewards them with a good salary. The fact the some families with one wage earner will lose it, yet families with 2 wage earners who earn less each but more in total will keep it is totally absurd. The Government need to either totally withdraw the benefit altogether and make up the difference in lower income households as part of tax credits or penalise those that chose to have children knowing full well they cannot provide for them. I personally favour the withdrawal of child benefit from those who chose to have children when in no relationship and/or with no income in which to raise a child. My suggestion would be to give 12 months notice that anyone who has a child without 2 parents together, does so knowing they are responsible for providing for the child, For those in a relationship, one party should be a wage earner. I know this will be seen as harsh and will classed as breaching the rights of the child, but their rights to be bought up by 2 loving parents who are together will have already been breached by the parents. Obvious exceptions to this would be the death of a parent or illness that renders them unable to work. We live in a society where people feel it is their right to have a child, but forget that with rights comes responsibilty. solomum
  • Score: 0

6:22pm Tue 8 Jan 13

ju_ju68 says...

Sorry Mr Brine, if i can't have any sympathy for you, or anyone who moans about not getting benefit. I have had renal failure all my life, I am on my second transplant, which currently only works at 15%, my husband, has to be self employed, so that when I am not well he can be around to help.But in oct I will lose my benefit, and unless I can be employed for 2 years, and therefore pay adequate NI over that period, I will never be able to re claim, no matter how ill I get. People with life long medical conditions, are being pushed into poverty. so you can see why my heart does not bleed for these people.
Sorry Mr Brine, if i can't have any sympathy for you, or anyone who moans about not getting benefit. I have had renal failure all my life, I am on my second transplant, which currently only works at 15%, my husband, has to be self employed, so that when I am not well he can be around to help.But in oct I will lose my benefit, and unless I can be employed for 2 years, and therefore pay adequate NI over that period, I will never be able to re claim, no matter how ill I get. People with life long medical conditions, are being pushed into poverty. so you can see why my heart does not bleed for these people. ju_ju68
  • Score: 0

7:04pm Tue 8 Jan 13

thinklikealocal says...

We already have a means tested system to assist those with children based on total household income. It's called tax credits. So, why not do away with child benefit entirely and add the support on to tax credits up to the 'desired' household income?
We already have a means tested system to assist those with children based on total household income. It's called tax credits. So, why not do away with child benefit entirely and add the support on to tax credits up to the 'desired' household income? thinklikealocal
  • Score: 0

7:10pm Tue 8 Jan 13

thinklikealocal says...

solomum wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
TheVoiceOfReason87 wrote: One things for sure, we can't keep going at the rate we are now. The current rate of child benefits out is unsustainable. Maybe, just maybe this will lead to people realising that children are an extra expense, and not to be seen as another form of income.
Completely agree. If you can't afford to have children, then don't have them. You shouldn't expect the state to support you.
I fully agree that if you have children you should be able to support them. What I do not agree with is the madcap way that child benefit is being withdrawn, This is penalising those who work hard throughout life to have a job that rewards them with a good salary. The fact the some families with one wage earner will lose it, yet families with 2 wage earners who earn less each but more in total will keep it is totally absurd. The Government need to either totally withdraw the benefit altogether and make up the difference in lower income households as part of tax credits or penalise those that chose to have children knowing full well they cannot provide for them. I personally favour the withdrawal of child benefit from those who chose to have children when in no relationship and/or with no income in which to raise a child. My suggestion would be to give 12 months notice that anyone who has a child without 2 parents together, does so knowing they are responsible for providing for the child, For those in a relationship, one party should be a wage earner. I know this will be seen as harsh and will classed as breaching the rights of the child, but their rights to be bought up by 2 loving parents who are together will have already been breached by the parents. Obvious exceptions to this would be the death of a parent or illness that renders them unable to work. We live in a society where people feel it is their right to have a child, but forget that with rights comes responsibilty.
So, someone who divorces an abusive spouse, works full time to support their children should be penalised? I support some of the points in your post but not this one. Too simplistic.
[quote][p][bold]solomum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TheVoiceOfReason87[/bold] wrote: One things for sure, we can't keep going at the rate we are now. The current rate of child benefits out is unsustainable. Maybe, just maybe this will lead to people realising that children are an extra expense, and not to be seen as another form of income.[/p][/quote]Completely agree. If you can't afford to have children, then don't have them. You shouldn't expect the state to support you.[/p][/quote]I fully agree that if you have children you should be able to support them. What I do not agree with is the madcap way that child benefit is being withdrawn, This is penalising those who work hard throughout life to have a job that rewards them with a good salary. The fact the some families with one wage earner will lose it, yet families with 2 wage earners who earn less each but more in total will keep it is totally absurd. The Government need to either totally withdraw the benefit altogether and make up the difference in lower income households as part of tax credits or penalise those that chose to have children knowing full well they cannot provide for them. I personally favour the withdrawal of child benefit from those who chose to have children when in no relationship and/or with no income in which to raise a child. My suggestion would be to give 12 months notice that anyone who has a child without 2 parents together, does so knowing they are responsible for providing for the child, For those in a relationship, one party should be a wage earner. I know this will be seen as harsh and will classed as breaching the rights of the child, but their rights to be bought up by 2 loving parents who are together will have already been breached by the parents. Obvious exceptions to this would be the death of a parent or illness that renders them unable to work. We live in a society where people feel it is their right to have a child, but forget that with rights comes responsibilty.[/p][/quote]So, someone who divorces an abusive spouse, works full time to support their children should be penalised? I support some of the points in your post but not this one. Too simplistic. thinklikealocal
  • Score: 0

9:03pm Tue 8 Jan 13

Shoong says...

southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
southy wrote:
I was reading an artical on line where a News Reporter who earns more than £100,000 a year thinks she as the right to child benfit.
.. aaahh! But remember you told us 90% of the internet is wrong.

How do we know the bit you were reading was part of the correct 10%?
All I can tell you it was on one of the Yahoo news web pages
Right, so the mass media and the internet is not to be trusted yet you are quoting Yahoo..?

Head's gone.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: I was reading an artical on line where a News Reporter who earns more than £100,000 a year thinks she as the right to child benfit.[/p][/quote].. aaahh! But remember you told us 90% of the internet is wrong. How do we know the bit you were reading was part of the correct 10%?[/p][/quote]All I can tell you it was on one of the Yahoo news web pages[/p][/quote]Right, so the mass media and the internet is not to be trusted yet you are quoting Yahoo..? Head's gone. Shoong
  • Score: 0

2:06am Wed 9 Jan 13

hedge end bob says...

Nobody has mentioned the fact that benefits are being paid in millions to children that dont even live in ENGLAND. The children of the imigrants that have flooded our country all claim for their children, reguardless of how much they have paid in N I contributions. So is this fair, to stop some ones benefits because of their wage after paying N I all their working lives but , pay it to people that have put very little or nothing into the pot in the first place. These people should be paying into the system for x amount of years before being able to draw from it.
Nobody has mentioned the fact that benefits are being paid in millions to children that dont even live in ENGLAND. The children of the imigrants that have flooded our country all claim for their children, reguardless of how much they have paid in N I contributions. So is this fair, to stop some ones benefits because of their wage after paying N I all their working lives but , pay it to people that have put very little or nothing into the pot in the first place. These people should be paying into the system for x amount of years before being able to draw from it. hedge end bob
  • Score: 0

6:50am Wed 9 Jan 13

rightway says...

freefinker wrote:
rightway wrote:
freefinker wrote:
Cyber__Fug wrote:
southy wrote: Concept for you free, more poverity the bigger the profits the capitalist make, keeping people on the bread line helps by keeping labour wages down below the bare min to surivive on, cheap paid slave labour. if things was so rosy with your wonderful capitalist world then familys that have both parents working would be a choice and not force to just to try and make ends meet.
Once again, you have completely missed the point of the question.
.. indeed Cyber__Fug. So southy, the question was; What possible benefit could it be to capitalists to make everyone so poor they can no longer buy the capitalist products? You still haven't answered. What are all these "people on the bread line” who are “below the bare min to survive on” and are nothing but “cheap paid slave labour" producing if these very same people can’t afford to buy anything? Answer the question.
Why not have a go at reading the “Ragged Trousered Philanthropists”. It gives a great insight into how capitalists kept the working classes in a constant state of poverty.
I think you will find the world has moved on considerably since 1914.
The world may have moved on at quite a pace, but human nature rarely does. Having read many of the comments on here, there are still those I fear who's minds and attitudes are still firmly rooted in the dark edges.
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rightway[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cyber__Fug[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Concept for you free, more poverity the bigger the profits the capitalist make, keeping people on the bread line helps by keeping labour wages down below the bare min to surivive on, cheap paid slave labour. if things was so rosy with your wonderful capitalist world then familys that have both parents working would be a choice and not force to just to try and make ends meet.[/p][/quote]Once again, you have completely missed the point of the question.[/p][/quote].. indeed Cyber__Fug. So southy, the question was; What possible benefit could it be to capitalists to make everyone so poor they can no longer buy the capitalist products? You still haven't answered. What are all these "people on the bread line” who are “below the bare min to survive on” and are nothing but “cheap paid slave labour" producing if these very same people can’t afford to buy anything? Answer the question.[/p][/quote]Why not have a go at reading the “Ragged Trousered Philanthropists”. It gives a great insight into how capitalists kept the working classes in a constant state of poverty.[/p][/quote]I think you will find the world has moved on considerably since 1914.[/p][/quote]The world may have moved on at quite a pace, but human nature rarely does. Having read many of the comments on here, there are still those I fear who's minds and attitudes are still firmly rooted in the dark edges. rightway
  • Score: 0

8:11am Wed 9 Jan 13

solomum says...

thinklikealocal wrote:
solomum wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
TheVoiceOfReason87 wrote: One things for sure, we can't keep going at the rate we are now. The current rate of child benefits out is unsustainable. Maybe, just maybe this will lead to people realising that children are an extra expense, and not to be seen as another form of income.
Completely agree. If you can't afford to have children, then don't have them. You shouldn't expect the state to support you.
I fully agree that if you have children you should be able to support them. What I do not agree with is the madcap way that child benefit is being withdrawn, This is penalising those who work hard throughout life to have a job that rewards them with a good salary. The fact the some families with one wage earner will lose it, yet families with 2 wage earners who earn less each but more in total will keep it is totally absurd. The Government need to either totally withdraw the benefit altogether and make up the difference in lower income households as part of tax credits or penalise those that chose to have children knowing full well they cannot provide for them. I personally favour the withdrawal of child benefit from those who chose to have children when in no relationship and/or with no income in which to raise a child. My suggestion would be to give 12 months notice that anyone who has a child without 2 parents together, does so knowing they are responsible for providing for the child, For those in a relationship, one party should be a wage earner. I know this will be seen as harsh and will classed as breaching the rights of the child, but their rights to be bought up by 2 loving parents who are together will have already been breached by the parents. Obvious exceptions to this would be the death of a parent or illness that renders them unable to work. We live in a society where people feel it is their right to have a child, but forget that with rights comes responsibilty.
So, someone who divorces an abusive spouse, works full time to support their children should be penalised? I support some of the points in your post but not this one. Too simplistic.
That is not what I suggested. As I said, those that CHOOSE to have children when in no position to provide for them should do so knowing that there will be no child benefit available to them. If you have children in a marriage/stable relationship then you have had children as part of that stability. I am talking about those that have children when they know full well they cannot provide for them. If a marriage breaks down then you would be entitled to the normal lone parent benefits. We have far too many people who either see children as a free ticket to not working or see children as a right of theirs rather than a responsibility.Why should the country pay for those who choose this path in life.
[quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]solomum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TheVoiceOfReason87[/bold] wrote: One things for sure, we can't keep going at the rate we are now. The current rate of child benefits out is unsustainable. Maybe, just maybe this will lead to people realising that children are an extra expense, and not to be seen as another form of income.[/p][/quote]Completely agree. If you can't afford to have children, then don't have them. You shouldn't expect the state to support you.[/p][/quote]I fully agree that if you have children you should be able to support them. What I do not agree with is the madcap way that child benefit is being withdrawn, This is penalising those who work hard throughout life to have a job that rewards them with a good salary. The fact the some families with one wage earner will lose it, yet families with 2 wage earners who earn less each but more in total will keep it is totally absurd. The Government need to either totally withdraw the benefit altogether and make up the difference in lower income households as part of tax credits or penalise those that chose to have children knowing full well they cannot provide for them. I personally favour the withdrawal of child benefit from those who chose to have children when in no relationship and/or with no income in which to raise a child. My suggestion would be to give 12 months notice that anyone who has a child without 2 parents together, does so knowing they are responsible for providing for the child, For those in a relationship, one party should be a wage earner. I know this will be seen as harsh and will classed as breaching the rights of the child, but their rights to be bought up by 2 loving parents who are together will have already been breached by the parents. Obvious exceptions to this would be the death of a parent or illness that renders them unable to work. We live in a society where people feel it is their right to have a child, but forget that with rights comes responsibilty.[/p][/quote]So, someone who divorces an abusive spouse, works full time to support their children should be penalised? I support some of the points in your post but not this one. Too simplistic.[/p][/quote]That is not what I suggested. As I said, those that CHOOSE to have children when in no position to provide for them should do so knowing that there will be no child benefit available to them. If you have children in a marriage/stable relationship then you have had children as part of that stability. I am talking about those that have children when they know full well they cannot provide for them. If a marriage breaks down then you would be entitled to the normal lone parent benefits. We have far too many people who either see children as a free ticket to not working or see children as a right of theirs rather than a responsibility.Why should the country pay for those who choose this path in life. solomum
  • Score: 0

10:25am Wed 9 Jan 13

freefinker says...

rightway wrote:
freefinker wrote:
rightway wrote:
freefinker wrote:
Cyber__Fug wrote:
southy wrote: Concept for you free, more poverity the bigger the profits the capitalist make, keeping people on the bread line helps by keeping labour wages down below the bare min to surivive on, cheap paid slave labour. if things was so rosy with your wonderful capitalist world then familys that have both parents working would be a choice and not force to just to try and make ends meet.
Once again, you have completely missed the point of the question.
.. indeed Cyber__Fug. So southy, the question was; What possible benefit could it be to capitalists to make everyone so poor they can no longer buy the capitalist products? You still haven't answered. What are all these "people on the bread line” who are “below the bare min to survive on” and are nothing but “cheap paid slave labour" producing if these very same people can’t afford to buy anything? Answer the question.
Why not have a go at reading the “Ragged Trousered Philanthropists”. It gives a great insight into how capitalists kept the working classes in a constant state of poverty.
I think you will find the world has moved on considerably since 1914.
The world may have moved on at quite a pace, but human nature rarely does. Having read many of the comments on here, there are still those I fear who's minds and attitudes are still firmly rooted in the dark edges.
.. ah, human nature. So, if what you say about human nature is true, southy and his Trotskyists fellow travellers are banging their heads against a very hard wall. Their utopian dream is bound to fail.

While certain aspects of human nature may well be unchanging, our collective society most certainly isn’t. I am a believer in a mixed economy and strongly disagreed with most of the Thatcherite privatisations. However, it is an inherent part of capitalism that there must be a market for their products, or they go under; and that market is created and expanded by there being more overall affluence in the population at large.

So, when our little brainwashed Trot comes out with: -
‘The Capitalist partys intend to lock people into poverity’.
and.
‘capitalist world making poverity grow and once your in poverity it will keep you there’.
and.
‘you and majority of others are slowly being driven into the dilemma of poverity’.
and.
‘more poverity the bigger the profits the capitalist make, keeping people on the bread line helps by keeping labour wages down below the bare min to surivive on, cheap paid slave labour’.

it is obvious he has not got even the slightest knowledge or understanding of economics, capitalism or anything else.

Don’t get me wrong, there is an awful lot wrong with the current capitalist world economic model. But that is no excuse for the nonsense southy comes out with. Capitalism flourishes and expands when there is increased affluence in society; not the very opposite as southy pontificates.
[quote][p][bold]rightway[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rightway[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cyber__Fug[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Concept for you free, more poverity the bigger the profits the capitalist make, keeping people on the bread line helps by keeping labour wages down below the bare min to surivive on, cheap paid slave labour. if things was so rosy with your wonderful capitalist world then familys that have both parents working would be a choice and not force to just to try and make ends meet.[/p][/quote]Once again, you have completely missed the point of the question.[/p][/quote].. indeed Cyber__Fug. So southy, the question was; What possible benefit could it be to capitalists to make everyone so poor they can no longer buy the capitalist products? You still haven't answered. What are all these "people on the bread line” who are “below the bare min to survive on” and are nothing but “cheap paid slave labour" producing if these very same people can’t afford to buy anything? Answer the question.[/p][/quote]Why not have a go at reading the “Ragged Trousered Philanthropists”. It gives a great insight into how capitalists kept the working classes in a constant state of poverty.[/p][/quote]I think you will find the world has moved on considerably since 1914.[/p][/quote]The world may have moved on at quite a pace, but human nature rarely does. Having read many of the comments on here, there are still those I fear who's minds and attitudes are still firmly rooted in the dark edges.[/p][/quote].. ah, human nature. So, if what you say about human nature is true, southy and his Trotskyists fellow travellers are banging their heads against a very hard wall. Their utopian dream is bound to fail. While certain aspects of human nature may well be unchanging, our collective society most certainly isn’t. I am a believer in a mixed economy and strongly disagreed with most of the Thatcherite privatisations. However, it is an inherent part of capitalism that there must be a market for their products, or they go under; and that market is created and expanded by there being more overall affluence in the population at large. So, when our little brainwashed Trot comes out with: - ‘The Capitalist partys intend to lock people into poverity’. and. ‘capitalist world making poverity grow and once your in poverity it will keep you there’. and. ‘you and majority of others are slowly being driven into the dilemma of poverity’. and. ‘more poverity the bigger the profits the capitalist make, keeping people on the bread line helps by keeping labour wages down below the bare min to surivive on, cheap paid slave labour’. it is obvious he has not got even the slightest knowledge or understanding of economics, capitalism or anything else. Don’t get me wrong, there is an awful lot wrong with the current capitalist world economic model. But that is no excuse for the nonsense southy comes out with. Capitalism flourishes and expands when there is increased affluence in society; not the very opposite as southy pontificates. freefinker
  • Score: 0

10:37am Wed 9 Jan 13

S!monOn says...

solomum wrote:
thinklikealocal wrote:
solomum wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
TheVoiceOfReason87 wrote: One things for sure, we can't keep going at the rate we are now. The current rate of child benefits out is unsustainable. Maybe, just maybe this will lead to people realising that children are an extra expense, and not to be seen as another form of income.
Completely agree. If you can't afford to have children, then don't have them. You shouldn't expect the state to support you.
I fully agree that if you have children you should be able to support them. What I do not agree with is the madcap way that child benefit is being withdrawn, This is penalising those who work hard throughout life to have a job that rewards them with a good salary. The fact the some families with one wage earner will lose it, yet families with 2 wage earners who earn less each but more in total will keep it is totally absurd. The Government need to either totally withdraw the benefit altogether and make up the difference in lower income households as part of tax credits or penalise those that chose to have children knowing full well they cannot provide for them. I personally favour the withdrawal of child benefit from those who chose to have children when in no relationship and/or with no income in which to raise a child. My suggestion would be to give 12 months notice that anyone who has a child without 2 parents together, does so knowing they are responsible for providing for the child, For those in a relationship, one party should be a wage earner. I know this will be seen as harsh and will classed as breaching the rights of the child, but their rights to be bought up by 2 loving parents who are together will have already been breached by the parents. Obvious exceptions to this would be the death of a parent or illness that renders them unable to work. We live in a society where people feel it is their right to have a child, but forget that with rights comes responsibilty.
So, someone who divorces an abusive spouse, works full time to support their children should be penalised? I support some of the points in your post but not this one. Too simplistic.
That is not what I suggested. As I said, those that CHOOSE to have children when in no position to provide for them should do so knowing that there will be no child benefit available to them. If you have children in a marriage/stable relationship then you have had children as part of that stability. I am talking about those that have children when they know full well they cannot provide for them. If a marriage breaks down then you would be entitled to the normal lone parent benefits. We have far too many people who either see children as a free ticket to not working or see children as a right of theirs rather than a responsibility.Why should the country pay for those who choose this path in life.
So just exactly how do you isolate those that "choose to have children knowing full well they cannot provide for them"?

Plus, your system can be abused just as much as the current system so we would be no better off.
[quote][p][bold]solomum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]solomum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TheVoiceOfReason87[/bold] wrote: One things for sure, we can't keep going at the rate we are now. The current rate of child benefits out is unsustainable. Maybe, just maybe this will lead to people realising that children are an extra expense, and not to be seen as another form of income.[/p][/quote]Completely agree. If you can't afford to have children, then don't have them. You shouldn't expect the state to support you.[/p][/quote]I fully agree that if you have children you should be able to support them. What I do not agree with is the madcap way that child benefit is being withdrawn, This is penalising those who work hard throughout life to have a job that rewards them with a good salary. The fact the some families with one wage earner will lose it, yet families with 2 wage earners who earn less each but more in total will keep it is totally absurd. The Government need to either totally withdraw the benefit altogether and make up the difference in lower income households as part of tax credits or penalise those that chose to have children knowing full well they cannot provide for them. I personally favour the withdrawal of child benefit from those who chose to have children when in no relationship and/or with no income in which to raise a child. My suggestion would be to give 12 months notice that anyone who has a child without 2 parents together, does so knowing they are responsible for providing for the child, For those in a relationship, one party should be a wage earner. I know this will be seen as harsh and will classed as breaching the rights of the child, but their rights to be bought up by 2 loving parents who are together will have already been breached by the parents. Obvious exceptions to this would be the death of a parent or illness that renders them unable to work. We live in a society where people feel it is their right to have a child, but forget that with rights comes responsibilty.[/p][/quote]So, someone who divorces an abusive spouse, works full time to support their children should be penalised? I support some of the points in your post but not this one. Too simplistic.[/p][/quote]That is not what I suggested. As I said, those that CHOOSE to have children when in no position to provide for them should do so knowing that there will be no child benefit available to them. If you have children in a marriage/stable relationship then you have had children as part of that stability. I am talking about those that have children when they know full well they cannot provide for them. If a marriage breaks down then you would be entitled to the normal lone parent benefits. We have far too many people who either see children as a free ticket to not working or see children as a right of theirs rather than a responsibility.Why should the country pay for those who choose this path in life.[/p][/quote]So just exactly how do you isolate those that "choose to have children knowing full well they cannot provide for them"? Plus, your system can be abused just as much as the current system so we would be no better off. S!monOn
  • Score: 0

10:56am Wed 9 Jan 13

ohec says...

The simple answer is to scrap child benefit altogether, just give 12 months notice that it will be scrapped and then people will have to decide whether they can afford children. No benefits should be paid to anybody until they have made 5 years contributions, with maximum benefits payable after 10 years (with the exception of the sick and disabled) What people forget is the government don't have any money they only look after the purse strings of our money, the welfare state was never designed to pamper to the needs of the greedy and lazy it is supposed to be a safety net for the sick and needy. The family allowance was introduced after the war to help the poor repopulate the country and i think you can safely say the country is well and truly populated now.
The simple answer is to scrap child benefit altogether, just give 12 months notice that it will be scrapped and then people will have to decide whether they can afford children. No benefits should be paid to anybody until they have made 5 years contributions, with maximum benefits payable after 10 years (with the exception of the sick and disabled) What people forget is the government don't have any money they only look after the purse strings of our money, the welfare state was never designed to pamper to the needs of the greedy and lazy it is supposed to be a safety net for the sick and needy. The family allowance was introduced after the war to help the poor repopulate the country and i think you can safely say the country is well and truly populated now. ohec
  • Score: 0

11:00am Wed 9 Jan 13

thinklikealocal says...

S!monOn wrote:
solomum wrote:
thinklikealocal wrote:
solomum wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
TheVoiceOfReason87 wrote: One things for sure, we can't keep going at the rate we are now. The current rate of child benefits out is unsustainable. Maybe, just maybe this will lead to people realising that children are an extra expense, and not to be seen as another form of income.
Completely agree. If you can't afford to have children, then don't have them. You shouldn't expect the state to support you.
I fully agree that if you have children you should be able to support them. What I do not agree with is the madcap way that child benefit is being withdrawn, This is penalising those who work hard throughout life to have a job that rewards them with a good salary. The fact the some families with one wage earner will lose it, yet families with 2 wage earners who earn less each but more in total will keep it is totally absurd. The Government need to either totally withdraw the benefit altogether and make up the difference in lower income households as part of tax credits or penalise those that chose to have children knowing full well they cannot provide for them. I personally favour the withdrawal of child benefit from those who chose to have children when in no relationship and/or with no income in which to raise a child. My suggestion would be to give 12 months notice that anyone who has a child without 2 parents together, does so knowing they are responsible for providing for the child, For those in a relationship, one party should be a wage earner. I know this will be seen as harsh and will classed as breaching the rights of the child, but their rights to be bought up by 2 loving parents who are together will have already been breached by the parents. Obvious exceptions to this would be the death of a parent or illness that renders them unable to work. We live in a society where people feel it is their right to have a child, but forget that with rights comes responsibilty.
So, someone who divorces an abusive spouse, works full time to support their children should be penalised? I support some of the points in your post but not this one. Too simplistic.
That is not what I suggested. As I said, those that CHOOSE to have children when in no position to provide for them should do so knowing that there will be no child benefit available to them. If you have children in a marriage/stable relationship then you have had children as part of that stability. I am talking about those that have children when they know full well they cannot provide for them. If a marriage breaks down then you would be entitled to the normal lone parent benefits. We have far too many people who either see children as a free ticket to not working or see children as a right of theirs rather than a responsibility.Why should the country pay for those who choose this path in life.
So just exactly how do you isolate those that "choose to have children knowing full well they cannot provide for them"? Plus, your system can be abused just as much as the current system so we would be no better off.
Quite, also, where do you get the idea that any individual earning les than £60k per annum, or, couple where both are working but earning less than £60k combined haven't worked hard all their life? Ridiculous! You make too many hackneyed assumptions!
[quote][p][bold]S!monOn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]solomum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]solomum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TheVoiceOfReason87[/bold] wrote: One things for sure, we can't keep going at the rate we are now. The current rate of child benefits out is unsustainable. Maybe, just maybe this will lead to people realising that children are an extra expense, and not to be seen as another form of income.[/p][/quote]Completely agree. If you can't afford to have children, then don't have them. You shouldn't expect the state to support you.[/p][/quote]I fully agree that if you have children you should be able to support them. What I do not agree with is the madcap way that child benefit is being withdrawn, This is penalising those who work hard throughout life to have a job that rewards them with a good salary. The fact the some families with one wage earner will lose it, yet families with 2 wage earners who earn less each but more in total will keep it is totally absurd. The Government need to either totally withdraw the benefit altogether and make up the difference in lower income households as part of tax credits or penalise those that chose to have children knowing full well they cannot provide for them. I personally favour the withdrawal of child benefit from those who chose to have children when in no relationship and/or with no income in which to raise a child. My suggestion would be to give 12 months notice that anyone who has a child without 2 parents together, does so knowing they are responsible for providing for the child, For those in a relationship, one party should be a wage earner. I know this will be seen as harsh and will classed as breaching the rights of the child, but their rights to be bought up by 2 loving parents who are together will have already been breached by the parents. Obvious exceptions to this would be the death of a parent or illness that renders them unable to work. We live in a society where people feel it is their right to have a child, but forget that with rights comes responsibilty.[/p][/quote]So, someone who divorces an abusive spouse, works full time to support their children should be penalised? I support some of the points in your post but not this one. Too simplistic.[/p][/quote]That is not what I suggested. As I said, those that CHOOSE to have children when in no position to provide for them should do so knowing that there will be no child benefit available to them. If you have children in a marriage/stable relationship then you have had children as part of that stability. I am talking about those that have children when they know full well they cannot provide for them. If a marriage breaks down then you would be entitled to the normal lone parent benefits. We have far too many people who either see children as a free ticket to not working or see children as a right of theirs rather than a responsibility.Why should the country pay for those who choose this path in life.[/p][/quote]So just exactly how do you isolate those that "choose to have children knowing full well they cannot provide for them"? Plus, your system can be abused just as much as the current system so we would be no better off.[/p][/quote]Quite, also, where do you get the idea that any individual earning les than £60k per annum, or, couple where both are working but earning less than £60k combined haven't worked hard all their life? Ridiculous! You make too many hackneyed assumptions! thinklikealocal
  • Score: 0

11:58am Wed 9 Jan 13

southy says...

freefinker wrote:
rightway wrote:
freefinker wrote:
rightway wrote:
freefinker wrote:
Cyber__Fug wrote:
southy wrote: Concept for you free, more poverity the bigger the profits the capitalist make, keeping people on the bread line helps by keeping labour wages down below the bare min to surivive on, cheap paid slave labour. if things was so rosy with your wonderful capitalist world then familys that have both parents working would be a choice and not force to just to try and make ends meet.
Once again, you have completely missed the point of the question.
.. indeed Cyber__Fug. So southy, the question was; What possible benefit could it be to capitalists to make everyone so poor they can no longer buy the capitalist products? You still haven't answered. What are all these "people on the bread line” who are “below the bare min to survive on” and are nothing but “cheap paid slave labour" producing if these very same people can’t afford to buy anything? Answer the question.
Why not have a go at reading the “Ragged Trousered Philanthropists”. It gives a great insight into how capitalists kept the working classes in a constant state of poverty.
I think you will find the world has moved on considerably since 1914.
The world may have moved on at quite a pace, but human nature rarely does. Having read many of the comments on here, there are still those I fear who's minds and attitudes are still firmly rooted in the dark edges.
.. ah, human nature. So, if what you say about human nature is true, southy and his Trotskyists fellow travellers are banging their heads against a very hard wall. Their utopian dream is bound to fail.

While certain aspects of human nature may well be unchanging, our collective society most certainly isn’t. I am a believer in a mixed economy and strongly disagreed with most of the Thatcherite privatisations. However, it is an inherent part of capitalism that there must be a market for their products, or they go under; and that market is created and expanded by there being more overall affluence in the population at large.

So, when our little brainwashed Trot comes out with: -
‘The Capitalist partys intend to lock people into poverity’.
and.
‘capitalist world making poverity grow and once your in poverity it will keep you there’.
and.
‘you and majority of others are slowly being driven into the dilemma of poverity’.
and.
‘more poverity the bigger the profits the capitalist make, keeping people on the bread line helps by keeping labour wages down below the bare min to surivive on, cheap paid slave labour’.

it is obvious he has not got even the slightest knowledge or understanding of economics, capitalism or anything else.

Don’t get me wrong, there is an awful lot wrong with the current capitalist world economic model. But that is no excuse for the nonsense southy comes out with. Capitalism flourishes and expands when there is increased affluence in society; not the very opposite as southy pontificates.
What has been brainwashed into people to condition them over thousands years of Capitalism of different types, can be undone, in the last 300 years Socialism has been building up in numbers.
Humans by nature are comune animals, and will share and will work with one another, its a case getting that back.

Captialism is all about having control over others. the more unemployed there is the better it is for the capitalist to control, the more poverity there is and again better the control and the homeless the same and so on.
But for Capitalist to have this power it need sheep to follow them and keep them in control, the very basics of Capitalism is not to share and to walk over others and put them down and keep them down.

"Capitalism flourishes and expands when there is increased affluence in society; not the very opposite as southy pontificates."

Is that why Capitalism flourishe when there is a recessions and depression, because that do happen when there is a slump in the economy, and high unemployment and that gap between the haves and haves not gets wider.

Freefinker you beginning to sound just like Milliband
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rightway[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rightway[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cyber__Fug[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Concept for you free, more poverity the bigger the profits the capitalist make, keeping people on the bread line helps by keeping labour wages down below the bare min to surivive on, cheap paid slave labour. if things was so rosy with your wonderful capitalist world then familys that have both parents working would be a choice and not force to just to try and make ends meet.[/p][/quote]Once again, you have completely missed the point of the question.[/p][/quote].. indeed Cyber__Fug. So southy, the question was; What possible benefit could it be to capitalists to make everyone so poor they can no longer buy the capitalist products? You still haven't answered. What are all these "people on the bread line” who are “below the bare min to survive on” and are nothing but “cheap paid slave labour" producing if these very same people can’t afford to buy anything? Answer the question.[/p][/quote]Why not have a go at reading the “Ragged Trousered Philanthropists”. It gives a great insight into how capitalists kept the working classes in a constant state of poverty.[/p][/quote]I think you will find the world has moved on considerably since 1914.[/p][/quote]The world may have moved on at quite a pace, but human nature rarely does. Having read many of the comments on here, there are still those I fear who's minds and attitudes are still firmly rooted in the dark edges.[/p][/quote].. ah, human nature. So, if what you say about human nature is true, southy and his Trotskyists fellow travellers are banging their heads against a very hard wall. Their utopian dream is bound to fail. While certain aspects of human nature may well be unchanging, our collective society most certainly isn’t. I am a believer in a mixed economy and strongly disagreed with most of the Thatcherite privatisations. However, it is an inherent part of capitalism that there must be a market for their products, or they go under; and that market is created and expanded by there being more overall affluence in the population at large. So, when our little brainwashed Trot comes out with: - ‘The Capitalist partys intend to lock people into poverity’. and. ‘capitalist world making poverity grow and once your in poverity it will keep you there’. and. ‘you and majority of others are slowly being driven into the dilemma of poverity’. and. ‘more poverity the bigger the profits the capitalist make, keeping people on the bread line helps by keeping labour wages down below the bare min to surivive on, cheap paid slave labour’. it is obvious he has not got even the slightest knowledge or understanding of economics, capitalism or anything else. Don’t get me wrong, there is an awful lot wrong with the current capitalist world economic model. But that is no excuse for the nonsense southy comes out with. Capitalism flourishes and expands when there is increased affluence in society; not the very opposite as southy pontificates.[/p][/quote]What has been brainwashed into people to condition them over thousands years of Capitalism of different types, can be undone, in the last 300 years Socialism has been building up in numbers. Humans by nature are comune animals, and will share and will work with one another, its a case getting that back. Captialism is all about having control over others. the more unemployed there is the better it is for the capitalist to control, the more poverity there is and again better the control and the homeless the same and so on. But for Capitalist to have this power it need sheep to follow them and keep them in control, the very basics of Capitalism is not to share and to walk over others and put them down and keep them down. "Capitalism flourishes and expands when there is increased affluence in society; not the very opposite as southy pontificates." Is that why Capitalism flourishe when there is a recessions and depression, because that do happen when there is a slump in the economy, and high unemployment and that gap between the haves and haves not gets wider. Freefinker you beginning to sound just like Milliband southy
  • Score: 0

12:14pm Wed 9 Jan 13

freefinker says...

southy wrote:
freefinker wrote:
rightway wrote:
freefinker wrote:
rightway wrote:
freefinker wrote:
Cyber__Fug wrote:
southy wrote: Concept for you free, more poverity the bigger the profits the capitalist make, keeping people on the bread line helps by keeping labour wages down below the bare min to surivive on, cheap paid slave labour. if things was so rosy with your wonderful capitalist world then familys that have both parents working would be a choice and not force to just to try and make ends meet.
Once again, you have completely missed the point of the question.
.. indeed Cyber__Fug. So southy, the question was; What possible benefit could it be to capitalists to make everyone so poor they can no longer buy the capitalist products? You still haven't answered. What are all these "people on the bread line” who are “below the bare min to survive on” and are nothing but “cheap paid slave labour" producing if these very same people can’t afford to buy anything? Answer the question.
Why not have a go at reading the “Ragged Trousered Philanthropists”. It gives a great insight into how capitalists kept the working classes in a constant state of poverty.
I think you will find the world has moved on considerably since 1914.
The world may have moved on at quite a pace, but human nature rarely does. Having read many of the comments on here, there are still those I fear who's minds and attitudes are still firmly rooted in the dark edges.
.. ah, human nature. So, if what you say about human nature is true, southy and his Trotskyists fellow travellers are banging their heads against a very hard wall. Their utopian dream is bound to fail.

While certain aspects of human nature may well be unchanging, our collective society most certainly isn’t. I am a believer in a mixed economy and strongly disagreed with most of the Thatcherite privatisations. However, it is an inherent part of capitalism that there must be a market for their products, or they go under; and that market is created and expanded by there being more overall affluence in the population at large.

So, when our little brainwashed Trot comes out with: -
‘The Capitalist partys intend to lock people into poverity’.
and.
‘capitalist world making poverity grow and once your in poverity it will keep you there’.
and.
‘you and majority of others are slowly being driven into the dilemma of poverity’.
and.
‘more poverity the bigger the profits the capitalist make, keeping people on the bread line helps by keeping labour wages down below the bare min to surivive on, cheap paid slave labour’.

it is obvious he has not got even the slightest knowledge or understanding of economics, capitalism or anything else.

Don’t get me wrong, there is an awful lot wrong with the current capitalist world economic model. But that is no excuse for the nonsense southy comes out with. Capitalism flourishes and expands when there is increased affluence in society; not the very opposite as southy pontificates.
What has been brainwashed into people to condition them over thousands years of Capitalism of different types, can be undone, in the last 300 years Socialism has been building up in numbers.
Humans by nature are comune animals, and will share and will work with one another, its a case getting that back.

Captialism is all about having control over others. the more unemployed there is the better it is for the capitalist to control, the more poverity there is and again better the control and the homeless the same and so on.
But for Capitalist to have this power it need sheep to follow them and keep them in control, the very basics of Capitalism is not to share and to walk over others and put them down and keep them down.

"Capitalism flourishes and expands when there is increased affluence in society; not the very opposite as southy pontificates."

Is that why Capitalism flourishe when there is a recessions and depression, because that do happen when there is a slump in the economy, and high unemployment and that gap between the haves and haves not gets wider.

Freefinker you beginning to sound just like Milliband
.. I don't know if you have noticed southy, but capitalist is NOT flourishing during this current world recession and/or depression.

You see, again, you are turning reality on its head and saying the very opposite of what is actually happening.

You have still not answered my original question; how do the capitalists make profits from a population that because of their poverty, can't afford to buy the capitalists products?

The problem with your utopian theoretical political philosophy is that it can only repeat, parrot fashion, the very same misconceptions you keep coming out with in these columns.

When challenged to answer simple questions about what is actually happening in the real world we all inhabit you fail to provide meaningful answers time and time again.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rightway[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rightway[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cyber__Fug[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: Concept for you free, more poverity the bigger the profits the capitalist make, keeping people on the bread line helps by keeping labour wages down below the bare min to surivive on, cheap paid slave labour. if things was so rosy with your wonderful capitalist world then familys that have both parents working would be a choice and not force to just to try and make ends meet.[/p][/quote]Once again, you have completely missed the point of the question.[/p][/quote].. indeed Cyber__Fug. So southy, the question was; What possible benefit could it be to capitalists to make everyone so poor they can no longer buy the capitalist products? You still haven't answered. What are all these "people on the bread line” who are “below the bare min to survive on” and are nothing but “cheap paid slave labour" producing if these very same people can’t afford to buy anything? Answer the question.[/p][/quote]Why not have a go at reading the “Ragged Trousered Philanthropists”. It gives a great insight into how capitalists kept the working classes in a constant state of poverty.[/p][/quote]I think you will find the world has moved on considerably since 1914.[/p][/quote]The world may have moved on at quite a pace, but human nature rarely does. Having read many of the comments on here, there are still those I fear who's minds and attitudes are still firmly rooted in the dark edges.[/p][/quote].. ah, human nature. So, if what you say about human nature is true, southy and his Trotskyists fellow travellers are banging their heads against a very hard wall. Their utopian dream is bound to fail. While certain aspects of human nature may well be unchanging, our collective society most certainly isn’t. I am a believer in a mixed economy and strongly disagreed with most of the Thatcherite privatisations. However, it is an inherent part of capitalism that there must be a market for their products, or they go under; and that market is created and expanded by there being more overall affluence in the population at large. So, when our little brainwashed Trot comes out with: - ‘The Capitalist partys intend to lock people into poverity’. and. ‘capitalist world making poverity grow and once your in poverity it will keep you there’. and. ‘you and majority of others are slowly being driven into the dilemma of poverity’. and. ‘more poverity the bigger the profits the capitalist make, keeping people on the bread line helps by keeping labour wages down below the bare min to surivive on, cheap paid slave labour’. it is obvious he has not got even the slightest knowledge or understanding of economics, capitalism or anything else. Don’t get me wrong, there is an awful lot wrong with the current capitalist world economic model. But that is no excuse for the nonsense southy comes out with. Capitalism flourishes and expands when there is increased affluence in society; not the very opposite as southy pontificates.[/p][/quote]What has been brainwashed into people to condition them over thousands years of Capitalism of different types, can be undone, in the last 300 years Socialism has been building up in numbers. Humans by nature are comune animals, and will share and will work with one another, its a case getting that back. Captialism is all about having control over others. the more unemployed there is the better it is for the capitalist to control, the more poverity there is and again better the control and the homeless the same and so on. But for Capitalist to have this power it need sheep to follow them and keep them in control, the very basics of Capitalism is not to share and to walk over others and put them down and keep them down. "Capitalism flourishes and expands when there is increased affluence in society; not the very opposite as southy pontificates." Is that why Capitalism flourishe when there is a recessions and depression, because that do happen when there is a slump in the economy, and high unemployment and that gap between the haves and haves not gets wider. Freefinker you beginning to sound just like Milliband[/p][/quote].. I don't know if you have noticed southy, but capitalist is NOT flourishing during this current world recession and/or depression. You see, again, you are turning reality on its head and saying the very opposite of what is actually happening. You have still not answered my original question; how do the capitalists make profits from a population that because of their poverty, can't afford to buy the capitalists products? The problem with your utopian theoretical political philosophy is that it can only repeat, parrot fashion, the very same misconceptions you keep coming out with in these columns. When challenged to answer simple questions about what is actually happening in the real world we all inhabit you fail to provide meaningful answers time and time again. freefinker
  • Score: 0

2:20pm Wed 9 Jan 13

southy says...

I don't know if you have noticed southy, but capitalist is NOT flourishing during this current world recession and/or depression.

You see, again, you are turning reality on its head and saying the very opposite of what is actually happening.

You have still not answered my original question; how do the capitalists make profits from a population that because of their poverty, can't afford to buy the capitalists products?

The problem with your utopian theoretical political philosophy is that it can only repeat, parrot fashion, the very same misconceptions you keep coming out with in these columns.

When challenged to answer simple questions about what is actually happening in the real world we all inhabit you fail to provide meaningful answers time and time again.


Maybe you should relook again the Capitalist are flourishing during this current world recession and with that so is capitalism, its making money out of the less well off, they are not paying the debt that they have created, the less wel off are.
I don't know if you have noticed southy, but capitalist is NOT flourishing during this current world recession and/or depression. You see, again, you are turning reality on its head and saying the very opposite of what is actually happening. You have still not answered my original question; how do the capitalists make profits from a population that because of their poverty, can't afford to buy the capitalists products? The problem with your utopian theoretical political philosophy is that it can only repeat, parrot fashion, the very same misconceptions you keep coming out with in these columns. When challenged to answer simple questions about what is actually happening in the real world we all inhabit you fail to provide meaningful answers time and time again. Maybe you should relook again the Capitalist are flourishing during this current world recession and with that so is capitalism, its making money out of the less well off, they are not paying the debt that they have created, the less wel off are. southy
  • Score: 0

3:01pm Wed 9 Jan 13

southy says...

Freefinker if Capitalism is not flourishing in times of Recession and high unemployment,increas
e in poverity and homeless then how come Capitalist personal profits are mulitplying.

And you have had your answers all ready but like all ways you refuse to knowledge that answer
Freefinker if Capitalism is not flourishing in times of Recession and high unemployment,increas e in poverity and homeless then how come Capitalist personal profits are mulitplying. And you have had your answers all ready but like all ways you refuse to knowledge that answer southy
  • Score: 0

5:19pm Wed 9 Jan 13

solomum says...

thinklikealocal wrote:
S!monOn wrote:
solomum wrote:
thinklikealocal wrote:
solomum wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
TheVoiceOfReason87 wrote: One things for sure, we can't keep going at the rate we are now. The current rate of child benefits out is unsustainable. Maybe, just maybe this will lead to people realising that children are an extra expense, and not to be seen as another form of income.
Completely agree. If you can't afford to have children, then don't have them. You shouldn't expect the state to support you.
I fully agree that if you have children you should be able to support them. What I do not agree with is the madcap way that child benefit is being withdrawn, This is penalising those who work hard throughout life to have a job that rewards them with a good salary. The fact the some families with one wage earner will lose it, yet families with 2 wage earners who earn less each but more in total will keep it is totally absurd. The Government need to either totally withdraw the benefit altogether and make up the difference in lower income households as part of tax credits or penalise those that chose to have children knowing full well they cannot provide for them. I personally favour the withdrawal of child benefit from those who chose to have children when in no relationship and/or with no income in which to raise a child. My suggestion would be to give 12 months notice that anyone who has a child without 2 parents together, does so knowing they are responsible for providing for the child, For those in a relationship, one party should be a wage earner. I know this will be seen as harsh and will classed as breaching the rights of the child, but their rights to be bought up by 2 loving parents who are together will have already been breached by the parents. Obvious exceptions to this would be the death of a parent or illness that renders them unable to work. We live in a society where people feel it is their right to have a child, but forget that with rights comes responsibilty.
So, someone who divorces an abusive spouse, works full time to support their children should be penalised? I support some of the points in your post but not this one. Too simplistic.
That is not what I suggested. As I said, those that CHOOSE to have children when in no position to provide for them should do so knowing that there will be no child benefit available to them. If you have children in a marriage/stable relationship then you have had children as part of that stability. I am talking about those that have children when they know full well they cannot provide for them. If a marriage breaks down then you would be entitled to the normal lone parent benefits. We have far too many people who either see children as a free ticket to not working or see children as a right of theirs rather than a responsibility.Why should the country pay for those who choose this path in life.
So just exactly how do you isolate those that "choose to have children knowing full well they cannot provide for them"? Plus, your system can be abused just as much as the current system so we would be no better off.
Quite, also, where do you get the idea that any individual earning les than £60k per annum, or, couple where both are working but earning less than £60k combined haven't worked hard all their life? Ridiculous! You make too many hackneyed assumptions!
Thinklikealocal, where have I made that assumption? I earn a lot less than 60k and I work flippin hard for my money. What I said was why should those higher earners be the only ones to have child benefit taken away when they have worked hard to get to the position that they are in.
[quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]S!monOn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]solomum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]solomum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TheVoiceOfReason87[/bold] wrote: One things for sure, we can't keep going at the rate we are now. The current rate of child benefits out is unsustainable. Maybe, just maybe this will lead to people realising that children are an extra expense, and not to be seen as another form of income.[/p][/quote]Completely agree. If you can't afford to have children, then don't have them. You shouldn't expect the state to support you.[/p][/quote]I fully agree that if you have children you should be able to support them. What I do not agree with is the madcap way that child benefit is being withdrawn, This is penalising those who work hard throughout life to have a job that rewards them with a good salary. The fact the some families with one wage earner will lose it, yet families with 2 wage earners who earn less each but more in total will keep it is totally absurd. The Government need to either totally withdraw the benefit altogether and make up the difference in lower income households as part of tax credits or penalise those that chose to have children knowing full well they cannot provide for them. I personally favour the withdrawal of child benefit from those who chose to have children when in no relationship and/or with no income in which to raise a child. My suggestion would be to give 12 months notice that anyone who has a child without 2 parents together, does so knowing they are responsible for providing for the child, For those in a relationship, one party should be a wage earner. I know this will be seen as harsh and will classed as breaching the rights of the child, but their rights to be bought up by 2 loving parents who are together will have already been breached by the parents. Obvious exceptions to this would be the death of a parent or illness that renders them unable to work. We live in a society where people feel it is their right to have a child, but forget that with rights comes responsibilty.[/p][/quote]So, someone who divorces an abusive spouse, works full time to support their children should be penalised? I support some of the points in your post but not this one. Too simplistic.[/p][/quote]That is not what I suggested. As I said, those that CHOOSE to have children when in no position to provide for them should do so knowing that there will be no child benefit available to them. If you have children in a marriage/stable relationship then you have had children as part of that stability. I am talking about those that have children when they know full well they cannot provide for them. If a marriage breaks down then you would be entitled to the normal lone parent benefits. We have far too many people who either see children as a free ticket to not working or see children as a right of theirs rather than a responsibility.Why should the country pay for those who choose this path in life.[/p][/quote]So just exactly how do you isolate those that "choose to have children knowing full well they cannot provide for them"? Plus, your system can be abused just as much as the current system so we would be no better off.[/p][/quote]Quite, also, where do you get the idea that any individual earning les than £60k per annum, or, couple where both are working but earning less than £60k combined haven't worked hard all their life? Ridiculous! You make too many hackneyed assumptions![/p][/quote]Thinklikealocal, where have I made that assumption? I earn a lot less than 60k and I work flippin hard for my money. What I said was why should those higher earners be the only ones to have child benefit taken away when they have worked hard to get to the position that they are in. solomum
  • Score: 0

6:11pm Wed 9 Jan 13

solomum says...

S!monOn wrote:
solomum wrote:
thinklikealocal wrote:
solomum wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
TheVoiceOfReason87 wrote: One things for sure, we can't keep going at the rate we are now. The current rate of child benefits out is unsustainable. Maybe, just maybe this will lead to people realising that children are an extra expense, and not to be seen as another form of income.
Completely agree. If you can't afford to have children, then don't have them. You shouldn't expect the state to support you.
I fully agree that if you have children you should be able to support them. What I do not agree with is the madcap way that child benefit is being withdrawn, This is penalising those who work hard throughout life to have a job that rewards them with a good salary. The fact the some families with one wage earner will lose it, yet families with 2 wage earners who earn less each but more in total will keep it is totally absurd. The Government need to either totally withdraw the benefit altogether and make up the difference in lower income households as part of tax credits or penalise those that chose to have children knowing full well they cannot provide for them. I personally favour the withdrawal of child benefit from those who chose to have children when in no relationship and/or with no income in which to raise a child. My suggestion would be to give 12 months notice that anyone who has a child without 2 parents together, does so knowing they are responsible for providing for the child, For those in a relationship, one party should be a wage earner. I know this will be seen as harsh and will classed as breaching the rights of the child, but their rights to be bought up by 2 loving parents who are together will have already been breached by the parents. Obvious exceptions to this would be the death of a parent or illness that renders them unable to work. We live in a society where people feel it is their right to have a child, but forget that with rights comes responsibilty.
So, someone who divorces an abusive spouse, works full time to support their children should be penalised? I support some of the points in your post but not this one. Too simplistic.
That is not what I suggested. As I said, those that CHOOSE to have children when in no position to provide for them should do so knowing that there will be no child benefit available to them. If you have children in a marriage/stable relationship then you have had children as part of that stability. I am talking about those that have children when they know full well they cannot provide for them. If a marriage breaks down then you would be entitled to the normal lone parent benefits. We have far too many people who either see children as a free ticket to not working or see children as a right of theirs rather than a responsibility.Why should the country pay for those who choose this path in life.
So just exactly how do you isolate those that "choose to have children knowing full well they cannot provide for them"?

Plus, your system can be abused just as much as the current system so we would be no better off.
It is not about isolating people. It is about making people accountable for their actions. If child benefit was withdrawn completely and tax credits increased for those entitled to them, a lot of money would be saved. Claimants of any benefit have to go through applications to be eligible to receive them, therefore both parents should be assessed at the time of claiming. The country cannot afford to be paying out at the rate it currently is and it is time that measures were taken to prevent fathers/mothers being able to walk away so easily, or even refused any involvement in a childs life. We currently have a country whereby the public purse picks up the cost of peoples irresponsibility. This does not happen in other countries, hence why so many leave their families to enter Britain, knowing that we will also provide for their children in their homeland. Welfare state should undoubtedly be there for those that really need it but not as a guaranteed income for those that choose to raise a family without the means to do so.
[quote][p][bold]S!monOn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]solomum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]solomum[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TheVoiceOfReason87[/bold] wrote: One things for sure, we can't keep going at the rate we are now. The current rate of child benefits out is unsustainable. Maybe, just maybe this will lead to people realising that children are an extra expense, and not to be seen as another form of income.[/p][/quote]Completely agree. If you can't afford to have children, then don't have them. You shouldn't expect the state to support you.[/p][/quote]I fully agree that if you have children you should be able to support them. What I do not agree with is the madcap way that child benefit is being withdrawn, This is penalising those who work hard throughout life to have a job that rewards them with a good salary. The fact the some families with one wage earner will lose it, yet families with 2 wage earners who earn less each but more in total will keep it is totally absurd. The Government need to either totally withdraw the benefit altogether and make up the difference in lower income households as part of tax credits or penalise those that chose to have children knowing full well they cannot provide for them. I personally favour the withdrawal of child benefit from those who chose to have children when in no relationship and/or with no income in which to raise a child. My suggestion would be to give 12 months notice that anyone who has a child without 2 parents together, does so knowing they are responsible for providing for the child, For those in a relationship, one party should be a wage earner. I know this will be seen as harsh and will classed as breaching the rights of the child, but their rights to be bought up by 2 loving parents who are together will have already been breached by the parents. Obvious exceptions to this would be the death of a parent or illness that renders them unable to work. We live in a society where people feel it is their right to have a child, but forget that with rights comes responsibilty.[/p][/quote]So, someone who divorces an abusive spouse, works full time to support their children should be penalised? I support some of the points in your post but not this one. Too simplistic.[/p][/quote]That is not what I suggested. As I said, those that CHOOSE to have children when in no position to provide for them should do so knowing that there will be no child benefit available to them. If you have children in a marriage/stable relationship then you have had children as part of that stability. I am talking about those that have children when they know full well they cannot provide for them. If a marriage breaks down then you would be entitled to the normal lone parent benefits. We have far too many people who either see children as a free ticket to not working or see children as a right of theirs rather than a responsibility.Why should the country pay for those who choose this path in life.[/p][/quote]So just exactly how do you isolate those that "choose to have children knowing full well they cannot provide for them"? Plus, your system can be abused just as much as the current system so we would be no better off.[/p][/quote]It is not about isolating people. It is about making people accountable for their actions. If child benefit was withdrawn completely and tax credits increased for those entitled to them, a lot of money would be saved. Claimants of any benefit have to go through applications to be eligible to receive them, therefore both parents should be assessed at the time of claiming. The country cannot afford to be paying out at the rate it currently is and it is time that measures were taken to prevent fathers/mothers being able to walk away so easily, or even refused any involvement in a childs life. We currently have a country whereby the public purse picks up the cost of peoples irresponsibility. This does not happen in other countries, hence why so many leave their families to enter Britain, knowing that we will also provide for their children in their homeland. Welfare state should undoubtedly be there for those that really need it but not as a guaranteed income for those that choose to raise a family without the means to do so. solomum
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree