sccsux Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 Im thinking they are likely to be able to move to a smaller house before requiring a council house:roll: Wasn't that something Osborne was mooting a few weeks ago for social housing tennants? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
classicfan Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 I would go further, I suggest it should only be paid for the first two children. Anyone wanting more should fund them out of their earnings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandad.Malky Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 a smaller house, you mentioned a couple on £100k. Im thinking they are likely to be able to move to a smaller house before requiring a council house:roll: You’re making the wrong assumptions again, people with large incomes usually have large overheads to go with it, the high rate of repossessions would suggest its not as easy as upping sticks and downsizing. I think we are losing the plot here, the whole debate really is about should we have universal benefits, if people are happy to see this one scrapped don’t be surprised when the next cut comes along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbladerob Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 yea that seems fair...and im not a tory voter! now wheres that Daily Mail... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oddgitt Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 Same old Tories ripping off the poor again! Makes you sick!!! So someone earning 44K (minimum) is poor then?.... riiiiiiiight.... Personally I think it's a positive move. But the fact 2 parents can earn more than this and still get it seems a little flawed. Also, is the 44K limit dependant on number of children? You could have a 2 parent family with 1 child earning 60K, and a single parent family earning 44K, but has 3 kids. Unless I'm missing something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
penno Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 So Osborne has decided to penalise families with two kids where the breadwinner earns £44000 a year by taking from them the equivalent of 4% tax extra to what they already pay. Why does he think this is fair?. By all means increase taxes if you need to or alternatively tax benefits as additional income. Seems to me that the Tories are proving what we already know that they are idiots led by donkeys. The LibDems must be the same if they let this go through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightrider Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 Well is all relative isnt it? Those who earn will of course have greater outgoings. they will probably have huge mortgages.. why should I pay tax to subsidise their mortgage when I am trying to save everything I can for a deposit in a house? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greybeard Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 I believe Osborne went to Westminster didn't he ? Which is why he's regarded as an oik by his peers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 Why should anybody get child benefit? It's their lifestyle choice - why should people who choose not to have families have to subsidise those who do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisT70 Posted October 5, 2010 Share Posted October 5, 2010 i like the idea though of a cap at £26k max in benefits payable to any one family, rather than what currently appears to be a free for all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.