Tories scrapping child benefit for people who earn over £44,000

[alchresearch]

I bet the taxpayer pays your wages though.

 

And without babies you would probably not have a job.

 

Nope, the church does.

[mossdog]

What happens when the mother is on benefits

The father of the first child has done a runner

The father of the second child is doing time

The father of the 3rd child is on benefits

The father of the 4th child is unknown

The father of the 5th child has children by 4 other people?

Sterilise the mother..............Quickly!

[milquetoast1]

without babies you would probably not have a job.

 

without water I would die from dehydration, but too much water and I would die from drowning.

[llamatron]

Benefits aren’t just monetary.

 

We all pay our dues and it goes into a “pot” of money which the government uses as it sees fit …………… isn’t that the idea of “universal benefits”, I cant remember the last time I used a library or a museum or an A&E (touch wood) but I don’t run around saying “its not fair rich people are getting something I am paying for.

 

Im sorry if you dont understand that these things are different, but I am not going to help you with it.

[ooonarden]

The EMA is means tested. What are 'kids' supposed to do? Go into non-existent jobs at 16? Anyway, when does the compulsory Post-16 education kick in? They'll have to stay on then.

 

The EMA may well be means tested but means testing doesn't capture, for instance, a man who has spilt from his wife and pays maintenance allowance into his old household.

 

Said man's donation to his wife and kids is not counted in the EMA calculation so his kids get the £30.00 and bonus payments despite being technically over the EMA threshold.

 

So, there are no jobs available, then? Absolute rubbish.

 

Look at the hotel business and the NHS for example. It's full of immigrants who actually want to work, filling jobs which the English won't do as they're too menial or don't pay the same as sitting at home on your <REMOVED> collecting benefits.

 

Not everyone is an academic therefore it's pointless guiding the non academic into education.

 

You cannot deny that a large proportion of kids in college are there purely because of the EMA and, as stated before, because it's the easy option, not work and still like being at school with their mates.

 

Keeping them in further education until they're 18 is ridiculous. We're breeding and encouraging a nation of state reliant, naive, perpetual children.

 

At some stage everyone has to grow up and become an adult. I think 16 is an appropriate age to start.

[Grandad.Malky]

Im sorry if you dont understand that these things are different, but I am not going to help you with it.

 

Different in you view maybe, others may beg to differ, what next a “rich” disabled person loses benifits, they work all their life to better themselves fall ill and society gives them the finger ………… nice one.

 

 

I suppose it boils down to either you are for universal benifits or you aren’t but lets not fool ourselves this is only the start of it.

[llamatron]

Different in you view maybe, others may beg to differ, what next a “rich” disabled person loses benifits, they work all their life to better themselves fall ill and society gives them the finger ………… nice one.

 

 

I suppose it boils down to either you are for universal benifits or you aren’t but lets not fool ourselves this is only the start of it.

 

Thats yet another argument-if they fall ill their situation will change and they might get some form of benefits.

 

Universal benefits are clearly pointless. If everyone gets them and the richer have to pay for everyones why not just tax the rich a bit less and only give benefits to the poor. Its just moving money around whereas in the case of a hospital or school the money is being used for something so its entirely different.

[Grandad.Malky]

Thats yet another argument-if they fall ill their situation will change and they might get some form of benefits.

 

.

 

Oh that’s all right then

 

 

My mother lives in sheltered accommodation and she gets an allowance which isn’t means tested, I think it’s the maximum DLA but I may be wrong, if / when the rules get changed ( just because its the rich today dont thing its not going to be rolled out) she could lose that because both she and my dad worked all their life’s and put a bit aside for a rainy day ……… oh well I suppose “they might get some form of benefits”

[llamatron]

Oh that’s all right then

 

 

My mother lives in sheltered accommodation and she gets an allowance which isn’t means tested, I think it’s the maximum DLA but I may be wrong, if / when the rules get changed ( just because its the rich today dont thing its not going to be rolled out) she could lose that because both she and my dad worked all their life’s and put a bit aside for a rainy day ……… oh well I suppose “they might get some form of benefits”

 

they dont sound rich then? so why would they not get the benefits.

[L00b]

If everyone gets them and the richer have to pay for everyones why not just tax the rich a bit less and only give benefits to the poor.

That's eminently sensible

 

Only glitch is, someone forgot to tell the Gvt about the 'bit less'...or there was some sort of miscommunication along the way, as currently it's a 'bit more' (with still more on the cards).