mafya Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 People need wake up, benefit cuts will affect working people who get working tax credit, housing benefit etc and not just the workshy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rollwithit Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 People need wake up, benefit cuts will affect working people who get working tax credit, housing benefit etc and not just the workshy. Labour intended working tax credits to encourage the workforce to have more kids hoping that these would be the next tax payers to cover the increasing elderly population. The dilema we now have is that we've added the cost of extra children to the cost of extra pensioners in the short term. Ecconomists are forcasting that the resession could last 10 years or more. Creating the problem of a small workforce having to pay the tax bill for children and pensioners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 So if I have an extra 5 kids, can I expect an employer to give me a hefty pay rise, so I can buy a bigger house? If we go down this road, you would have shelf stackers in supermarkets on salarys of £80,000 a year because they have 11 kids to feed and clothe. If the rules apply to non working people, then would we be able to apply the rules to people in work? who would pay the additional wages? I think you're missing the point. People would stop having large families if they couldn't afford them, so you wouldn't have 5 extra kids in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
love_rat Posted January 12, 2012 Author Share Posted January 12, 2012 I think you're missing the point. People would stop having large families if they couldn't afford them, so you wouldn't have 5 extra kids in the first place. Thats the point I'm making, people in work have to stop at 1 or 2 or even 3 children because they cannot afford any more. However, these rules seem not to apply to the feckless. Whatever you might say, to get £10,000 a year without lifting a finger to do any work is still very generous, and quite frankly anyone who says that £10,000 a year for not working needs a reality check. If you were on £6.08 an hour you would need to be working a full time week to get an after tax income of £192 a week. Ironically, many people in work cannot afford there own pad and yet are expected to fund mini football teams out of their meagre wages Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 People need wake up, benefit cuts will affect working people who get working tax credit, housing benefit etc and not just the workshy. JSA = £4billion Housing benefit = £25billion Tax credits = £30 billion. Workers and workshy houses claim more than the unemployed. Housing benefit is landlord benefit, cheaper housing is of benefit to us all, except parasitic landlords. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 I think you're missing the point. People would stop having large families if they couldn't afford them There is no evidence to support that claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Won't it cost just as much or more if the children are taken into care? Yes children in care is extremely costly. However I don't think that the proposed changes in benefits will lead to either parental neglect or big rises in children having to go into care. Cost shouldn't be the determining factor in consideration of whether children should be placed into care. For a variety of circumstances there are children that will be taken into care, and not all of them will be from families who are reliant on state benefits of some kind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 Labour intended working tax credits to encourage the workforce to have more kids hoping that these would be the next tax payers to cover the increasing elderly population. The dilema we now have is that we've added the cost of extra children to the cost of extra pensioners in the short term. Ecconomists are forcasting that the resession could last 10 years or more. Creating the problem of a small workforce having to pay the tax bill for children and pensioners. No I think the reason it was introduced was to lift children out of poverty, and in spite of flaws in the system it has been reasonably successful as far as I've read. Many poorer working people particularly those with children have been helped where previously they just couldn't afford to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 No I think the reason it was introduced was to lift children out of poverty, and in spite of flaws in the system it has been reasonably successful as far as I've read. There were no children in poverty before it was introduced - unless you're referring to "relative poverty," which is an oxymoron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 Thats the point I'm making, people in work have to stop at 1 or 2 or even 3 children because they cannot afford any more. However, these rules seem not to apply to the feckless. Whatever you might say, to get £10,000 a year without lifting a finger to do any work is still very generous, and quite frankly anyone who says that £10,000 a year for not working needs a reality check. If you were on £6.08 an hour you would need to be working a full time week to get an after tax income of £192 a week. Ironically, many people in work cannot afford there own pad and yet are expected to fund mini football teams out of their meagre wages Sorry, I misread it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.