I1L2T3 Posted June 26, 2012 Author Share Posted June 26, 2012 If it's not required, then how is receiving unnecessary benefits "good parenting"? Because it's a universal benefit, well until recently. As MrSmith said he didn't actually use a penny of it for himself. His family claimed it and used the sum built up later for the benefit of his children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 But your family received the benefit. You can't deny that. It was paid every 4 weeks, for years. My kids benefited from a benefit that was meant to benefit them, going back to my original statement, I have never had money that I didn't work for. I didn’t have the money; I didn’t spend the money, so my statement is correct. Quite way it was this important to you all is a little bewildering though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teddybare Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 Because it's a universal benefit, well until recently. As MrSmith said he didn't actually use a penny of it for himself. His family claimed it and used the sum built up later for the benefit of his children. Irrelevant to parenting. Just a very good argument for means testing it or abolishing it entirely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 Irrelevant to parenting. Just a very good argument for means testing it or abolishing it entirely. I think means testing it would cost more than it would save, I would probably limit it to two kids though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted June 26, 2012 Author Share Posted June 26, 2012 My kids benefited from a benefit that was meant to benefit them, going back to my original statement, I have never had money that I didn't work for. I didn’t have the money; I didn’t spend the money, so my statement is correct. Quite way it was this important to you all is a little bewildering though. It is claimed by the parents for the benefit of the children. If it was paid into a bank account it would have been jointly in the names of the children and the mother. It was claimed by your family and paid into a bank account with the name of one of their parents on it. For crying out loud man, stop wriggling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted June 26, 2012 Author Share Posted June 26, 2012 Irrelevant to parenting. Just a very good argument for means testing it or abolishing it entirely. I'd rather it was maintained as a universal benefit, for all kids. I'm not expecting you to agree with me though so don't worry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 It is claimed by the parents for the benefit of the children. If it was paid into a bank account it would have been jointly in the names of the children and the mother. It was claimed by your family and paid into a bank account with the name of one of their parents on it. For crying out loud man, stop wriggling No wriggling required, I simply didn't have money that I didn't work for, my kids did, get over it, its not that important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted June 26, 2012 Author Share Posted June 26, 2012 Anyway, with MrSmith's family's status as child benefit claimants established back to the topic of the thread. The deficit is getting worse, debt is increasing, the economy is shrinking, despite recent slight falls unemployment is still too high. Having driven his increasingly battered Rolls Royce to the top of the cliff is Osborne about to pig headedly drive the blummin thing off the edge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinfoilhat Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 Anyway, with MrSmith's family's status as child benefit claimants established back to the topic of the thread. The deficit is getting worse, debt is increasing, the economy is shrinking, despite recent slight falls unemployment is still too high. Having driven his increasingly battered Rolls Royce to the top of the cliff is Osborne about to pig headedly drive the blummin thing off the edge. Thoughts on getting it back on track ? This isnt a pot shot by the way, I'm curious. What some people call cuts others call efficiencies or option two is to spend like mad (ie olympics which is going to result in less tourists than normal or hs2 which isn't popular either. Renewable energy ? Hear the nimbys roar. What ever you do there is a good chance that in this uncertain world it will fail or everyone will hate it or both. Labour have said what they wouldn't do, libdems don't say anything so your left with some nutty occupy types also short of ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swarfendor437 Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 ... ..... ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!!!!!! http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jan/20/cameron-bonfire-quangos-double-estimate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.