Benedictine Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 My idea was to implement the cap in April 2013 or 2014, this would not punish current kids being born, but would give people advanced warning that changes were in the pipeline in the future. People would have to change their behavior or fall foul of the new rules. Yes implementing the new system would be harmfull now, but if it was to be started 2 years into the future, people could not say they were not warned This is what I mean. You are not punishing the father but punishing the child. As I said, anyone with a scrap of sense voted 'no' at the word 'condoms.' I am sorry for being harsh but you really have no idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*_ash_* Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 Ha, ha, not I'm not changing my posts beyond adding edits which I have shown. You really have no idea, that's OK. I am sorry for being harsh but you really have no idea. Ad hominem to finish our discussion (twice now). Wonderful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benedictine Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 OK, to this post which you have completely changed to make my post look silly... in this case... Child benefit doesn't work this way. If say Bob impregnates 1 woman twice, and so they have two children, he then sods off, the primary carer (usually mum) claims 2 child benefits. If Bob then moves away and impregnates another woman twice, and so they also have two children, then he sods off again, the mother can claim for two children. When the second woman has her first child, it doesn't stop 1 claim from woman 1. In either case, the primary carer can claim for the children in their care. I can assure you, on my child's life, I have not changed my posts to make you, or anyone else, silly. Please believe me. If not then I can't say anything else to make you believe me. Only read my points over and maybe you will see that I am not lying. Jesus Christ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benedictine Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 Also, I would add an edit but I dare not be accused of cheating, any title with '2 kids max' might as well be a product of communist extremism, and should ring alarm bells immediately, in the sane...really I am quite ashamed of the 41% who thought this nonsense was a good idea. Like I said, this is why we have elected governments, even if they are corrupt! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*_ash_* Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 I can assure you, on my child's life, I have not changed my posts to make you, or anyone else, silly. Please believe me. If not then I can't say anything else to make you believe me. Only read my points over and maybe you will see that I am not lying. Jesus Christ. Fair enough, and don't worry about blaspheming, I'm an atheist Can you quote the same post as this one, and answer how it doesn't answer this point you made... So the father ignores this, which is likely to happen with a population of 50 million, and so his 5/6 other children suffer after the first two to which I quoted and answered in post 90? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benedictine Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 Fair enough, and don't worry about blaspheming, I'm an atheist Can you quote the same post as this one, and answer how it doesn't answer this point you made... to which I quoted and answered in post 90? I'm sorry, maybe it is too late and I have had too many beers (which I probably have) but I don't know what you mean. All I know is what I have said at least twice or more. Any mention of 'two kids max' or 'condoms' in this context is a huge no, no. You 'punish' the father, you punish the child. I'm not OK with this. Apparently 41% are though?? Edit: now 43% are OK with child neglect... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*_ash_* Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 I'm sorry, maybe it is too late and I have had too many beers (which I probably have) but I don't know what you mean. That's ok, there's always tomorrow. I answered why your 'father having 5/6 kids' suggestion was incorrect, as that is not how child benefit is paid out (post 90). All I know is what I have said at least twice or more. Any mention of 'two kids max' or 'condoms' in this context is a huge no, no. You 'punish' the father, you punish the child. I'm not OK with this. Apparently 41% are though?? To keep short, but remind you; you think that people who vote yes, are happy for children to starve to death (post 75). You also said that 'anybody who voted 'yes' would be directly responsible for the neglect of babies' (post 83). I suggested these were both wrong. Sleep well man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*_ash_* Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 Edit: now 43% are OK with child neglect... Oh dear. Read this tomorrow: 1. Person A has position X. 2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X). 3. Person B attacks position Y. 4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tradescanthia Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 By the way just watch all the benefit scroungers come on now and give it some,lol.just ignore the stick your going to get,those who dont pay in should take nothing out. Its really strange that those who dont pay in are the ones who take out. I reckon it must be because they QUALIFY for benefits. If they didn't qualify then they wouldn't take out. We all know someone who APPEARS to be a benefit scrounger, but when we look into his case a little further we nearly always understand WHY he gets benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benedictine Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 That's ok, there's always tomorrow. I answered why your 'father having 5/6 kids' suggestion was incorrect, as that is not how child benefit is paid out (post 90). To keep short, but remind you; you think that people who vote yes, are happy for children to starve to death (post 75). You also said that 'anybody who voted 'yes' would be directly responsible for the neglect of babies' (post 83). I suggested these were both wrong. Sleep well man Oh dear. Read this tomorrow: 1. Person A has position X. 2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X). 3. Person B attacks position Y. 4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed. Oh dear this is not advanced algebra. Let's just look at the thread title: 2 kids max, £8k benefit cap - would you vote this? And the second point: 1 (An absolute maximum of £8000 per annum if you choose not to work. If you want more money, then get a job.) 2 Two children maximum paid for by the benefit system, one is an accident, if it happens again, OK - its another accident. If it happens again, then you need to think about condoms. Also, after baby number 3,the father needs to provide. ... Hmm, that suggests to me that baby number 3 has to suffer a little... Carry on. Edit: Not altering posts honestly, but if you do not shudder at the underlined part then you have no idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.