pottedplant Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 The whole county have been asking the government for help with the ever increasing cost of petrol!!! ok haha - not a good analogy! (but I don't drive so the petrol thing tends to pass me by)...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marx Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 Or would they be getting laid every night , doing nothing all day and signing a peice of paper every fortnight for some free money No, these would be the reckless people who bring children in to the world, because they know hard working tax payers (who are responsible and don't have kids of their own, because they can't afford them) will pay for their kids. How many of these 'benefit sluts' are there then and how much are they costing us taxpayers? Interesting how you place the blame on the recipients and not the donors. What would you propose to fix the problem? Forced abortion or sterilisation, cutting all benefits and letting them fend for themselves (that would teach them to keep their legs closed)? Or perhaps you have another solution. I doubt better education and aspiration would form part of your plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 Oh my god thats bad, the system is all wrong in my opinion those who have contributed like yourself like you say for 25 years should be entitled as it should be what you have paid in you get back in help So we should all get back whatever we pay in? So what is going to be left to actually run the country? should you choose to have a family when they pay out to people who have paid in very little or not paid in ever but they have no chooice in doing this because that person has children it is all wrong it gets my goat its just unfair. I just don't understand how they determine who is eligible and who is not as Working Tax Credit if you have never worked you would not be entitled but is seems to me Child Tax Credit is not means tested in the same way as anybody is entitled to that no matter whether they have been permanently unemployed as some have or worked the whole thing just confuses me. WTC is means tested, if you earn too much you don't get it. CTC isn't means tested, or has that change come in now? The problem with the Tax Credits Child especially the line is blurred isn't it? with Working Tax Credits it is clearer what you should be entitled to and who should be entitled to it that is what confuses people I think. It's a foolish system IMO, they should just adjust the tax code for everyone appropriately. ---------- Post added 21-03-2013 at 21:44 ---------- That all depends on how much disposable income you have. Based on £3.50 per hour, for us that would be £42 per week. After all our household bills have been paid were on average left with approx £180 per week. Out of that we have to pay for food, petrol (which alone is £40 per week for us living quite a distance away from our works), school costs such as trips, clubs etc, clothing for the 3 of us, any birthdays that may be in the month etc. So when you way it up, it is rather exorbitant for us. If the comparison is a) one parent stay at home and look after 1 child b) that parent go and earn minimum wage (£6.50?)/hr and pay out £3.50/hr in child care. Well, it seems obvious that by working the family will be £3.00/hr better off. It's not quite that easy as work will involve some travel time, but even on minimum wage, if it's just one child it's obvious that working is the better option (unless other benefits get cut making the marginal gain less). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldo Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 How many of these 'benefit sluts' are there then and how much are they costing us taxpayers? Interesting how you place the blame on the recipients and not the donors. What would you propose to fix the problem? Forced abortion or sterilisation, cutting all benefits and letting them fend for themselves (that would teach them to keep their legs closed)? Or perhaps you have another solution. I doubt better education and aspiration would form part of your plan. Why have you used the phrase 'benefit slut' in quotes? Are you implying that I have made such a reference? Are you are attempting to distort the letter and meaning of my posts, to fit your own twisted agenda? Why are you projecting your vile on to me? Why are you misrepresenting me? To return to point in my previous post. Do you see nothing wrong with the situation I describe? Where a person works hard, pays taxes, yet finds they do not have the income to responsibly bring another human being in to the world, and support them etc. Yet, another person who cannot afford to support a child, has one anyway, and draws money from the public purse, to pay for this new life. Do you think that's fair or right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marx Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 Why have you used the phrase 'benefit slut' in quotes? Are you implying that I have made such a reference? Are you are attempting to distort the letter and meaning of my posts, to fit your own twisted agenda? Why are you projecting your vile on to me? Why are you misrepresenting me? The 'benefit sluts' quote was aimed at the blade. The forum decided to combine my riposts despite me posting them seperately. To return to point in my previous post. Do you see nothing wrong with the situation I describe? Where a person works hard, pays taxes, yet finds they do not have the income to responsibly bring another human being in to the world, and support them etc. Yet, another person who cannot afford to support a child, has one anyway, and draws money from the public purse, to pay for this new life. Do you think that's fair or right? Yes, I have concerns that the workers are being asked to contribute more than their share but I don't buy the media hysteria that picks out sections of the community like single mothers or benefit scroungers so that they can divide and rule. The rich get richer on the backs of the poor. Without workers there would be no wealth creation but the wealth is not shared equally. I am not sure that the Country can afford the welfare bill. The question is, what we do about it. Demonising claimants is not the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldo Posted March 21, 2013 Share Posted March 21, 2013 Yes, I have concerns that the workers are being asked to contribute more than their share but I don't buy the media hysteria that picks out sections of the community like single mothers or benefit scroungers so that they can divide and rule. The rich get richer on the backs of the poor. Without workers there would be no wealth creation but the wealth is not shared equally. I am not sure that the Country can afford the welfare bill. The question is, what we do about it. Demonising claimants is not the answer. Systems of government will evolve, over time, as they do... Generally, I would not blame the rich for making the poor, poor (though I do not doubt there are sections of wealthy society, who engage in 'divide and conquer'). To do so, is to suggest that the power lies with the rich, and not with and within the individual, to determine his or her own fortune and fate. When a person says (or more importantly, believes) that the power to determine their fate, is outside of themselves; they make themselves weak, they dis-empower themselves. I would like to see a system, with a minimum of state intervention, that does not encourage a dependency on the state, but encourages and rewards the efforts of people to become strong and prosperous, by and for themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickelson Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 if a lady remains at home but does not interact with his child more then what is the use of her being at home but if she is a working women and after returning home she likes to interact with her child with more interest rather than being at home 24x7 with the child which situation is right? One more thing that I would like to add that a lady if she thinks quite capable to look after home and office work with the same caliber then she should be permitted to go out for job if her child is not too little or somebody at home is ready to look after the baby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grenoside123 Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 So we should all get back whatever we pay in? So what is going to be left to actually run the country? WTC is means tested, if you earn too much you don't get it. CTC isn't means tested, or has that change come in now? It's a foolish system IMO, they should just adjust the tax code for everyone appropriately. ---------- Post added 21-03-2013 at 21:44 ---------- If the comparison is a) one parent stay at home and look after 1 child b) that parent go and earn minimum wage (£6.50?)/hr and pay out £3.50/hr in child care. Well, it seems obvious that by working the family will be £3.00/hr better off. It's not quite that easy as work will involve some travel time, but even on minimum wage, if it's just one child it's obvious that working is the better option (unless other benefits get cut making the marginal gain less). Agreed. In some cases just marginally better off but for us it's essential that I work to give my little boy a better quality of life. Granted, the Hubby and I aren't left with much for ourselves but as far as the little one is concerned he wants for nothing. ---------- Post added 22-03-2013 at 08:06 ---------- if a lady remains at home but does not interact with his child more then what is the use of her being at home but if she is a working women and after returning home she likes to interact with her child with more interest rather than being at home 24x7 with the child which situation is right? One more thing that I would like to add that a lady if she thinks quite capable to look after home and office work with the same caliber then she should be permitted to go out for job if her child is not too little or somebody at home is ready to look after the baby. Your last sentence sounds like it's come from some sort of 1940's guide to how a lady should behave!!! made me giggle!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 It's not quite that easy as work will involve some travel time, but even on minimum wage, if it's just one child it's obvious that working is the better option (unless other benefits get cut making the marginal gain less). Agreed. In some cases just marginally better off but for us it's essential that I work to give my little boy a better quality of life. Granted, the Hubby and I aren't left with much for ourselves but as far as the little one is concerned he wants for nothing. I find it sad that you equate a better quality life for a child as having more money and wanting for nothing, other than the most important thing a child wants, you are the most important thing to a child and no amount of toys can replace you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 22, 2013 Share Posted March 22, 2013 I didn't refer to the quality of life for the child, I was referring specifically to the income for the family re: the claim that "child care is too expensive to allow the 2nd parent to go to work", that claim makes no sense in the case of a single child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.