Cyclone Posted November 5, 2013 Share Posted November 5, 2013 But the government were happy to pay for them, allowed them to make lives and settle their children. Should people so vulnerable with no immediate options be suddenly hit so hard. So hard that they have only as much as the average working household to live on now... My heart bleeds for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rickiethecat Posted November 5, 2013 Share Posted November 5, 2013 The people already in receipt of those benefits did not make the rules. They had kids, lived their lives and were given assistance to settle their families and have some security. Society consistently drones on about how family is EVERYTHING. Well is it or isn't it? Because a government who would suddenly bring down a hammer on any family with no options forcing them colossal upheaval, to disperse and probably split up can't believe so. If someone is hard working, they have a high probability of advancement, property ownership and many other opportunities that far outweigh the benefits of a lifetime on handouts. It's the parents responsibility to provide for their kids, not the state's. If they can't afford children they shouldn't breed in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 5, 2013 Share Posted November 5, 2013 Because a government who would suddenly bring down a hammer on any family with no options forcing them colossal upheaval, to disperse and probably split up can't believe so. There was nothing sudden about this, it's been in the media for about two years before being implemented. And there is no suggestion that families will be split up, extended families, maybe, but that's not the same as the nuclear family that the conservatives are keen to promote, nor in the case of these single women do they even represent the 'ideal' conservative family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted November 5, 2013 Share Posted November 5, 2013 The people already in receipt of those benefits did not make the rules. They had kids, lived their lives and were given assistance to settle their families and have some security. Society consistently drones on about how family is EVERYTHING. Well is it or isn't it? Because a government who would suddenly bring down a hammer on any family with no options forcing them colossal upheaval, to disperse and probably split up can't believe so. If someone is hard working, they have a high probability of advancement, property ownership and many other opportunities that far outweigh the benefits of a lifetime on handouts. Does that make it better for the kids if someone has to relocate due to work? I thought that was who you were concerned about... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FACEBOOK Posted November 5, 2013 Share Posted November 5, 2013 It's the parents responsibility to provide for their kids, not the state's. If they can't afford children they shouldn't breed in the first place. I agree. But I'm talking about the £500 pw benefits cap the families and especially children who RIGHT NOW are going to suffer badly for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted November 5, 2013 Share Posted November 5, 2013 So hard that they have only as much as the average working household to live on now... My heart bleeds for them. Actually it's more...500 a week approximates to 34-35k before tax...far higher than the average wage.. ---------- Post added 05-11-2013 at 14:33 ---------- I agree. But I'm talking about the £500 pw benefits cap the families and especially children who RIGHT NOW are going to suffer badly for it. Are you saying that the family of working people on £35k suffer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 5, 2013 Share Posted November 5, 2013 It's the parents responsibility to provide for their kids, not the state's. If they can't afford children they shouldn't breed in the first place. As a society we generally don't approve of allowing children to suffer for the mistakes of their parents. ---------- Post added 05-11-2013 at 14:36 ---------- I agree. But I'm talking about the £500 pw benefits cap the families and especially children who RIGHT NOW are going to suffer badly for it. That really depends on what you mean by suffer. Do you mean, have less money, or do you mean they will actually be in hardship? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted November 5, 2013 Share Posted November 5, 2013 I agree. But I'm talking about the £500 pw benefits cap the families and especially children who RIGHT NOW are going to suffer badly for it. They will ony suffer badly by the standards of a pampered poodle. Welcome to the real world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FACEBOOK Posted November 5, 2013 Share Posted November 5, 2013 Are you saying that the family of working people on £35k suffer? Why would they suffer? They have employment or a small business, skills, the possibility of advancement and a higher salary plus a property which will increase in value and the ability to borrow more for investments. There is no comparison whatsoever. Night and day. ---------- Post added 05-11-2013 at 14:40 ---------- They will ony suffer badly by the standards of a pampered poodle. Welcome to the real world. Well theres no need for THAT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geared Posted November 5, 2013 Share Posted November 5, 2013 Why would they suffer? They have employment or a small business, skills, the possibility of advancement and a higher salary plus a property which will increase in value and the ability to borrow more for investments. There is no comparison whatsoever. Night and day. Thats complete rubbish and you know 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.