Jump to content

Won't somebody please think of the children?


Recommended Posts

In reality a very small proportion of tax revenue is spent on the things you are so worked up about.

 

Far more tax is wasted on other things.

 

The vast majority of taxes are spent on providing services for, and handouts to, those who cannot pay their own way. I'm okay with that for those who are genuinely trying, but we need everybody to try and paying people more for breeding than for working is not a recipe for this.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/money/blog/2012/mar/20/income-tax-statement-government-spending-scrutiny

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you want your right for freedom of speech whilst advocating State control of an individual's right to reproduction against their will, removal of children from families for the crime of being poor and show a general negative opinion of anyone you deem a scrounger? I'd say you were a little hypocritical if I didn't think your entire post was one long wind-up.

 

We really shouldn't be paying people to have children. But I can't be doing with leaving the children they have in poverty. So I'm looking for a way to remove the incentive to have children in order to receive extra benefits, without harming the children.

We have to pay for the support of poor children. I want to do this without giving people the option of exploiting it to raise their own standard of living by having children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The vast majority of taxes are spent on providing services for, and handouts to, those who cannot pay their own way. I'm okay with that for those who are genuinely trying, but we need everybody to try and paying people more for breeding than for working is not a recipe for this.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/money/blog/2012/mar/20/income-tax-statement-government-spending-scrutiny

 

Nice article.

 

Did you read this bit?

But taxpayers who think their money is going to pay for layabouts on the dole should think again. Even in a year of high unemployment, HMRC estimates that just £56 of Mr Smith's £5,702 in tax went to pay unemployment benefits – about the same as he was charged for court services, and just a third of the cost of paying for the police.

 

I bid you good night:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice article.

 

Did you read this bit?

 

 

I bid you good night:D

 

You're confusing JSA with child based benefits. You can't live comfortably on JSA, or get into decent subsidised housing. Unless of course you have children. Then you get a house and a whole bunch of extra cash.

 

Child tax credits.

Housing benefit.

 

Unemployed with no kids: every incentive to find work.

Unemployed with kids: Wahey! Free money. What's on the box?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're confusing JSA with child based benefits. You can't live comfortably on JSA, or get into decent subsidised housing. Unless of course you have children. Then you get a house and a whole bunch of extra cash.

 

Child tax credits.

Housing benefit.

 

Unemployed with no kids: every incentive to find work.

Unemployed with kids: Wahey! Free money. What's on the box?

 

You need to think harder about where the housing benefit ends up... and why.

 

Use all of your PhD and get back to me about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You need to think harder about where the housing benefit ends up... and why.

 

Use all of your PhD and get back to me about that.

 

Sorry. I thought you'd gone to bed.

 

Housing benefit is spent largely on people who have kids and can't pay their own rent. Much of it is spent on social housing provided directly or indirectly by the state. What's your point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.