I1L2T3 Posted September 20, 2015 Share Posted September 20, 2015 None of your business, but more than enough to cover the two ladies and their kids. It is nothing to do with me, me, me. It is to do with the fact that the current system encourages certain people not to engage economically. Funny how you do mind when it is Romani in Pagehall but apparently are quite happy if it concerns British with children. It is a statistic fact that children growing up in a benefits household are more likely to remain out of work when growing up, so they aren't going to be supporting me in my old age Ric, nor you, nor anybody. Unless they get lucky. Parenting is about setting the right example. More likely to be out of work, not guaranteed to be out of work. Can you see your mistake there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJC1 Posted September 20, 2015 Share Posted September 20, 2015 Every other post you insult people, you little turd. Am pointing out the hypocrisy, jock ---------- Post added 20-09-2015 at 10:53 ---------- What am I chuntering on about? Let me explain, oh hang on a bit I don't think Anyone could explain anything to some one with such bigoted views. See if you can understand this I'm retired and pay tax. I quite often don't agree with Tims views, but at least he doesn't resort to the abuse and venom you seem to favour but gives his point of view in a reasonable and usually good natured manner. More retired..well what if I'm sick of paying for you? It's you who's bigoted ---------- Post added 20-09-2015 at 10:55 ---------- I am well and truly retired but I pay taxes, please tell me how I can avoid them? Another retired. ..SF is full of them moaning about paying for refugees etc. ---------- Post added 20-09-2015 at 10:56 ---------- And where do you think the money for those in receipt of benefits comes from? and yes the government can change how much and the proportion that is paid to people in benefits, but the net result is still the same. It doesn't come from retired people or the low paid workers on sf...Yet there the ones moaning that they have to pay for them ---------- Post added 20-09-2015 at 10:57 ---------- Temporarily, until the new living wage kicks in and makes you better off at your employer's expense, rather than the taxpayer's. No it's not, it's 200 to 1500 all things considered. Face it some people are worse off ---------- Post added 20-09-2015 at 10:59 ---------- Nothing stupid about it. Seeing a neighbour move into a perfectly good house with 3 kids after divorce and no job is no issue to me, what is though is her happily proclaiming: "I don't need a job, I can't make what I would staying at home looking after the kids." This was said at a neighbourhood party where other neighbours, with two kids of similar age to hers had just explained how she can't afford to carry on working because he earns too much. I don't mean to be funny, but they chose to have kids, we didn't. Why should we pay for Mrs. to sit at home? A system that makes it unaffordable to work is a bad system. I don't care how you spin it. You get child benefit? What other in work benefits do you receive? Come on fess up..Otherwise it makes you a hypocrite ---------- Post added 20-09-2015 at 11:01 ---------- None of your business. So a modest income then, likely propped up with child benefits etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GLASGOWOODS Posted September 20, 2015 Share Posted September 20, 2015 Am pointing out the hypocrisy, jock ---------- Post added 20-09-2015 at 10:53 ---------- More retired..well what if I'm sick of paying for you? It's you who's bigoted ---------- Post added 20-09-2015 at 10:55 ---------- Another retired. ..SF is full of them moaning about paying for refugees etc. ---------- Post added 20-09-2015 at 10:56 ---------- It doesn't come from retired people or the low paid workers on sf...Yet there the ones moaning that they have to pay for them ---------- Post added 20-09-2015 at 10:57 ---------- No it's not, it's 200 to 1500 all things considered. Face it some people are worse off ---------- Post added 20-09-2015 at 10:59 ---------- You get child benefit? What other in work benefits do you receive? Come on fess up..Otherwise it makes you a hypocrite ---------- Post added 20-09-2015 at 11:01 ---------- So a modest income then, likely propped up with child benefits etc He doesn't have children, can't you read?: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted September 20, 2015 Share Posted September 20, 2015 It is nothing to do with me, me, me. It is to do with the fact that the current system encourages certain people not to engage economically. Funny how you do mind when it is Romani in Pagehall but apparently are quite happy if it concerns British with children. . of course im quite happy when its british people with children and yes your right about the romani in pagehall coming here taking our benefits(come on admit it whos going to give them a job:hihi:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted September 20, 2015 Share Posted September 20, 2015 I've skipped to page 5, but the couple in question here are NOT unemployed are they. But they did continue to pop out children that they apparently can't afford to keep on the money they earn. Did they at some point actually think about what they were doing? 5 children isn't some sort of unlucky coincidence, she didn't have quadruplets... ---------- Post added 20-09-2015 at 14:24 ---------- But that money for in-work benefits is derived from peoples taxes in the first place. That means they also cant spend it in the economy either so the net effect is that the economy does not suffer either way. If people did not have to pay that bit of tax then they too could spend it in the economy. This would be true if taxes were cut by the same amount, but they won't be. So government will have a little bit more money to give to big business for failed IT projects, but people will have a little bit less money to spend. The economy will suffer in the short term at least. ---------- Post added 20-09-2015 at 14:26 ---------- So how much do you pay. Simple question. Presumably if you're happy to ask this question, you're also happy to answer it? ---------- Post added 20-09-2015 at 14:29 ---------- Retired so dont pay taxes...like most of the idiots on here You realise that pensions attract income tax? And can't you manage to debate without calling people idiots and morons? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzijlstra Posted September 20, 2015 Share Posted September 20, 2015 He doesn't have children, can't you read?: He's struggling to of course im quite happy when its british people with children and yes your right about the romani in pagehall coming here taking our benefits(come on admit it whos going to give them a job:hihi:) Your political complexion is confusing the old left/right debate, political scientists already knew it was dead, but you are living proof You get child benefit? What other in work benefits do you receive? Come on fess up..Otherwise it makes you a hypocrite No children, means no child benefit. We don't claim any benefits, no work tax-credits, no housing benefits, no bus passes, no free TV License, nothing. We don't need to because: So a modest income then, likely propped up with child benefits etc We don't have a modest income. We work bloody hard to ensure we can do what we want in our life. Personally, when I have had a modest income (before marrying my wife), I didn't claim anything either. I am against benefits as a principle. I know plenty of people who are happy to lean back and claim them instead of working to their ability and it is one of few things that makes me angry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJC1 Posted September 20, 2015 Share Posted September 20, 2015 He's struggling to Your political complexion is confusing the old left/right debate, political scientists already knew it was dead, but you are living proof No children, means no child benefit. We don't claim any benefits, no work tax-credits, no housing benefits, no bus passes, no free TV License, nothing. We don't need to because: We don't have a modest income. We work bloody hard to ensure we can do what we want in our life. Personally, when I have had a modest income (before marrying my wife), I didn't claim anything either. I am against benefits as a principle. I know plenty of people who are happy to lean back and claim them instead of working to their ability and it is one of few things that makes me angry. chinny-reckon ---------- Post added 20-09-2015 at 15:30 ---------- I've skipped to page 5, but the couple in question here are NOT unemployed are they. But they did continue to pop out children that they apparently can't afford to keep on the money they earn. Did they at some point actually think about what they were doing? 5 children isn't some sort of unlucky coincidence, she didn't have quadruplets... ---------- Post added 20-09-2015 at 14:24 ---------- This would be true if taxes were cut by the same amount, but they won't be. So government will have a little bit more money to give to big business for failed IT projects, but people will have a little bit less money to spend. The economy will suffer in the short term at least. ---------- Post added 20-09-2015 at 14:26 ---------- Presumably if you're happy to ask this question, you're also happy to answer it? ---------- Post added 20-09-2015 at 14:29 ---------- You realise that pensions attract income tax? And can't you manage to debate without calling people idiots and morons? call a spade a spade ---------- Post added 20-09-2015 at 15:30 ---------- I've skipped to page 5, but the couple in question here are NOT unemployed are they. But they did continue to pop out children that they apparently can't afford to keep on the money they earn. Did they at some point actually think about what they were doing? 5 children isn't some sort of unlucky coincidence, she didn't have quadruplets... ---------- Post added 20-09-2015 at 14:24 ---------- This would be true if taxes were cut by the same amount, but they won't be. So government will have a little bit more money to give to big business for failed IT projects, but people will have a little bit less money to spend. The economy will suffer in the short term at least. ---------- Post added 20-09-2015 at 14:26 ---------- Presumably if you're happy to ask this question, you're also happy to answer it? ---------- Post added 20-09-2015 at 14:29 ---------- You realise that pensions attract income tax? And can't you manage to debate without calling people idiots and morons? call a spade a spade ---------- Post added 20-09-2015 at 15:31 ---------- He doesn't have children, can't you read?: 2 kids....benefit claimant castigates other benefit claimants..ad nauseum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted September 20, 2015 Share Posted September 20, 2015 Criticise ideas and opinions, not people. Learn to debate like a grown up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apelike Posted September 20, 2015 Share Posted September 20, 2015 ---------- Post added 19-09-2015 at 22:35 ---------- Retired so dont pay taxes...like most of the idiots on here I think you need a lesson on economics as most of those people who are only just retired have paid much more of their income in taxation than people do now. Those people paid taxes towards the building of the infrastructure which younger people today take for granted. I remember when I was paying 35% income tax as opposed to the basic reduced rate now of 20%. That reduction has been offset by increasing indirect taxation which means that I now also pay more for items and services I buy because of the increase in VAT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted September 20, 2015 Share Posted September 20, 2015 I think you need a lesson on economics as most of those people who are only just retired have paid much more of their income in taxation than people do now. Those people paid taxes towards the building of the infrastructure which younger people today take for granted. I remember when I was paying 35% income tax as opposed to the basic reduced rate now of 20%. That reduction has been offset by increasing indirect taxation which means that I now also pay more for items and services I buy because of the increase in VAT. If you're just retired then as a baby boomer you have nothing to complain about. That generation has done incredibly well compared to all before and after it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts