At last some straight talking from a politician
Discussion
No, easily enforcable, just cut child benefit to zero for all future births and to anyone with children of school age or older.
Subsidising families that are more dependent, or totaly dependent, on benefits won't help us at all. We may need to encourage families due to an aging population but any benefit that does this isn't the way to do it, we'll all end up with heaviliy taxed pensions to support an even bigger number of people than we already do. In fact one way of encouraging families who might actually contribute something to the future is to stop taxing them to pay so much in to this system in the first place.
Subsidising families that are more dependent, or totaly dependent, on benefits won't help us at all. We may need to encourage families due to an aging population but any benefit that does this isn't the way to do it, we'll all end up with heaviliy taxed pensions to support an even bigger number of people than we already do. In fact one way of encouraging families who might actually contribute something to the future is to stop taxing them to pay so much in to this system in the first place.
cymtriks said:
No, easily enforcable, just cut child benefit to zero for all future births and to anyone with children of school age or older.
Subsidising families that are more dependent, or totaly dependent, on benefits won't help us at all. We may need to encourage families due to an aging population but any benefit that does this isn't the way to do it, we'll all end up with heaviliy taxed pensions to support an even bigger number of people than we already do. In fact one way of encouraging families who might actually contribute something to the future is to stop taxing them to pay so much in to this system in the first place.
Subsidising families that are more dependent, or totaly dependent, on benefits won't help us at all. We may need to encourage families due to an aging population but any benefit that does this isn't the way to do it, we'll all end up with heaviliy taxed pensions to support an even bigger number of people than we already do. In fact one way of encouraging families who might actually contribute something to the future is to stop taxing them to pay so much in to this system in the first place.
You actually believe that child benefit is one of the main benefits being paid to scrounging benefits families, don't you?
In a conversation about no family receiving more than £26k a year in benefits, how much of that £26k do you actually think is made up of child benefit?
Let me help you along the way. To receive £10k a year in child benefit, you would need to have 14 children.
Now, given that even the most fecund of benefits scroungers rarely seem to exceed 5 or 6 little scroungers, so please explain how getting rid of child benefit would easily fix this problem?
Kermit power said:
cymtriks said:
No, easily enforcable, just cut child benefit to zero for all future births and to anyone with children of school age or older.
Subsidising families that are more dependent, or totaly dependent, on benefits won't help us at all. We may need to encourage families due to an aging population but any benefit that does this isn't the way to do it, we'll all end up with heaviliy taxed pensions to support an even bigger number of people than we already do. In fact one way of encouraging families who might actually contribute something to the future is to stop taxing them to pay so much in to this system in the first place.
Subsidising families that are more dependent, or totaly dependent, on benefits won't help us at all. We may need to encourage families due to an aging population but any benefit that does this isn't the way to do it, we'll all end up with heaviliy taxed pensions to support an even bigger number of people than we already do. In fact one way of encouraging families who might actually contribute something to the future is to stop taxing them to pay so much in to this system in the first place.
You actually believe that child benefit is one of the main benefits being paid to scrounging benefits families, don't you?
In a conversation about no family receiving more than £26k a year in benefits, how much of that £26k do you actually think is made up of child benefit?
Let me help you along the way. To receive £10k a year in child benefit, you would need to have 14 children.
Now, given that even the most fecund of benefits scroungers rarely seem to exceed 5 or 6 little scroungers, so please explain how getting rid of child benefit would easily fix this problem?
chris watton said:
Kermit power said:
cymtriks said:
No, easily enforcable, just cut child benefit to zero for all future births and to anyone with children of school age or older.
Subsidising families that are more dependent, or totaly dependent, on benefits won't help us at all. We may need to encourage families due to an aging population but any benefit that does this isn't the way to do it, we'll all end up with heaviliy taxed pensions to support an even bigger number of people than we already do. In fact one way of encouraging families who might actually contribute something to the future is to stop taxing them to pay so much in to this system in the first place.
Subsidising families that are more dependent, or totaly dependent, on benefits won't help us at all. We may need to encourage families due to an aging population but any benefit that does this isn't the way to do it, we'll all end up with heaviliy taxed pensions to support an even bigger number of people than we already do. In fact one way of encouraging families who might actually contribute something to the future is to stop taxing them to pay so much in to this system in the first place.
You actually believe that child benefit is one of the main benefits being paid to scrounging benefits families, don't you?
In a conversation about no family receiving more than £26k a year in benefits, how much of that £26k do you actually think is made up of child benefit?
Let me help you along the way. To receive £10k a year in child benefit, you would need to have 14 children.
Now, given that even the most fecund of benefits scroungers rarely seem to exceed 5 or 6 little scroungers, so please explain how getting rid of child benefit would easily fix this problem?
In that article itself there's an example of some scrounging scum with 7 kids living off the state. Even with 7 kids, Child Benefit only makes up 12% of their total benefits, yet according to Cymtriks, we can easily cure the whole problem by cutting Child Benefit!
Kermit power said:
chris watton said:
Kermit power said:
cymtriks said:
No, easily enforcable, just cut child benefit to zero for all future births and to anyone with children of school age or older.
Subsidising families that are more dependent, or totaly dependent, on benefits won't help us at all. We may need to encourage families due to an aging population but any benefit that does this isn't the way to do it, we'll all end up with heaviliy taxed pensions to support an even bigger number of people than we already do. In fact one way of encouraging families who might actually contribute something to the future is to stop taxing them to pay so much in to this system in the first place.
Subsidising families that are more dependent, or totaly dependent, on benefits won't help us at all. We may need to encourage families due to an aging population but any benefit that does this isn't the way to do it, we'll all end up with heaviliy taxed pensions to support an even bigger number of people than we already do. In fact one way of encouraging families who might actually contribute something to the future is to stop taxing them to pay so much in to this system in the first place.
You actually believe that child benefit is one of the main benefits being paid to scrounging benefits families, don't you?
In a conversation about no family receiving more than £26k a year in benefits, how much of that £26k do you actually think is made up of child benefit?
Let me help you along the way. To receive £10k a year in child benefit, you would need to have 14 children.
Now, given that even the most fecund of benefits scroungers rarely seem to exceed 5 or 6 little scroungers, so please explain how getting rid of child benefit would easily fix this problem?
In that article itself there's an example of some scrounging scum with 7 kids living off the state. Even with 7 kids, Child Benefit only makes up 12% of their total benefits, yet according to Cymtriks, we can easily cure the whole problem by cutting Child Benefit!
Kermit power said:
cymtriks said:
No, easily enforcable, just cut child benefit to zero for all future births and to anyone with children of school age or older.
Subsidising families that are more dependent, or totaly dependent, on benefits won't help us at all. We may need to encourage families due to an aging population but any benefit that does this isn't the way to do it, we'll all end up with heaviliy taxed pensions to support an even bigger number of people than we already do. In fact one way of encouraging families who might actually contribute something to the future is to stop taxing them to pay so much in to this system in the first place.
Subsidising families that are more dependent, or totaly dependent, on benefits won't help us at all. We may need to encourage families due to an aging population but any benefit that does this isn't the way to do it, we'll all end up with heaviliy taxed pensions to support an even bigger number of people than we already do. In fact one way of encouraging families who might actually contribute something to the future is to stop taxing them to pay so much in to this system in the first place.
You actually believe that child benefit is one of the main benefits being paid to scrounging benefits families, don't you?
Kermit power said:
In a conversation about no family receiving more than £26k a year in benefits, how much of that £26k do you actually think is made up of child benefit?
Let me help you along the way. To receive £10k a year in child benefit, you would need to have 14 children.
Now, given that even the most fecund of benefits scroungers rarely seem to exceed 5 or 6 little scroungers, so please explain how getting rid of child benefit would easily fix this problem?
It's still something that should go for exactly the reason I stated and for exactly the reasons in the OP link.Let me help you along the way. To receive £10k a year in child benefit, you would need to have 14 children.
Now, given that even the most fecund of benefits scroungers rarely seem to exceed 5 or 6 little scroungers, so please explain how getting rid of child benefit would easily fix this problem?
Let me help your understanding.
We are in debt up to our eyeballs, its getting worse all the time. We certaily shouldn't have a benefit system that pays a third of the national tax revenue to support "the poor/vulnerable/sick/etc" at all and especially not in the middle of a crisis and especially not when we are going deeper into debt and especially when that is by 150 billion a year.
Something must go and the benefit budget is unjustifiable as it stands.
Yes, its nice if families can get handouts, but if we are going to dig ourselves into a Greek style crisis or have to pay extra tax for the rest of our lives, and our grandchildren's lives, to do this then we need to reconsider.
I have a familiy so if child benefit was cut I'd lose, but we all have to pay in to fund it so perhaps there is a case for just not paying the tax and letting families keep their income. Also I'd rather take a hit now than let my kids pay off a mountain of state debt for their entire lives. We need to get away from the idea that our own benefits are sacred and that someone elses should be cut or that someone else should be sacked. Everyone is going to have to be a bit more realistic.
This issue is one part of a very big problem, I never said anything different, it just happens to be the subject of this thread and rather topical at the moment.
Housing benefit, followed by disability benefit are the areas where the biggest scams are occurring.
Get yourself declared as eligible for a Council House, having lots of sprogs, being single and out of work helps, then take advantage of the scheme that allows you to rent a home privately. Council will reimburse you. Rent from a friend or better still, the father of your children and claim the money from the Council. Nobody checks, all you need is a tenancy agreement. You can easily claim twice the market rent for the house. Give a little bit of the surplus to the Landlord (your friend or relative) so he is geting above market rent keep a bit yourself, everyone is quids in.
Very difficult to prove without employing lots of people to snoop round and ask questions. It was implemented in a hurry to reduce Council House waiting lists. So no systems in place to check for abuse. Ripe for the picking.
If you don't believe how easy this scam is to operate, just go to your local council website and look up "renting from a private Landlord" for those on the local authority register.
The only effective way to manage it is to put a total cap on benefits. Well done Tories.
pp
Get yourself declared as eligible for a Council House, having lots of sprogs, being single and out of work helps, then take advantage of the scheme that allows you to rent a home privately. Council will reimburse you. Rent from a friend or better still, the father of your children and claim the money from the Council. Nobody checks, all you need is a tenancy agreement. You can easily claim twice the market rent for the house. Give a little bit of the surplus to the Landlord (your friend or relative) so he is geting above market rent keep a bit yourself, everyone is quids in.
Very difficult to prove without employing lots of people to snoop round and ask questions. It was implemented in a hurry to reduce Council House waiting lists. So no systems in place to check for abuse. Ripe for the picking.
If you don't believe how easy this scam is to operate, just go to your local council website and look up "renting from a private Landlord" for those on the local authority register.
The only effective way to manage it is to put a total cap on benefits. Well done Tories.
pp
Jasandjules said:
I struggle to understand why we have child benefit....
Don't follow either.Maybe if it was aimed at the middle classes or something, i.e. both parents working and productive members of society should be encouraged to raise children of similar work ethic?
Instead of the underclasses breeding droves of little s
ts who believe that a lack of community activities justifies trashing the place.G_T said:
Jasandjules said:
I struggle to understand why we have child benefit....
Don't follow either.Maybe if it was aimed at the middle classes or something, i.e. both parents working and productive members of society should be encouraged to raise children of similar work ethic?
Instead of the underclasses breeding droves of little s
ts who believe that a lack of community activities justifies trashing the place.
Would be interesting to know the true cost of paying the social underclass to breed like rabbits once their future lives are taken into account e.g theft, future council housing, vandalism, breeding more scum etc
Kermit power said:
cymtriks said:
No, easily enforcable, just cut child benefit to zero for all future births and to anyone with children of school age or older.
Subsidising families that are more dependent, or totaly dependent, on benefits won't help us at all. We may need to encourage families due to an aging population but any benefit that does this isn't the way to do it, we'll all end up with heaviliy taxed pensions to support an even bigger number of people than we already do. In fact one way of encouraging families who might actually contribute something to the future is to stop taxing them to pay so much in to this system in the first place.
Subsidising families that are more dependent, or totaly dependent, on benefits won't help us at all. We may need to encourage families due to an aging population but any benefit that does this isn't the way to do it, we'll all end up with heaviliy taxed pensions to support an even bigger number of people than we already do. In fact one way of encouraging families who might actually contribute something to the future is to stop taxing them to pay so much in to this system in the first place.
You actually believe that child benefit is one of the main benefits being paid to scrounging benefits families, don't you?
In a conversation about no family receiving more than £26k a year in benefits, how much of that £26k do you actually think is made up of child benefit?
Let me help you along the way. To receive £10k a year in child benefit, you would need to have 14 children.
Now, given that even the most fecund of benefits scroungers rarely seem to exceed 5 or 6 little scroungers, so please explain how getting rid of child benefit would easily fix this problem?
gamefreaks said:
Why doesn't the government replace child benefit with higher tax-free allowance for parents?
Wouldn't that make more sense, it rewards work, so if your not contributing, you don't get it.
Instead, we have the current system which encourages baby-farmers to reap benefits.
I totally agree with that - as well as allowing married couples to pool tax-free allowances - would be cheap & easy to implement.Wouldn't that make more sense, it rewards work, so if your not contributing, you don't get it.
Instead, we have the current system which encourages baby-farmers to reap benefits.
Fatboy said:
gamefreaks said:
Why doesn't the government replace child benefit with higher tax-free allowance for parents?
Wouldn't that make more sense, it rewards work, so if your not contributing, you don't get it.
Instead, we have the current system which encourages baby-farmers to reap benefits.
I totally agree with that - as well as allowing married couples to pool tax-free allowances - would be cheap & easy to implement.Wouldn't that make more sense, it rewards work, so if your not contributing, you don't get it.
Instead, we have the current system which encourages baby-farmers to reap benefits.
What I fail to understand why our politicians are so afraid of the underclass. Personally, I've never taken a penny out of the system (with the exception of schooling for my children), I have paid far more than most do in taxes (over £200,000 in one year recently, and a lot most other years, yet I'm given nothing, what I do get is about to be taken away and am expected to bail out scum with no interest in contributing to our society.
Makes me quite bloody angry!
Fatboy said:
gamefreaks said:
Why doesn't the government replace child benefit with higher tax-free allowance for parents?
Wouldn't that make more sense, it rewards work, so if your not contributing, you don't get it.
Instead, we have the current system which encourages baby-farmers to reap benefits.
I totally agree with that - as well as allowing married couples to pool tax-free allowances - would be cheap & easy to implement.Wouldn't that make more sense, it rewards work, so if your not contributing, you don't get it.
Instead, we have the current system which encourages baby-farmers to reap benefits.
Only problem is, it assumes that those who are not working and claiming for this, that and the other want to better themselves and drag themselves out of their situation.
M-J-B said:
Fatboy said:
gamefreaks said:
Why doesn't the government replace child benefit with higher tax-free allowance for parents?
Wouldn't that make more sense, it rewards work, so if your not contributing, you don't get it.
Instead, we have the current system which encourages baby-farmers to reap benefits.
I totally agree with that - as well as allowing married couples to pool tax-free allowances - would be cheap & easy to implement.Wouldn't that make more sense, it rewards work, so if your not contributing, you don't get it.
Instead, we have the current system which encourages baby-farmers to reap benefits.
What I fail to understand why our politicians are so afraid of the underclass. Personally, I've never taken a penny out of the system (with the exception of schooling for my children), I have paid far more than most do in taxes (over £200,000 in one year recently, and a lot most other years, yet I'm given nothing, what I do get is about to be taken away and am expected to bail out scum with no interest in contributing to our society.
Makes me quite bloody angry!
Well, they might vote.
OK, they probably won't vote, but if we cut the scrounging gits off at the knees, lots of people who consider themselves 'caring' will think we're 'nasty' and vote for the other mob.
On the tax allowance question, I'd permit any one person to assign their allowance to any other person, agreement revocable by either party with one month's notice. Covers marriage, co-habitation, LGBT partnerships etc. in a totally neutral way and should be a piece of piss to administer, even for HMRC.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff