We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Too posh for dosh !!
Comments
-
Savings are for people who have money left over. Not everybody earns enough to have money left over ... especially as most of their lives there wasn't even a minimum wage, and no top up benefits like WTC.Oaps have nothing to winge about. They should have a lifetimes worth of sAvings behind them.
I've never had any savings ... I have no pension. It's just the way some things are for some people.0 -
Savings can also go quite fast if you are incapitated by illness or an accident.
You have to spend most of you savings before you can get benefits.[greenhighlight]but it matters when the most senior politician in the land is happy to use language and examples that are simply not true.
[/greenhighlight][redtitle]
The impact of this is to stigmatise people on benefits,
and we should be deeply worried about that[/redtitle](house of lords debate, talking about Cameron)0 -
PasturesNew wrote: »I always understood that the original purpose of child benefit was that the mother had cash in her hand to feed a child with, back in the days when some men didn't hand over any money. It was so the kid could be fed even if the man of the house p155ed his wages up the wall.
That's exactly why women get child benefit.
Much the same women who got the Family Allowance passed into law went on to start the movement to get women the vote.
Socialists love getting as many people as possible on benefits as it builds in a majority in favour of an interventionist state. Hence child benefit continuing to be universal, long after the idea that women are unable to fend for themselves has been abandoned.0 -
Bravo to Cameron for this. The idea of families earning good income getting state aid they don't need and don't is morally reprehensible, and I hope the Tories have the fortitude to go through with this.
It should be stretched wider. TV licence rebates and winter fuel allowances to ALL OAPs is a nonsense. I know several OAPs who have vast personal reserves, still pottering down to the post office to get such benefits that they don't need.
Where is peoples' pride?0 -
Sounds fair enough to me. As long as there are enough corresponding redundancies in the DWP to balance the reduction in work in that department.
I would also like to see layabout families with more than 2 kids to have their benefits pared to the bone, but then again, you cant have everything can you?
Probably need more employees to sort who is and is not entitled :eek:'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher0 -
Blackpool_Saver wrote: »It is rather bizarre that people get child benefit whatever their income, I have always thought so. If that stopped just think how better that money could be spent.
State pension next :eek:'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher0 -
Oh isnt it lovely to see tables turned ? I always did like a bit of table turning !
Maybe now people on benefit will get a bl**dy break ... what goes around comes around eh ?0 -
I know of someone who is getting £200 per week. Don't get me wrong they are ill. However, there is no incentive to get back to work. I may be looking for work if things do not pick up but there is no way I would get that amount for working within school hours. I really do think things need to change!0
-
Blackpool_Saver wrote: »It is rather bizarre that people get child benefit whatever their income, I have always thought so. If that stopped just think how better that money could be spent.
It would be spent on the expensive and confusing system needed to administrate means testing millions of families.0 -
Oh isnt it lovely to see tables turned ? I always did like a bit of table turning !
Maybe now people on benefit will get a bl**dy break ... what goes around comes around eh ?
If you read the thread properly you would see that it is all about people who are on benefit and don't need it.
What exactly is your point?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards