We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 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!
Age 7 government child trust fund payments not being released!!!
Comments
-
Deepmistrust wrote: »Who isn't? Yourself included...ironically enough.
Aren't you the one that obsessively puts up pictures of 'news'papers stories about large families, using them as your own logical fallacy against CTF's and Sure Start grants threads?
No it can't be... is that you in one of those pictures then?0 -
POPPYOSCAR wrote: »And why do you never answer a question put to you?
I'm discussing CTF's and Sure Start grants, and whether they should be scrapped or not, my belief is that while I don't think CTF's are a great idea (But who can tell, we haven't had time to see the results as yet), but I do support the Sure Start maternity grants.
Why would I answer personal questions when discussing that?All over the place, from the popular culture to the propaganda system, there is constant pressure to make people feel that they are helpless, that the only role they can have is to ratify decisions and to consume.0 -
Deepmistrust wrote: »It's not my obsession, I'm amazed that a few people have used 'drawers' as some kind of argument against pregnancy grants haha such as: "why do they need grants for baby things, what's wrong with putting baby in a drawer":rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
Why are you obsessed about me *personally*? What difference does it make to my opinions?
But it was you who brought up the subject of drawers and that it was comparable to putting children up chimneys!!!0 -
Deepmistrust wrote: »I'm discussing CTF's and Sure Start grants, and whether they should be scrapped or not, my belief is that while I don't think CTF's are a great idea (But who can tell, we haven't had time to see the results as yet), but I do support the Sure Start maternity grants.
Why would I answer personal questions when discussing that? And .
more to the point why should I, when they are only asked in some pathetic attempt to attack the person rather than the argument. Logical fallacy number 4556All over the place, from the popular culture to the propaganda system, there is constant pressure to make people feel that they are helpless, that the only role they can have is to ratify decisions and to consume.0 -
But it was you who brought up the subject of drawers and that it was comparable to putting children up chimneys!!!
In that case I sincerely doubt you've read the thread quite as avidly as you seem to think.:rotfl:All over the place, from the popular culture to the propaganda system, there is constant pressure to make people feel that they are helpless, that the only role they can have is to ratify decisions and to consume.0 -
Deepmistrust wrote: »I'm discussing CTF's and Sure Start grants, and whether they should be scrapped or not, my belief is that while I don't think CTF's are a great idea (But who can tell, we haven't had time to see the results as yet), but I do support the Sure Start maternity grants.
Why would I answer personal questions when discussing that?
Because of the statements you make people are trying to understand where you are coming from.You attack people for their views and experiences and it does look like you have something to hide, so to speak.0 -
POPPYOSCAR wrote: »Because of the statements you make people are trying to understand where you are coming from.You attack people for their views and experiences and it does look like you have something to hide, so to speak
And Mary hasn't denied being a rapist yet...?
.
Attacking views (or rather, countering them) is one thing - of that yes I do, and why not? Attacking the person rather than the view is something else.
Guess which one you lot are doing. *rolls eyes*
And supposing if ever I was in need of a Sure Start Grant, why do you think it's 'something to hide'?All over the place, from the popular culture to the propaganda system, there is constant pressure to make people feel that they are helpless, that the only role they can have is to ratify decisions and to consume.0 -
Deepmistrust wrote: »Attacking views (or rather, countering them) is one thing - of that yes I do, and why not? Attacking the person rather than the view is something else.
Guess which one you lot are doing. *rolls eyes*
We are not attacking you, and if you keep doing that with your eyes you will do yourself an injury!!0 -
Not at all. I was directly addressing the point I quoted.Deepmistrust wrote: »Who isn't? Yourself included...ironically enough.Aren't you the one that obsessively puts up pictures of 'news'papers stories about large families, using them as your own logical fallacy against CTF's and Sure Start grants threads?
Not at all.
1) It's not obsessive. I've posted it once.
2) There's no fallacy there.
3) It was an argument about taxpayers paying people to have large families, when the parents won't work.
4) It was not an argument per-se for abolishing the government component of CTF's, (though, separately, I am in favour of abolishing the tax-payer contributing CTF's, but the reasons have little to do with large families - the reasons revolve around the fact that families in general get sufficient funding of the tax payer (listed earlier) and the government borrowing £250 now to 'give' to a child who will inevitably pay £250+inflation+interest back to the government in 18 years time makes little sense.)
The point of the CTF was to encourage parents to save up for their children by starting it off. A significant proportion of parents pay little else into the CTF over and above what the tax-payer gives them.
What I think the government should have done is stop the government contribution, but allow continued parental contributions to grow tax-free.
A sort of ISA for kids.
In fact why don't the government simply scrap the lower age limit on cash ISAs (currently 16,) rename CTF to ISA and that'll keep most people happy.
Except the ones who think they're entitled to even more money off the tax payer of course, for something that's been running for only 5 years.Conjugating the verb 'to be":
-o I am humble -o You are attention seeking -o She is Nadine Dorries0 -
Mary 671 would you please answer the burning question 'are you a rapist' as someone on here is dying to know!!!!0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards