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
-
POPPYOSCAR wrote: »We are not attacking you, and if you keep doing that with your eyes you will do yourself an injury!!
No, you're not, only because you couldn't. Ad Hominen is fallacious. It's an attempt to attack me. It doesn't actually mean you are.
I'd much rather the debate focused on the points raised, rather than what my personal circumstances are. Why is that so hard to figure?
I'm uninterested in your lackof/finances/benefits [delete as apt], nor do I think that by default your earning ability shapes your social conscience. All I ask is a return of the same courtesy. I suppose that is too much to ask?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: »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 4556
And you attack me in someone elses post? (above if you need the fact).0 -
Deepmistrust wrote: »No, you're not, only because you couldn't. Ad Hominen is fallacious. It's an attempt to attack me. It doesn't actually mean you are.
I'd much rather the debate focused on the points raised, rather than what my personal circumstances are. Why is that so hard to figure?
I'm uninterested in your lackof/finances/benefits [delete as apt], nor do I think that by default your earning ability shapes your social conscience. All I ask is a return of the same courtesy. I suppose that is too much to ask?
Oh you just crack me up!!!!!!!!!!!!0 -
POPPYOSCAR wrote: »Mary 671 would you please answer the burning question 'are you a rapist' as someone on here is dying to know!!!!
I can confirm that I am not a rapist.0 -
Paul_Herring wrote: »Not at all. I was directly addressing the point I quoted.
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.
There is also a seperate argument that falling birth rates will leave tomorrows pensioners in an (even more) dire situation. Resolutions being increase birth rates, increase immigration or cull old folk. Not sure which sounds the more appealling tbh. To be honest if I had 12 kids, not sure how I'd work either! But seriously, the examples you gave made the national newspapers, ergo they are not representative of anyone, but a tiny minority, and policy towards benefits, should not be dictated by a tiny minority of people, who will always abuse any system.
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.
I'm not particulary a support of CTF's to be perfectly honest, my argument is mainly centred around Sure Start Grants.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 -
And you attack me in someone elses post? (above if you need the fact).
Do what? You mean the 'rapist' analogy. Hahaha, that wasn't an attack.
Look this isn't rocket science. You claim that because I will not confirm or deny personal questions (none of your business to be truthful) because they are irrelevant to the discussion ergo your baseless assumption must be correct. Do you now understand why I asked if you were a rapist?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 -
-
Paul_Herring wrote: »
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.
So am I right in saying that I can't continue to add to the CTF's then? Or I can, but there is little point?
*confused*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: »Do what? You mean the 'rapist' analogy. Hahaha, that wasn't an attack.
Look this isn't rocket science. You claim that because I will not confirm or deny personal questions (none of your business to be truthful) because they are irrelevant to the discussion ergo your baseless assumption must be correct. Do you now understand why I asked if you were a rapist?
OK. Let's agree to differ. You have your views and I have mine.
I did enjoy reading your posts today... at least you have passion which I don't see much of these days! I hope to join in on another debate with you sometime.
Bye for now.0 -
Yes I am off as well, Its been fun.(I really am spending far too much time on here!!)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