Housing benefit rise inline with rent rise?

Oldernotwiser

welshmoneylover wrote: »

There has been some right morons on this board and I think you rate at the top alongside festering_plates.

I was trying to remember his name - well done!

emsywoo123

Well this has been a lovely read
Post your responses now ladies and gentlemen, as this thread has gone soooooooooo far off topic and turned into such a never ending/resolving debate that I assume it will be locked by morning :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
Tally ho :cool:

Deepmistrust

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

It is very naive to equate class to money. There are many working class families (and people who choose to live on benefits) who have far more money than many middle class families.

I wasn't equating class with money. Non sequitur number 2. (Note the lack of hyphen);)

I was making a point that YOU implying providing money (i.e. providing for children in the financial sense, that you'd provide for a pony) equates to 'responsible'.

"Providing for your children is not a class issue; it's what all responsible people do."

Deepmistrust

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

You know, you really are a deeply unpleasant person.

WHAT?! LMAO, it's not him calling for the sterilisation of poor people, and only wanting to well-off people to breed!

xxx:T

Oldernotwiser

Deepmistrust wrote: »

I was making a point that YOU implying providing money (i.e. providing for children in the financial sense, that you'd provide for a pony) equates to 'responsible'.

"Providing for your children is not a class issue; it's what all responsible people do."

What world do you live in that you equate providing food and shelter for your own children with providing for a pet and why should you object to this being described as being responsible behaviour? Should people just have a baby by the side of the road and hope for the best?

This must be one of the most surreal discussions ever on this board - it's like talking to people from a parallel universe!

Deepmistrust

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

What world do you live in that you equate providing food and shelter for your own children with providing for a pet and why should you object to this being described as being responsible behaviour? Should people just have a baby by the side of the road and hope for the best?

This must be one of the most surreal discussions ever on this board - it's like talking to people from a parallel universe! Does this happen often to you? Do you often finding yourself thinking "it's not me, it's all of them" :rotfl:

Yes fancy that. Not all people equating child rearing with the amount of cash they can save up before hand. I guess that is unknown terrority to you.

Still - don't panic, you're old, you don't need to raise anymore children on a pittance, and try to house them when the houses are priced out of your reach, so you'll be ok living off the pension my taxes provide. You can sit safely in your bungalow demanding sterilisation of the poor till you wear out your ticker. No one really cares.:rotfl::rotfl:

dktreesea

welshmoneylover wrote: »

Indeed, we are and indeed we can afford our children.

However, the country cannot afford handing out generous benefit payments willy nilly and I for one will welcome Cameron's cuts to benefit payments, especially to those who have kids and expect the state to pay for them instead of the parents working to pay for their own kids.

I would be quite happy for Comeron to cut the benefits, provided the minimum wage was raised sufficiently to be a living wage, so that someone earning it neither needed, nor was entitled to, any benefits.

All these benefits, like CTC, child benefit, WTC, and for sure housing benefit, are basically subsidies to the employers, allowing them to pay below poverty line wages, confident in the knowledge that other, better heeled taxpayers, will "top up " the difference. This, imho, is state sponsered exploitation.

If a job is worth doing, and needs to be done, then the employers should have to pay a living wage to have it done. It's bizarre to have a system where the employer is subsidised to such an extent that even giving all the income tax and national insurance back to the earner, allowing them to live tax free, STILL doesn't bring them above the poverty line if they are trying to support a family of four.

All those who are asking why should taxpayers support these non tax payers are asking the wrong question. My question would be why should tax payers have to subsidise, for instance, the dividend payouts of large companies like the big banks, letting them hire call centre staff for peanuts? Yes, benefits should be cut - working people shouldn't need to be eligible for benefits - and the minimum wage increased sufficiently to compensate for those cuts.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

I think you might find many people on here who object to your racist comments!

Racist???? lol... Not me chum.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

What world do you live in that you equate providing food and shelter for your own children with providing for a pet and why should you object to this being described as being responsible behaviour? Should people just have a baby by the side of the road and hope for the best?

This must be one of the most surreal discussions ever on this board - it's like talking to people from a parallel universe!

I think your medication might be wearing off.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Fiver29 wrote: »

Why do you need a 4 bedroom house. My family had 4 children (3+1) and we had a 3 bed house, my sister's family are exactly the same and they have a 3 bed. What's wrong with sharing?

Funny that, as NOW you have 2 children and the law(?) which nobody has ever heard of apparently forces you to have a 3 bed house. Yet you object to the OP having one more bedroom than you for their two extra children.

Isn't that just hypocrisy???