How middle class families pay 49% of income in taxes - The Telegraph

The_White_Horse

carolt wrote: »

What do you deserve, horsie?

what i have

donaldtramp

Well said Mark

Well said. The current welfare system is dysgenic - i.e. it assists those of lower intelligence and educational attainment to breed more. This is helping to create and perpetuate a massive underclass of people who will forever be addicted to welfare and occasional bits of work, with no stability or respect for family life. We need to have a eugenic welfare system, i.e. one that assists the most talented and intelligent; only then can we move forward as a nation. We have enough chavs in Britain now.
It's all the politically correct nonsense that we need to put aside. This is what is ruining the country.

Britain has now reached a stage in history where where,

SURVIVAL OF THE THICKEST is the name of the game.

The very opposite of how nature (and everything else) functions.

How long is this sustainable for????

kabayiri

donaldtramp wrote: »

Well said Mark
Britain has now reached a stage in history where where,

SURVIVAL OF THE THICKEST is the name of the game.

The very opposite of how nature (and everything else) functions.

How long is this sustainable for????

Don't worry.

Simon flamin Cowl will be along soon proving that another bunch of dancing dogs and cute little kids in shell suits really does prove that Britain's Got Talent.

StevieJ

marklv wrote: »

w.
It's all the politically correct nonsense that we need to put aside. This is what is ruining the country.

Yes and maybe it should enable us to dump some pointless middle management from the public sector.

Toto

I'm training to be a midwife. I live in what you would call a very working class town. I can honestly say that I can count the number of young single mums I see on our wards on one hand. I would say that 90%+ of the women I see are married or with a partner and most are working. I am starting to think that this whole 'get pregnant to get a council house' thing is a myth. Yes they exist but I do honestly think that it's a lot less common than we are led to believe.

Fly_Baby

Funny how some posters say that children shouldn't be raised in inappropriate conditions and that's why single mothers with 7 kids deserve their detached houses and benefits.

Well, if I decided to have 7 kids - would my local government or in fact anybody care if they are raised in appropriate conditions? The hell they would! We all all would be living in whatever property we have (and it will not be a huge one, considering the current house prices), scraping by on whatever money we earn. Why? Because my husband happens to have a job and so do I.

How is it fair? How are HER children more deserving of "appropriate" conditions than mine that they get everything provided for free while my children would be totally dependent on - and restricted by - the money I earn?

silvercar

Fly_Baby wrote: »

Funny how some posters say that children shouldn't be raised in inappropriate conditions and that's why single mothers with 7 kids deserve their detached houses and benefits.

Well, if I decided to have 7 kids - would my local government or in fact anybody care if they are raised in appropriate conditions? The hell they would! We all all would be living in whatever property we have (and it will not be a huge one, considering the current house prices), scraping by on whatever money we earn. Why? Because my husband happens to have a job and so do I.

How is it fair? How are HER children more deserving of "appropriate" conditions than mine that they get everything provided for free while my children would be totally dependent on - and restricted by - the money I earn?

Your children would be born in a family unit to parents who care; no amount of state benefits can make up for having a parent who just sees you as a meal ticket.

Fly_Baby

silvercar wrote: »

Your children would be born in a family unit to parents who care; no amount of state benefits can make up for having a parent who just sees you as a meal ticket.

Many families on benefits are two-parent families. The father may be working on a low-paid job or may be not while the mother looks after the ever-expanding breed. They may be very loving and caring parents - while still raising their family on the taxpayer's expense. And they do it simply because they can.

I would love to be a SAHM and still be able to afford a room for each child and enough money for the whole family.

carolt

Fly_Baby wrote: »

Funny how some posters say that children shouldn't be raised in inappropriate conditions and that's why single mothers with 7 kids deserve their detached houses and benefits.

Well, if I decided to have 7 kids - would my local government or in fact anybody care if they are raised in appropriate conditions? The hell they would! We all all would be living in whatever property we have (and it will not be a huge one, considering the current house prices), scraping by on whatever money we earn. Why? Because my husband happens to have a job and so do I.

How is it fair? How are HER children more deserving of "appropriate" conditions than mine that they get everything provided for free while my children would be totally dependent on - and restricted by - the money I earn?

Can't thank you enough for that post.

That to me is the crux of the matter - why if children of the unemployed are deemed important enough to require a minimum standard in terms of accomodation, free laptops to be doled out, free access to various activities/training/university education even, why if this is the case are children of the employed ruled at some level to be less important?

If my children want to go to university, or stay on for sixth form then I or they will have to pay for it. If they want to have a room on their own, I and my OH will have to work such long hours they would virtually never see us to have that luxury.

Whereas if we both give up work tomorrow, then suddenly my children are 'entitled to' all this stuff.

That is just ludicrous.

Frankly the assumption that parents on the dole require extra help for their children because of an assumed poor quality of life needs revising.

It appears to be based on the - outrageously elitist if you actually bother to examine it - assumption that all those kids with parents on the dole must suffer terribly because their parents are !!!!!!. Not only is that an astonishing assumption, if you think about it, it also ignores the fact that even the best, most caring working parent can only spend quality time with their kids when they're not working. Which time is blatantly obviously far more limited for those who work than it is for those who don't work.

Surely if parents don't work they have much more quality time to spend with their kids, ergo should deserve less support not more.

silvercar

Fly_Baby wrote: »

Many families on benefits are two-parent families. The father may be working on a low-paid job or may be not while the mother looks after the ever-expanding breed. They may be very loving and caring parents - while still raising their family on the taxpayer's expense. And they do it simply because they can.

I would love to be a SAHM and still be able to afford a room for each child and enough money for the whole family.

I accept your point. There are some family units (and I use that term loosely) where the kids are going to be dragged up rather than brought up, however much money you throw at them.