MSE News: The hidden Budget benefits cut at £25,000

Deepmistrust

DX2 wrote: »

*yawn* when you learn to read a post love, come back and perhaps we may debate until that time :wave:

Really, is that the best you could offer?

Can't say I'm surprised mind, given the shockingly vacuous content of your previous posts.

Deepmistrust

divastrop wrote: »

I'm sorry to use this cliche but the world HAS gone mad. When did having children become a 'lifestyle choice' ? Is this due to people waiting longer and longer to have children, then finding it really difficult to conceive , then rather than admitting to inwardly feeling like a failure they say they waited till they could 'afford' a child ? Is this why so many people are bitter and twisted towards those who maybe have unplanned pregnancies and need some help from the benefit system because the majority of employers pay only minimum wage so they can keep as much profit for themselves as possible, thus making it nigh on impossible for a family to manage on one wage only?
Everybody who calls having kids a 'lifestyle choice' knows someone who's on benefits and has a 40" plasma TV and who's kids eat turkey twizzlers( which don't even exist anymore) for their tea. I believe these people are getting confused between what they read in the Daily Mail and what happens in real life (I think someone wrote a book about that in the 90's...).

All I want to know is, have MP's all accepted a pay cut as part of this emergency budget?

:A


If only more folk had your clarity of thought.

For some people the Daily Mail IS real life:rotfl:

DX2

Deepmistrust wrote: »

Really, is that the best you could offer?

Can't say I'm surprised mind, given the shockingly vacuous content of your previous posts.

:rotfl:Sweet did you have a peek at my post history.

Deepmistrust

DX2 wrote: »

:rotfl:Sweet did you have a peek at my post history.

Don't be ridiculous, why on earth would I want to trawl through pages and pages of yet more whining about how much hatred you have for poor people?

It's bad enough on my eyes reading your vacuous posts on this thread

Deepmistrust

purplebutterfly wrote: »

When contraception became available


And as for bitter career women leaving it late to have children - my dear, it is thosse very women who are paying the taxes that support the wastrels.

People with children will ALWAYS believe that they are better than those without and will always take the moral highground. I've given up being angry about it, it amuses me now. Once you have a child, you are biologically altered and chemically bonded to the child. As a result, you can no longer imagine how anybody else could NOT want to have one.

When you see these parents who thinks the sun shines out of their a**es because they've managed to procreate (Wow! That's an impressive feat!) and then you see their children with little to no education, unable to string a coherent sentence together and absolutely no job prospects, it makes me laugh.

Before you ask, yes, I do know people who genuinely believe that they are good parents when, in reality, they are just bringing up the next generation of little thugs.

Interestingly, there was a study published about 3 years ago that showed a large proportion of the population that had some form of higher education and a career (ie doctors, lawyers, businessmen)either chose not to have children at all or chose to have them later in life. And of those that did have children late, they only had one or two at most.

It provided statistics to show that the "upper educated classes" (its words not mine) were rapidly dimishing in number whilst un-educated, low-paid workers or benefit recipients were steadily increasing in number. For example, a woman who went to university might have one child at the age of 38 whilst her neighbour who left school at 16 with no qualifications might well be a grandmother at the same age.

As a result, it concluded that in the forseeable future, the country would be in a situation where the lower classes would so vastly outnumber the rest of society that the shortage of doctors/lawyers etc would lead not only to a drop in receipt of the very taxes that support those who choose not to work - but would also result in it being imperative to bring in foreign labour as Britain would not have enough skilled workers to fill jobs.


I like the idea that I am a Daily Mail reader though - that really tickled me! :rotfl:

PS Divastrop - I'm only just 30, far too lazy to be a career woman and my choice not to have children is based on many factors and arrived at through logic and reason. Am I angry towards people who are too thick to use a condom (which are available for free) and then expect the rest of society to pay for the upbringing of their mistake? You bet I am.

Ah so mothers and fathers don't pay taxes too then? What utter tosh you spout. In fact, those that do have children - just remember those children will be supporting you in your old age, by working and paying taxes for YOUR pension, cleaning your streets, and policing your towns.

The rest is just baseless unscientific tosh, sitting upon your own pseudo-snobbery opinions.

It does amuse me that you spend your days being angry towards people who have unplanned pregnancies, yet can't reserve any of your anger to the bigger parasites this country produces which sit at the top of the food chain, not the bottom.

The working (or "lower" as you like to call them) classes have always outnumbered those fat cats at the top, something like 9-1. Hence why 90% of the worlds wealth is in the hands of those that really run our institutions (i.e. about 10% of the population). And they have you just were they want you, spouting their !!!! so they don't have to. Well done in life. Little sheep. Baa.

And the Daily Mail reading Middle classes (and middle class wannabees) are nothing but little yes-men panting at the feet of their own superiors in the hope for a scrap of the table.

purplebutterfly

Deepmistrust wrote: »

just remember those children will be supporting you in your old age, by working and paying taxes for YOUR pension

Rather unlikely in my particular case but I can see what you're saying. Assuming that these children DO actually work - which I think was the main crux of this argument anyway?

Hmmmmm, whilst they are sweeping the steets, do you think they could find time to turn down my bed? Purrrrrrrrrr

gruggles

:mad:Can someone explain why we are forcing cuts on the parents and children of this country, when we are still spending BILLIONS on foreign "aid" and ILLEGAL WARS. I realise this goes against PC. brainwashing, but when is charity at home going to be talked about, no sorry, SCREAMED about. Look after our kids, the elderly and infirm first, lets not pay for the next Indian rocket launch or mugabes new limo. :mad: PS. I read somewhere that the EU costs the equivalent of £2000 a family per annum, so much for free trade. Lets all start SCREAMING, STOP THE LUNACY CHARITY BEGINS AT HOME.

Deepmistrust

gruggles wrote: »

:mad:Can someone explain why we are forcing cuts on the parents and children of this country, when we are still spending BILLIONS on foreign "aid" and ILLEGAL WARS. I realise this goes against PC. brainwashing, but when is charity at home going to be talked about, no sorry, SCREAMED about. Look after our kids, the elderly and infirm first, lets not pay for the next Indian rocket launch or mugabes new limo. :mad: PS. I read somewhere that the EU costs the equivalent of £2000 a family per annum, so much for free trade. Lets all start SCREAMING, STOP THE LUNACY CHARITY BEGINS AT HOME.

Thank you, exactly the argument I make.

Not only that, why are people accepting that benefits receipients (i.e. some of the poorest and most vunerable in society), be responsible for bailing out the people who got us into this mess in the first place (i.e. greedy and incompetant bankers, and the corrupt politicians who pander to them).

The two wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) alone, so far have cost over 20 BILLION pounds.

And yet people on here are whining about single mums and disabled people for getting "tax payers money".

Sickening.

pault123

I have to admit the changes make perfect sense.

Gordon brown kept harping on about loss of child tax credits on the live debates, but in reality its only affecting people earning more than £50k, and then £40k after a couple of years who should need help anyway. I mean is £45 a month loss really going to bankrupt a couple on £50k?

Also sub £40k people are actually better off!

Now weather a family who have chosen to have kids who only earn £10k are entitled to £6000+ in free money is another question!

tinkerbell28

It's a misleading article as the figures are for only one child with those only entitled to the family element, no mention of those with more kids, disability element, childcare element, so I wouldn't run around like a headless chicken just yet.

Still a good budget IMO.