Sure STart Grant cut off for consecutive children?????

Deepmistrust

leveller2911 wrote: »

Deepmistrust wrote: »

Ok so quote me where I said all low income earners.....

I've already addressed the anecdotal story - It's not relevant at all. If your intention is to have a gripe about an individual you know who has a warped idea about using a pregnancy to get a council house, then those people will always exist as a minority (expecially considering the difficulting in getting council housing anyway), and are not the point of the debate, and I have no interest in yet again having another thread wander off on a tangent to discuss the minority of a minority, when discussing the wider picture of the benefits system.


No it doesn't it shows a distint differing opinion to yours thats all ......Its just opinions ..Do you live on a Council estate? What do you do for a living?.......

Why on earth is where I live or what I do for a living relevant?

Deepmistrust

"For many it is , im afraid..Ive lived on Council Eastates ALL of my life so I think I am qualified to have an opinion on the subject"

When faced with this line of "logic" I will give my usual response. A person does not have to witness evolution in action in order to have an understanding or an educated opinion on it.

Nor does your personal circumstances give you greater insight (hence my earlier point about anecdotal and eyewitness stories).

leveller2911

Deepmistrust wrote: »

You want statistics to prove the exact costs of raising children, there are numerous out there. Just use your google toolbar. Recent studies will show a cost of nearly 200k per child. (hardly going to reduce this by much if they use a hand-me-down baby bath:rotfl:)

Recent studdies showed that salt in the diet can be good for you, after being told in other studies that salt is bad for you..

It's quite funny that your idea of the difference between having children or not, equates to some baby equipment.

And you accused me of being patronizing....lol

There are many more aspects you have to consider, such as any detriment to career, increased housing needs, increased food bills, utility bills, childcare, any extra cirricular education or sports, clothing, pocket money, increased expenditure on routine family outings or trips, increased travel expenses...the list is never ending. I thought you had kids?

Many people see the short term view of extra money rather than the long term picture....Patronizing againg Deepmist, carefull sweetcheeks water off a ducks back......

Deepmistrust

"I agree that it benefits society to bridge the gap between rich and poor , but who do you regard as poor? "

In this context I'm talking about those in the UK that are relatively poor. As opposed to abject poverty which is more common in third world countries.

Any person who earns less than 50% of the national average and thus qualifies for state assistance is the general accepted definition of poor in the uk.

leveller2911

Deepmistrust wrote: »

"For many it is , im afraid..Ive lived on Council Eastates ALL of my life so I think I am qualified to have an opinion on the subject"

When faced with this line of "logic" I will give my usual response. A person does not have to witness evolution in action in order to have an understanding or an educated opinion on it.

Nor does your personal circumstances give you greater insight (hence my earlier point about anecdotal and eyewitness stories).

Your just like a Nu Labour MP telling us whats best for us rather than us knowing what we need ......Not an MP are you? worked at Nu Lab head office and lost your job recently?

Socialist always know how to spend my money better than I do and theyre always right.......... I dont think we will agree so Ive said enough me thinks.....Nice chatting to you though....

Deepmistrust

leveller2911 wrote: »

Many people see the short term view of extra money rather than the long term picture....Patronizing againg Deepmist, carefull sweetcheeks water off a ducks back......

You asked for some evidence, I have pointed you in the direction of studies. They will of course vary, and the lower quartiles and upper quartiles will probably be quite widely spread

I'm not really sure you know what argument to take to be honest.

leveller2911

Deepmistrust wrote: »

"I agree that it benefits society to bridge the gap between rich and poor , but who do you regard as poor? "

In this context I'm talking about those in the UK that are relatively poor. As opposed to abject poverty which is more common in third world countries.

Any person who earns less than 50% of the national average and thus qualifies for state assistance is the general accepted definition of poor in the uk.

Will let others rip that one apart........bye for now;)

Deepmistrust

leveller2911 wrote: »

Your just like a Nu Labour MP telling us whats best for us rather than us knowing what we need ......Not an MP are you? worked at Nu Lab head office and lost your job recently?

Socialist always know how to spend my money better than I do and theyre always right.......... I dont think we will agree so Ive said enough me thinks.....Nice chatting to you though....

Is this the point where you degenerate into an argument of ad hominen, and crumble at any point put to you?

If so, then as tedious as you are, it's been fun. :wave:

Deepmistrust

leveller2911 wrote: »

Will let others rip that one apart........bye for now;)

ok, or you could use the proper definition of poor, which is along the lines of what I quoted. I await "ripping" from other unknowledgable barkers.

Breast_Cancer_Survivor

Deepmistrust wrote: »

This argument is circuitous. First you have to actually understand the difference between the two.

She is clearly stating she CANNOT afford to have another child without ASSISTANCE (which is what the grant is).

Nor is this anecdotal example proof that the grant is an "Incentive" rather than "assistance".

You say yourself you are on benefits. Are you suggesting that the assistance you receive is an INCENTIVE to not work for you?

If that is the case, then the INCENTIVE must be a better alterantive to NOT having claiming benefits (i.e. to be truthfully an incentive you would have to be better off on benefits) Do you see the analogy yet?

Even with the ASSISTANCE - she would NOT be better off by having a baby in financial terms, than not having a baby.

So it is NOT an incentive, it's ASSISTANCE.

She already wants a baby. The money is not motivating her to have a baby. But the lack of money may prevent her from having one anyway.

I'm not against benefits anyone who falls on hard times is entitled to claim them.

I'm on benefits because i'm ill & will be returning to work once i'm well.

I have never agreed with the pregnancy grants & cutting them will go along way to saving the Country some money.

We will have to agree to disagree on the op's point of view as neither of us knows the real reason for her contemplating having another child.

I am autistic so don't always take things the right way but in this instance other people have read what the op had said as that she will have another baby if she will get the grants otherwise she won't bother.

Obviously that is a much wanted child if not receiving a grant is enough to deter you from adding to your family.

I'm not going to argue with you we are all entitled to our opinions & that is mine.