We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 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!
Stay-at-home parents to lose out in child benefit reform
Comments
-
Gordon Brown wasn't in power for 13 years...We put up with 13 years of filthy socialism. Time to wake up and sniff the coffee dear.
Anyone can buy a vote with benefits. The coalition are making difficult decisions because thats the right thing to do, something Gordon Brown never bothered to consider.
btw when did this socialism happen - i must have missed it.0 -
Even in the 21st century to seriously progress in your career you need to work full time. So while there may be a short term gain, in the long term you would probably lose out.
Maybe he is as far as he wants to go. Not everyone wants a career.“A budget is telling your money where to go instead of wondering where it went.” - Dave Ramsey0 -
Gordon Brown wasn't in power for 13 years...
btw when did this socialism happen - i must have missed it.
Sorry, want to remind me who held the purse strings for the majority of it?
Iron Chancellor my @rse. He spent all the money. The coalition are sorting it out. Deal with it.
Socialism? Want to look at state spending as a % of GDP, 1997-2010?
We had figures most stalinist nations would have been proud of by the time they finished.
0 -
that's all lovely but not any where remotely close to what i asked.Sorry, want to remind me who held the purse strings for the majority of it?
Iron Chancellor my @rse. He spent all the money. The coalition are sorting it out. Deal with it.
Socialism? Want to look at state spending as a % of GDP, 1997-2010?
We had figures most stalinist nations would have been proud of by the time they finished.
do you always reply to each post with the same thing?0 -
not too long ago the Tories and David Cameron were blabbing on about marriage and relationships and looking after them etc...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8463907.stm
today's move is far from this - cue the Tory party bots to defend today's actions...
I'm not really one for stay at home mums to be honest especially once a child reaches about 2. When ever i have visited a child play centre with mine I always find the stay at home middle class type mums sitting having a chit chat and little interaction with the children etc. Always makes me laugh how the wife ends up with sometimes up to 5 kids wanting to join in with her fun with our kids.
I can see the point that if you can afford for one parent to stay at home you can afford to not be paid child benefit but for me at least waiting till the child is 5 would be a good thing as there are lot of people who believe that sending a child to child care is a bad thing.0 -
Or indeed teachers with rich husbands.
These days high income earners tend to marry high income earners, thus reducing the number of households with high income earners as they are concentrated.
Do you happen to know any teachers with rich husbands?
You should be ashamed of yourself for your earlier outburst - I cannot imagine what drove you to post a personal attack thread, but you have certainly lost my respect, and if my inbox is anything to go by, the respect of many other regulars too.0 -
that's all lovely but not any where remotely close to what i asked.
do you always reply to each post with the same thing?
Yes I did. Economic woes caused by ineffective and wasteful economic policy during the boom years - nothing saved for a rainy day. Conservative 1992-1997 plentiful legacy wasted entirely.
One man responsible, the "Iron" Chancellor.
Socialist - you just have to look at state spending in relation to GDP to relate to that. Or are you too thick to compute that?0 -
Ok so that was the expenditure side of the balance sheet. And the income side?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards