Stay-at-home parents to lose out in child benefit reform

LilacPixie

spaceboy wrote: »

Well perhaps.

How much is child benefit anyway?

£20 ish a week 1st child and 13 ish a week for each other child.

mbga9pgf

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Ok so that was the expenditure side of the balance sheet. And the income side?

Yeah, because Gordon did so well over the past 12 months. Want to remind me how many zeros there are in 165 billion?

And of course, increasing taxation past 40% of GDP is well renowned for private sector recoveries isnt it?

spaceboy

LilacPixie wrote: »

£20 ish a week 1st child and 13 ish a week for each other child.

£1000 a year then.

chucky

mbga9pgf wrote: »

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.

you get better post by post - don't let clinical depression hit you, you'd have to rely on the welfare state... that would be beneath you wouldn't it...

mbga9pgf wrote: »

Or are you too thick to compute that?

this is my favourite part of your post - shows that you'll do anything to protect the Tories. it's quite cute.

btw - how come you don't post the income side in your graph?

Rochdale_Pioneers

mbga9pgf wrote: »

Yeah, because Gordon did so well over the past 12 months. Want to remind me how many zeros there are in 165 billion?

And of course, increasing taxation past 40% of GDP is well renowned for private sector recoveries isnt it?

And for the period leading up to 2005 like on your chart?

mbga9pgf

chucky wrote: »

you get better post by post - don't let clinical depression hit you, you'd have to rely on the welfare state... that would be beneath you wouldn't it...

this is my favourite part of your post - shows that you'll do anything to protect the Tories. it's quite cute.

btw - how come you don't post the income side in your graph?

Because if I were to look at the tax take since 2007, it would probably have clinical depression.

I thought the coalition had ringfenced the NHS budget (at least the productive segments, I would be sh!tting bricks if I were in a middle management NHS non job right now).

Found one, that shows the fantastic Deficit Gordon ran almost every single year he was chancellor.



What a f*ckwit he was. Time for the poor people to feel the pain.

Aberdeenangarse

chucky wrote: »

btw - how come you don't post the income side in your graph?

Why don't you post your income on the side of the graph? That should give us all a laugh :j

chucky

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Ok so that was the expenditure side of the balance sheet. And the income side?

has the Poor Man's Tory Boy posted the income part of the graph yet...

mbga9pgf

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

And for the period leading up to 2005 like on your chart?

Yeah, because it was really difficult raising tax on securitized mortgages that cost this nation hundreds of billions in bailouts, or tax from vat on the hundreds of billions of unsecured lending?

Not to forget income tax on non jobs that were generated and paid for courtesy of the deficit....

Gordon, What a c*nt.

chucky

Aberdeenangarse wrote: »

Why don't you post your income on the side of the graph? That should give us all a laugh :j

oh dear - it's one of those types that doesn't use his real User Id on the forum because he's a bit cowardly like that...

man up - what was your previous user id, stop hiding.