I am thinking of defecting to labour. seriously.

The_White_Horse

good replies. the better idea (if they couldn't be bothered to means test or do any maths) would have been to keep it to ONE CHILD only. far fairer.

if poor people want to have loads of kids they can't afford, then it is their concern as to how they feed and clothe them - NOT MINE.

i am enraged that my lefty teacher friends, whose combined income far exceeds my own are still taking child benefit. left wing guardian reading hypocrite scum.

The_White_Horse

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

What you forget is that 'Dave' would have given his right arm to deny child benefit to couples who have more than X income. But since there is no accepted practical definition of 'couple' he simply couldn't do it.

Don't blame the Government on this one. The Civil Servants wrestle with this sort of thing. Not governments.

if that is true, he should have made individual income the 20% level as the cut off point. then all but the very poorest are caught.

MegaMiniMouse

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

What you forget is that 'Dave' would have given his right arm to deny child benefit to couples who have more than X income. But since there is no accepted practical definition of 'couple' he simply couldn't do it.

Don't blame the Government on this one. The Civil Servants wrestle with this sort of thing. Not governments.

I understand your point, but actually there is a very simple definition of 'couple' - it's two people who live together and share everything

The problem is that in order to ascertain 'coupleship', you can no longer demand to see a marriage certificate, you actually have to go round to someone's house and TALK to people, omigod!

So many problems would simply evaporate if only 'officials' were allowed to talk to people instead of simply ticking boxes on a screen

MMM

Ilya_Ilyich

[quote=[Deleted User];41942758]
Why do we pay extra money for people who are classed as disabled? Why not just give them the services they need and that way stop the benefit cheats and still look after the genuine claimants?

Why are we paying extra money to provide incentives for the unemployed to breed? Why not make it a luxury you earn?
[/QUOTE]

Because the idea of preventing people from reproducing due to their economic status is absolutely abhorrent and inhuman? Because the poor are primarily poor due to historic discrimination and exploitation due to the capitalist classes? Because 'benefit cheats' account for a miniscule proportion of the money spent on benefits and the idea is one concocted solely to direct the anger of the lower/middle classes towards themselves rather than the capitalist class that is actually responsible for their plight?

1984ReturnsForReal_2

The_White_Horse wrote: »

all in this together? do me a favour.

What took you so long?

[Deleted User]

Ilya_Ilyich wrote: »

Because the idea of preventing people from reproducing due to their economic status is absolutely abhorrent and inhuman? Because the poor are primarily poor due to historic discrimination and exploitation due to the capitalist classes? Because 'benefit cheats' account for a miniscule proportion of the money spent on benefits and the idea is one concocted solely to direct the anger of the lower/middle classes towards themselves rather than the capitalist class that is actually responsible for their plight?

I think we need a much more meritocratic society and am all in favour of removing the obstacles that adversely effect those from poorer backgrounds.

However, there is a big difference between not having a level playing field when competing for better jobs and not making any effort to get any job.

Any working couple should be able to afford to reproduce.
Charity should be for the genuinely needy not the MANY work-shy parasites.

When the unemployment level reached 2 million, I can remember reading that there were 2 million advertised vacancies.

ILW

Ilya_Ilyich wrote: »

Because the idea of preventing people from reproducing due to their economic status is absolutely abhorrent and inhuman? Because the poor are primarily poor due to historic discrimination and exploitation due to the capitalist classes? Because 'benefit cheats' account for a miniscule proportion of the money spent on benefits and the idea is one concocted solely to direct the anger of the lower/middle classes towards themselves rather than the capitalist class that is actually responsible for their plight?

Would that just be classed as living within ones means? Why should others be forced to pay for people to have children they cannot afford to support themselves.

treliac

Ilya_Ilyich wrote: »

Because the idea of preventing people from reproducing due to their economic status is absolutely abhorrent and inhuman?

Well it worked with me. I would have loved more children but we couldn't afford them, despite both working as hard as we could.

Perhaps the few ultra wealthy could pay for the rest of us to sit at home having all the children we want .

property.advert

treliac wrote: »

Well it worked with me. I would have loved more children but we couldn't afford them, despite both working as hard as we could.

Perhaps the few ultra wealthy could pay for the rest of us to sit at home having all the children we want .

But that doesn't matter. Breed without thinking and leave the state to pick up the tab. Getting paid to breed is madness, just look at the great unwashed unemployable.

Ilya_Ilyich

ILW wrote: »

Would that just be classed as living within ones means? Why should others be forced to pay for people to have children they cannot afford to support themselves.

Do you think this is a significant issue that costs the nation's purse a significant amount? Do you have any numbers to back this up? Do you think focusing on this particular issue is likely to be a more cost-effective way to improve the budget balance than other courses of action? Do you think Britain has a significant problem of having an overly young population and thus should be trying to reduce the number of children being born here? Do you believe that it's acceptable (morally and economically) to deprive children of a fulfilling upbringing due to the social and economic class of their parents?