Families hit by benefits changes

Generali

SingleSue wrote: »

Not the scum bags bit though.....

Could you split the difference and agree that some of them might be scum bags?

Just a thought.

SingleSue

Possibly, but I like to think everyone has a nice bit.

kabayiri

Generali wrote: »

...

So they are an 'independent charity' that receive 97.5% of their funding at least from taxpayers. I hope you enjoyed the report you paid for.
...

There should be a 'one charity per family' rule, else we will be over run.

wotsthat

Generali wrote: »

So they are an 'independent charity' that receive 97.5% of their funding at least from taxpayers. I hope you enjoyed the report you paid for.

I've still got my standard letter ready for the day when the public are misguided enough to put me in charge.

Dear [insert name of taxpayer funded non-entity here]

It's with regret that I have to inform you that the taxpayer will no longer be funding your organisation.

As your work is so wonderful and valuable I'm sure you'll have no problem in persuading the private sector that [insert name of taxpayer funded non-entity here] is a worthy recipient of future funds.

Love

Prime Minister Wotsthat xx

useless_git_requires_wife

''family-friendly'' Cameron strikes again

tartanterra

The_White_Horse wrote: »

scum bags.

The_White_Horse wrote: »

it would have stopped incentivising the chav filth to breed like bacteria.

Have you ever considered a future in the Foreign Office?
It looks like you are ideally suited for the Diplomatic service.

Personally, I'd like to see you as "our man in Paris".
I reckon you would do a far better job at winding up Zarkozy than Cameron ever has.:D

ILW

If you cannot support children from your own endeavours, do not have them.

This of course excludes unforseen changes in circumstances which should recieve state help.

Generali

kabayiri wrote: »

There should be a 'one charity per family' rule, else we will be over run.

It's interesting when you dig into it (and I've only done a couple of charities) how many seem to get pretty much all of their money from the Government. This one gets most of their funds from the DfE so when people look at spending this gets lumped in as 'Education'. The reality AFAICS is that this charity spends a fraction of its money on educating people.

The Government is so vast and complex that it's basically impossible to see where the money's going. It'd be interesting to see how many charities are a rort.

tartanterra

The_White_Horse wrote: »

no, it is easy - you get money for 2. if you have more than 2 kids in your family, it doesn't matter who their parents are. 2 is the max.

maybe "household" would be better than family?

I think Family Allowance would be far better given as a tax allowance.

Those who contributed to society would get it, and those who didn't contribute..............

Percy1983

You could say 2 children per Women, should be easy enough to figure who popped out of where, who popped in before hand may get confusing.

I am all up for help with the first 2 children, but past that if you want more you pay for them, if you have them and can't afford them that is child abuse so you get them taken off you.

People go on about there human rights and the right to have children, but what about the rights of the poor babies not born from love but profit.