Families hit by benefits changes

atush

Percy1983 wrote: »

Maybe we have enough people so stop paying people to breed.

It isn't paying people to breed really. It is instead of a per child allowance against taxes so that those who don't earn wnough to pay taxes could get it as well. It also was paid in cahs to the mother so that they would have money to stop male manual workers from p*ssing it away each payday before giving over any money for food etc.

Most other first world countries have an allowance per dependant child set against tax.

The_White_Horse

atush wrote: »

Most other first world countries have an allowance per dependant child set against tax.

which is exactly what we should have here. Stop the cretins and leeches getting their hands on it.

Linda_D_2

The_White_Horse wrote: »

you shouldn't be posting if you are unable to read. I can more than afford to pay for my children. I was merely pointing out the unfairness of a system where a family on 44k with one parent working gets nothing but a family with two working parents on a combined 80k continues to get it. perhaps you are too daft to understand that concept. Do you understand it? Do you?

You stupid inept cretin.

And by the way, the small amount of tax i get back in CB is a drop in the ocean. I am well and truly a net payer.

Better luck next time love.

Face the facts, you're a scrounging benefit parasite who should have been neutered at birth.

Flight2quality

The_White_Horse wrote: »

4 bedroom????? make it 2. that is two more than the scum bags can actually afford.

How do you fancy moving back to a 2 bedroom flat Linda?

So all families with more than a couple of kids on low incomes will have to move away from London?

Are there laws about boys and girls sharing bedrooms after a certain age? There should be.

ILW

Flight2quality wrote: »

So all families with more than a couple of kids on low incomes will have to move away from London?

Are there laws about boys and girls sharing bedrooms after a certain age? There should be.

If you are on a low income, and decide to have two kids, you should not expect to live in the most expensive part of the country. Adjust your lifestyle to your income !!!!!!, or up your earnings to pay for your lifestyle.

Percy1983

Flight2quality wrote: »

So all families with more than a couple of kids on low incomes will have to move away from London?

Are there laws about boys and girls sharing bedrooms after a certain age? There should be.

People who work have to live in the accomodation they can afford, if they want more children they need to work harder. get a bigger income and get a bigger house.

I none worker just has the kids and gets the bigger house.

I do question why I go to work at times.

Flight2quality

ILW wrote: »

If you are on a low income, and decide to have two kids, you should not expect to live in the most expensive part of the country. Adjust your lifestyle to your income !!!!!!, or up your earnings to pay for your lifestyle.

True of course. But the main issue here is can the government just go cold turkey and cut total benefits down to 480 a week per family? This will be catastrophic for all families getting about 250 per week housing and council tax benefit. Most of those affected will be in inner London, but riots and social unrest could spread far more than it did in 2011.

Wheezy_2

ILW wrote: »

If you are on a low income, and decide to have two kids, you should not expect to live in the most expensive part of the country.

So where are all those on a low income supposed to live then? Oldham? And commute in on a 10K season ticket?

There are loads of people in London getting paid a wage too low to provide housing in or anyway near within a commutable distance to London.

What salary is a Tesco shelf stacker on in Richmond? What about cleaners, chambermaids, dishwashers...etc...?

Who is going to do all the low-skilled, low-paid work when they're all forced out of the capital?

You either up their income dramatically (fat chance) or...yep, subsidize their housing.

grizzly1911

Flight2quality wrote: »

Most of those affected will be in inner London, but riots and social unrest could spread far more than it did in 2011.

Brings back memories of 1981 but they have landed it on their own doorstep, this time, just in time for the Olympics, don't you just love 'em.:doh:

I don't agree with open ended housing by the way. If we still had council housing that had been invested in rather than sold off to prop up councils:think:

drwho2011

Wheezy wrote: »

So where are all those on a low income supposed to live then? Oldham? And commute in on a 10K season ticket?

There are loads of people in London getting paid a wage too low to provide housing in or anyway near within a commutable distance to London.

What salary is a Tesco shelf stacker on in Richmond? What about cleaners, chambermaids, dishwashers...etc...?

Who is going to do all the low-skilled, low-paid work when they're all forced out of the capital?

You either up their income dramatically (fat chance) or...yep, subsidize their housing.

Interesting point. But why should the state subsidize low wages.

What about supply and demand?

If people can't afford to work for the wages offered then they will rise as a result or the employer will have to change the way it delivers its goods and/or services.

Or maybe some of these jobs will go to the 1m+ unemployed 18-24 yr olds of which many are likely to be living at home.

End of the day employers and people will either adapt or die