Child tax credit limit reduced to £26,000

shedboy94

custardy wrote: »

If the OP doesnt need the money,then theres no point in the thread.thus it proves the point of the cap.
however if the OP does need the oney,its a relevant suggestion
given the OP has thanked you,it seems she doesn't need the money

I think you'll find she didn't start the thread. Whether she needs the money or not, there was no need for anyone to start having a go at her, just because she stated what she decided to spend it on.
I'll leave it at that.

melly1980

shedboy94 wrote: »

Originally Posted by melly1980
If you were to walk into the house of someone low paid or not working and living off benefits you know full well that you would see mobile phones, playstations etc etc. These are essentially being paid for by the state

To be fair, this does indicate you are speaking about everyone who is low paid or on benefits.

find where I say that it applies to everyone.

melly1980

Hiddenidenity wrote: »

I think you implied everyone in your post actually
Originally Posted by melly1980
If you were to walk into the house of someone low paid or not working and living off benefits you know full well that you would see mobile phones, playstations etc etc. These are essentially being paid for by the state.

so someone = everyone. As in "all"

I think your will find that it doesnt. Hence I did not say that everyone had these luxuries, that is an assumption.

shedboy94

Mrs_Arcanum wrote: »

The OP could have chosen to use this meagre amount of money to save towards her daughters university expenses. Something those in Scotland get for free.

Perhaps it would be fairer if ONLY Scottish residents lost this money. After all they get extra benefits those in England do not, yet we contribute towards.

Yes because Scottish people don't pay the same amount of Tax or NI that English people do......... ???Why stop there, why not ban the Welsh and Irish from claiming benefits as well!!!

custardy

shedboy94 wrote: »

I think you'll find she didn't start the thread. Whether she needs the money or not, there was no need for anyone to start having a go at her, just because she stated what she decided to spend it on.
I'll leave it at that.

but I wasnt 'having a go'
was I?

shedboy94

melly1980 wrote: »

so someone = everyone. As in "all"

I think your will find that it doesnt. Hence I did not say that everyone had these luxuries, that is an assumption.

Your whole post was an assumption!!! If it wasn't then who were you referring to if you were being specific as opposed to meaning everyone?

shedboy94

custardy wrote: »

but I wasnt 'having a go'
was I?

I never said you specifically were having a go, but there were others who were. If you check back you will see my 1st post quoted someone else who did have a go and was being unpleasant and sarcastic.

custardy

shedboy94 wrote: »

I never said you specifically were having a go, but there were others who were. If you check back you will see my 1st post quoted someone else who did have a go and was being unpleasant and sarcastic.

but you chose to quote my post, and make an attacking comment
thats okay though,isnt it?

melly1980

shedboy94 wrote: »

Your whole post was an assumption!!! If it wasn't then who were you referring to if you were being specific as opposed to meaning everyone?

There is no assumption at all on my part, it is a fact that there are people on welfare with luxury items. This message board alone proves that to be a fact when you have people with no jobs and yet have the internet and computers. Its a fact, not opinion nor assumption. Once you get past the fact that my post wasnt talking about everyone then it is crystal clear that what I posted is true

The assumption came when somebody assumed that my post applied to everyone on benefits.It didnt and furthermore nobody can provide a single quote where I attached the quantity "all" or "everyone" to the point. It didnt happen.

shedboy94

melly1980 wrote: »

There is no assumption at all on my part, it is a fact that there are people on welfare with luxury items. This message board alone proves that to be a fact when you have people with no jobs and yet have the internet and computers. Its a fact, not opinion nor assumption. Once you get past the fact that my post wasnt talking about everyone then it is crystal clear that what I posted is true

The assumption came when somebody assumed that my post applied to everyone on benefits.It didnt and furthermore nobody can provide a single quote where I attached the quantity "all" or "everyone" to the point. It didnt happen.

Again, if you weren't giving a general statement, then who's house could I walk into and see all these luxury items?
You are now assuming that to be able to post on here you need to have a computer - I am posting from work, others may be posting from friends/relatives houses, libraries etc.