Deleted

bankhater_1965

ukcarper wrote: »

I think it’s a waste of time discussing this with him as he seems to have the same morals than the bankers he hates.

morals!! its reality , this has nothing to do with banks , you need to open your eyes to whats happening around you instead of just imagining a little world full of fairies

ukcarper

bankhater_1965 wrote: »

maybe so , skilled work pays no more than £10 per hour gross and manual nite shift work in supermarkets pay £7 per hour gross , take a walk down to your local job centre i think you may have a shock these figures are very close to reality and the £10 per hour work isnt avaible as much as the nmw as you would expect[/QUOT

The example I gave was for minimum wage and that couple would be £89 a week better off if one of them took that job.

　

ukcarper

bankhater_1965 wrote: »

morals!! its reality , this has nothing to do with banks , you need to open your eyes to whats happening around you instead of just imagining a little world full of fairies

I’m afraid I’m well aware of what’s going on around me, but I can’t see any difference between a rich person milking the system or benefits claimant doing the same and the fact that one does is not an excuse for the other one to.

bankhater_1965

ukcarper wrote: »

I’m afraid I’m well aware of what’s going on around me, but I can’t see any difference between a rich person milking the system or benefits claimant doing the same and the fact that one does is not an excuse for the other one to.

i honest believe that there are people that have contributed to this thread against people claiming the benefits , when they have themselves claimed child tax credit which has to be applied for every year otherwise you dont get it and personaly dont need it BUT still claimed it regardless to pay for the annual holiday maybe or change of car or new furniture maybe or maybe pay towards private school fees all payed for by the taxpayer, how annoying !!!!!!!!!!!, unlike child benefit which is paid automaticly up to 16 years of age , to me this is no differant to the people they condem for doing the same , hypercritical

ukcarper

bankhater_1965 wrote: »

i honest believe that there are people that have contributed to this thread against people claiming the benefits , when they have themselves claimed child tax credit which has to be applied for every year otherwise you dont get it and personaly dont need it BUT still claimed it regardless to pay for the annual holiday maybe or change of car or new furniture maybe or maybe pay towards private school fees all payed for by the taxpayer, how annoying !!!!!!!!!!!, unlike child benefit which is paid automaticly up to 16 years of age , to me this is no differant to the people they condem for doing the same , hypercritical

You will glad to know I haven’t claimed child tax credit or any tax credit come to that. But I do see a difference if someone is prepared to work I don’t see why they shouldn’t be helped. At least they are contributing something to the society they live in.

ILW

The well off tax avoider is usually a net taxpayer.
The benefits pro is generally a net tax taker.

bankhater_1965

ILW wrote: »

The well off tax avoider is usually a net taxpayer.
The benefits pro is generally a net tax taker.

i do agree but who is the giver to the benefits ? the goverment pay the benefits that they set the amounts and who can claim , blame them but not the reciever in every aspect
alot of this thread is fed through hypercritacal members

drc

Maybe council's should have a new definition of becoming "intentionally overcrowded" in the same way that people who don't pay their rent and are evicted are considered by most council's to have made themselves "intentionally homeless". The definition of being "intentionally overcrowded" would be having more children than the property is reasonably deemed to support.

So for Ms Nelson, after she had her 3rd child, she would be deemed "intentionally overcrowded", having had more children when she knew her home was not big enough. Those fitting this definition would not automatically be entitled to a bigger home as they have probably put themselves in the situation precisely so they can leapfrog those who haven't had more kids than they can comfortably house.

FTBFun

bankhater_1965 wrote: »

i honest believe that there are people that have contributed to this thread against people claiming the benefits , when they have themselves claimed child tax credit which has to be applied for every year otherwise you dont get it and personaly dont need it BUT still claimed it regardless to pay for the annual holiday maybe or change of car or new furniture maybe or maybe pay towards private school fees all payed for by the taxpayer, how annoying !!!!!!!!!!!, unlike child benefit which is paid automaticly up to 16 years of age , to me this is no differant to the people they condem for doing the same , hypercritical

If someone can afford private education for their children, I would say it is somewhat unlikely they get child tax credit.

GeorgeHowell

bankhater_1965 wrote: »

morals!! its reality , this has nothing to do with banks , you need to open your eyes to whats happening around you instead of just imagining a little world full of fairies

I'm not sure what that cryptic comment is driving at.

What is of issue is whether or not a policy of paying people more in benefits than they could earn comprises economic suicide for the nation in the medium/long term. The government, including the Lib Dems (not renowned for their right-wing stance) apparently thinks that it is. Labour, which created the policy, apparently does not. This is because the LibDems represent the respectable but misguided left, whereas Labour represents the loony left.

The loony left deludes itself into believing that if anyone is not working it must be because they cannot get the work they feel entitled to, and not because they are disinclined to work at all (but they must not be required to take what work is available). It also believes that anyone who is not working must not be 'socially excluded' by having a standard of living below the average worker -- not the lowest paid -- worker. It also believes that there should be financial incentive, not disincentive, for the serially unemployed to breed at a faster rate than the employed, thus potentially creating an even higher proportion of serially unemployed. It further believes that those who are willing and able to hold down a job have a sort of unfair advantage of those who cannot and will not, such that they have a moral obligation to chip in, in order to keep the latter in the manner to which they aspire, in perpetuity.

The inevitable consequence of such a policy is an impoverished and deeply & dangerously divided nation. Those who espouse and support this policy have a point of view which in a democracy they are entitled to hold and express, but which does not merit serious consideration by those with a modicum of intelligence and common sense.