Deleted

N1AK

ruggedtoast wrote: »

That these six people thanked you too. Dreadful. I would be ashamed to thank such a wretched piece of writing.

They are not being irresponsible you just don't personally like them because they claim benefits, so your minds are full of prejudice.

It is not like someone in the 3rd world having 10 children knowing 7 of them will die due to starvation.

I went back and thanked this just because of your nonsense tirade, it's now at 16 thanks which must tear you up. I didn't care for the cabbage comment but you made it worth getting over it.

They are being irresponsible, or greedy. They've had children they knew they can't afford and are expecting someone else to pay for it. That's a damn site worse than someone in Africa who has to have a family unit to support them in old-age because they won't get a house/pension/medical-care covered by the state.

ILW

bankhater_1965 wrote: »

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

I do not blame the receiver, I blame a system that seems to actively encourage what I would consider irresponsible behaviour.

N1AK

Percy1983 wrote: »

On the flipside early on in my career I was earning less than I could have in benefits, but I stuck at it and now I earn a lot more than benefits. Do people not have long term goals anymore?

This is true for many people. That said, someone who gets a job packing boxes in a factory for minimum wage won't just magically become site manager in 15 years and earn £60k. Many, if not most, will remain on the floor earning roughly the same money.

If I had started work knowing that the odds of reaching a high(er) level were pretty slim I would have found it much more difficult to motivate myself to do it.

ILW

N1AK wrote: »

This is true for many people. That said, someone who gets a job packing boxes in a factory for minimum wage won't just magically become site manager in 15 years and earn £60k. Many, if not most, will remain on the floor earning roughly the same money.

If I had started work knowing that the odds of reaching a high(er) level were pretty slim I would have found it much more difficult to motivate myself to do it.

And should plan their lifestyle (including number of children) accordingly.

mildred1978

ILW wrote: »

And should plan their lifestyle (including number of children) accordingly.

Well said.

Our household income before having our son was £120k+ per annum. Neither of us had been unemployed in 18/19 years. That's a huge input to the coffers from us - over £30k per year and more than £300k in the past 10.

Once son was born I took redundancy, and didn't claim JSA because i wasn't looking for work. Our son gets £20 a week child benefit which gets topped up to £100 per month straight into his savings. So that's a whopping £1k per annum.

We then started our own company in April. Our turnover/income should be around the same, but we'll pay in around £10k in tax. Do I feel guilty for taking advantage of a loophole? Not one little bit.

We've more than paid into the system, and I'm sick of subsidising the lives of !!!!less individuals. Someone I grew up with has never worked a single day in her life and had 4 children (to 3 fathers) by the age of 24. She spends her days smoking, planning nights out when the kids are with their dads, and complaining on facebook about teachers striking because it interrupts her week. Makes my blood boil.

GeorgeHowell

mildred1978 wrote: »

Well said.

Our household income before having our son was £120k+ per annum. Neither of us had been unemployed in 18/19 years. That's a huge input to the coffers from us - over £30k per year and more than £300k in the past 10.

Once son was born I took redundancy, and didn't claim JSA because i wasn't looking for work. Our son gets £20 a week child benefit which gets topped up to £100 per month straight into his savings. So that's a whopping £1k per annum.

We then started our own company in April. Our turnover/income should be around the same, but we'll pay in around £10k in tax. Do I feel guilty for taking advantage of a loophole? Not one little bit.

We've more than paid into the system, and I'm sick of subsidising the lives of !!!!less individuals. Someone I grew up with has never worked a single day in her life and had 4 children (to 3 fathers) by the age of 24. She spends her days smoking, planning nights out when the kids are with their dads, and complaining on facebook about teachers striking because it interrupts her week. Makes my blood boil.

Of course. No right-minded, self-supporting, tax-paying, law abiding person is going to be content with their taxes being used to subsidise the f e c k less.

What I think is happening is that our illustrious civil service, in characteristic defeatist and cynical fashion, has decided that a significant slug of parasitic underclass is now a British political reality and it isn't worth, or even advisable, to try to reverse the situation.

They figure that with increased affluence it is possible for society to use that affluence to allow those who choose to forego the joys of working for a living to do so without significant penalty to their standard of living.

They further calculate that if the underclass does not receive what it thinks it is entitled to it will just come out and take it, as we saw last August, so that riots and civil disturbance would become the norm. This being especially true given the liberal criminal justice system that we have (and which they have engineered for the last 50 years in order to display their liberal credentials and assuage their sense of middle class guilt).

They also recognise that we have one major political party that keeps managing to get itself elected at regular intervals which embraces the policy of work being an optional extra, so that attempts to reverse the policy are likely to result in a constant pendulum swing.

For all these reasons the Sir Humphreys are no doubt piling the pressure on the coalition ministers to go easy on this and to ensure that any moves towards a proper safety-net welfare system are primarily based on tokenism. We have to hope that for once minsters are strong enough to overcome Sir Humphrey and do it anyway. Even Lib Dem ministers appear to have grasped the economic suicide of a policy that does not require all those who can work to work, or suffer consequences if they will not.

bankhater_1965

FTBFun wrote: »

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

they did get the minimum it had no limit to earnings until now

mildred1978

bankhater_1965 wrote: »

they did get the minimum it had no limit to earnings until now

There has always been a limit. My son is 2 and we've never been 'entitled'.

bankhater_1965

mildred1978 wrote: »

There has always been a limit. My son is 2 and we've never been 'entitled'.

i was on the understanding everyone with kids got it up to 16, even the minimum of approx £40 a month until it was changed recently
when you say not entitled .. it is a benefit that has to be claimed every year not like child benefit...did you apply for it ?

mildred1978

bankhater_1965 wrote: »

i was on the understanding everyone with kids got it up to 16, even the minimum of approx £40 a month until it was changed recently
when you say not entitled .. it is a benefit that has to be claimed every year not like child benefit...did you apply for it ?

We earn 6 figures. You think we'd get tax credits, do you?!