Child Benefit Farce

BobQ

Zero_Sum wrote: »

which is the general gist of my argument. I don't have Children.
Yes there's many services out there I could use, but for whatever reason I don't/haven't.

Well in that case why not write to Prudential (or whoever) to get your car insurance and house insurance refunded because you have not made a claim on that!

Zero_Sum

BobQ wrote: »

Well in that case why not write to Prudential (or whoever) to get your car insurance and house insurance refunded because you have not made a claim on that!

I'm not complaing about it. Merely someone clamed I was a net taker & I don't agree.

BobQ

The_White_Horse wrote: »

this is a hamfisted attempt to look populist by that moron osbourne. all he has done is lost loads of votes from middle england. the lefty still hates him because he went to a good school and uni. how dare he.

On that I agree. He could have done it properly but instead deferred it and has made himself look stupid even to "non-lefties" like yourself. Its what happens when Government policy is developed following populist statements at party conferences.

If I were a lefty, I could think of many other reasons to hate his policies without blaming him for where he was educated.

exarmydreamer

The_White_Horse wrote: »

it's drivel. pathetic lefty drivel. first (for the umpteenth billionth time - keep up lefties) i am not moaning about losing it (although of course I would rather keep it as it is my money). my main gripe is the unfairness of people on 60k losing it and those on 99k keeping it.

Christ, are you still going on about what the rich get. You sound like a SOCIALIST

CLAPTON

Zero_Sum wrote: »

it does for my circumstances. I accpet an average earner with a few kids would be net takers, but I was talking about me, not the population in general.

you say you don't benefit from the NHS?

do you therefore have comprehensive health insurance or do you plan to use NHS if you are involved in a car crash, cancer or equivalent?


you don't have children so you don't benefit from education spending?
education spending allows the education of engineers, scientists, doctors, nurses, lawyers, judges, police, forensics etc; are you saying you don't benefit from these people's education?

unkle

There is a very simple answer to all of this:

1. Scrap all benefits, and I mean all. State Pensions, Housing, CB, Tax credits blah blah blah.
2. Scrap all Tax codes, everyone pays tax on every penny they earn (but keeping the 20p/40p/45p etc).
3. Every 'Adult' receives what is the equivalent minimum amount of money needed to live on.

The above will probably save billions in unnecessary red tape and trim down the public sector departments that often costs as much as they give out, working will always pay as you won't lose benefits or whatever if you go out to work.

CLAPTON

unkle wrote: »

There is a very simple answer to all of this:

1. Scrap all benefits, and I mean all. State Pensions, Housing, CB, Tax credits blah blah blah.
2. Scrap all Tax codes, everyone pays tax on every penny they earn (but keeping the 20p/40p/45p etc).
3. Every 'Adult' receives what is the equivalent minimum amount of money needed to live on.

The above will probably save billions in unnecessary red tape and trim down the public sector departments that often costs as much as they give out, working will always pay as you won't lose benefits or whatever if you go out to work.

it's giving everyone the 'equivalent minimum amount of money needed to live on' a benefit and a massive one too?

BobQ

CLAPTON wrote: »

it's giving everyone the 'equivalent minimum amount of money needed to live on' a benefit and a massive one too?

Fortunately there will lots of unemployed ex DWP staff open to job offers to dispense the "equivalent minimum amount of money needed to live on".