http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16675314

 

To cap, or not to cap?

Edited January 23, 201214 yr by Uncle Albert

Totally disagree with you on this one Yourri. I think everyone with children should be entitled to child benefit. When I bought my house 6 years ago I was living on my own and decided to stretch myself in order to a nice(ish) house in a nice area. 6 years on, I now have 2 kids and a girlfriend to support. I earn a decent wage but inflationary pressure coupled with static wages means that things are very very tight at the moment. My situation has changed and I need the relatively small amount of money we get in child benefit to get us through each month.

I think there should be a cap, but this to be done in tandem with bringing in more just taxation treatment of big business and the super-rich.

 

HMRC shaking on secret deals preferentially treating the likes of Goldman Sachs and Vodaphone, whilst going after the small businessman with onerous and ott demands.

Totally disagree with you on this one Yourri. I think everyone with children should be entitled to child benefit. When I bought my house 6 years ago I was living on my own and decided to stretch myself in order to a nice(ish) house in a nice area. 6 years on, I now have 2 kids and a girlfriend to support. I earn a decent wage but inflationary pressure coupled with static wages means that things are very very tight at the moment. My situation has changed and I need the relatively small amount of money we get in child benefit to get us through each month.

in 6 years you didant fuck about

Totally disagree with you on this one Yourri. I think everyone with children should be entitled to child benefit. When I bought my house 6 years ago I was living on my own and decided to stretch myself in order to a nice(ish) house in a nice area. 6 years on, I now have 2 kids and a girlfriend to support. I earn a decent wage but inflationary pressure coupled with static wages means that things are very very tight at the moment. My situation has changed and I need the relatively small amount of money we get in child benefit to get us through each month.

 

So you bought a house which you can longer afford due to a lifestyle change and you think you deserve benefit for it?

Righteo.

Edited January 24, 201214 yr by no balls

I overheard two women, one about 40 the other about 25. The younger one was asking for the loan of a pound to get a loaf on the ground that when she was giving her kids their tea yesterday she found out the bread was mouldy.

 

Damn near gave her a fiver.

 

That's why they need benefits. Thing is they should get it in food tokens.

 

Basics; milk, bread, etc, yes. Beer, wine, cigs, go fuck yourself.

Once the undeserving poor are dealt with I want to see a crackdown on the undeserving rich, things like mansion tax, 90% (at least) inheritence tax and soforth. Do that, get the likes of Vodafone to pay what they owe, massively reduce Parliament's expenses, stop giving money to Ireland and the deficit will disappear in a stroke, which will save us from infuriating news articles reporting that the deficit is going up and up and up and the government is borowing way more than even Labour said it would. Fact is this government is failing in every conceivable respect and the answer is for it to do what it never will, which is to claw some coin back from inherited wealth multi millionaire fucks (like our estemmed Prime Minister) who don't deserve a penny of their obscene fortune.

Edited January 24, 201214 yr by Maggie Tate

I overheard two women, one about 40 the other about 25. The younger one was asking for the loan of a pound to get a loaf on the ground that when she was giving her kids their tea yesterday she found out the bread was mouldy.

 

Damn near gave her a fiver.

 

That's why they need benefits. Thing is they should get it in food tokens.

 

Basics; milk, bread, etc, yes. Beer, wine, cigs, go fuck yourself.

 

spot on re the tokens, need some sort of system where they cant spent it on ale and fags. Dont know how ud do it like, maybe link with a national ID card they were on about years back

Once the undeserving poor are dealt with I want to see a crackdown on the undeserving rich, things like mansion tax, 90% (at least) inheritence tax and soforth. Do that, get the likes of Vodafone to pay what they owe, massively reduce Parliament's expenses, stop giving money to Ireland and the deficit will disappear in a stroke, which will save us from infuriating news articles reporting that the deficit is going up and up and up and the government is borowing way more than even Labour said it would. Fact is this government is failing in every conceivable respect and the answer is for it to do what it never will, which is to claw some coin back from inherited wealth multi millionaire fucks (like our estemmed Prime Minister) who don't deserve a penny of their obscene fortune.

 

That is the shittest Idea I have ever seen on here, if my Mum and Dad went tomorrow I wouldnt stand to get a fortune but I would be pissed off having to hand 90% over. There wouldnt be enough left over to cover a funeral.

 

I hope to leave my children (if im lucky enough to have any) a decent wedge when I go and I would be pissed off if 90% went after years of paying tax.

 

The masion tax is a load of shit as well, they where on about it on Sky News, the idea is.... any house over ?1,000,000 in value would have to pay x% of its value a year in tax (2% would be ?20,000 a year). Who would decide on values? You would end up with houses either being worth ?999,999 or ?2m+

 

My mates mum and dad paid about ?20k in late 60's and that must be worth near a million now, they would not be able to afford ?20,000 a year would they have to sell up?

We all know a story of genuine case and we ll know a story of a skanky cheating lying bastard

The difficulty is deciding who is genuine and who is not

 

You cannot base a judgement on a questionnaire

I'm all for looking after genuine cases, but how do you define a genuine case

All I know is anyone who has worked for more than 4/5 continually then gets made redundant in same job is probably genuine

Anyone who arrives in the country and has not worked in 3 months is probably not.

I am also bemused at the cap, ?26,0000 , isn't that excessive, do normal working folk earn that in a year and isn't that's the average wage of Police officer ? Who decided this cap?

 

Also stats I saw today a huge percentage of claimants are in London, why? And how?

 

So you bought a house which you can longer afford due to a lifestyle change and you think you deserve benefit for it?

Righteo.

"Lifestyle change" is an interesting way of putting it. Having kids is very expensive but we've managed it by making a lot of sacrifices. Giving up holidays, any thoughts of a new car and nights out amongst other things means that we do get by. But when we were working out whether we could afford children we allowed for the fact we would get some help. To take away child benefit now would in my opinion be unfair.

 

Do you really think that a couple in the their 30s who are bringing up kids who they hope will go on and make a meaningful contribution to society and pay for your and my pension deserve to pay exactly the same tax as a couple with no kids?

 

 

He was talking about same sex.

 

As I said though, they need to stop having babies, and we need to stop reward people for having them.

 

 

All my family have babies and all my family work

But if shit happened, they have all paid NI contributions for years, so I would expect them to be protected with state benefits

 

I accept there are people who breed for benefits, but how and where do you draw the line

It could be your daughter who makes one mistake, and then has to pay for it for the rest of her life

It is easy to cast judgment without knowing the facts, but why should a girl be deprived for having a child without a supporting father, and also be deprived of help from the state. Not all families can provide financial support

Edited January 24, 201214 yr by Mona

"Lifestyle change" is an interesting way of putting it. Having kids is very expensive but we've managed it by making a lot of sacrifices. Giving up holidays, any thoughts of a new car and nights out amongst other things means that we do get by. But when we were working out whether we could afford children we allowed for the fact we would get some help. To take away child benefit now would in my opinion be unfair.

 

Do you really think that a couple in the their 30s who are bringing up kids who they hope will go on and make a meaningful contribution to society and pay for your and my pension deserve to pay exactly the same tax as a couple with no kids?

 

Sadly, that's life. It can be unfair.

 

& Mona, I think you miread my post, I was talking of those who breed for benefits. Having a silly amount of children in this day and age is not acceptable if they are rewarded for each one they shell out.

Edited January 24, 201214 yr by no balls

i quite liked the idea some woman in the house of lords put forwards that after 2 kids the state will no longer provide any child benefits.

 

but as MT said the amounts we're talking are a pittance compared to the money the ?ber rich get away with snaffling out of the system.

i quite liked the idea some woman in the house of lords put forwards that after 2 kids the state will no longer provide any child benefits.

 

I think that's how it works in Portugal. We had a Portuguese bloke staying with the oldies last year, part of a language school, and he was amazed that we just keep paying.

... And what is considered a silly amount of children?

 

 

My mum was one of thirteen , all of the same father incidentally, and all the boys fought in the forces

I have two, so I guess I conform

My brother has two , father of both , same mother

My sister has one adopted

If she could have , she'd would have had 4, does that make her a potential benefit scrounger,even though's she's worked all her life

My son has two, but his missus wants four, because they are perfect parents

My sister in law has 3

My brother in law has 7 grandkids,

 

We provide for them all,as a family, so as I said, where do you draw the line

None of us are on benefits, so when life turns shit, who decides we are an unfit family

 

 

... And what is considered a silly amount of children?

 

 

My mum was one of thirteen , all of the same father incidentally, and all the boys fought in the forces

I have two, so I guess I conform

My brother has two , father of both , same mother

My sister has one adopted

If she could have , she'd would have had 4, does that make her a potential benefit scrounger,even though's she's worked all her life

My son has two, but his missus wants four, because they are perfect parents

My sister in law has 3

My brother in law has 7 grandkids,

 

We provide for them all,as a family, so as I said, where do you draw the line

None of us are on benefits, so when life turns shit, who decides we are an unfit family

 

Child benefit?

????

To buy what exactly?

In 1978 it was ?7.50 for your eldest child if I remember correctly

Today it's about ?13

hardly gone up with inflation, so I doubt girls are having a silly amount of children for ?13 a week

 

 

It's. Fact of life that councils give young mums with kids first option on council house, cos no-one can define who is a genuine case and who isn't

 

My argument is, we cannot tar everyone with the same brush, and HMG haven't got a clue

To my way of thinking, not paid NI, sod off, no consistent father, sod off, not married, sod off, arrived In this country 3 months ago, sod off,

Brutal .. Yes

But in some small way protects the british born mum/family who have hit hard times

 

 

i quite liked the idea some woman in the house of lords put forwards that after 2 kids the state will no longer provide any child benefits.

 

but as MT said the amounts we're talking are a pittance compared to the money the ?ber rich get away with snaffling out of the system.

 

According to the bbc this morning The top 1% of earners generate 25% of paye and ni income.

I'm not on about earners. I'm on about unearned wealth, the sort that gave David Cameron 30m worth without ever having a job. What distinguishes him from a benefit scrounger?

I'm not on about earners. I'm on about unearned wealth, the sort that gave David Cameron 30m worth without ever having a job. What distinguishes him from a benefit scrounger?

 

So just lets clarify this then. When you cark it, you would have it that you can't bequeath your wealth to your chiildren? I don't know Camerons circumstances Maggie - this is just a general question.

 

I know I wouldn't like the idea of Bolty Towers and the estate going to anyone but my kids when I go to that Bromwich Street in the sky.

 

Much of what you say on this issue I am in complete support of (especially stopping sending money to Ireland) but you can't remove the incentives which drive people to outstanding success. Not talking about tosspot bankers with obscene bonusses here. When I am king they will be first against the wall.

 

Talking about folk who have built a business empire or slaughtered oafs, waifs and strays in the Middle Ages to acquire land. All good, solid citizens.

So just lets clarify this then. When you cark it, you would have it that you can't bequeath your wealth to your chiildren?

 

'...[The perfect amount of money to leave children is] enough money so that they would feel they could do anything, but not so much that they could do nothing.'

 

Arch-Capitalist and all around good egg Warren Buffet.

 

What's the difference between some self-styled 'trustafarian' living off mummy or daddy's hard (or not so hard) earned and some skivving git living off the dole?

 

They're both doing f*ck all, only the rich kids usually claim to be; an 'actor', 'artist', 'model','party organiser' or 'entrepreneur' or some other bollocks 'front' that enables them to spunk cash away.

 

The only difference is one does it on starting stake of ?67.50 (to whatever the top scroungers get) and the other has limitless funds. Look up Bernie Ecclestone's daughter and how much of his cash she manages to fritter away day in day out.

JSA should be a higher paid benefit than Income Support. Like a few have said, if you've paid into the system it's only fair you get rewarded better than the long term unemployable. It's the Income Support claimants that should be cleaning dogshit not unfortunate.

So just lets clarify this then. When you cark it, you would have it that you can't bequeath your wealth to your chiildren? I don't know Camerons circumstances Maggie - this is just a general question.

 

I know I wouldn't like the idea of Bolty Towers and the estate going to anyone but my kids when I go to that Bromwich Street in the sky.

 

Much of what you say on this issue I am in complete support of (especially stopping sending money to Ireland) but you can't remove the incentives which drive people to outstanding success. Not talking about tosspot bankers with obscene bonusses here. When I am king they will be first against the wall.

 

Talking about folk who have built a business empire or slaughtered oafs, waifs and strays in the Middle Ages to acquire land. All good, solid citizens.

 

No, it's right to leave something behind. But if what you leave enables your kids to live a life of unearned luxury then that's not cricket. My preference would be 0% up a certain amount then a very high percentage above that. Charities would not pay any tax on what they get left either. I used 90% earlier as a random figure, but in Cameron's case that would have left him 3 million, so he'd get over it. I do not see the moral distinction between undeserving poor and undeserving rich. The key difference of course is that one is Tory heartland and one is not.

No, it's right to leave something behind. But if what you leave enables your kids to live a life of unearned luxury then that's not cricket. My preference would be 0% up a certain amount then a very high percentage above that. Charities would not pay any tax on what they get left either. I used 90% earlier as a random figure, but in Cameron's case that would have left him 3 million, so he'd get over it. I do not see the moral distinction between undeserving poor and undeserving rich. The key difference of course is that one is Tory heartland and one is not.

 

People would still get around it. Land/Cash would be transferred into the kids name aged 60 or whatever with a nod and wink that they support them til death.

'What's the difference between some self-styled 'trustafarian' living off mummy or daddy's hard (or not so hard) earned and some skivving git living off the dole?

 

Some skiving git living off the dole is putting nothing into the system. Some self-styled 'trustafarian' may not be working and by definition not paying income tax or NI but by god they're adding to the coffers byway of VAT.