Budget

[2sheikhs]

What if he's lost his job and that's why he's her ex?

 

[BimboBob]

Child benefit would barely cover school dinner money these days - its £20.70pw for first child and and £13.70 for each subsequent child.

My original point was the single mum on Income Support who already has 4 children and is struggling then decides to have a 5th child at a cost to the state.

Go and have your 3rd, 4th, 5th, 10th kid, just don't expect the taxpayer to fund it anymore. Hopefully todays changes will breed more responsibility and not children!

That's the trouble. She may well have another kid due to any number of other factors like intelligence, drugs, personal issues, rape and yet she won't be able to fully support the child.

Part of me fully supports the idea that you should only have children if you can afford to bring them up without going cap in hand to the state, but another part of me says they are our future and without the next generation paying tax etc this country would fall to it's knees.

If she has other kids then they will grow up in abject poverty. Something a caring society should be bang against.

 

[SWP's back]

What if he's lost his job and that's why he's her ex?

How long is he out of a job for?

And why didn't they save some of their wages?

The crux of that matter is that no one should really be having five kids. It's selfish anyway.

 

[2sheikhs]

Ok Sean, I'll put you in the hypothetical situation.
It's after 2017, you're married with a good job on £40 -£50k and you have 5 kids. You don't claim any benefits at all and everything in the garden is rosy.
You lose the job and with all the stress and upset, you split with your wife. Youfind yyourself unemployed and needing a place to live with all the expenses that entails.
Your wife is now in a position where she has to try and look after the kids and keep a roof over their heads. You're not in a position to contribute because you haven't got a pot to piss in.
Who pays?

 

[Mustard Dave]

The income protection insurance a responsible parent of so many kids would take out.

 

[Rascal]

Pmsl. You can't believe half of what you post.

I could have posted your replies to the budget yesterday before anyone knew what was in it.

You know a little about economics. Apart from the political stunts that tories will like, it is an awful budget for normal people.

The £9 living wage by 2020 is a con. It is already £9.15p in London and that is with tax credits taken into account and does not apply to under 25s.

Under 21s denied HB. Where do they live?

The raising of Tax thresholds. Claimed to benefit poor. Most poor will not gain by a penny. Everyone who earns above gains, everyone. Regressive taxation once again.

The Inheritance tax cut affects how many people?. . Inherited wealth preserves the elite does it not? Why not tax the person who recieves the unearned wealth?

1% public pay rise. After inflation will be a pay cut....Thought the Tories were the party of aspiration?

Scrapping maintenance grants for the poorest students....aspiration?

Freeze and cuts to in work benefits......aspiration?

Cutting Wrag ESA for the sick by £30 to JSA levels? Why? That is just plain cruelty.

And taking money away from kids. The heartless cunts. But of course it is popular here because everyone here thinks people with kids are feckless layabouts. It disgusts me.

But the Corporations get their thanks for supporting the Tory party with a 2% cut. Bonuses all round for the fat cats.


The tories have no heart, they have no empathy, they hate the workers, they hate the poor and they hate the north. Fuck all about investment to the north just some platitudes about "powerhouse this and that"


Does Osborne not understand that cutting money to the poorest who have the highest propensity to spend will affect demand and therefore make the deficit harder to pay off? That is simple economics. I doubt he has heard of the multiplier. Does he not realise a cut in VAT would stimulate demand, meaning more jobs, meaning less benefits, meaning paying off the deficit easier?

This long term economic plan he bangs on and on about is just fucking nonsense. It is and i have said this before an excuse to ideologically shrink the state so that it can be sold off cheap to his mates.

 

[SWP's back]

Ok Sean, I'll put you in the hypothetical situation.
It's after 2017, you're married with a good job on £40 -£50k and you have 5 kids. You don't claim any benefits at all and everything in the garden is rosy.
You lose the job and with all the stress and upset, you split with your wife. Youfind yyourself unemployed and needing a place to live with all the expenses that entails.
Your wife is now in a position where she has to try and look after the kids and keep a roof over their heads. You're not in a position to contribute because you haven't got a pot to piss in.
Who pays?

Are you suggesting in that instance that the £41.25 they may lose out on is the most of their problems?

Plus I insure me and Mrs to the hilt anyway and recommend others do likewise.

 

[BigJoe#1]

The income protection insurance a responsible parent of so many kids would take out.

What...? These policies that have so many get out clauses they ain't worth the paper they're written on, another version of the PPS's. You'd be better off saving the premiums and buying premium bonds.

 

[Mustard Dave]

Under 21s denied HB. Where do they live?

Most working people live with parents until they can afford to leave home. If that isn't an option because they are fucking dead-legs, they can rent a room or live in a shared house like students and many young professionals do.

 

[2sheikhs]

So what I've gathered up to now is,although the benefits system was initially brought in to help those who find themselves in temporary financial difficulties, that still is a step too far for
some.
It begs the question, who, if anyone should get benefits?