Oh no mate, you misunderstand, I fully agree with all of that and I did the same as you.GStar said:SWP's back said:It's crazy but I'm not in a position financially to have kids responsibly so I'm not having any at present. call me old fashioned but I tend to think that the responsibility should be with the individual rather than the taxpayer. I'm sure there will be enough safety nets but it shouldn't just be a free for all where they can do what they want and know they will never have to work or worry about financing themselves.
As De Niro points out, they'll have to live at home with their folks and their kids, it may well make them more responsible in the future.
I'm in complete agreement with your first part; having kids shouldn't be a right you can claim on everyone else's expense; it should be a responsibility you work towards being able to achieve.
The living at home i'm not so sure about. I moved out at 18, went to Uni and never looked back (except when Christmas comes around and the foods great!) I'd argue having to budget from that age and continuing to run a house/car now has made me more responsible than if i paid half board at home, had all my meals cooked for me and my shirts ironed ready for the week.
On the other hand, those extra few years would have allowed me to save for a house deposit/be in a position to start a pension. Which is why i now play the Euromillions.
SWP's back said:i kne albert davy said:Great idea but what do we do with the children let them die in the street if you can come up with the answer to that one i might even vote for call me Dave myself.SWP's back said:No, everyone can live how they wish, it's just that those that wish to have children and not work will have to fund themselves as opposed to relying on the taxpayer to do it and rightly so.
It's crazy but I'm not in a position financially to have kids responsibly so I'm not having any at present. call me old fashioned but I tend to think that the responsibility should be with the individual rather than the taxpayer. I'm sure there will be enough safety nets but it shouldn't just be a free for all where they can do what they want and know they will never have to work or worry about financing themselves.
As De Niro points out, they'll have to live at home with their folks and their kids, it may well make them more responsible in the future.
-- Sun Jun 24, 2012 12:33 pm --
Come off it Nij, we didn't make it 8 replies before Thatcher was blamed.nijinsky's fetlocks said:kevinmcfc said:I completely agree with him. The cost of housing is far too high and somebody needs to do something. Labour left this country in the biggest mess it has been in for over 100 years and he is trying to sort out the mess. Good for him.
Well we managed to reach page two without some numpty blaming Labour for everything but then,as if by tragic,up pops the usual apologist.
Could someone please let me know the date when the coalition actually becomes accountable for anything,as I would like to mark it in my diary?
And the last givernment was still blaming the tories every pmq's in 2008.
Lucky13 said:Halfpenny said:What jobs?de niro said:good, see this is what we need, bold moves to get us back on track whilst making more cadgers get a job.
well done again dave.
Just been working with a Polish lad who has been in the Country 3 weeks and has been working since his arrival , there are jobs if your prepared to work.
Mikecini said:Lucky13 said:Halfpenny said:What jobs?
Just been working with a Polish lad who has been in the Country 3 weeks and has been working since his arrival , there are jobs if your prepared to work.
But shurley the point is if housing benefit is reduced it means that the labour force can't be mobile, can't move to areas with work. I would have though the young would be the most likely to relocate given the opportunity.
GStar said:Got ya.
I guess, thinking about it, whilst it sounds bad, it may not be.
Graduates and those in full time employment at that age don't receive housing benefit as far as I'm aware as they'll be earning, which basically means they won't qualify regardless of salary.
Those who aren't earning at that age shouldn't be able to move out as it is and will probably be living at home anyway.
The only people i can see this effecting is those who are in full time employment and fall ill/victim of an accident or perhaps those who come from a more dysfunctional family, have moved out but lost their job.
A wonderful piece of legislation that empowered a generation.Mikecini said:As for 'some numpty' in reference to Thatcher he is spot on. It was either poorly drafted legislation or Tory foresight take your pick. As for the former the legislation allowed for the sale of social housing