Benefit cut to those who have more than 2 children

[la bala]

another problem with the baby factory families is, when the sprogs have finished the 10-11 years bunking off school or getting expelled, a nice government will put some money in the bank for them every week until they can start the cycle again.

[scolopax]

The fairest way is to have no child benefit whatsoever. none for the first, second, third etc etc child. You have 'em, you pay for 'em.

[pegasus bridge]

Thanks for that clearly missed that in Jan, it appears they have made a lash of it but the idea is there.

its a bitter pill to swallow because of how it is being rolled out, especially if you are a one income family, but that income happens to be just over the threshhold.

[leeds chimp]

If you don't work don't have kids simples, or if you want kids carry on but don't expect free handouts, that should be the law, me and my missus waited till we were financially stable before we had our two, I would love a tribe of kids but due to already paying 1200 quid a month for child care(yes you heard right 1200 quid a month ) with no help off no one we simply can't afford to have any more. I did the sensible and responsible thing and had the snip as any other responsible member of society should do. DOnt get me wrong that was my decision and I don't mean everyone should be steralised. WHat I mean is be responsible and think what you can afford. I must add me and the wife both work, she's a chief scientist at Astra Zeneca and I'm a construction site manager so we do alright but we still can't afford to have more kids, what with the mortgage ,child care and 2 cars to run etc.BUT WE PAY OUR OWN WAY and don't expect free handouts , do you know why ? Because we have dignity and a sense of hard work and pride.

 

IF YOU CAN'T AFFORD KIDS DON'T HAVE EM AND EXPECT THE HARD WORKING TAX PAYERS TO FOOT THE BILL YOU SCROUNGING LAZY #########

 

Atb flynny

you pay more in child care than i earn a month so you are saying Thats kids are only for the well off/good jobs etc

[Gimlet]

The fairest way is to have no child benefit whatsoever. none for the first, second, third etc etc child. You have 'em, you pay for 'em.

 

Hallelujah!!!

[LondonLuke]

its a bitter pill to swallow because of how it is being rolled out, especially if you are a one income family, but that income happens to be just over the threshhold.

Yes, why they could not do a combined income is beyond me. A couple earning £80k will get it a single earning family of £45 wont!

[kdubya]

Increasing taxation is not a solution.

 

 

Now just where did I say we should increase taxation? getting the evaders to pay the billions they avoid would be of far more benefit than to hound someone for having 3 kids and then losing his job, we are a nice selfish society are we not.

 

KW

[Gimlet]

Now just where did I say we should increase taxation? getting the evaders to pay the billions they avoid would be of far more benefit than to hound someone for having 3 kids and then losing his job, we are a nice selfish society are we not.

 

KW

 

That presupposes an inherent virtue in confiscating money from those who have it and using it to control the lives of those who do not. It is not inherently virtuous, and it is to the credit of those few who are able in some small way to restrict the fiscal grasp of the establishment that things are not worse than they are. Our country is in social, political and economic decline not because the State has too little money at it's disposal but because it has too much. The welfare state has recreated feudalism. Get rid if all of it.

[Kes]

When I was a youngster (long time ago) there were two local families who had 17 children apiece. they seemed to be racing each other. This idea of rarely work, always ******** and another on the way has cost the country a fortune. Anyone on benefits should accept 2 is enough and after 2 years on benefits thats it - sink or swim.

I have a very hard attitude to this - I have never been unemployed,worked all my life, paid a fortune in tax - never fiddled and expect others wont.

Happy to blur the lines for those trying and not yet made it, but as a way of life - we dont need those people, sorry to be quite so explicit.

[remy 700]

lets look after families over xmas Edited October 27, 2012 by remy 700

[keg]

That presupposes an inherent virtue in confiscating money from those who have it and using it to control the lives of those who do not. It is not inherently virtuous, and it is to the credit of those few who are able in some small way to restrict the fiscal grasp of the establishment that things are not worse than they are. Our country is in social, political and economic decline not because the State has too little money at it's disposal but because it has too much. The welfare state has recreated feudalism. Get rid if all of it.

 

Well put Gimlet.

 

There are also too many so called charities getting rich of the back of this. Poverty is a %age of ave salary rather than a specific value.

 

 

There are many ways to measure poverty but to me it is a matter of priorities, food and shelter first, clothes, then the luxuries of booze fags and sat TV.

 

Kdubya, i hear your point on tax evaders but let's be clear, they are not doing anything illegal. We need to close the loopholes i agree but taxing the high earners more will drive those wealth creators abroad. pre 1979 my late father-in-law paid 90% tax on some of his income.

 

If we cash on some jobs or ask for a cash price we are effectively doing the same as the so called tax avoiders. Only the scale is different.

[Muggins.]

Child benefit for one child only, any more and you`re on your own.

While we`re at it cut the child benefit that`s been paid out to kids that don`t live in this country.

[955i]

Good, when we were together me and the ex always wanted another kid but couldn't afford it. Part of the reason we split.

 

Taking the benefits away might stop the scumbags from breeding like rabbits and flooding the world with illiterate wastes of space.

Edited October 27, 2012 by 955i

[subsonicnat]

Heard on the TV some time back, there is a WHOLE estate in wales with nothing but unmarried mothers, probably more than 2 by different dads, get them to support them, not the hard earners who struggle with their 2 children, some only knock them out for more beer money..

What a load of plonkers this country has in parliament: Long may this stay on the statute Book:

[Alanl50]

Wow, I dream of living somewhere like that

:lol:

[Mungler]

Gimlet for Home Secretary!

 

KW still spouting the same old jealous left wing nonsense - I can assure you that the failings of this country are not down to the rich not paying enough tax.

[matone]

It is quite simple if you can not afford children dont have them.

Why should the state and other hard working people pay for someone elses children.

Alan

 

Exactly!

It`s called acting responsibly,something the do-gooders and nanny state types

cannot comprehend......

[kdubya]

Gimlet for Home Secretary!

 

KW still spouting the same old jealous left wing nonsense - I can assure you that the failings of this country are not down to the rich not paying enough tax.

 

Mungler its not jealous left wing nonsense, I pay any as much as anyone in tax (apart from the 100k lads) I dont object one little bit to it going to those who need it. what I do object to is the ability of those who make vast amounts by simply using a loophole ( starbucks for instance) paying next to nowt,we seem to reveere those who can fiddle the system that way eh! that is where we could make a real difference to the countries coffers, still its easier to blame those with more than a couple of kids, who have the mythical flash cars and flat screen TV with a fully up to date sky subscription ( did you ever get the nerd off for not paying his ) you nailed your colours to the mast with that one

 

toodle pip KW

Edited October 27, 2012 by kdubya

[Mungler]

What are you wobbling on about?

 

Are Starbucks doing anything illegal? The tax handbook tripled in size under the Blair / Brown administration and that's where we are.

 

Until we streamline our Parliament, chop the public sector and stop slashing the rest up a wall then throwing more money into the mix is not a solution. If you have a bucket with lots of holes in that's leaking water the answer is to plug the holes not to keep putting more water in.

 

As for the client with the CCJ, all sorted and paid for, thanks for asking.

[Vince Green]

We need to go back to grass roots and ask why we pay some of these benefits at all. It seems a really strange thing to pay out for. Many countries, even within the EU, have no benefits system at all. The church and charities take care of the sick and genuinely needy and thats enough.

 

We have had this benefits culture for so long we don't even question why we have it and do we need it? Most of it now is just buying votes and thats why Labour defend it so strongly. Once you are living on benefits you are only ever going to vote one way. Labour was created to protect the rights of the working class but now they only defend the non working class. A sub culture they have largely created.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Vince Green

[Gimlet]

Mungler its not jealous left wing nonsense, I pay any as much as anyone in tax (apart from the 100k lads) I dont object one little bit to it going to those who need it. what I do object to is the ability of those who make vast amounts by simply using a loophole ( starbucks for instance) paying next to nowt,we seem to reveere those who can fiddle the system that way eh! that is where we could make a real difference to the countries coffers, still its easier to blame those with more than a couple of kids, who have the mythical flash cars and flat screen TV with a fully up to date sky subscription ( did you ever get the nerd off for not paying his ) you nailed your colours to the mast with that one

 

toodle pip KW

 

 

Rather than the rich following the example of the small man and coughing up without question it would be better if the small man emulated the big guy and found ways to prevent the government stealing his money. If everyone across the spectrum routinely avoided taxation, the Government, like the debt addict who has his credit card taken off him and destroyed, would be forced to live within its means.

Redistributive patronage creates resentment and disincentive on one side and dependency and institutionalised poverty, both material and aspirational, on the other. It is hard to imagine a more pernicious cycle. The only group to truly benefit is the industrial bureaucracy at the centre of it that administers it all. When the Welfare State starts paying 'benefits' to the people it took the money from in the first place the lunatics really have taken over the asylum. Long term welfare should be for the chronically sick, the mad, the old, the profoundly disabled and those of low intelligence who cannot fend for themselves. In fact pensioners would be better off out of the welfare state and the money they payed in taxes over their lifetimes to pay for it left in their ppossession so they could invest it privately. They would get a better return, provided no Marxist Chancellor is ever again allowed to thieve the interest from their fund to simulteaneously create and fund a social-engineering experiment in dependency. Payments for temporary hardship should be loans. No one else needs alms from the state. It is the monolithic state that needs the welfare system to justify its own existence.

[Reece]

Kdubya, good point but i think they go hand in hand. Remove the scum of society and stop them poncing of the state but also take the same route the Kiwis & Aussies do. You can only come in if you have a job to go to or can add something.

 

Asylum seekers are always a touchy subject. If they come from a genuine wartorn nation then fine, if the are just looking for the best benefits then send em back to France or wherever they come from.

 

 

I have always insisted that New labour were one step away from communism, their actions prove it. Socialism wants a society reliant on the state and in thrall to their leaders. Just want Blair, Mandleson & Brown wanted, hence their social experiment to garner votes and increase the public sector to make those voters reliant on them for jobs.

 

Tie in the benefits issue and you understand part of how we got into this mess.

 

Many "asylum seekers" coming here are not asylum seekers. Aslum seekers have to stay in the first safe country they arrive in. If they fly here from a war torn country, that's fine, but the ones living rough outside the port at Calais waiting for a chance to get to Britain are not asylum seekers, as they have crossed several safe countries to get here.

 

The fairest way is to have no child benefit whatsoever. none for the first, second, third etc etc child. You have 'em, you pay for 'em.

 

As long as it was for new applicants only, and didn't penalise people who already have kids, great.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Reece

[Bleeh]

Right guys, let's try and figure this one out.

 

Lack of education = higher crime rate (%) and higher poverty (%)

 

Higher poverty (%) = higher crime rate (%)

 

Making poor people poorer won't solve anything, people forget that the welfare system sets up a minimal standard of living, if you start taking away the last things people have that keep them semi-compliant citizens you'll just end up with crime-ridden slums.

 

I'd much rather have the Government paying some lazy scumbag his £14,000 a year in support to stay in his scummy council flat, than the very reality of taking that all away and having another homeless mugger on the streets who then spends the next 25 years at her majesty's pleasure (the cost of which is a lot more than £14k/year)

 

It's honestly cheaper to keep people on welfare than it is to deal with the social impact of not. If we use the United States as an example, you would think with their harsh prison system and lower-than average social support they would Utopia of love and hand holding. But they not only have highest prisoner per capital in the world, if we start looking at the same statistics for countries that pump more money into social reform, welfare and education (i.e Scandinavian counties) than the results are quiet the opposite.

[Gimlet]

Right guys, let's try and figure this one out.

 

Lack of education = higher crime rate (%) and higher poverty (%)

 

Higher poverty (%) = higher crime rate (%)

 

 

Now you're talking. That's the bit that matters but there is no chance of providing a high standard of education through a system that is controled by the same ideologues who administer the welfare state. Micheal Gove is the best education secretary we've had in years but he is up against a vast entrenched machine that is committed to imposing an intellectual impoverishment that reinforces the material poverty and squallor sanctified by welfare.

[henry d]

...at her majesty's pleasure (the cost of which is a lot more than £14k/year)...

 

Strangely enough I was in jail yesterday, the sums are actually a LOT higher @ £38 000 a year, that should get a few Mail readers popping a gasket.