Where having children is too unaffordable if you work

by Clarkson Fri Jan 10, 2014 4:21 pm

that's because those at work unable to afford them will be taxed for those who stay at home.

Her is a brief article about the Philpott case a few months ago. Philpott is the anti hero to us Tories and to many on here an icon who should be defended at all cost.

As the article says we are creating a society where the Philpott mentality is passed do to the next generation but those hard working people who can't afford children can be role models to no one.

Be careful what you wish for comrades I so wish I could move all these problem families next to you.

From the Spectator

The Philpott case has already turned into a row about media reporting. You can see why. It is so much easier to argue about a newspaper front-page than to talk about the terrible underclass this country has created.

In a nutshell our problem is this. For hard-working couples, having children in 21st century Britain is unbelievably costly. Having been taxed at every turn of their lives they have to think extremely carefully about whether they can afford to have a child. Many will decide they cannot. Others will decide that they can but will spend endless nights worrying over how they are going to support the child they have brought into the world. If they find they can afford that first child they will still think very hard about whether they can afford a second, let alone a third.

The cosmic joke is that at the same time that such couples are worrying about their bills, they will be paying money to encourage another group of people to have children with few such concerns. Of course most of this latter group do not live like millionaires. And naturally most do not burn their children to death. But there is a substantial class – or underclass – in this country which no longer shares the concerns of what used to be ordinary people.

If you think this is not an issue – like much of the political left – then you have to ask yourself a straightforward question. What is the long-term future for a country where responsible people are discouraged from having children and the irresponsible encouraged? And yes – it is not just irresponsible, but deeply, deeply irreponsible to bring a child into the world if you do not have the means to support that child, let alone no intention of obtaining such means. Of course some peoples’ circumstances change for the worse and the welfare state should be there precisely to support such people. But people who have no job and no prospect of getting one and yet have more children are bad and selfish people.

A simple reversal needs to take place so that people on welfare are dis-incentivised from having children and working couples are incentivised. Exactly how this should be done can be debated. But what should not be debated is that people on welfare should not just worry about having children as much as working couples do – they should worry about it far, far more. And that is not just because the cost of their actions ought to be higher, but because the cost of their actions is higher..

However, as the war against Iain Duncan Smith’s efforts has shown, this country appears unwilling to make such basic judgements. It often seems that we are going to have to hit the bottom and break completely before some people realise it needs fixing at all.

by Guest Fri Jan 10, 2014 4:28 pm

If you feel the need to argue against that, there's something wrong with you and you're probably a very greedy person.

by Clarkson Fri Jan 10, 2014 4:34 pm

BigAndy9 wrote:If you feel the need to argue against that, there's something wrong with you and you're probably a very greedy person.

Thanks Andy you haven't had a stroke or something have you???

by Clarkson Fri Jan 10, 2014 4:35 pm

I'm going to call Sassy Scatman et al "Philpotts Heroes"

Like Kelly's Heroes but gormless and on the wrong side.

by Guest Fri Jan 10, 2014 4:36 pm

Clarkson wrote:
BigAndy9 wrote:If you feel the need to argue against that, there's something wrong with you and you're probably a very greedy person.

Thanks Andy you haven't had a stroke or something have you???

~~Very rarely now i'm living at home with the wife.~~

No stroke, why do you ask Clarkson?

by Guest Fri Jan 10, 2014 4:43 pm

Clarkson wrote:I'm going to call Sassy Scatman et al "Philpotts Heroes"

Like Kelly's Heroes but gormless and on the wrong side.

Fuck off you cunt.

by Guest Fri Jan 10, 2014 4:50 pm

Ben sort out a swear jar for this one please with his potty mouth

by Guest Fri Jan 10, 2014 5:33 pm

Of course, lets not use our brains and think that most people have had their children already when they are made redundant and have to rely on benefits Rolling Eyes

And those in work, worrying about if they can afford to have children have had that made worse by the disparity in the cost of living over the last 4 years and the sense of never knowing whether your job is going to be there next week.

by Guest Fri Jan 10, 2014 5:41 pm

Clarkson wrote:that's because those at work unable to afford them will be taxed for those who stay at home.

Her is a brief article about the Philpott case a few months ago. Philpott is the anti hero to us Tories and to many on here an icon who should be defended at all cost.

As the article says we are creating a society where the Philpott mentality is passed do to the next generation but those hard working people who can't afford children can be role models to no one.

Be careful what you wish for comrades I so wish I could move all these problem families next to you.

From the Spectator

The Philpott case has already turned into a row about media reporting. You can see why. It is so much easier to argue about a newspaper front-page than to talk about the terrible underclass this country has created.

In a nutshell our problem is this. For hard-working couples, having children in 21st century Britain is unbelievably costly. Having been taxed at every turn of their lives they have to think extremely carefully about whether they can afford to have a child. Many will decide they cannot. Others will decide that they can but will spend endless nights worrying over how they are going to support the child they have brought into the world. If they find they can afford that first child they will still think very hard about whether they can afford a second, let alone a third.

The cosmic joke is that at the same time that such couples are worrying about their bills, they will be paying money to encourage another group of people to have children with few such concerns. Of course most of this latter group do not live like millionaires. And naturally most do not burn their children to death. But there is a substantial class – or underclass – in this country which no longer shares the concerns of what used to be ordinary people.

If you think this is not an issue – like much of the political left – then you have to ask yourself a straightforward question. What is the long-term future for a country where responsible people are discouraged from having children and the irresponsible encouraged? And yes – it is not just irresponsible, but deeply, deeply irreponsible to bring a child into the world if you do not have the means to support that child, let alone no intention of obtaining such means. Of course some peoples’ circumstances change for the worse and the welfare state should be there precisely to support such people. But people who have no job and no prospect of getting one and yet have more children are bad and selfish people.

A simple reversal needs to take place so that people on welfare are dis-incentivised from having children and working couples are incentivised. Exactly how this should be done can be debated. But what should not be debated is that people on welfare should not just worry about having children as much as working couples do – they should worry about it far, far more. And that is not just because the cost of their actions ought to be higher, but because the cost of their actions is higher..

However, as the war against Iain Duncan Smith’s efforts has shown, this country appears unwilling to make such basic judgements. It often seems that we are going to have to hit the bottom and break completely before some people realise it needs fixing at all.

A first class example of lying R/W propaganda.
The r/w are the first to throw accusations around that the left cant add up, or other such idiocy.
It takes a special breed to be R/W, spineless and incapable of rational thought.
now lets put this to bed shall we, the above is nonsense, inaccurate and typically for the right disingenious.
Why?....

Well short while ago I posted the TRUTH...from the govts OWN figures...... of the cost of benefits to the tax payer, which the R/W in their typically cowardly fashion have studiously ignored. Scared of the truth and having to admit they are both wrong AND clueless, they have doged this times, despite my open challenge to them....draw your own conclusions on that.

the TRUTH is that BENEFITS (not counting state pensions, which even drinky dare not suggest stopping) accounts for...wait for it......a MASSIVE....(NOT) 18 p per £100 of tax paid....that is eighteeen pence out of every ONE HUNDRED POUNDS you or I pay in tax.

to put that in pespective some one on 20,000 pa will pay tax at 20% on 10,000 of it (roughly) so thats £2000 so that is 20 x 18p = £3.60 PER YEAR as a contribution to benefits. The Rest of the benefits bill comes from the rest of govt income...VAT, DUTY, vehicle licences, corporation tax, and the bucket full of other means the govt has of parting us from our money. Here's the rub, those on benefits contribute to those other taxes...because like the rest of us they spend....generally not as much but spend they do...AND, if drinky and the rests idea of them as booze swilling smoking layabouts is right....then they actually contibute quite a lot :/pwn://:

by Guest Fri Jan 10, 2014 5:41 pm

Yes lets blame the government (which has today had another expert say is has the best recovery and projected recovery of the G7 countries) and attach no responsibility to those who are not in work and deliberately getting pregnant.

by Guest Fri Jan 10, 2014 5:44 pm

grumpy old git wrote:
Clarkson wrote:that's because those at work unable to afford them will be taxed for those who stay at home.

Her is a brief article about the Philpott case a few months ago. Philpott is the anti hero to us Tories and to many on here an icon who should be defended at all cost.

As the article says we are creating a society where the Philpott mentality is passed do to the next generation but those hard working people who can't afford children can be role models to no one.

Be careful what you wish for comrades I so wish I could move all these problem families next to you.

From the Spectator

The Philpott case has already turned into a row about media reporting. You can see why. It is so much easier to argue about a newspaper front-page than to talk about the terrible underclass this country has created.

In a nutshell our problem is this. For hard-working couples, having children in 21st century Britain is unbelievably costly. Having been taxed at every turn of their lives they have to think extremely carefully about whether they can afford to have a child. Many will decide they cannot. Others will decide that they can but will spend endless nights worrying over how they are going to support the child they have brought into the world. If they find they can afford that first child they will still think very hard about whether they can afford a second, let alone a third.

The cosmic joke is that at the same time that such couples are worrying about their bills, they will be paying money to encourage another group of people to have children with few such concerns. Of course most of this latter group do not live like millionaires. And naturally most do not burn their children to death. But there is a substantial class – or underclass – in this country which no longer shares the concerns of what used to be ordinary people.

If you think this is not an issue – like much of the political left – then you have to ask yourself a straightforward question. What is the long-term future for a country where responsible people are discouraged from having children and the irresponsible encouraged? And yes – it is not just irresponsible, but deeply, deeply irreponsible to bring a child into the world if you do not have the means to support that child, let alone no intention of obtaining such means. Of course some peoples’ circumstances change for the worse and the welfare state should be there precisely to support such people. But people who have no job and no prospect of getting one and yet have more children are bad and selfish people.

A simple reversal needs to take place so that people on welfare are dis-incentivised from having children and working couples are incentivised. Exactly how this should be done can be debated. But what should not be debated is that people on welfare should not just worry about having children as much as working couples do – they should worry about it far, far more. And that is not just because the cost of their actions ought to be higher, but because the cost of their actions is higher..

However, as the war against Iain Duncan Smith’s efforts has shown, this country appears unwilling to make such basic judgements. It often seems that we are going to have to hit the bottom and break completely before some people realise it needs fixing at all.

A first class example of lying R/W propaganda.
The r/w are the first to throw accusations around that the left cant add up, or other such idiocy.
It takes a special breed to be R/W, spineless and incapable of rational thought.
now lets put this to bed shall we, the above is nonsense, inaccurate and typically for the right disingenious.
Why?....

Well short while ago I posted the TRUTH...from the govts OWN figures...... of the cost of benefits to the tax payer, which the R/W in their typically cowardly fashion have studiously ignored. Scared of the truth and having to admit they are both wrong AND clueless, they have doged this times, despite my open challenge to them....draw your own conclusions on that.

the TRUTH is that BENEFITS (not counting state pensions, which even drinky dare not suggest stopping) accounts for...wait for it......a MASSIVE....(NOT) 18 p per £100 of tax paid....that is eighteeen pence out of every ONE HUNDRED POUNDS you or I pay in tax.

to put that in pespective some one on 20,000 pa will pay tax at 20% on 10,000 of it (roughly) so thats £2000 so that is 20 x 18p = £3.60 PER YEAR as a contribution to benefits. The Rest of the benefits bill comes from the rest of govt income...VAT, DUTY, vehicle licences, corporation tax, and the bucket full of other means the govt has of parting us from our money. Here's the rub, those on benefits contribute to those other taxes...because like the rest of us they spend....generally not as much but spend they do...AND, if drinky and the rests idea of them as booze swilling smoking layabouts is right....then they actually contibute quite a lot :/pwn://:

What exactly has that got to do with the person who has no income except benefits deciding to have a child?

by Guest Fri Jan 10, 2014 5:45 pm

sphinx wrote:
grumpy old git wrote:

A first class example of lying R/W propaganda.
The r/w are the first to throw accusations around that the left cant add up, or other such idiocy.
It takes a special breed to be R/W, spineless and incapable of rational thought.
now lets put this to bed shall we, the above is nonsense, inaccurate and typically for the right disingenious.
Why?....

Well short while ago I posted the TRUTH...from the govts OWN figures...... of the cost of benefits to the tax payer, which the R/W in their typically cowardly fashion have studiously ignored. Scared of the truth and having to admit they are both wrong AND clueless, they have doged this times, despite my open challenge to them....draw your own conclusions on that.

the TRUTH is that BENEFITS (not counting state pensions, which even drinky dare not suggest stopping) accounts for...wait for it......a MASSIVE....(NOT) 18 p per £100 of tax paid....that is eighteeen pence out of every ONE HUNDRED POUNDS you or I pay in tax.

to put that in pespective some one on 20,000 pa will pay tax at 20% on 10,000 of it (roughly) so thats £2000 so that is 20 x 18p = £3.60 PER YEAR as a contribution to benefits. The Rest of the benefits bill comes from the rest of govt income...VAT, DUTY, vehicle licences, corporation tax, and the bucket full of other means the govt has of parting us from our money. Here's the rub, those on benefits contribute to those other taxes...because like the rest of us they spend....generally not as much but spend they do...AND, if drinky and the rests idea of them as booze swilling smoking layabouts is right....then they actually contibute quite a lot :/pwn://:

What exactly has that got to do with the person who has no income except benefits deciding to have a child?

It is the essence of the OP

I could ask the same about the OP. or are you suggesting those on benefits should not have a child?

dont play dodge the meaning .

the OP is a direct R/W rant about how the tax payer is disadvantaged by the benefits claimants...

And its yet anopther tory attempt to tie ALL benefit claimants to the actions of the idiot phillpot

by Guest Fri Jan 10, 2014 5:48 pm

Here is the reality, I come from a very large family, my Mum and dad choose to have 11 children, 2 now sadly passed, it was there decision and their responsibility of which they gladly took the responsibility to pay their way and raise us. They never asked for anything and knew it was their responsibility. People should not have children if they cannot afford to do so. Fair enough if families fall on hard times, but there are some that have children as a means not to work and have money given to them, this is a reality .

Sorry this maybe harsh but like with people being responsible with money they should be also when deciding to have children, because you place those children in a poor situation if you have not saved and prepared yourself for this. People today in many cases are just not responsible and as stated if you decide to have children, it should not be that you get a tax break or benefits but that you yourself wants to have responsibility for raising them not looking for handouts. If you do not have much money fine also, but live within your means, don't blame others that you have little money because you chose this path

by Guest Fri Jan 10, 2014 5:52 pm

PhilDidge wrote:Here is the reality, I come from a very large family, my Mum and dad choose to have 11 children, 2 now sadly passed, it was there decision and their responsibility of which they gladly took the responsibility to pay their way and raise us. They never asked for anything and knew it was their responsibility. People should not have children if they cannot afford to do so. Fair enough if families fall on hard times, but there are some that have children as a means not to work and have money given to them, this is a reality .

Sorry this maybe harsh but like with people being responsible with money they should be also when deciding to have children, because you place those children in a poor situation if you have not saved and prepared yourself for this. People today in many cases are just not responsible and as stated if you decide to have children, it should not be that you get a tax break or benefits but that you yourself wants to have responsibility for raising them not looking for handouts. If you do not have much money fine also, but live within your means, don't blame others because you chose this path

Oh do stop spouting your sanctimonious rubbish.....MOST folks with children who are on benefits, ended up on benefits AFTER their job went down the pan, having had children BEFORE, whilst they still had a job..

gormless come to mind...long on rhetoric, short on facts and lacking critcal thinking ability....

by Guest Fri Jan 10, 2014 5:53 pm

never mind Didge...I'll send you a gorm when the ones i got for drinky breed........

by Guest Fri Jan 10, 2014 5:56 pm

grumpy old git wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:Here is the reality, I come from a very large family, my Mum and dad choose to have 11 children, 2 now sadly passed, it was there decision and their responsibility of which they gladly took the responsibility to pay their way and raise us. They never asked for anything and knew it was their responsibility. People should not have children if they cannot afford to do so. Fair enough if families fall on hard times, but there are some that have children as a means not to work and have money given to them, this is a reality .

Sorry this maybe harsh but like with people being responsible with money they should be also when deciding to have children, because you place those children in a poor situation if you have not saved and prepared yourself for this. People today in many cases are just not responsible and as stated if you decide to have children, it should not be that you get a tax break or benefits but that you yourself wants to have responsibility for raising them not looking for handouts. If you do not have much money fine also, but live within your means, don't blame others because you chose this path

Oh do stop spouting your sanctimonious rubbish.....MOST folks with children who are on benefits, ended up on benefits AFTER their job went down the pan, having had children BEFORE, whilst they still had a job..

gormless come to mind...long on rhetoric, short on facts and lacking critcal thinking ability....

No I will not bow to your threats, this is not your forum and you cant get away with your pathetic threats as you did before.
So you think people who have children, who are poor and then moan they do not have enough money are thinking with responsibility now do you now when they alone decided to have children? So where is your evidenced those who ended up on benefits with children lost their jobs?

We re here talking about responsibility, something you seem to clearly lack. Again others do not put their own needs first but that of their families and I applaud those that do, yet some not all but some are very irresponsible, you though wish to excuse this as per usual

by Guest Fri Jan 10, 2014 5:56 pm

grumpy old git wrote:
sphinx wrote:

What exactly has that got to do with the person who has no income except benefits deciding to have a child?

It is the essence of the OP

I could ask the same about the OP. or are you suggesting those on benefits should not have a child?

dont play dodge the meaning .

the OP is a direct R/W rant about how the tax payer is disadvantaged by the benefits claimants...

Yes I am suggesting those in receipt of benefits do not have any more children than those they had when they started receiving benefits.

Its nothing to do with how the tax payer is disadvantaged it is to with how the children are disadvantaged. Not children who have to live on benefits but children born to parents who depending on the support of others to be able to live.

The brutal fact is that when working person decides to have a child they know their income is not going to change and so the costs of that child going to have to be met out of that income. When a person on benefits has a child they know their income is going to increase and they will meet the costs of the child out of the extra money.

Or lets apply the fairness test and turn the argument around to see if it still works

Every person on benefits at the time of a childs birth will see no increase in their benefits. All working people will see a dividend of £60 a week paid each time they have an extra child.

by Guest Fri Jan 10, 2014 5:56 pm

PhilDidge wrote:Here is the reality, I come from a very large family, my Mum and dad choose to have 11 children, 2 now sadly passed, it was there decision and their responsibility of which they gladly took the responsibility to pay their way and raise us. They never asked for anything and knew it was their responsibility. People should not have children if they cannot afford to do so. Fair enough if families fall on hard times, but there are some that have children as a means not to work and have money given to them, this is a reality .

Sorry this maybe harsh but like with people being responsible with money they should be also when deciding to have children, because you place those children in a poor situation if you have not saved and prepared yourself for this. People today in many cases are just not responsible and as stated if you decide to have children, it should not be that you get a tax break or benefits but that you yourself wants to have responsibility for raising them not looking for handouts. If you do not have much money fine also, but live within your means, don't blame others that you have little money because you chose this path

Oh and instead of the above rubbish about hoe good didge is, and what a shining example he is......try answering my challenge about the actual cost ...........

by Guest Fri Jan 10, 2014 5:57 pm

grumpy old git wrote:never mind Didge...I'll send you a gorm when the ones i got for drinky breed........

It doesn't seem possible that there are that many stupid people in the world who cling to their bigotry come what may in the face of facts. You can normally tell who they are, because they say the same thing, over and over and over and over and over, thinking that actually proves anything.

by Guest Fri Jan 10, 2014 5:57 pm

PhilDidge wrote:Here is the reality, I come from a very large family, my Mum and dad choose to have 11 children, 2 now sadly passed, it was there decision and their responsibility of which they gladly took the responsibility to pay their way and raise us. They never asked for anything and knew it was their responsibility. People should not have children if they cannot afford to do so. Fair enough if families fall on hard times, but there are some that have children as a means not to work and have money given to them, this is a reality .

Sorry this maybe harsh but like with people being responsible with money they should be also when deciding to have children, because you place those children in a poor situation if you have not saved and prepared yourself for this. People today in many cases are just not responsible and as stated if you decide to have children, it should not be that you get a tax break or benefits but that you yourself wants to have responsibility for raising them not looking for handouts. If you do not have much money fine also, but live within your means, don't blame others that you have little money because you chose this path

yawn.

by Guest Fri Jan 10, 2014 5:58 pm

grumpy old git wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:Here is the reality, I come from a very large family, my Mum and dad choose to have 11 children, 2 now sadly passed, it was there decision and their responsibility of which they gladly took the responsibility to pay their way and raise us. They never asked for anything and knew it was their responsibility. People should not have children if they cannot afford to do so. Fair enough if families fall on hard times, but there are some that have children as a means not to work and have money given to them, this is a reality .

Sorry this maybe harsh but like with people being responsible with money they should be also when deciding to have children, because you place those children in a poor situation if you have not saved and prepared yourself for this. People today in many cases are just not responsible and as stated if you decide to have children, it should not be that you get a tax break or benefits but that you yourself wants to have responsibility for raising them not looking for handouts. If you do not have much money fine also, but live within your means, don't blame others that you have little money because you chose this path

Oh and instead of the above rubbish about hoe good didge is, and what a shining example he is......try answering my challenge about the actual cost ...........

failed reply from grumpy, the fact is what I am saying is true people should be responsible if they decide to start a family, so your point on cost is irrelevant, it is about being responsible, where other do this even on low incomes something you clearly choose to ignore

by Guest Fri Jan 10, 2014 5:58 pm

sphinx wrote:
grumpy old git wrote:

It is the essence of the OP

I could ask the same about the OP. or are you suggesting those on benefits should not have a child?

dont play dodge the meaning .

the OP is a direct R/W rant about how the tax payer is disadvantaged by the benefits claimants...

Yes I am suggesting those in receipt of benefits do not have any more children than those they had when they started receiving benefits.

Its nothing to do with how the tax payer is disadvantaged it is to with how the children are disadvantaged. Not children who have to live on benefits but children born to parents who depending on the support of others to be able to live.

The brutal fact is that when working person decides to have a child they know their income is not going to change and so the costs of that child going to have to be met out of that income. When a person on benefits has a child they know their income is going to increase and they will meet the costs of the child out of the extra money.

Or lets apply the fairness test and turn the argument around to see if it still works

Every person on benefits at the time of a childs birth will see no increase in their benefits. All working people will see a dividend of £60 a week paid each time they have an extra child.

why dont you just have enforced sterilisation and abortions sphinx.....you would be a hero......

by Guest Fri Jan 10, 2014 5:58 pm

grumpy old git wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:Here is the reality, I come from a very large family, my Mum and dad choose to have 11 children, 2 now sadly passed, it was there decision and their responsibility of which they gladly took the responsibility to pay their way and raise us. They never asked for anything and knew it was their responsibility. People should not have children if they cannot afford to do so. Fair enough if families fall on hard times, but there are some that have children as a means not to work and have money given to them, this is a reality .

Sorry this maybe harsh but like with people being responsible with money they should be also when deciding to have children, because you place those children in a poor situation if you have not saved and prepared yourself for this. People today in many cases are just not responsible and as stated if you decide to have children, it should not be that you get a tax break or benefits but that you yourself wants to have responsibility for raising them not looking for handouts. If you do not have much money fine also, but live within your means, don't blame others that you have little money because you chose this path

Oh and instead of the above rubbish about hoe good didge is, and what a shining example he is......try answering my challenge about the actual cost ...........

Oh gawd, don't say that, don't you know Didge is the new Mandela (well in his head he is! Rolling Eyes

)

by Guest Fri Jan 10, 2014 5:59 pm

Sassy wrote:
grumpy old git wrote:never mind Didge...I'll send you a gorm when the ones i got for drinky breed........

It doesn't seem possible that there are that many stupid people in the world who cling to their bigotry come what may in the face of facts. You can normally tell who they are, because they say the same thing, over and over and over and over and over, thinking that actually proves anything.

So you are saying my mother is stupid now as this is the lesson she taught me on having families?

This is not bigotry but a point about being responsible, it seems the left are nothing but irresponsible

by Guest Fri Jan 10, 2014 6:00 pm

grumpy old git wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Yes I am suggesting those in receipt of benefits do not have any more children than those they had when they started receiving benefits.

Its nothing to do with how the tax payer is disadvantaged it is to with how the children are disadvantaged. Not children who have to live on benefits but children born to parents who depending on the support of others to be able to live.

The brutal fact is that when working person decides to have a child they know their income is not going to change and so the costs of that child going to have to be met out of that income. When a person on benefits has a child they know their income is going to increase and they will meet the costs of the child out of the extra money.

Or lets apply the fairness test and turn the argument around to see if it still works

Every person on benefits at the time of a childs birth will see no increase in their benefits. All working people will see a dividend of £60 a week paid each time they have an extra child.

why dont you just have enforced sterilisation and abortions sphinx.....you would be a hero......

She never even said that, talk about twisting something to use yet again guilt and shame onto people, that is all the left can ever argue with

by Guest Fri Jan 10, 2014 6:00 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
grumpy old git wrote:

Oh and instead of the above rubbish about hoe good didge is, and what a shining example he is......try answering my challenge about the actual cost ...........

failed reply from grumpy, the fact is what I am saying is true people should be responsible if they decide to start a family, so your point on cost is irrelevant, it is about being responsible, where other do this even on low incomes something you clearly choose to ignore

No Phill fail from you ...re read the OP...its about how bad the taxpayer is done by.....the truth is that if benefits disapeared over night the taxpayer would be NO BETTER OFF...so the article is garbage.....
you are making it something it isnt in order to justify such R/W crap.

by Guest Fri Jan 10, 2014 6:02 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
grumpy old git wrote:

why dont you just have enforced sterilisation and abortions sphinx.....you would be a hero......

She never even said that, talk about twisting something to use yet again guilt and shame onto people, that is all the left can ever argue with

no she didnt say that...explicitly.....but thats where that sort of thinking goes..... (I'm suggesting that those on benefits dont have children she is basicly saying...how are you going to achieve that??)

by Guest Fri Jan 10, 2014 6:03 pm

grumpy old git wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

failed reply from grumpy, the fact is what I am saying is true people should be responsible if they decide to start a family, so your point on cost is irrelevant, it is about being responsible, where other do this even on low incomes something you clearly choose to ignore

No Phill fail from you ...re read the OP...its about how bad the taxpayer is done by.....the truth is that if benefits disapeared over night the taxpayer would be NO BETTER OFF...so the article is garbage.....
you are making it something it isnt in order to justify such R/W crap.

What a load of bollocks, my parents raised 11 children, never asked for any help my father at one point took two jobs, because he knew it was his responsibility to raise his family, he knew it was wrong to need help in fact he felt ashamed if he did need help, a fact lost on the left. Some people are very proud to look after themselves and know it is their responsibility to raise their family not expect benefits to have one in the first place. You know fuck all granddad and just use guilt as a weapon in debates, I use realism and idealism, something you fail to understand

by Guest Fri Jan 10, 2014 6:04 pm

grumpy old git wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

She never even said that, talk about twisting something to use yet again guilt and shame onto people, that is all the left can ever argue with

no she didnt say that...explicitly.....but thats where that sort of thinking goes..... (I'm suggesting that those on benefits dont have children she is basicly saying...how are you going to achieve that??)

No she never said anything like it and yet the left deem it necessary to make disgusting analogies as if that is what she thinks when she never did, you should be ashamed of yourself for such disgusting remarks

by Guest Fri Jan 10, 2014 6:19 pm

grumpy old git wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

She never even said that, talk about twisting something to use yet again guilt and shame onto people, that is all the left can ever argue with

no she didnt say that...explicitly.....but thats where that sort of thinking goes..... (I'm suggesting that those on benefits dont have children she is basicly saying...how are you going to achieve that??)

I said those that are on benefits should not have any more children than they had when they started getting benefits.

So if someone has no children and has to claim benefits they should not have any more children unless and until they come off benefits. If a person has 10 children and has to claim benefits they should not have an eleventh child unless and until they come off benefits. In the first case benefits should only ever provide enough money for a single person or couple and in the second case benefits should only ever provide enough money for a single or couple plus 10 children.

Nothing about sterilization there is there is there? I am even advocating situations where benefit is paid for 10 children which neither the Tories nor Labour are supporting at the moment with both talking about limiting benefits to the first 2 or 3 children.

Anyway what about a scheme where people who have a child when on benefits get no extra money while people who are working get a dividend of £60 a week for every child they had - would you consider that fair?

by Guest Fri Jan 10, 2014 8:02 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
grumpy old git wrote:

no she didnt say that...explicitly.....but thats where that sort of thinking goes..... (I'm suggesting that those on benefits dont have children she is basicly saying...how are you going to achieve that??)

No she never said anything like it and yet the left deem it necessary to make disgusting analogies as if that is what she thinks when she never did, you should be ashamed of yourself for such disgusting remarks

idiot, ...I repeat.....how are you going to achieve that....???? well????

or is this more idealism with no practicality??

why has everything fgot to turn into a poor little didge, my family are being insulted....awwww.....

who the hell said owt about your mother....No-one....YOU are the one that mentioned that...no one else....could it be that didge seeks to pass blame everywhere but himself????

by Guest Fri Jan 10, 2014 8:06 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
grumpy old git wrote:

why dont you just have enforced sterilisation and abortions sphinx.....you would be a hero......

She never even said that, talk about twisting something to use yet again guilt and shame onto people, that is all the left can ever argue with

Yes lets talk about guilt....

WHY does the left talk about guilt all the time...they recon the left use guilt as weapon, Very telling that....It must mean the Right has things to feel guilty ABOUT, after all you CANT feel guilty about something which you know is right. I can only assume then the R/W readiness to take on guilt means they dont actually believe themselves.... :\\:[:

by Guest Fri Jan 10, 2014 8:08 pm

sphinx wrote:
grumpy old git wrote:

no she didnt say that...explicitly.....but thats where that sort of thinking goes..... (I'm suggesting that those on benefits dont have children she is basicly saying...how are you going to achieve that??)

I said those that are on benefits should not have any more children than they had when they started getting benefits.

and WHAT do you suggest you do to enforce this???

So if someone has no children and has to claim benefits they should not have any more children unless and until they come off benefits. If a person has 10 children and has to claim benefits they should not have an eleventh child unless and until they come off benefits. In the first case benefits should only ever provide enough money for a single person or couple and in the second case benefits should only ever provide enough money for a single or couple plus 10 children.

Nothing about sterilization there is there is there? I am even advocating situations where benefit is paid for 10 children which neither the Tories nor Labour are supporting at the moment with both talking about limiting benefits to the first 2 or 3 children.

Anyway what about a scheme where people who have a child when on benefits get no extra money while people who are working get a dividend of £60 a week for every child they had - would you consider that fair?

by Guest Fri Jan 10, 2014 8:11 pm

grumpy old git wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

She never even said that, talk about twisting something to use yet again guilt and shame onto people, that is all the left can ever argue with

Yes lets talk about guilt....

WHY does the left talk about guilt all the time...they recon the left use guilt as weapon, Very telling that....It must mean the Right has things to feel guilty ABOUT, after all you CANT feel guilty about something which you know is right. I can only assume then the R/W readiness to take on guilt means they dont actually believe themselves.... :\\:[:

Actually the left use guilt to try and affect the floaters so they vote left and those already on the left so they dont start thinking hang on a minute this is not working

by Guest Fri Jan 10, 2014 8:14 pm

grumpy old git wrote:
sphinx wrote:

I said those that are on benefits should not have any more children than they had when they started getting benefits.

and WHAT do you suggest you do to enforce this???

So if someone has no children and has to claim benefits they should not have any more children unless and until they come off benefits. If a person has 10 children and has to claim benefits they should not have an eleventh child unless and until they come off benefits. In the first case benefits should only ever provide enough money for a single person or couple and in the second case benefits should only ever provide enough money for a single or couple plus 10 children.

Nothing about sterilization there is there is there? I am even advocating situations where benefit is paid for 10 children which neither the Tories nor Labour are supporting at the moment with both talking about limiting benefits to the first 2 or 3 children.

Anyway what about a scheme where people who have a child when on benefits get no extra money while people who are working get a dividend of £60 a week for every child they had - would you consider that fair?

I would suggest using the scheme that is so effective on those working at the moment - namely dont pay extra money just because a child is born.

Queue the wails "what about the children"

by Guest Fri Jan 10, 2014 8:32 pm

sphinx wrote:
grumpy old git wrote:

I would suggest using the scheme that is so effective on those working at the moment - namely dont pay extra money just because a child is born.

Queue the wails "what about the children"

exactly.....what about them....of course YOU couldnt care if they a brought up in poverty, undernourished, and so on...just another generation of slaves for your masters....

how about..instead.....we made all those tax fraudsters cough up the 14 billion they owe. and use that to help sort things out...
how about PROPER JOBS were created by the govt if necessary (and yes...it can be done)

by Guest Fri Jan 10, 2014 8:43 pm

grumpy old git wrote:
sphinx wrote:

I would suggest using the scheme that is so effective on those working at the moment - namely dont pay extra money just because a child is born.

Queue the wails "what about the children"

exactly.....what about them....of course YOU couldnt care if they a brought up in poverty, undernourished, and so on...just another generation of slaves for your masters....

how about..instead.....we made all those tax fraudsters cough up the 14 billion they owe. and use that to help sort things out...
how about PROPER JOBS were created by the govt if necessary (and yes...it can be done)

hear bloody hear!

by Guest Fri Jan 10, 2014 8:49 pm

So once again we see the total hatred some people have for the unemployed and those on benefits.

They are so prejudiced against them that they believe them incapable of managing to control whether they have children or not unlike the exalted working people who have managed to do this for many years.

by Guest Fri Jan 10, 2014 8:51 pm

Nobody here is saying they can't control whether they have children or not. The point is, why should they? I'd like to know why you think you have the right to take away their choice to have children.

by Guest Fri Jan 10, 2014 9:21 pm

sphinx wrote:So once again we see the total hatred some people have for the unemployed and those on benefits.

They are so prejudiced against them that they believe them incapable of managing to control whether they have children or not unlike the exalted working people who have managed to do this for many years.

More R/W twisting and squirming....controling whether or not is one thing..(or is it???)
wanting to have children...is another

may I point you to the ORIGINAL universal declaration of human rights (not the idiocy it has become.)

by Guest Fri Jan 10, 2014 9:57 pm

Sassy wrote:Nobody here is saying they can't control whether they have children or not. The point is, why should they? I'd like to know why you think you have the right to take away their choice to have children.

Nobody is taking away anyones right to have children - unless of course you believe the current system has taken away working peoples right to have children.

All that I am saying is those on benefits should have the same limitations as those working - do you have a problem with that?

by Guest Fri Jan 10, 2014 10:05 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
grumpy old git wrote:

Oh do stop spouting your sanctimonious rubbish.....MOST folks with children who are on benefits, ended up on benefits AFTER their job went down the pan, having had children BEFORE, whilst they still had a job..

gormless come to mind...long on rhetoric, short on facts and lacking critcal thinking ability....

No I will not bow to your threats, this is not your forum and you cant get away with your pathetic threats as you did before.

another tactic of the R/W, critcise em and you are per se threatening them...awwwwwwwww

My they are a delicate lot....

So you think people who have children, who are poor and then moan they do not have enough money are thinking with responsibility now do you now when they alone decided to have children? So where is your evidenced those who ended up on benefits with children lost their jobs?

We re here talking about responsibility, something you seem to clearly lack. Again others do not put their own needs first but that of their families and I applaud those that do, yet some not all but some are very irresponsible, you though wish to excuse this as per usual

by Clarkson Sat Jan 11, 2014 1:05 am

My point is or was for you seriously challenged those who work get vtaxed so much they can't afford to have a family and certainly not a large one. The likes of Philpott however can do because child benefit just keeps growing along with the family.

Nice hard working people are breeding at a much slower rate than the underclass a position defended by the lefties on here.

QED you are Philpotts heroes.

What have you got against decent hard working people. You need help.

by veya_victaous Sun Jan 12, 2014 12:54 am

What you need is more immigrants to drive down the costs of child care, maybe some sort of incentive for those willing to take minimum wage child care jobs?

That's what we have done with retirement homes, child care and several other things. Our Minimum wage is still much higher than the average wage in South East Asia so there have been plenty of takers.

by Guest Sun Jan 12, 2014 9:29 am

veya_victaous wrote:What you need is more immigrants to drive down the costs of child care, maybe some sort of incentive for those willing to take minimum wage child care jobs?

That's what we have done with retirement homes, child care and several other things. Our Minimum wage is still much higher than the average wage in South East Asia so there have been plenty of takers.

How would cheaper childcare help?

People on minimum wage cannot afford to pay someone else on minimum wage.

Quite besides that I personally am against the "childcare is the panacea for all evils" approach currently taken.

by nicko Sun Jan 12, 2014 9:49 am

no money paid after the 2nd child if your on benefits.

by Guest Sun Jan 12, 2014 10:28 am

nicko wrote:no money paid after the 2nd child if your on benefits.

I would prefer no money paid for children conceived/born while you are on benefits unless and until you are working.

So a person is working has 3 children looses their job has to claim benefits - all 3 children are covered

While a person who is unemployed and on benefits who gets pregnant and gives birth does not get any extra unless and until they return to work.

If the person with the 3 children they are getting benefits for has a 4th while on benefits that forth is not covered - unless and until they return to work.

by nicko Sun Jan 12, 2014 11:05 am

unfortunately we both know it will never happen.

by Guest Sun Jan 12, 2014 11:09 am

Whether or not it happens does not change the fact that the current system which sees those not working be able to afford more children while those working cannot is perverse.

by Guest Sun Jan 12, 2014 11:36 am

The rich, the tax dodging and the old are not asked to make sacrifices, which they won't be, because they are likely to vote Conservative, so why the hell should the poor give up having families. Most of the young people who are out of work through no choice of their own, will be out of work through their safest childbearing years. The arguments being used to stop them having children are exactly the same arguments against them having children in Victorian times. It seems the mindset is going backwards, not forwards.

by Sponsored content