Hit the poorest the hardest - is this really what people voted for?

[cannedheat]

Hit the poorest the hardest - is this really what people voted for.

I did.

 

[BadFish]

Hit the poorest the hardest - is this really what people voted for.

I did.

Yes I am a retard.

Ha ha ha

 

[cannedheat]

Ha ha ha

Are you mocking the afflicted, ya part time sheep shagger.

 

[blue'n'white]

I would go further - much further.
Scrap all working tax credits unless they are completely necessary - ie if the person is completely medically unable to work. Scrap child tax credits - if you want kids get up off your arse and go and earn the money to be able to afford kids !! We are raising a generation that takes but doesn't give and why should we pay people to breed. The tax and NIC of every worker who posts on here is being used to encourage people to do nothing but breed because they get more money from the State. So - easy - make it worthwhile to go out to work by scrapping the failed tax credit system. This would have the double benefit of saving the country billions of wasted pounds per year and getting people back to work. The country can't afford it so stop it NOW.
As an incentive you could stipulate that once a person has been in full time employment for say 6 months they would get some sort of tax credit (but at a vastly reduced rate compared to what it is now and only in the form of food vouchers which they can exchange at a supermarket) which would cease the minute they ceased work.
Either that or it's the Chinese way of sterilisation after one child
Yes I know it sounds harsh but we cannot keep giving money to the scroungers for them to go and spend on cheap lager and hang around the shoppng centres all day - the country is in dire financial straits and everyone has to pull together. It ain't going to get any better if we continue handing money over to the workshy.
There only 304,595 uses of the word "scroungers" to go . . . !

 

[Acker79]

So, the innocent child, who had no say in its creation, has to suffer?

 

[blue'n'white]

So, the innocent child, who had no say in its creation, has to suffer?

Well it's family will just have to bite the bullet and go out and find a job won't it - a job that's right - an outmoded concept whereby you work for someone and then they give you money which you can go out and spend rather than expecting the State to pay for little Chardonnay to have the latest pair of Nike trainers.

 

[kalinski]

Nasty old Tories. How dare they not spend millions the country doesn't have.

as long as we keep bailing out the banks each time they get it wrong eh! (£900 billion and counting)

 

[Insel affe]

Its the same old cycle

Labour in Power = Throw money around to the feral and feckless & Pc brigade in an effort to keep them in power.

tory in power = Take control of the over spending and make the cut backs required and put the country back in the black.

Repeat Repeat Repeat, Get over it

The sooner poor people understand we dont live in a hippy utopia and you cant have everything you want for nothing. Life has tuff choices ie cant afford to feed your kids , tuff ask madonna if she would take them off your hands or dont have any in the first place

When are people going to realize Rich people rule the world end of, stop bitching about how little you have compared to your neighbour and remember your nothings in this world unless you have a helicopter

 

[Acker79]

Well it's family will just have to bite the bullet and go out and find a job won't it - a job that's right - an outmoded concept whereby you work for someone and then they give you money which you can go out and spend rather than expecting the State to pay for little Chardonnay to have the latest pair of Nike trainers.

And if they don't/can't (it's not as if there's an abundance of jobs, let alone those that pay enough to cover rent and food and taxes, and essentials (water bills, electricity))? It's easy to say "screw these scroungers!" but the kids they have surely deserve a chance? We shouldn't abandon them to starvation and destitution because their parents weren't fit to have them in the first place, should we?

 

[Tooting Gull]

I would go further - much further.
Scrap all working tax credits unless they are completely necessary - ie if the person is completely medically unable to work. . !

Happily, you reveal your total stupidity right at the beginning of that very long post - meaning the rest of it can easily be dismissed out of hand.

Working tax credits are not Job Seekers Allowance, neither are they Disability Living Allowance (for disability, in case you're struggling) or Employment and Support Allowance (if you're ill or injured). They are for people IN work, an incentive for those on or near the point at which you'd be better off on benefits than working at a low wage.

Whether you agree with them is another thing. But do try and understand what they are, or you make yourself look a complete tit.

 

[Insel affe]

And if they don't/can't (it's not as if there's an abundance of jobs, let alone those that pay enough to cover rent and food and taxes, and essentials (water bills, electricity))? It's easy to say "screw these scroungers!" but the kids they have surely deserve a chance? We shouldn't abandon them to starvation and destitution because their parents weren't fit to have them in the first place, should we?

When all is said and done, how many times do we see these stories on tv etc and follow some chav bint round the supermarket moaning that they have no money and oooooohhhh wooooow is me bollox and they then buy 200 fags.... Feck em, our parents and grandparents struggled, this is feck all compared to what they went through not to mention the war

 

[El Presidente]

not to mention the war

[yt]<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yfl6Lu3xQW0&hl=en_GB&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yfl6Lu3xQW0&hl=en_GB&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>[/yt]

 

[Insel affe]

[yt]<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yfl6Lu3xQW0&hl=en_GB&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yfl6Lu3xQW0&hl=en_GB&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>[/yt]

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

So define poverty then! There is a huge difference between low income families and living in poverty. Strangely all these well-to-do organisations spout about poverty but never mention how they actually measure it.

How is poverty (low income) defined?


Since poverty is something that is inherently relative, a household is considered to be in low income ('income poverty' or 'poverty' for short) if its income is less than 60% of median UK household income for the year in question.

By being defined in relation to the median, this measure looks at the gap between the poorest and the middle, not the poorest and the richest. So while some inequality – the difference between the top and the bottom – is inevitable, poverty is not. There is no mathematical reason why any household should be below 60% of median, contemporary household income.

Throughout this site, poverty is defined and measured for the household as a whole rather than for the individuals in it. If a household is in poverty, it means that all the individuals living in that household are also in poverty.

In order to compare households, adjustments have to be made for household size. An individual living alone does not require the same income to enjoy a set standard of living as do a family of four. However, the requirements of a family of four are not four times that of a single person living alone. The household income is therefore 'equivalised' (adjusted) for size and composition using the same standard approach as that employed by the Department for Work and Pensions in its annual Households Below Average Income series.


This is from London's Poverty Profile. Sounds like a load of bollocks to me.

As mentioned its all relative. We do not have child labour/child beggars starving families living in shanty town (apart from Crystal Palace).

The country should be run like any business. When the business is profitable then be more generous but when times are hard you cut your cloth accordingly. It may hurt and perhaps it should, for when you start to move into profit once more you may just save a little for the next dip, unlike the last government.

 

[mcshane in the 79th]

Nasty old Tories. How dare they not spend millions the country doesn't have.

I've just read this entire thread and this is by far the most concise and accurate post on it

 

[Billy the Fish]

It may hurt and perhaps it should, for when you start to move into profit once more you may just save a little for the next dip, unlike the last government.

As someone said earlier, once the deficit is no longer a deficit and we have a chance to pay a bit off our national debt - Labour will probably be back in charge to piss it all up the wall again on civil servants and scroungers

 

[blue'n'white]

Happily, you reveal your total stupidity right at the beginning of that very long post - meaning the rest of it can easily be dismissed out of hand.

Working tax credits are not Job Seekers Allowance, neither are they Disability Living Allowance (for disability, in case you're struggling) or Employment and Support Allowance (if you're ill or injured). They are for people IN work, an incentive for those on or near the point at which you'd be better off on benefits than working at a low wage.

Whether you agree with them is another thing. But do try and understand what they are, or you make yourself look a complete tit.

Hands up - yes you're right I made a mistake in referring to working tax credits instead of job seekers allowance. However i am not stupid and I do understand what these benefits are !! In my haste to get things down on (virtual) paper i made an error My point remains the same though - not working is now a life style choice and we cannot afford for it to be so

 

[Lord Bracknell]

The country doesn't have the money because the country doesn't tax the people who do have it.

 

[blue'n'white]

How about if every worker in the country gave up say £20 from one month's salary and MPs gave up say £100 - all proceeds to go to pay off the national debt - after all we're all in this together thanks to 13 years of Uncle Gordon pissing our money up against the wall. Cut benefits by £20 for that month too. All for the national good

 

[Twinkle Toes]

The country doesn't have the money because the country doesn't tax the people who do have it.

This.