Wed Apr 06, 2011 9:57 am
Wed Apr 06, 2011 10:08 am
Midfield general wrote:or will cuts in this benefit really make people realise the cost of having children before they give birth to kids at such a young age..?
Wed Apr 06, 2011 10:10 am
castleblue wrote:Midfield general wrote:or will cuts in this benefit really make people realise the cost of having children before they give birth to kids at such a young age..?
Do MP deserve to have a 2nd home including internal fittings like widescreen LCD TV's on the UK tax payer, afterall how many people who earn a fraction of an MP's £75K salary have to pay for these things themselves.
Wed Apr 06, 2011 10:20 am
Wed Apr 06, 2011 10:25 am
Vintage 63 wrote:Said on the news last night that the newly soon to be elected AMs for the Welsh assembly will earn £54k per annum
Wed Apr 06, 2011 5:28 pm
Wed Apr 06, 2011 5:43 pm
Wed Apr 06, 2011 5:46 pm
Midfield general wrote:or will cuts in this benefit really make people realise the cost of having children before they give birth to kids at such a young age..?
Wed Apr 06, 2011 5:54 pm
Wed Apr 06, 2011 6:08 pm
Wed Apr 06, 2011 6:09 pm
Wed Apr 06, 2011 6:10 pm
troobloo3339 wrote:surly you have to be a tax payer(i.e. in employment) to get TAX CREDITS there for it must be a benifit for the low paid (probably hard working)people only so yes there are worthy reciepients
Wed Apr 06, 2011 6:11 pm
Wed Apr 06, 2011 6:11 pm
Tony Blue Williams wrote:Child Tax Credits is also an ‘in work benefit’ i.e. you don't have to be on the dole to get it.
It was Gordon Brown's idea to introduce CTC along with Working Tax Credit in 1999. The basic idea is wealth distribution, a way of giving lower paid workers a higher standard of living.
That is why a person’s status should have no bearing on whether they can procreate, as the thinking that the low paid should live in poverty if they have children is so 19th Century.
If the question is one about those on benefits having children (for example 2) then again I would argue that a person's status should-not interfere with their decision to have children.
However, we know there is a problem with a small number of benefit claimants who have large families in order to play the benefits system. I fully support the way the Government is tackling this by putting a cap on benefits, but it should only apply to new claims and not be retrospective as the ones who will suffer are the blameless children who again would have to live in poverty and that is unacceptable in 21st Century.
Wed Apr 06, 2011 6:34 pm
Bridgend_bluebird wrote:SOME people deserve it because they have genuine reasons like, they cant finda job, they can get a job due to medical reasons, retired, or getting awful pay. And some are lazy gits who ponce off the money to get booze for themselves
Wed Apr 06, 2011 6:35 pm
Berwyn wrote:Bridgend_bluebird wrote:SOME people deserve it because they have genuine reasons like, they cant finda job, they can get a job due to medical reasons, retired, or getting awful pay. And some are lazy gits who ponce off the money to get booze for themselves
No. YOU ONLY GET TAX CREDITS IF YOU ARE IN WORK !!!
No job means no tax credits. It is in no way an unemployment benefit.
Wed Apr 06, 2011 6:37 pm
Wed Apr 06, 2011 6:45 pm
Wed Apr 06, 2011 6:49 pm
Bridgend_bluebird wrote:Berwyn wrote:Bridgend_bluebird wrote:SOME people deserve it because they have genuine reasons like, they cant finda job, they can get a job due to medical reasons, retired, or getting awful pay. And some are lazy gits who ponce off the money to get booze for themselves
No. YOU ONLY GET TAX CREDITS IF YOU ARE IN WORK !!!
No job means no tax credits. It is in no way an unemployment benefit.
ok im confused...i thought benefits are for unemployed people who need it.
Wed Apr 06, 2011 6:52 pm