Re: Should Iain Duncan Smiths expenses be capped at £26k a y : Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:31 pm  

Coach wrote:

I actually agree the rich don't need the Child Benefit

Do they need DLA too?

Re: Should Iain Duncan Smiths expenses be capped at £26k a y : Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:32 pm  

Big Graeme wrote:

Complete cobblers and you know it.

No it isn't.

1. Keep housing in the public sector and pay for the upkeep/repairs

2. Sell house off, gain money from initial sale, don't pay for upkeep/repairs.

Explain why it's cobblers please.

Re: Should Iain Duncan Smiths expenses be capped at £26k a y : Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:33 pm  

XBrettKennyX wrote:

Oh come on.

You are not seriously telling me that you don't think there are people who do this?

Honestly are you?

Because if you are then you are either naive in the extreme or arguing for the sake of it.

Your comprehension skills need a polish if you think that is what I said.

Re: Should Iain Duncan Smiths expenses be capped at £26k a y : Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:34 pm  

She brings in far more to this country in revenue from wide variety of things then they will ever take out

and the charity most of them do far out ways any mistakes they have made as well


Yep. I don't think we appreciate just how rare and appealing this is to tourists.

Re: Should Iain Duncan Smiths expenses be capped at £26k a y : Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:37 pm  

XBrettKennyX wrote:

No it isn't.

1. Keep housing in the public sector and pay for the upkeep/repairs

2. Sell house off, gain money from initial sale, don't pay for upkeep/repairs.

Explain why it's cobblers please.

1. This thing called rent paid for the repairs and upkeep it even paid for new homes to be built, remember that the vast amount of social housing at the time was used by those in work.

2. No it went to keep the failed poll tax (another example of social engineering) low for the rich in their big homes.

If you maintain that selling off the housing stock was not social engineering then you don't know what social engineering is.

Re: Should Iain Duncan Smiths expenses be capped at £26k a y : Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:37 pm  

Big Graeme wrote:

Your comprehension skills need a polish if you think that is what I said.

I do apologise, I thought u said

Why is it you and your ilk always think that these families have set out to live on benefits and milk the system

Then again I must admit I am shattered, having worked 13 hours today in order to keep my job and provide the tax revenue so that some non-work can squeeze another kid out and get more money for her smokes.......

Re: Should Iain Duncan Smiths expenses be capped at £26k a y : Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:39 pm  

Big Graeme wrote:

1. This thing called rent paid for the repairs and upkeep it even paid for new homes to be built, remember that the vast amount of social housing at the time was used by those in work.

2. No it went to keep the failed poll tax (another example of social engineering) low for the rich in their big homes.

If you maintain that selling off the housing stock was not social engineering then you don't know what social engineering is.

1. Council rent rarely did. Especially in London with the GLC
2. Poll Tax wasn't social engineering. It was about what the Tories (and me for the record) considered fairness. Very simple, you pay in line with what you take. More people = more strain on resources e.g. more rubbish generated, more use of libraries etc

Nothing at all wrong with this imo.

I think it is you who needs to look up the definition of social engineering.

Re: Should Iain Duncan Smiths expenses be capped at £26k a y : Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:40 pm  

XBrettKennyX wrote:

I do apologise, I thought u said

Then again I must admit I am shattered, having worked 13 hours today in order to keep my job and provide the tax revenue so that some non-work can squeeze another kid out and get more money for her smokes.......

Sorry, I thought I'd included an all in that sentence. It was meant to read

Why is it you and your ilk always think that all these families have set out to live on benefits and milk the system

Re: Should Iain Duncan Smiths expenses be capped at £26k a y : Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:43 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

Go back through the thread and you'll find my specific argument is the unfairness of including a universal benefit (child benefit), in the total allowed. It penalises those with more children harder.

That has been my argument all the way through the thread and you, XBrettKennyX and Coach have completely ignored the unfairness of such a system

To be fair if you look through we haven't we have kept to the topic which is anything over 26k is no way ho say if child benefit is included in that then tough for them 26k is more then enough to bring up a child do you agree or not.

I didn't want this argument with a fellow black and white and on our board i agree with alot you say but it is time to get tough on people that take the mickey in our society. I scraped by for over a year, some of my friends will tell you on here at my own business there wasn't a lot of work in Hull i was way under the bread line nearly lost my house i didn't claim once because i shouldn't of got myself into that position and i was determined to pull myself out of it (these footballers don't know what struggling is and depression)

I will not here after been a lot worse off then most for a period of my life that 26k is not enough it is an absolute joke people think they have a right to be looked after and im sorry they don't. You get out of life what you put in but it took me to go right to the bottom before i could come back up again i now travel everyday to Leeds to work. I work most weekends also still doing my work i did before but it wasn't busy enough in Hull for what i did some i became full time employed again also. The work is out there if you want it !!

Re: Should Iain Duncan Smiths expenses be capped at £26k a y : Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:43 pm  

Big Graeme wrote:

Sorry, I thought I'd included an all in that sentence. It was meant to read

Why is it you and your ilk always think that all these families have set out to live on benefits and milk the system

Of course it isn't "all", there are of course geniune cases (and I have absolutely no problem supporting them).

There are, however, way too many scroungers who choose not to work.