Re: Should Iain Duncan Smiths expenses be capped at £26k a y : Tue Jan 24, 2012 6:44 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

It is also immoral that they refuse to excude child benefit from the total allowable. Why should family 'A' be penalised simply because they have more children than family 'B'?

But it's all OK because Chris Graying says "they can move". So they GET MOVED (social engineering anyone?) to an area of cheaper housing that will undeoubtedly have fewer job opportunities.

Another well thought out tory-bastad plan

Why should we pay people to have kids? If people can't afford to support their children, they should not have them.

Re: Should Iain Duncan Smiths expenses be capped at £26k a y : Tue Jan 24, 2012 7:17 pm  

XBrettKennyX wrote:

Why should we pay people to have kids? If people can't afford to support their children, they should not have them.

Ooooh you will be popular with Standee. I didn't expect you to sink any lower but you surprise even me with the total stupidity of that right-wing soundbite.

Re: Should Iain Duncan Smiths expenses be capped at £26k a y : Tue Jan 24, 2012 8:17 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

Ooooh you will be popular with Standee. I didn't expect you to sink any lower but you surprise even me with the total stupidity of that right-wing soundbite.

Explain why it's stupid.

You DO realise that money isn't magically created don't you?

You DO realise that anything the government spends isn't "their" money, rather it's extracted from us (taxpayers)?

Re: Should Iain Duncan Smiths expenses be capped at £26k a y : Tue Jan 24, 2012 8:46 pm  

XBrettKennyX wrote:

Explain why it's stupid.

You DO realise that money isn't magically created don't you?

You DO realise that anything the government spends isn't "their" money, rather it's extracted from us (taxpayers)?

Exactly, so why should money be extracted from the taxpayer to pay over £26k of expenses for a bureaucrat like Ian Duncan Smith?

Just because "its not fraud" doesn't mean it's right?

There are plenty of benefit claimants rolling in £30k or more, and they aren't committing fraud. Does this mean it's right?

Pay IDS his salary of £135k or whatever and he can live off that. If he needs some other absolute necessities to carry out his job then there may be a role for taxpayer subsidy but I don't see why that needs to be in excess of £26k.

It's about time we start thinking about the productive sector of the economy (ie entrepreneurs, small business owners) and the hard working man and woman in the street rather than a privileged set of people in "government" thinking that taxes are there to subsidise their lifestyles of luxury.

Re: Should Iain Duncan Smiths expenses be capped at £26k a y : Tue Jan 24, 2012 9:20 pm  

sally cinnamon wrote:

Exactly, so why should money be extracted from the taxpayer to pay over £26k of expenses for a bureaucrat like Ian Duncan Smith?

Just because "its not fraud" doesn't mean it's right?

There are plenty of benefit claimants rolling in £30k or more, and they aren't committing fraud. Does this mean it's right?

Pay IDS his salary of £135k or whatever and he can live off that. If he needs some other absolute necessities to carry out his job then there may be a role for taxpayer subsidy but I don't see why that needs to be in excess of £26k.

It's about time we start thinking about the productive sector of the economy (ie entrepreneurs, small business owners) and the hard working man and woman in the street rather than a privileged set of people in "government" thinking that taxes are there to subsidise their lifestyles of luxury.

I could be wrong but I am pretty sure that the expenses over £26k are used to pay his staff.

Failing this I have no idea about the breakdown of IDS's expenses. Maybe you could ask him.

I agree 100% with your next paragraph. In fact this is why I end up supporting the Conservatives. Whilst I am pretty fed up of all politicians, at least they agree with this. Labour generally support "big government". They like spending other peoples money.

Re: Should Iain Duncan Smiths expenses be capped at £26k a y : Tue Jan 24, 2012 9:34 pm  

If you're ever down this way Sally, I'll take you for a trip on the boat. With your skills we'd clean up

Re: Should Iain Duncan Smiths expenses be capped at £26k a y : Tue Jan 24, 2012 9:37 pm  

Dally wrote:

One way to cut the benefits bill would be to only allow State welfare, housing benefits, health care to those born in the UK, those who have lived and worked here for 16 consecutive years, those who have been "invited" here as refugees from distaster, etc and those from countries with reciprocal arrangements of equivalent generosity for UK people residing there (eg EU countries).

That would seem fair, reasonable and popular to me.

I wouldn't get a penny or have my joint replacments or health care on the NHS then if this was the case I wasn't born here and neither had I 16 consecutive years before I became ill, but I did work a full time and two part time jobs before I had to give them all up, paying more tax on my second two jobs than my main job. Just like most of the Tory policies, ill though out.

Re: Should Iain Duncan Smiths expenses be capped at £26k a y : Tue Jan 24, 2012 9:37 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

If you're ever down this way Sally, I'll take you for a trip on the boat. With your skills we'd clean up

Oh dear. In the words of Blackadder "You should go to Jamaica and become a limbo dancer"

Re: Should Iain Duncan Smiths expenses be capped at £26k a y : Tue Jan 24, 2012 9:39 pm  

XBrettKennyX wrote:

Explain why it's stupid.

You DO realise that money isn't magically created don't you?

You DO realise that anything the government spends isn't "their" money, rather it's extracted from us (taxpayers)?

If you think people decide to have children simply to gain access to child benefit, then you are stupid. Sorry but there's no other word for it.

Re: Should Iain Duncan Smiths expenses be capped at £26k a y : Tue Jan 24, 2012 9:41 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

If you think people decide to have children simply to gain access to child benefit, then you are stupid. Sorry but there's no other word for it.

Not "just" child benefit.........a free house and other associated benefits too.

If you think that some people DON'T have kids for this reason, then you are stupid AND deluded.