If you cant afford it, have a small family

[daizie]

HARD UP WOMEN: Discarded fag ends make ideal "toe spacers" for economy pedicures

[SeanMacGabhann]

and you definitely aren't waynetta, daizie?

[zeban]

Hugo, Hugo, Hugo... I'm sorry if what I write makes you think I'm making things up or have some weird goings on in my head. I do get passionate about subjects such as these because my view is one of an insider, unlike yourself. It's so easy to generalise in debates like these. And to be fair, you come across as a very miserable resentful old man so I just respond accordingly. Of course I don't wish anything happens to you, I'm not interested in teaching people lessons at all.

I was refering to this point you made in regards to IV's post:

'You've clearly got great kids, but other people will have kids who are a net drain on society. Besides most of their tax investment will go on providing services for themselvelves.'

I'm also in favour of reforming child benefits, to see that those who need it get it.

[Huguenot]

That's simply a statement of fact zeban. There are 3 million UK adults on long term unemployment benefits. They were children once.

It's not safe to assume that a child automatically develops into a tax-paying asset.

Now, please don't do anything terminally stupid like claim I was having a go at scroungers or anything. I'm spectacularly unimpressed by this encounter with an 'insider', but I should be humbled if you don't need to make anything else up to demonstrate your lofty surveil.

[zeban]

I apologise, I see that it was indeed a statement of facts. Now you're boring me with your rude responses Hugeego.

[Huguenot]

;-) I'll leave the others to decide who was being rude to whom.

[waynetta]

DONT throw away old pieces of string simply because they're too short. Knot them together and hey presto!

A new, longer, useful piece of string.

[zeban]

By all means :))

[KalamityKel]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> That's simply a statement of fact zeban. There are

> 3 million UK adults on long term unemployment

> benefits. They were children once.

>

> It's not safe to assume that a child automatically

> develops into a tax-paying asset.

>

> Now, please don't do anything terminally stupid

> like claim I was having a go at scroungers or

> anything. I'm spectacularly unimpressed by this

> encounter with an 'insider', but I should be

> humbled if you don't need to make anything else up

> to demonstrate your lofty surveil.

Nor is it "safe" to assume they wont.

Not a good point to make eh? ;-)

[DJKillaQueen]

And a good deal of them were children of working parents too.

[zeban]

A statement of facts in a loaded context.

[Huguenot]

Oh God.

*despair*

The point was that you cannot be sure that a child is an investment with a post dated return on taxable income.

Hence you can't use it as a robust justification for child benefit.

It's not a 'loaded' context. The only people who 'loaded' it were the ones who made completely fabricated claims about what I'd said in order to vilify my position, the ones who tried to turn it into a war of compassion for the starving and downtrodden.

[Loz]

I do get passionate about subjects such as these because my view is one of an insider, unlike yourself.

What do you mean by an 'insider'?

[zeban]

As in the background I've come from, my own personal experience. It's only been IV and myself who have layed these out on the line as a kind of counter argument to some simplistic responses to this debate. It is a complicated issue after all.

Look Huguenot, I'm sorry if I misread you, I honestly didn't think I did. It's true that 'you cannot be sure that a child is an investment with a post dated return on taxable income' but they also might well do that. There's also other ways you can contribute towards society than just paying your taxes.

[Huguenot]

I think she might mean she contributes to this insightful tome.

Or not.

[zeban]

Would love to meet you!

[Huguenot]

Zeban, we probably agree with each other. I'm not against the welfare system per se.

DJKQs summary of the impetus for delivering child benefit in the 40s may well be spot on, that it was created in a world that needed to come to terms with the empowerment of women and families.

However, if this was the case once, what is it now? Clearly rogue husbands down the pub spending the housekeeping would not wash for the creation of a new benefit allowance in the modern era.

If there are millions in poverty who need support then give it to them. Just don't call it child benefit, and don't give it to people for whom the biggest family challenge this year will be Tuscany or the Dordogne.

[DJKillaQueen]

If there are millions in poverty who need support then give it to them. Just don't call it child benefit, and don't give it to people for whom the biggest family challenge this year will be Tuscany or the Dordogne.

Finally we agree and all ends well. :)-D

[zeban]

:))

[reggie]

Ah a bit of closure...nice.

The next thing to work out is at what income level do we withdraw child benefit.

Any ideas?

[ImpetuousVrouw]

"More than what I earn", I imagine!