Politics
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
26 Mar 13
09:06
Joined:
Date Joined:
09 Mar 08
Self inflicted circumstance changes would mean you could claim no more money. Say you are an 28 yr old woman on jsa and you become pregnant then that becomes your responsibility and you can get no extra income.
If a person claiming a benefit is caught in possession of drugs or arrested for a drink related crime then all funds are stopped as they are not intended for these purposes.
If a person claiming a benefit is caught in possession of drugs or arrested for a drink related crime then all funds are stopped as they are not intended for these purposes.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 52
|
By:
I agree with that.
Nevertheless you won't get much joy with those proposals from some on here. Captain Wazzock and the hillbilly Ronald Reagan for two think that claiming LHA and then spending it on something else is quite in order. I’m sure they won’t find a single thing wrong with breeding for benefits, or spending benefits on drink or drugs. I’d flog them if I had my way. And the benefit fraudsters if it comes to that. |
|
By:
The answer is even simpler. Child benefit for two children only.
|
|
By:
Yes but not even that if you get pregnant while in the position of being minded financially by the state.
|
|
By:
You guys are all lilly livered liberal Lefties.
Why should I pay for any of your kids let alone two? This world is already overcrowded as it is and no one should be paid to breed a single child by the taxpayer!!!  |
|
By:
Money Tree cost me thousands!! 26 Mar 13 10:44
Yes but not even that if you get pregnant while in the position of being minded financially by the state. Always best to keep things simple whenever possible. That's part of the problem, the state complicates things to such an extent, in the end it costs as much to administer the benefit as the benefit itself. |
|
By:
I met a guy a few days ago - I thought I was bad - he said claimants should be flogged !!??? errr excuse me!!?? what!!!! ha ha!!!! He seemed to be serious - wasn't said in a humorous way either!!! I think he went to public school!!??
|
|
By:
Was his name Duncan Smith ?
|
|
By:
No, he was just a mild mannered chappy in glasses - quite diffident, polite even - I was quite shocked how serious he was about it - I know we all joke but this guy was serious serious!!!
|
|
By:
Ah Jim lad!
|
|
By:
moisok 26 Mar 13 12:58
No, he was just a mild mannered chappy in glasses - quite diffident, polite even - I was quite shocked how serious he was about it - I know we all joke but this guy was serious serious!!! Do you just see him when you close your eyes or does he come to you at other time as well? |
|
By:
he was a bloke I met recently - I must say I was speechless(unusual for me) - he was so serious - I only believe in putting them in the stocks - he was too extreme for me ha ha!!!
|
|
By:
Vouchers... If people want to be nannied from cradle to grave then they won't mind being told what they can eat, drink and do for entertainment.
|
|
By:
Stick with universal credit flat rate. If people don't want to work fair enough. Would save a lot of money on staffing.
Should reduce crime too. |
|
By:
Changes i would make to the benefit system would be:
To reduce MP`s wages buy 10% Reduce MP`s nightly accommodation expense to £100 (from £130) in London. Accommodation: Payable only to non-London area MPs to cover expenses incurred for overnight accommodation necessary for the performance of an MP's parliamentary duties. Claims may be made for rental payments and associated expenses such as utility bills, up to an annual limit of Reduce from £19,900 to £17,400 of which a maximum of £17,400 may be claimed for rental payments. With other benefits under review. |
|
By:
Someone might correct me but i am under the impression that benefit fraud accounts for between 0.3 to 0.1% of the total welfare bill.
While its fair to at least discuss changes to the welfare system there is so much propaganda regarding fraud. A review of the welfare system should not be instigated until the fraud at the top of society id dealt with first. |
|
By:
Top post paddletoe.
|
|
By:
The state pension and benefits for pensioners are the components of social security spending that need to be examined and adapted with the highest priority.
The sooner this happens the better, but it won't happen (at least at the moment) for political (read election) reasons. State pensions made up 37% of the welfare bill in 11/12 and this is only going to increase. The system needs to be reformed because the country simply cannot afford to continue paying a universal state pension. Means testing will have to be introduced (the rich shouldn't get a state pension and associated benefits) and should be done so alongside a sweetener for the better off, namely the abolishment of inheritance tax. The state pension system as it stands is a ticking time-bomb. Benefit fraud and stuff of the type mentioned by the OP is small fry. |
|
By:
In 2001 Total Fertility Rates dropped to their lowest point ever. With the population aging & not enough kids being born to pay for the pensions of the future, Labour began to address the problem by opening up immigration to the new EU countries Poland etc and allowing them access immediately instead of deferring access as most other EU countries for seven years. That policy was successful & TFR have begun to recover, one reason being new immigrant communities have higher fertility rates & larger families.
Now you bunch of thick idiots want to start bringing in policies to discourage child birth  brilliant!Why not just shut all tax avoidance loopholes & make it illegal to avoid paying taxes? No! You lot just want to hammer the poor, & stop people having kids! But then I suppose in your cases 'Some mothers do 'ave 'em!' |
|
By:
Why dont they have an opt out option for the state pension and if you do you get a reduced tax on income or as mentioned before no inheritance tax. I would happily give up my pension if it meant my daughter got everything tax free from my will
|
|
By:
And northern lad there is not a war against child birth here but should the person creating the child not be obligated to be in a position to look after child before they get knocked up?
|
|
By:
The answer is even simpler. Child benefit for two children only.
And what happens to the father of 4 who loses his job? from no fault of his own. |
|
By:
You can't back date legislation but you can change what will happen in the future.
|
|
By:
"Why not just shut all tax avoidance loopholes & make it illegal to avoid paying taxes?"
You want to make tax avoidance illegal. You understand this means that you want it to be illegal for somebody to obey the law? Idiot. Maybe just change the law instead. What loopholes would you close? |
|
By:
The trouble with importing breeders, is the brats that they produce don't turn into workers who would keep our aging population, but end up unemployed and a further burden on the state with 50% of young working age ethnics out of work.
This is where the remedy for an aging population goes spectacularly wrong. We can't house provide services or find jobs for a steady population let alone an expanding one. Furthermore we are being expected to work even longer now before retiring, so much for importing workers to look after us. Our old are expected to keep working to look after the immigrants instead of the immigrants looking after them. |
|
By:
Same argument can be made for domestic natives dependent on child benefit. These offspring are far less likely to be productive and contribute back to the State. We should be encouraging the strong gene pools to breed, but at present we encourage the weakest. Stupid breeds stupid unfortunately, and not only that they then see a parent who expects the State to provide for them and naturally thinks this is normal.
|
|
By:
I wonder which figure from history will get a mention from the next dumb leftie in answer to some valid points
 |
|
By:
Perhaps I should clarify that I am happy for every citizen to have a child, but encouraging the weaker pools to procreate faster than the refined pools is madness and the road to destitution. A herd of lame buffalo will be all be consumed by the lions if the strong buffalo are forced to run at the slowest pace.
|
|
By:
Think i'd just stick to issuing vouchers rather then cash, and leave the eugenics to others.. Very difficult to get across to the electorate without appearing a bit Dr Menegele!
|
|
By:
vouchers
|
|
By:
"Very difficult to get across to the electorate without appearing a bit Dr Menegele! "
Well it's one thing to deliberately engineer a master race. It is quite another to not financially incentivise your citizens to weaken your own population. These are quite different things. |
|
By:
Not sure they are that different... Both involve someone (i suppose you in this case) identifying who the people are that are appropriate to breed and who are not.
|
|
By:
Don't agree at all.
I would level the playing field and then everyone is incentivised to breed at the same rate. You can argue that child benefit involves a Labour Government identifying the demographics that are most likely to vote Red and encouraging them to have as many offspring as possible through financial incentives. I am saying let's not incentivise one group over another. Logically that is surely the opposite of someone "identifying who the people are that are appropriate to breed and who are not. " |
|
By:
Thats not a bad thing, walk through any town centre and you'll easily identify dozens who should be sterilised on the spot.
|
|
By:
would shooting a few banksters(like they shot those dogs) to encourage the rest to hand back our money?
|
|
By:
Thats not a bad thing, walk through any town centre and you'll easily identify dozens who should be sterilised on the spot.
Are on about sterilizing 12 year old girls again Blacky. Is this your dream? |
|
By:
Thats not a bad thing, walk through any town centre and you'll easily identify dozens who should be sterilised on the spot.
Are YOU on about sterilizing 12 year old girls again Blacky. Is this your dream? |
|
By:
You are warped
|
|
By:
It`s your ideology Blacky.
A what age would you sterilise the girls then? |
|
By:
4, there you go gabrial, jump up and down, remember that one and post in a few weeks time that I want to sterilise every girl on her first day at primary school just in case she has more than one child with an IQ less than 150.
|