Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Dave: Prolls Ought Not Have Children Before They Can Afford To


Recommended Posts

Rubbish, on this one they're absolutely spot on.

+1

Realistbear has either misunderstood, or can pay my taxes for me if he thinks paying for teenage mums to have benefits and expensive new build houses is the right thing for the state to be doing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 174
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Let's face it. The world doesn't need more of the efforts that dole claimers can breed. We're over populated as it is, so the last thing the world needs are more dumb bastr4rds who will probably grow up to be a waste of air, just like their parents.

This goes for the useless middle classes too. All are just poor waste's of space, if you get right down to the bottom line.

The planet needs a break. :ph34r:

Link to post
Share on other sites

+1

Especially as he's already seen fit to reduce the income of those HWF who have a 40%er in the household.

dont worry, your chancellor will use the oirish model to create growth, what could go wrong. Whilst i have difficulty differentiating between the ineptitude of Osbourn bigging up the oirish economy in 2006 and Brown, eulogising a golden era of banking starting in 2007, people are still willing to be differentiated and vote for these definitions of ineptitude whilst they claim "legitamate" expenses...

Left /right/shite shinola, yes thats where its at

Edited by georgia o'keeffe
Link to post
Share on other sites

My great granddad was a builder, 5 children by 25, he didn't need benefits and paid taxes, he could afford to support them.

My granddad was a builder, 3 children by 30, he didn't need benefits, paid taxes and he could afford to support them.

My dad's an accountant, 3 children by 40, he didn't need benefits, paid taxes but he fled the nest, leaving my mother (a nurse who has worked since 16 with maternity break only, to support us, she couldn't manage to do this properly and is now heavily in debt) to bring up two, and an accountant who remarried to bring up the other (also in a lot of debt).

If I start saving now and live on the streets for 18 years, I could probably have one at 50, that is if I don't access the benefit system.

But were richer now aren't we. House prices are high, and we have mobile phones with cameras on!

I'll be claiming my benefits than you very much. I'm not forgoing having children or getting into debt to live a normal life because of a dysfunctional system.

I yearn for the lifestyle of my great granddad. Take my mobile phone, laptop and tv, let me drink in the pub, have a roof over my head, a garden, a wife and 5 children and the ability to pay for their upkeep on only my wage!

Link to post
Share on other sites

+ 1

It is even worse. For teenage girls who left school without qualifications the current policy sounds like: "If you get pregnant we'll give you a house and benefits for life."

If I were a teenager, and in a similar in situation, I would probably fall for it - not knowing that it would vastly reduce my future chances of a stable relationship and a happy life.

Not to mention the children, born in immature households.

A disaster all round.

Couple of years ago a very large study was published in the US. It examined the lives of tens of thousands of women. Success (or at least avoiding abject failure) came down to three things,

-stay in education as long as possible

-get a job no matter how low paid, as a poor job is a better gateway to a decent job than no job

-never have a child unless you're in a stable relationship

Scoring well on all three measures almost guaranteed you wouldn't end up in society's bottom 20%, failing on two or more almost guaranteed you would.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Solution to the problem is to have family specific tax thresholds, rather than family specific benefits.

You are a single man, you can earn £7.745k tax before you pay 32% tax on any earnings higher than the threshold.

Currently a married man with 2 children must also pay 32% on earnings above the £7.745.

That isn't fair, and it doesn't provide a work incentive.

The married man with 2 children should be allowed to earn £21k tax free!

Rather than claim £9k+ in tax credits.

Link to post
Share on other sites

very little pisses me off mroe about this country than child benefit.

your children are competition for mine - pay for them yourself!

perhaps you should have been smart enough to move to another country where children werent a govt prerogative rather than bitching about missing a trend

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most people in the country are just too poor to give the world the benefit of their sacks and eggs. I always laugh when people earning a rubbish hand out every month (salary) think that they are going to be able to sustain children and themselves without debt.........oh wait a fecking minute. For the last 60 years they haven't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Safety net, yes. Career choice, no.

About time someone had a backbone in politics..

like Ed balls, hes always struck me as a focused i dont give a shat sort of politico, and he does exude relative strength if you happen to be unfortunate enough to meet him, or is that the backbone you dont like, maybe you mean your tinged backbone, Gordon brown i think had backbone,, thatcher had backbone, but they were totally fckin inept at running an economy beyond their own innings

Edited by georgia o'keeffe
Link to post
Share on other sites

Having kids would be a major financial hit for the GF and I.

We both pay gut churning amounts of tax so that people who don't even begin to think about affording them can sh*t out the next wave of scroungers.

No one has the 'right' to have children at the expense of others.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dave could say this about a lot of things. Perhaps Dave should be saying that people ought not to buy a house before they can afford to, or a car, or a big TV or new kitchen etc.

I wonder why he isn't and why he's focusing on this?

Edited by shipbuilder
Link to post
Share on other sites

how/why was Thatcher bad in your opinion?not having a go,just interested in your take.

because on her watch she acted as if she had apparatchiks no matter how noble as far as council housing was concerned, she did nothing about bretton woods apart from the the endorsing it via big bang and GATT, she pissed away via privatisation N Sea oil in undesrved tax rebates, to reduce taxes in the name of a quick vote, and for a free marketeer she did fck all about destroying oop north in the name of London, i say that as a londoner, she was no worse or better than what went before or after, she just benefitted from timing In short she was a politician and they are the the cause of everything that has now caught up with us.

Seriously i am completely neutral in this, i care for left or right like i doo for religion or voodoo, but i do work within the realms of reality and history but id like to think that even she wouldnt have seen the 400 politicians who should be doing porridge whittled down to 3 or 4

Edited by georgia o'keeffe
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should a working tax payer pay for other people to be bone idle, yet still want all the trappings in life like having kids?

This goes further than this. Why do we pay for the work-shy to smoke, run cars, go on holiday, etc. Welfare is for genuine purposes, and to tide you over, not a career alternative.

Of course we'll here about all the real genuine cases as the main argument, but the real cases are very few and far between, and looking after them only would save a lot of money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2002195/David-Cameron-Families-children-afford-it.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

David Cameron courted controversy today by talking about families who had children before they could afford to support them.
The Prime Minister said he was determined to 'change values' in Britain so that hard-working families would be rewarded.

This govenment is out of touch not just with the electorate but with any sense of humanity.

If its to expensive for normal "HWF" to have kids its too expenive. Regime change please.

...that's complete twaddle.

Cameron is spot on - don't have kids until you can afford to support them.

It's called being responsible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

like Ed balls, hes always struck me as a focused i dont give a shat sort of politico, and he does exude relative strength if you happen to be unfortunate enough to meet him, or is that the backbone you dont like, maybe you mean your tinged backbone, Gordon brown i think had backbone,, thatcher had backbone, but they were totally fckin inept at running an economy beyond their own innings

I don't have a clue what you mean.. so I'll simply clarify by saying the strength of character to make a positive long term decision at the risk of jeopardising short term popularity.

Edited by libspero
Link to post
Share on other sites

haha typical tory/right wing crap.

It is a human right to have kids, tough, make the system serve the people not the other way around.

wealth redistribution is the only way, tax Cameron until he leaves the country.

tax the billionaires until they leave, who cares, the kids are the future not the miserable old buggers counting their money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a clue what you mean.. so I'll simply clarify by saying the strength of character to make a positive long term decision at the risk of jeopardising short term popularity.

ok im only 30 but ive not seen those credentials in a political decision in my entire life (apart from maybe the last x years on lax immigration)

Edited by georgia o'keeffe
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 433 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.