
David is smiling at Gideon's improbably shaped head.
cos he calls him George.
I think the news should call him Gideon
(,
Tue 5 Oct 2010, 12:12,
archived)
I think the news should call him Gideon
as the future Baronet of Ballintaylor, the cunt.
(,
Tue 5 Oct 2010, 12:22,
archived)
I'm loving this story over at the Guardian in which a well-off father of five complains that he needs that child benefit money to take his kids to football practice and McDonald's.
(,
Tue 5 Oct 2010, 12:20,
archived)
that's a helpful argument.
Silly cunt shouldn't have had so many fucking children!
(,
Tue 5 Oct 2010, 12:28,
archived)
Silly cunt shouldn't have had so many fucking children!
It beggars belief that some many people think they should get 'free petty cash' from the public purse for no good reason.
(,
Tue 5 Oct 2010, 12:31,
archived)
I mean FFS it's not all fairgrounds and fireworks!
(,
Tue 5 Oct 2010, 12:41,
archived)
he thought the state would (and should) pay for them forever
(,
Tue 5 Oct 2010, 12:33,
archived)
for every child after the 2nd one.
(,
Tue 5 Oct 2010, 12:39,
archived)
Don't the Chinese have a similar system? You get benefit for your first sprog, but they take it away if you have more.
IIRC it was intended to control population growth, but the end result is more backstreet abortions.
(,
Tue 5 Oct 2010, 12:44,
archived)
IIRC it was intended to control population growth, but the end result is more backstreet abortions.
You get allowed a first child but you have to scrap any subsequent children, or do you pick your favourite, I don't know how it works.
(,
Tue 5 Oct 2010, 12:49,
archived)
Could be apocryphal, could be true.
(,
Tue 5 Oct 2010, 13:27,
archived)
For family's earning over £44.000 a year
Nicely done shop
(,
Tue 5 Oct 2010, 12:26,
archived)
Nicely done shop
Isn't it for earners of over 44k?
So you can have two people who earn 43k and still claim?
Still, a step in the right direction IMO.
(,
Tue 5 Oct 2010, 12:29,
archived)
So you can have two people who earn 43k and still claim?
Still, a step in the right direction IMO.
the system he has proposed is unfair as one family who earn a combined income of 86k could still get child benefit, whereas their next door neighbours have only one earner who's on 44k will not.
The reason that child benefit is universal is because the only fair way for it not to be involves means testing, which would cost more than just giving it to everyone does.
(,
Tue 5 Oct 2010, 12:35,
archived)
The reason that child benefit is universal is because the only fair way for it not to be involves means testing, which would cost more than just giving it to everyone does.
So I don't get why it would be so hard to means test this one too.
(,
Tue 5 Oct 2010, 12:44,
archived)
rather than having to check up on everyone who has children (I'm just guessing here).
To be honest, I don't see why means testing would be so hard either, but that's the long-standing argument for keeping child benefit universal.
edit/ now I'm off to spend my daughter's child benefit on lunch while I still can...
(,
Tue 5 Oct 2010, 12:50,
archived)
To be honest, I don't see why means testing would be so hard either, but that's the long-standing argument for keeping child benefit universal.
edit/ now I'm off to spend my daughter's child benefit on lunch while I still can...
