Tory Policies

frogmorton

Mmmm.....

still thinking........

tkachev

collywobble wrote:

So in theory, a couple could still earn up to 80K a year, and still qualify??????? Crazy - don't know about anywhere else, but there aren't many people up here who'll earn that amount.

And why wait until 2013, why now start it now?

It's a start I suppose :roll:

Lynn x

Yes if a man earns £45000 and wife stays at home she will lose her child beneft but if a couple earn £44000 each then they still get it. I know quite a few peeps who say they dont need the money so just save it for the children.However I think it is better than not making changes.
Maybe 2 kids Del.
And why with benefits are a couples income/savings lumped together but with the new child benefit ruling they won't be?

Elizabeth

frogmorton

When they do the EMA (paid to kids for staying at school post 16) they take into account both your earnings but not the fact that you may have more than one child of the same age like me and my husband.

They are [
paying kids to stay on even though the law says they have to stay on after 2-13 anyway....

mind you sorry :oops: this is a labour policy - maybe they will change it?

I agree with Elizabeth 2 kids is more reasonable.

snowball

collywobble wrote:

I know it might not be a popular opinion :oops: , but I just think it's fundamentally (morally) wrong for any government to hand out money it doesn't have, to people who MAY NOT need it, when there are people who are more deserving of it - the sick, the disabled, the low income elderly - who have to fight for every penny. Just isn't right.

Lynn x

Lynn I agree with you, a friend of mine lives on a private estate and a charity have bought one of the houses that was up for sale. They have put a family in who were evicted from there council property. The mother is now in prison so the grandmother is living there with 5 of the 9 children, 2 in care 1 in prison and the other has a asbo and can't go in that part of the city :roll: The children have wrecked gardens, damged cars, broken windows and other things, and what do they get motorised scooters from social services :shock: It's to entertain them so they wont cause anymore damage.

Jules

tkachev

collywobble wrote:

I know it might not be a popular opinion :oops: , but I just think it's fundamentally (morally) wrong for any government to hand out money it doesn't have, to people who MAY NOT need it, when there are people who are more deserving of it - the sick, the disabled, the low income elderly - who have to fight for every penny. Just isn't right.

Lynn x

and as i said 2 peeps earning around 80000 combined will still qualify. a single mother/father on 45000 will not.

elizabeth

tkachev

snowball wrote:

collywobble wrote:

I know it might not be a popular opinion :oops: , but I just think it's fundamentally (morally) wrong for any government to hand out money it doesn't have, to people who MAY NOT need it, when there are people who are more deserving of it - the sick, the disabled, the low income elderly - who have to fight for every penny. Just isn't right.

Lynn x

Lynn I agree with you, a friend of mine lives on a private estate and a charity have bought one of the houses that was up for sale. They have put a family in who were evicted from there council property. The mother is now in prison so the grandmother is living there with 5 of the 9 children, 2 in care 1 in prison and the other has a asbo and can't go in that part of the city :roll: The children have wrecked gardens, damged cars, broken windows and other things, and what do they get motorised scooters from social services :shock: It's to entertain them so they wont cause anymore damage.

Jules

why couldnt they put a decent family in there? someone with disabled kids who have suffered years of abuse from families like the above.

e x

mellman01

delboy wrote:

Good grief, another one. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11463182 Getting prisoners to work and pay their victims, taxes etc is a brilliant idea but again I would take it a step further and introduce chain gangs to clean up motorway litter, graffiti, etc.

With you on this one 100%, but I would make their physical work relate as much as it can to what it did, for example local vandals should repair the damage they do locally, I wouldn't tend to go the full US chain gang thing though coloured jump suits in a nice gay pink colour would do the job!.

snowball

Lynn it beggers belief as to why they would do that, my grandma's cousin used to own his own business making wrapping paper for harrods. He is very well off but sadly had a massive stroke. He pays for a private phisio (young women :roll: ) but when his wife applied for a blue badge he could only get it if he had motor bility. So every month he donates the same amount to a charity for stroke victims.

Jules

tkachev

Hi Lynn
I have been in both camps. But with a high earning husband(the 1st husband) I still welcomed the child benefit as something i could spend without his permission or knowledge.
Anyway they have just announced some new tax measures to distribute between married couples. Not yet sure of the details but should benefit the stay-at-home mums or dads if one is out to work. With the high cost of child care this could be very useful one parent who wants to look after their children but can't afford to reduce their hours.

Elizabeth

lupin15

Doesn't the government make you laugh. We have no money and we as a country in big trouble. They should have taken this further and stopped family allowance for any family bringing in to the house hold earning over £44000 full stop. This should have been brought in now or at the latest April next year. Only pay family allowance for two children ..if you decided to have more that is your choice but no extra cash.
As for making the prisons pay for themselves YES THEY B....y SHOULD.
I cannot understand why they should get fed and a roof over their head and not pay for it.They have done the crime so should pay for their keep. I am sure as a business there must be money in it somewhere and they would get work experience and boy would it say the government money/ us the taxi payer.

mellman01

if they had stopped paying extra cash benefits for every extra child the professional benefits end users produce it would have been a start, mind you that said I think the big stick is still to come so try to keep ya heads down as George Osborne looks like he has no soul and is looking to spill blood, he's got those crazy Thatcher eye's and that's going to be bad news!.

frogmorton