The Politics Thread

[thebish]

Did Eric Pickles look like he was doing a very important job?

he must have been - he has to be there on time you know....

[Hoboh]

A good point, very well made a1

Anyway...the withdrawal of child benefit to those paying the higeher arte of tax

Fair enough, I guess so long as its part ofa bigger review which outs the scrotes abusing the system

BUT

Why the fcuk is it not based per household

ie if I earn 41 k, no child benefit

If we both earn 39, total 78, its carry on as we were


This aint the first time this method has been used, because the couple earning 78 (39+39) also avoid higher rate tax

Can somebody try to explain how this is fair?


Similarly, I was recently unemployed, but couldn't claim anything cos my wife works over 20 hours a week...the amount she earned being irrelevant, so in theory, if she was a barrister (for example) working a day a week for a thousand or 2 a day, we wouldn't be ruled out of benefits, yet a 21 hour a week cleaner would be ruled out

How very odd

I couldn't because it ain't!! It should be per couple joint income. If I earned 41,000 per year I honestly would not claim it anyway as long as scrotes don't get free everything and pressure is applied for them to work and ANY benefit has a time limit!

[ratbert]

Pickles was walking round the exhibitions, surrounded by party cronies, posing for photos, then moving on. Various ministers of varying levels are doing this.

I stood well back. His head always looks like it's about to explode any second.

[Hoboh]

He was walking round the exhibitions, surrounded by party cronies, posing for photos, then moving on. Various ministers of varying levels are doing this.

I stood well back. His head always looks like it's about to explode any second.

Is he Sir Nut in disguise?

[Lord Kangana]

Can he claim food bills on expenses?

Can we as taxpayers ask him to go on a diet, say 25% less food?

[thebish]

I couldn't because it ain't!! It should be per couple joint income. If I earned 41,000 per year I honestly would not claim it anyway as long as scrotes don't get free everything and pressure is applied for them to work and ANY benefit has a time limit!

you must be missing something - cos I heard Dave say today that it was a hard decision - but "built solidly on the principle of fairness."

[Hoboh]

I couldn't because it ain't!! It should be per couple joint income. If I earned 41,000 per year I honestly would not claim it anyway as long as scrotes don't get free everything and pressure is applied for them to work and ANY benefit has a time limit!

you must be missing something - cos I heard Dave say today that it was a hard decision - but "built solidly on the principle of fairness."

Not me mate missing owt, maybe a failed leadership contender just shows why he lacks the real qualities to lead and Davey Boy and his lacky better work that one out fast.

[BWFC_Insane]

A good point, very well made a1

Anyway...the withdrawal of child benefit to those paying the higeher arte of tax

Fair enough, I guess so long as its part ofa bigger review which outs the scrotes abusing the system

BUT

Why the fcuk is it not based per household

ie if I earn 41 k, no child benefit

If we both earn 39, total 78, its carry on as we were


This aint the first time this method has been used, because the couple earning 78 (39+39) also avoid higher rate tax

Can somebody try to explain how this is fair?


Similarly, I was recently unemployed, but couldn't claim anything cos my wife works over 20 hours a week...the amount she earned being irrelevant, so in theory, if she was a barrister (for example) working a day a week for a thousand or 2 a day, we wouldn't be ruled out of benefits, yet a 21 hour a week cleaner would be ruled out

How very odd

I couldn't because it ain't!! It should be per couple joint income. If I earned 41,000 per year I honestly would not claim it anyway as long as scrotes don't get free everything and pressure is applied for them to work and ANY benefit has a time limit!

Serious question.

Has anyone, anywhere, anytime ever ever ever expected Tory policy to be "fair"?

[thebish]

Can he claim food bills on expenses?

Can we as taxpayers ask him to go on a diet, say 25% less food?

[Hoboh]

A good point, very well made a1

Anyway...the withdrawal of child benefit to those paying the higeher arte of tax

Fair enough, I guess so long as its part ofa bigger review which outs the scrotes abusing the system

BUT

Why the fcuk is it not based per household

ie if I earn 41 k, no child benefit

If we both earn 39, total 78, its carry on as we were


This aint the first time this method has been used, because the couple earning 78 (39+39) also avoid higher rate tax

Can somebody try to explain how this is fair?


Similarly, I was recently unemployed, but couldn't claim anything cos my wife works over 20 hours a week...the amount she earned being irrelevant, so in theory, if she was a barrister (for example) working a day a week for a thousand or 2 a day, we wouldn't be ruled out of benefits, yet a 21 hour a week cleaner would be ruled out

How very odd

I couldn't because it ain't!! It should be per couple joint income. If I earned 41,000 per year I honestly would not claim it anyway as long as scrotes don't get free everything and pressure is applied for them to work and ANY benefit has a time limit!

Serious question.

Has anyone, anywhere, anytime ever ever ever expected Tory policy to be "fair"?

Yes Labour lied for years about the ecconomic situation so was rather hoping for a warts n all action plan that was fair!!

Vote hoboh!

[boltonboris]

A good point, very well made a1

Anyway...the withdrawal of child benefit to those paying the higeher arte of tax

Fair enough, I guess so long as its part ofa bigger review which outs the scrotes abusing the system

BUT

Why the fcuk is it not based per household

ie if I earn 41 k, no child benefit

If we both earn 39, total 78, its carry on as we were


This aint the first time this method has been used, because the couple earning 78 (39+39) also avoid higher rate tax

Can somebody try to explain how this is fair?


Similarly, I was recently unemployed, but couldn't claim anything cos my wife works over 20 hours a week...the amount she earned being irrelevant, so in theory, if she was a barrister (for example) working a day a week for a thousand or 2 a day, we wouldn't be ruled out of benefits, yet a 21 hour a week cleaner would be ruled out

How very odd

I think the tax bracket splits of at £36,700 or something now..

But I sort of get your point though.

What I don't understand though is why the missus and I wouldn't be entitled to child benefits despite one of us paying a higher bracket of tax into the system. We contribute more financially into the coffers and into the economy. Why punish us for it? We don't have children, but are certainly planning to.. So why should some do-nothing baby making machine get an extra meal ticket for doing feck all throughout a large portion of their lives?

Is it because the government don't want us taking time out of our work and therefore taxable earnings, by putting us off the idea of making a family?

[BWFC_Insane]

A good point, very well made a1

Anyway...the withdrawal of child benefit to those paying the higeher arte of tax

Fair enough, I guess so long as its part ofa bigger review which outs the scrotes abusing the system

BUT

Why the fcuk is it not based per household

ie if I earn 41 k, no child benefit

If we both earn 39, total 78, its carry on as we were


This aint the first time this method has been used, because the couple earning 78 (39+39) also avoid higher rate tax

Can somebody try to explain how this is fair?


Similarly, I was recently unemployed, but couldn't claim anything cos my wife works over 20 hours a week...the amount she earned being irrelevant, so in theory, if she was a barrister (for example) working a day a week for a thousand or 2 a day, we wouldn't be ruled out of benefits, yet a 21 hour a week cleaner would be ruled out

How very odd

I couldn't because it ain't!! It should be per couple joint income. If I earned 41,000 per year I honestly would not claim it anyway as long as scrotes don't get free everything and pressure is applied for them to work and ANY benefit has a time limit!

Serious question.

Has anyone, anywhere, anytime ever ever ever expected Tory policy to be "fair"?

Yes Labour lied for years about the ecconomic situation so was rather hoping for a warts n all action plan that was fair!!

Vote hoboh!

Labour "lied for years".

Oh really. That must have passed me by.

Seems to me the only ones lying are the Tories and Lib Dems, repeatedly doing precisely what they said they would NOT in their manifesto's and pledges.

[William the White]

A good point, very well made a1

Anyway...the withdrawal of child benefit to those paying the higeher arte of tax

Fair enough, I guess so long as its part ofa bigger review which outs the scrotes abusing the system

BUT

Why the fcuk is it not based per household

ie if I earn 41 k, no child benefit

If we both earn 39, total 78, its carry on as we were


This aint the first time this method has been used, because the couple earning 78 (39+39) also avoid higher rate tax

Can somebody try to explain how this is fair?


Similarly, I was recently unemployed, but couldn't claim anything cos my wife works over 20 hours a week...the amount she earned being irrelevant, so in theory, if she was a barrister (for example) working a day a week for a thousand or 2 a day, we wouldn't be ruled out of benefits, yet a 21 hour a week cleaner would be ruled out

How very odd

I think the tax bracket splits of at £36,700 or something now..

But I sort of get your point though.

What I don't understand though is why the missus and I wouldn't be entitled to child benefits despite one of us paying a higher bracket of tax into the system. We contribute more financially into the coffers and into the economy. Why punish us for it? We don't have children, but are certainly planning to.. So why should some do-nothing baby making machine get an extra meal ticket for doing feck all throughout a large portion of their lives?

Is it because the government don't want us taking time out of our work and therefore taxable earnings, by putting us off the idea of making a family?

You just aren't serious about having a family if £20 a week puts you off the idea...

[Lord Kangana]

All politicians are liars.

There should be a law that you have to follow all your manifesto pledges. Any deviation should trigger a referendum or another election.

[Gary the Enfield]

They all lie.

Tory, Liberal, Labour, Democrats, Republicans, Loyalists, Unionists, Communists, Fascists and Whigs.

Lie to get into power.

Lie to stay there.

Lie to gain recognition, power and wealth.

Lie about why they were deposed.

[BWFC_Insane]

All politicians are liars.

There should be a law that you have to follow all your manifesto pledges. Any deviation should trigger a referendum or another election.

How about along similar lines to health warnings on cigarette packages all manifesto's and part political broadcasts, and political speeches and interviews have to have the tag line running clearly and visibly along the bottom...

"All politicians are liars".

[Lord Kangana]

And that too.

[Bruce Rioja]

Why is anybody getting paid to bring another person into this overpopulated world?

Exactly, and we're right back to - if you want kids why should anyone else pick up their tab?

No doubt you'll be offering to pay back the amounts your parents recieved for you (index linked of course)

I'm sure my parents contributions more than covered that.

[Worthy4England]

Why is anybody getting paid to bring another person into this overpopulated world?

Exactly, and we're right back to - if you want kids why should anyone else pick up their tab?

No doubt you'll be offering to pay back the amounts your parents recieved for you (index linked of course)

I'm sure my parents contributions more than covered that.

I'm sure mine more than cover the fact I currently get child benefit.

[thebish]

so - I'm lost - who's picking up who's tab?

am I picking up worthy's?