... but if I did, I'd have written this -

LET'S STOP PAYING WELFARE MUMS TO HAVE BIG FAMILIES

But there’s another kind of household where having more children is also popular: families who are completely dependent on the state.

This is not as strange as it might seem when you think about how the welfare system works. If a young woman has never had a job she will not be making a financial sacrifice if she decides to have a baby.

Her housing needs will be taken care of so she will probably get a home of her own for the first time in her life.

The payments she gets in child benefit, tax credits and other means-tested support will cover day-to-day expenses.

Every child she has will qualify her for more benefits and a bigger house so having lots of children won’t make her worse off.

If she doesn’t live with the father of her children she can get cash from him and still keep all her benefits. In fact she will probably end up with more spending money than an average- wage family.

That is not just unfair to taxpayers it has also destroyed the connection between effort and reward. The result is that Britain has a higher proportion of children in jobless households than anywhere in Europe.

www.express.co.uk/ourcomments/view/35477...to-have-big-families

Even the loonies are starting to wake up to reality -

"Labour’s Frank Field has recently argued that people should expect to make a contribution to the cost of welfare
before being able to draw on it".

===

Like I've always said - if you dont make a contribution to society - you are no part of it.

In The Know wrote:
if you dont make a contribution to society - you are no part of it


What is yours, ITK?

"If she doesn’t live with the father of her children she can get cash from him and still keep all her benefits. In fact she will probably end up with more spending money than an average- wage family."

such enterprising behaviour should be admired and rewarded.

Jenson wrote:
In The Know wrote:
if you dont make a contribution to society - you are no part of it


What is yours, ITK?




He's here to argue with Veritas

In The Know wrote:
Even the loonies are starting to wake up to reality -

"Labour’s Frank Field has recently argued that people should expect to make a contribution to the cost of welfare
before being able to draw on it".

===

Like I've always said - if you dont make a contribution to society - you are no part of it.

Does that include big businesses who don't pay their fair share of tax, ITK? You know, eBay, Starbucks, mobile phone companies, etc.

Who would you rather chase, someone claiming £20 a week more than they should or a big company conning the country out of millions?

steveimp wrote:
Does that include big businesses who don't pay their fair share of tax, ITK? You know, eBay, Starbucks, mobile phone companies, etc.

Who would you rather chase, someone claiming £20 a week more than they should or a big company conning the country out of millions?

Largely irrelevant argument, steve.

As I've said before - if you tax big (international) firms too much they will simply locate elsewhere (taking their HQ jobs with them).

A little is better than none !
Time to start squeezing those who pay nothing (and never have) but are always there with their hands out !

Jenson wrote:
[quote]In The Know wrote:
What is yours, ITK?

Simple ... loads of tax (over the years) and STILL a taxpayers now I'm (largely) retired.

In The Know wrote:
steveimp wrote:
Does that include big businesses who don't pay their fair share of tax, ITK? You know, eBay, Starbucks, mobile phone companies, etc.

Who would you rather chase, someone claiming £20 a week more than they should or a big company conning the country out of millions?

Largely irrelevant argument, steve.

As I've said before - if you tax big (international) firms too much they will simply locate elsewhere (taking their HQ jobs with them).

A little is better than none !
Time to start squeezing those who pay nothing (and never have) but are always there with their hands out !

not too sure you will carry the bulk of taxpayers with you on that argument.

The biggest tax avoiding mobile phone provider Vodafone will go bust in spectacular fashion soon so the folly of allowing them to get away with tax avoidance will have been wasted.

Still another firm will fill the gap which always happens except in ITK's unique version of capitalism.

In The Know wrote:
steveimp wrote:
Does that include big businesses who don't pay their fair share of tax, ITK? You know, eBay, Starbucks, mobile phone companies, etc.

Who would you rather chase, someone claiming £20 a week more than they should or a big company conning the country out of millions?

Largely irrelevant argument, steve.

As I've said before - if you tax big (international) firms too much they will simply locate elsewhere (taking their HQ jobs with them).

A little is better than none !
Time to start squeezing those who pay nothing (and never have) but are always there with their hands out !

Are you saying ITK that to let them off paying millions of tax is absolutely fine, as long as the jobs stay in the UK? That argument is moot, given that many many of these companies off shore a lot of the jobs in any case - banks in particular and their helpdesks.

That isn't capitalism in anyones book, let alone Margaret Thatchers. It's Feudalism.

In The Know wrote:
[quote]Jenson wrote:
In The Know wrote:
What is yours, ITK?

Simple ... loads of tax (over the years) and STILL a taxpayers now I'm (largely) retired.

Having worked for 20 years in a variety of jobs, then having a breakdown 3 years ago, I merely got back what I paid in 'in insurance' by claiming sickness benefits for a period of time. I do not claim them now as I've self employed (and never really been as happy as I am now.)

Even my student loan was paid back - in full - in 2006.

I still disagree with you ITK, I mean who would you call if you had an accident? BUPA?

Incidentally, eBay doesn't have any HQ or substantial offices in the UK, it's based in the European tax haven of Luxembourg.

Hedda wrote:
In The Know wrote:
steveimp wrote:
Does that include big businesses who don't pay their fair share of tax, ITK? You know, eBay, Starbucks, mobile phone companies, etc.

Who would you rather chase, someone claiming £20 a week more than they should or a big company conning the country out of millions?

Largely irrelevant argument, steve.

As I've said before - if you tax big (international) firms too much they will simply locate elsewhere (taking their HQ jobs with them).

A little is better than none !
Time to start squeezing those who pay nothing (and never have) but are always there with their hands out !

not too sure you will carry the bulk of taxpayers with you on that argument.

The biggest tax avoiding mobile phone provider Vodafone will go bust in spectacular fashion soon so the folly of allowing them to get away with tax avoidance will have been wasted.

Still another firm will fill the gap which always happens except in ITK's unique version of capitalism.

The HMRC push, bully and destroy many small and medium sized businesses to get every penny in tax owed. Why do they get this treatment - despite also employing a lot of people - when the 'big boys' (see Tory Donors) don't? Maybe that last sentence answers the question.

steveimp wrote:
I still disagree with you ITK, I mean who would you call if you had an accident? BUPA?

No ... of course not.

The NHS would have FAR MORE MONEY for genuine cases if we were not financially supporting scroungers.

(Have you actually READ the article?).

steveimp wrote:
Are you saying ITK that to let them off paying millions of tax is absolutely fine, as long as the jobs stay in the UK?

No, of course not - but has ANYONE actually got any FIRM evidence that any of these companies are avoiding tax? (If so, call HMRC / Serious Fraud office right away !)

We all make arrangements to suit us best - and you cannot deny others (and firms) the same right.

Isnt this really those who have-not moaning endlessly about those who got off their backsides?

Typically, Labour dogma - drag everyone down to the LOWEST level rather than raise them to the higher level.

steveimp wrote:
Incidentally, eBay doesn't have any HQ or substantial offices in the UK, it's based in the European tax haven of Luxembourg.

... so in all probability does actually owe much UK tax ????

In The Know wrote:
steveimp wrote:
I still disagree with you ITK, I mean who would you call if you had an accident? BUPA?

No ... of course not.

The NHS would have FAR MORE MONEY for genuine cases if we were not financially supporting scroungers.

(Have you actually READ the article?).

How do you define scroungers? Some one 'lower class' than you having cancer treatment? (BTW this person might have worked all their life and paid into the tax pot.)

In The Know wrote:
steveimp wrote:
Incidentally, eBay doesn't have any HQ or substantial offices in the UK, it's based in the European tax haven of Luxembourg.

... so in all probability does actually owe much UK tax ????

It does - www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20022365

steveimp wrote:
Incidentally, eBay doesn't have any HQ or substantial offices in the UK, it's based in the European tax haven of Luxembourg.

Basing HQs in tax havens will end in grief as the burden of tax shifts to the waged taxpayer which in turn cannot sustain taxes needed for infrastructure (meaning tax avoiding corps are not necessary as ITK seems to believe but gobble up resources like roads, ports and so on).

A perfect storm is coming with the advent of Ebay and cyber based entities like Google who are hoovering up advertising profits (putting publishers out of business) and operate on a minimum of staff and are all based in tax havens.

France has fired the first gun saying those who appear in Google links should share in their profits. Google have threatened to 'exclude' French searches on Google....threatening a government is risky.

Capitalism can work but it must be like a co-op...everyone must join in the game. Many US presidents have know this including Roosevelt whose massive public works and social security handouts (the money still ends up in the hands of corporations) spiraled the USA into it's greatest period of prosperity.

steveimp wrote:
How do you define scroungers?

I repeat ...

Have you actually READ the article ?