to buy votes. they're scandalous. if people aren't able to live on their wages, then force companies to increase the minimum wage to where they can.

my sister gets them. she drives a brand spanking new nissan juke (with a private reg). iphones, ipads, etc. good luck to her, meant i got a half decent xmas present.

HOUSE!

ffs. people in 'wanting free stuff shocker'.

Setting aside the political angle because all parties agree that in pricipal they are a good thing, child and working tax credits are the reverse option to raising the minimum wage, but most importantly they eliminate the long-held belief that some people are better off living on benefits - its very difficult to explain to a single parent why they should go back to work when they actually can earn almost as much in benefit payments as they can from working and looking at their resultant nett pay at the end of the week - give them a tax break so that they keep more or even most of their earnings and suddenly its a whole new picture, offer them a subsidy for child care and there is no longer any excuse for not working.

None of the political party's will argue a defence for deliberately keeping people out of work when there are initiatives like tax credits that cost the country less than paying out benefits, and neither should they - the only thing left to argue is where the line in the sand should be drawn, both recent governments have got that wrong in my opinion but it doesn't deflect the fact that tax credits are a good option.

The tories were vehemently opposed to the introduction of the Minimum Wage, stating that companies would be going bust wholesale. What chance do you think this bunch will mandate a Living Wage?

Politicians of all major parties in this country are cynical filith. Look at Labour with it's huge rises in NI. What has that acheived and have the Con-Dems reversed the jobs tax? What it has achieved is t create mass part-time working. Why does no one want to change it - because if they did instead of 2 part timers doing one job the supermarkets etc would employ one full-timer. What would that do to the unemploment figures? It's totally cynical throughout. If anyone thinks the Tories are cynical then look at New Labour - utterly disgusting.

Come back when your mummy has potty trained you.

Now you ARE having a laugh, fair for who exactly?? The two working parent families earning just shy of 100k keeping child benefit or the lone parent earning 50k? (I'm not talking about the fairness of the amount, just the logic)

Fairness that cancer patients are having to go and look for work??

Fairness that as from April if you have a "spare bedroom" and claim housing benefit, for every "spare" room your benefit will be reduced???

Fairness that after 20 years and paying 20% tax on one job and 25% on the other two simultanous jobs I qualify for nought because my husband earns more than 7.5k a year????

Yeah, this government are really being "fair"

I didn't say that it was, you little cretin.

I have consistently argued that Cameron is the son of Blair is the son of Thatcher.

Do try to make an effort to keep up.

oh bless, sweetheart. is that it? go on, have another rant about something if it makes you feel better. tell us about this mass army of loft insulators that will save the country.

to keep up with you i could easily afford to lose a leg. and develop asthma.

cretin? that's so sweet.

Should be fun if the prediction of a triple dip comes true.

a line has to be drawn somewhere if you want the 'rich' to start paying more/losing more.
good lord. is cancer now a death sentence that makes it impossible to work? my ex boss had it all wrong, working almost to the end, when she should have been at home/hospital simply waiting to die.
absolutely it's fair.
you do know that the taxes you pay don't sit in your own special account somewhere, waiting for you when you're a bit strapped. pensions have to be paid, wars have to be funded, bins need emptying, the terminally bone idle need cigarettes, etc etc. there'll be a bit set aside for you. but not much.
they're being as fair as previous governments. i mean the 10p tax removal that screwed the very poorest in society, shameful. and shame on labour voters who are now moaning about similar coalition policies.

There's a big difference between being long term unemployed and being the boss in a job. I've had two uncles gone through cancer and it's the one with the most money who has been able to move forward with his life since treatment.


What made these people terminally bone idle?

Are some people just born lazy?

Good luck trying to get a job when you tell them you have any serious illness.

You've completely missed the point. Under the system implemented yesterday the richer pay less, the poorer pay moore.

In most cases yes. If I was diagnosed with cancer, getting a job would be furthest from my mind, with beating the disgusting illness top priority.

Again, missed the point. I've worked hard all my life. I worked 3 jobs, paying my fair share of tax yet when it comes to being fair, you think the threshold of 7.5k is ok??? My husband is more than happy to provide for me, but at what expense? We lose our home?????

Not that same at all and you know it. Screwing the poorest in society is making them pay tax because they have a spare bedroom, forcing someone with terminal cancer (if they have more than 6 months to live) to seek work or lose ESA, forcing someone on JSA to work programmes for tax evading companies for a paltry £71 a week.

Maybe I've misread your quote but my question is why is either of those scenarios getting child benefit?

I'm sure people will disagree but to me anyone be it combined or single earning over 40k shouldn't be getting tax credits/ child benefit. I also believe child benefit should be payed for a maximum of 2 children.

I didn't say they should be. I said the system implemented yesterday wasn't fair. Why should a combined household income of two parents earning 98k between them get child benefit, yet only one parent working earning 49k not get it?? I'm with you, anyone needing child benefit earning 50k is doing something wrong. Its the implementation thats not fair.

Because for a considerable length of time it was cheaper to pay the benefit universally than means test it,
the only reason the have come up with the current cludge is cost.

Compare and contrast, Obama has resisted full- on austerity and has now had 13 consecutive quarters of growth.
Cameron, on the other hand, is pursuing his mission to dismantle as much of the welfare state as he can.

Thanks for the reminder of what a twerp you made of yourself on that outing, with your chronic lack of comprehension skills.

Cameron wants to carry on Thatcher's legacy I think as he does worship as if she is a God. Maybe Cameron should take a leaf out of Obama's book and see how he did it with the US economy.

she wasn't the boss, just a manager/supervisor.

their parents.

no-one is born lazy, they just have it thrust upon them. but at some point you have to take responsibility for yourself.

how are the richer paying anything, more or less. people simply aren't getting as much as they did before.
. then you wouldn't get a job. others would, and indeed do.
you haven't paid your 'fair share', you've paid your taxes, as required by the government. 7.5k for what?
aaah, it suddenly becomes clear. there seems to be a difference in your eyes between the definition of screwing the poor dependent on political party. why is that i wonder. the 10p tax fiasco, deliberately and vindictively left at least 1m of the poorest in society worse off. that figure was far higher initially, until someone pointed it out. which actually worked out ok for me as i got a nice little 'cheque' even though i wasn't affected in the first place. giving people less housing benefit isn't taxing them, it's giving them less free cash. so, we shouldn't make people do a couple of weeks work every now and then for £71, we should let them do bugger all for their £71 which would give them an infinite hourly rate? and if you've over 6 months to live, why not work. why sit and wallow?

yes, i failed to comprehend how someone could come up with such a preposterous idea. then i realised it went along side paying people not to commit crime.

I am not entitled to Contributory ESA if my husband earns over £7.5k pa. That rules out 99.99% of people whose spouses do actually work, of claiming contributory ESA. (Contributory means I have enough NI/Income Tax contributions to qualify for the benefit in the first place but it is chalked off by the £7.5k pa household income rule)

How is that fair??????