Great post

I've corrected this for you.

Do you think the kids with crap parents are going to see any of the benefit money anyway? I doubt it somehow.

And that's a valid reason not to pay it?

Let's extend your logic a little: why bother treating those with long-term illnesses? They're gonna die anyway

The argument was that we pay benefits because they support the children, you appear to have accepted my argument that in actual fact they probably don't. I would argue that to bring a child up well can cost very little, it takes more thought than to simply dress them from head to toe in the latest designer gear, or to sit them in front of a 50" LCD tv, or hook them up to a play station whilst they eat their regular evening big mac.

Do you honestly believe that a first child can be provided for on £20 a week?

Should they crawl around naked? What about things like nappies, formula, clothing, prams, cots & bedding? Does that just fall out of the sky?

And you still haven't explained why a rich person should receive child benefit but you reckon poor ones should not

www.telegraph.co.uk/family/83595 ... 10848.html The cost of raising a child to their 21st birthday is estimated at £210,848 or £10,040 a year, £836 a month or £27.50 a day. So unless you are getting more than that in child benefit you are running a net loss for every child.

www.telegraph.co.uk/family/83595 ... 10848.html The cost of raising a child to their 21st birthday is estimated at £210,848 or £10,040 a year, £836 a month or £27.50 a day. So unless you are getting more than that in child benefit you are running a net loss for every child.

Would that that were the case.

Bring up 3 kids (not privately educated, etc) has probably cost us between £1.2 M and £1.5 M at today's prices.

Go ahead.
As Prince Charles said, "I'm all ears".

I have 3 kids and trust me I earn nowhere near your mythical £2500 a month let alone spend it on them, yet they are happy, well educated and well loved.

Are you including the £200 per month child benefit in your calculations?

Judging by what you and your offspring have posted here I would say you have had a poor return on investment.

Yes. £2500 a month on 3 kids is way out of my league.

Yet you would want to see someone else with three kids be denied that £200 per month?

Yes. £2500 a month on 3 kids is way out of my league.

You mean someone else who isn't working and yet is getting far more than I earn for doing a full time job, in benefits?

Actually I do, but nevermind you go on with your subjective and baseless evaluation.




Agree



Nope.



Oh I understand perfectly the concept. The application, however, is another matter



Agree with this too.




And here we have the KEY issue. Whilst there is absolutely nothing wrong with that aim (and I actually agree with a lot of it), in REALITY there are those that [uput in[/u a lot, and [utake out [/u very little.

The real issue are those who put in VERY LITTLE and take out a helluva lot more. The benefits scroungers (not the geniune cases) being the cases in question.

Then we have the issues of people who have paid into the system for years, only to take a break from work and then be told they do not qualify for certain benefits.




I agree with the sentiment.



Times have moved on and we as a society cannot afford to pay for the Welfare State in it's current format. The cheats and scroungers have seen to that.





This is all very well and good, but the real thrust of those of us who argue against people exploiting the system is not child benefit at all, it is the other benefits that cost a fortune.



Actually the cost of benefit fraud is more like £3-5bn. The costs of uncollected tax, more like £40bn

Both are not mutually exclusive, so what's your point again?

Quite possibly but I did say someone else, I suppose that could be extended to anyone else, especially as child benefit is a universal credit. I dare say HM Queen also received family allowance for her kids and she's heading the biggest family of benefits scroungers this country has ever seen.

And I thought it was only us "lefties" that were guilty of the "politics of envy"

This thread is about capping benefits at £26k.

Go back through the thread and you'll find my specific argument is the unfairness of including a universal benefit (child benefit), in the total allowed. It penalises those with more children harder.

That has been my argument all the way through the thread and you, XBrettKennyX and Coach have completely ignored the unfairness of such a system

£26k is more than enough to bring up a family.

So why have you spent so much time defending a proposed system that would effectively ignore child benefit?

Not if £20k is going on housing benefit to some fat-ar[is[/ied private landlord it ain't

So move to a cheaper place, is it really that difficult to understand? I moved to Somerset to find work, I have worked all over the country and abroad. So don't give me stupid arguments about having to pay a landlord £20k.