the point of the article stands...Which is the greater drain on the public exchequer? Fat birds claiming child allowance or fat cats dodging their taxes? The latter by some ****ing margin I reckon. Go Jezzer!
dont have kids if you cant afford it.
the point of the article stands...Which is the greater drain on the public exchequer? Fat birds claiming child allowance or fat cats dodging their taxes? The latter by some ****ing margin I reckon. Go Jezzer!
the point of the article stands...
dont have kids if you cant afford it.
2 questions;
1) Do you have kids?
2) If so, does your missus collect child benefit?
Yes and certainly not, do you think I am some kind of peasant?2 questions;
1) Do you have kids?
2) If so, does your missus collect child benefit?
the point of the article stands...
dont have kids if you cant afford it.
But under the system in place when she had them she could afford to do so - it was actively encouraged FFS!.the point of the article stands...
dont have kids if you cant afford it.
And at what point can people afford kids? If you go by that logic then only the well off would have kids meaning the world would be populated by middle-class ****ers playing golf and talking about mortgages as if it's an acceptable topic for conversation.
what kind of peasant doesn't buy their home with cash? A mortgage ffs!And at what point can people afford kids? If you go by that logic then only the well off would have kids meaning the world would be populated by middle-class ****ers playing golf and talking about mortgages as if it's an acceptable topic for conversation.
The point of the article is, at what point did she realise that she need to rely on child benefit to support her family?
Kid 1? Kid 2? Kid 3? Kid 4? Kid 5?
She dropped to part time hours then decided just to keep breeding ... expecting the state to fork out for her?
If losing approx £1000/£2000 per annum in benefits means she will be struggling then she's economically stretched herself and should not be having 5 kids!
But under the system in place when she had them she could afford to do so - it was actively encouraged FFS!.
The point of the article is, at what point did she realise that she'd need to rely on child benefit to support her family?
Kid 1? Kid 2? Kid 3? Kid 4? Kid 5?
She dropped to part time hours then decided just to keep breeding ... expecting the state to fork out for her?
If losing approx £1000/£2000 per annum in benefits means she will be struggling then she's economically stretched herself and should not be having 5 kids!
I'm all for immigration ... in a controlled way but definitely let people settle here.The well off tend to have less kids than the "working class" meaning Britain wont be able to sustain it's economic output in the future. So it's either encourage people to breed by offering incentives or letting immigrants in.
But she's already had those five kids under conditions created and encouraged by the Government. I just find it a bit unfair to target people like her when they're still contributing and will continue to do so.
I'm all for immigration ... in a controlled way but definitely let people settle here.
I never said that ... I never said you shouldn't claim any benefits or child benefit.Most of whom will be on low income and by your logic unable to have kids.

**** them all
I never said that ... I never said you shouldn't claim any benefits or child benefit.
5 kids ... on a total wage of about 35-40 per annum. Yeah, great decision making.