Taking children out of poverty - unintended consequences
Discussion
Why is it that the people who control the benefit spending cannot observe the clear, unitneded consequences of tryign to improve the lot of children in poverty? Surely they can see that paying benefits to people to 'compensate them' fo having children has become a reward system for uncontrolled 'benefits breeding'.
Is it not bleeding obvious that giving people rent or council houses, cash and a weekly cash amount as a result of being 'single' and with child is a recipe of uncontrolled fraud.
This being the case, why are they incapable of recognising this and changing the rules so that the actual poor, in need can get help - which I doubt anybody would begrudge (well, they may begrudge it a bit!).
Apart from the usual 'labour pay benefits to their core voters' argument - which I doubt works as the workshy, benefits breeders© probably cannot actually be arsed to vote - why don't they just tighten it up.
It may put paid to the bulls
t statements that 'there is nothing left in the government's coffers for a tax cut'. There would be plenty if they reduced the £160BILLION benefits budget.
Is it not bleeding obvious that giving people rent or council houses, cash and a weekly cash amount as a result of being 'single' and with child is a recipe of uncontrolled fraud.
This being the case, why are they incapable of recognising this and changing the rules so that the actual poor, in need can get help - which I doubt anybody would begrudge (well, they may begrudge it a bit!).
Apart from the usual 'labour pay benefits to their core voters' argument - which I doubt works as the workshy, benefits breeders© probably cannot actually be arsed to vote - why don't they just tighten it up.
It may put paid to the bulls
t statements that 'there is nothing left in the government's coffers for a tax cut'. There would be plenty if they reduced the £160BILLION benefits budget.johnfm said:
Apart from the usual 'labour pay benefits to their core voters' argument - which I doubt works as the workshy, benefits breeders© probably cannot actually be arsed to vote
I read an article a week or so ago which bemoaned that fact as an unfair advantage to the tories! FFS! 
johnfm said:
MK4 Slowride said:
johnfm said:
...benefits breeders© ...
that copyright thingy, how do you get that?Edited by MK4 Slowride on Tuesday 30th September 15:20
but try inserting the symbol into a word doc and then copy & paste it....
minimax said:
johnfm said:
Apart from the usual 'labour pay benefits to their core voters' argument - which I doubt works as the workshy, benefits breeders© probably cannot actually be arsed to vote
I read an article a week or so ago which bemoaned that fact as an unfair advantage to the tories! FFS! And they are the majority of the population.
So elections for one party or the other are a waste of time and money because the majority would always vote socialist/communist... any other result is a betrayal of the workers, because logically if all people voted there would only ever be a Labour Government.
In which case the people should be given a say in the Leader via there MPs but not in the selection of party as there need only be one party to represent the people.
New Labour, Old Communism.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff