Quote dr_feelgood="dr_feelgood"And now a Tory think tank has come up with the idea of only paying benefits for the first two children. www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/12 ... ref=topbar This coming from the same guy who claimed on expenses to heat his stables. www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/11 ... 50907.html'" This bloke is another nasty, snout-in-the-trough piece of work. I'm curious as to what he would 'think' a family should do if, for argument's sake, they have triplets while not claiming benefits and then later need to claim benefits.

Quote dr_feelgood="dr_feelgood"And now a Tory think tank has come up with the idea of only paying benefits for the first two children. www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/12 ... ref=topbar This coming from the same guy who claimed on expenses to heat his stables. www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/11 ... 50907.html'" This bloke is another nasty, snout-in-the-trough piece of work. I'm curious as to what he would 'think' a family should do if, for argument's sake, they have triplets while not claiming benefits and then later need to claim benefits.

We need to find a way to reverse the stigmatisation of accepting the benefits of a welfare state, especially as the vast majority of the population are indeed recipients of that state.

I was born four years after the creation of the welfare state. Born in a dedicated maternity hospital with all the available care in reach if required, instead of born in my mother's bed iwth the only "experienced" care coming "Betty down the street" because my mam & dad couldn't afford to pay a doctor's and/or midwife's bill.

I benefited from free (at the point of delivery), healthcare and schooling. My mother never received any family allowance for me because it was only paid for second and subsequent children. I left school at sixteen and from the following April paid income tax and NI without grumble or complaint because I knew that the state would use my contributions to look after me in my dotage. Unfortunately now I'm reaching pensionable age, I find that the state has reneged on that promise, I'll need to keep on working just to simply subsist. All my contributions to basic NI, SERPS, various company and private schemes will amount to around 4/5ths of buggerall.

The only thing austerity has brought is more misery for the less well-off in order to create ever more wealth for those who didn't need the money anyway. A determined, as opposed to the half-a[ir[/ised window dressing, exercise in tackling tax avoidance and evasion would result in no need for austerity. Concentrating on tackling "benefit fraud" while basically ignoring tax evasion and avoidance is peverse but just about sums up what the tories are, always have been and always will be about.

It will be 'worse' under Labour. www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... es-welfare The welfare state has ballooned to a ridiculous size over the last decade. It's much harder to shrink it than expand it. Thankfully all major parties recognised that it needs to be smaller.

It will be 'worse' under Labour. www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... es-welfare The welfare state has ballooned to a ridiculous size over the last decade. It's much harder to shrink it than expand it. Thankfully all major parties recognised that it needs to be smaller.

Maybe it's a result of Cameron's recent visit to China and he was so impressed with China's "one child policy"?

Interesting to note that MPs are allowed to claim up to [url=http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/regulation/bedroom-tax-mps-claim-child-housing-subsidy/6528260.article£2,425 per dependent child simply for visiting.[/url

[url=http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/24822/nadhim_zahawi/stratford-on-avon#registerZahawi's They Work for You page[/url

You mean apart from the tax agreement thing with Switzerland that the coalition started in January this year? Still, it never quite brought in the £3bn projected, just less than £1bn I think the figures show. Which is still £1bn more than anyone thought would be recouped. Perhaps those on benefits are squirreling away their hard earned in Geneva.

The Lichrenstein Disclosure Facility has generated several times the £1 billion originally forecast. To be fair to the coalition they have done more to counter tax evasion than Labour did.

This is true but the new IT system that identifies irregularities in tax payments and/or earnings declared is based on a "best guess" and throws up some nightmare stories - my brother for instance has had the bailiffs calling at his house on several occasions chasing an imaginary tax boll of £2000, yes HMRC have sold a debt of £2000 to a private collection agency who get given short shrift each time they call because he does not owe the money at all, but HMRC's new software had guestimated that he perhaps does.

In August after two years of protracted phone calls and chasing nameless faceless individuals around the country to try and get an answer he presented himself at our local tax office at a pre-arranged appointment to sort it all out, after twenty minutes discussion he was told that his appointment was concluded, not that they had concluded the matter, just that they were only allowed to discuss individuals matters for twenty minutes - he refused to leave until they had reached an agreement.

Eventually after a manager got involved they finally got to the bottom of the £2000 tax bill - they thought he was still a company director even though they had been informed five years ago that he wasn't and had been filling in the correct employee (company car) assessments ever since - his total tax liability to them was £56.

I don't know how he kept his temper in there but he insisted that they got the payments section on the phone there and then and he paid the £56 on a debit card and bade them a good day - I have no doubt whatsoever that there are probably tens of thousands like him that owe nothing like the amounts that their fabulous new computer software guestimates - if they feed it shoite then thats what it spits out.

Lets be fair here UK GDP grew at 2.4% in the first year following the recession (Q3 2009 till Q3 2010) which was the year in the run up to the Coalition taking office.

It does amuse me how you get Tories now desperate to talk up these figures accusing Labour and left wing commentators of being unhappy that the economy has returned to growth and talking down the economy etc....can you remember the rhetoric we had from the Tories in the run up to the election when the economy was growing at what is more or less a normal long term trend rate.

The only reason this slow return to growth looks good is because the economy stagnated for the first 2.5 years under the Coalition so it is a recovery compared to that but not compared to the last year under Labour.

The reason Gordon Brown's line in the election campaign was "don't let the Tories threaten the recovery" was exactly because the UK economy was recovering. It went in to stagnation after the Coalition took over they just made sure they blamed Labour for it....

Quote dr_feelgood="dr_feelgood"And now a Tory think tank has come up with the idea of only paying benefits for the first two children. www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/12 ... ref=topbar This coming from the same guy who claimed on expenses to heat his stables. www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/11 ... 50907.html'" Tbh i dont know why he doesn't just come out and say we'll kill every child born after the first two

Quote dr_feelgood="dr_feelgood"And now a Tory think tank has come up with the idea of only paying benefits for the first two children. www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/12 ... ref=topbar This coming from the same guy who claimed on expenses to heat his stables. www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/11 ... 50907.html'" Tbh i dont know why he doesn't just come out and say we'll kill every child born after the first two

To be fair, if you can't afford to keep three or more kids, then why should the welfare state be expected to do it for you??

I'd love a Ferrari, but I can't afford it, so I don't buy myself one - The same thing should apply to having children.

Of course, there should be safeguards for people having triplets, or twins during a second pregnancy, but for people who insist on having children despite already struggling with what they already have, then there has to be some sort of deterrent put in place.

Top trolling.

Why would you assume that anyone would have three children when they cannot afford it, rather than that they have a family when they can afford it – and then something happens to change the situation they're in (redundancy, disability, illness etc etc)?

That's not a dig, BTW, but it does suggest the effectiveness of the coalition's rhetoric – ie the idea that the majority of those on benefits are 'scroungers', not simply people whose circumstances have changed through no fault of their own?