Originally Posted by tizmeinnit (Post 35556193)

Where did I say I disagree with this one? I have not said that just posted the story. Perhaps you should wait for me to actually say before you speak for me in future! :even more confused face:

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit (Post 35556179)

This one might have wider implications for more of the membership here lets see if any change their view now

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit (Post 35556179)

I have no idea if this should go on in the big thread as its a different benefit so I created a new one and its upto the team then :)

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit (Post 35556193)

but they wont pay higher wages will they? that is not how it works

Originally Posted by Will21st (Post 35556201)

1.Oooohhh,getting worked up already are we? Touchy ? ;)

Anyway,you wrote this


2 which implies that you are still riding your Anti-Tory-let's-bash-the-rich-wave.At least it does to me... maybe you can offer an alternative viewpoint.


3 The other thread is the welfare state Mega-thread,there may be a hint in there... ;)


4 You know this how exactly? If the UK government wasn't influencing the wage structure through this benefit,it probably would.Seeing that people will vote with their feet and take higher paid positions,then those employers who offer too low a wage will have to adjust to the market.
Another factor is that the Industry of course knows this and some companies probably factor-in the possibilities of benefit payments to their employees. In any case it distorts the wage structure and is no good as such.

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit (Post 35556207)

No I am not as I explained before its all just a game. Just being pedantic mate jumping on any possible flaw in logic as people do to me :)

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit (Post 35556207)

You are seeing the implication as I said please do not talk for me :)

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit (Post 35556207)

I am anti this system I have just as much ill will for Labour . If you actually look at my sig I am a member of UKIP but only because I want out of the EU

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit (Post 35556207)

Yes but Tax Credits are Welfare however issued by HM revenue and customs so I thought I would leave it for the team to decide which you aint part of so

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit (Post 35556207)

It is my experience that in the capitalistic society where everything is greed orientated that employers would try to not increase wages and of course some simply will not be able to

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu (Post 35556174)

RizzyKing, l am in total agreement with what you are saying.

I also want to say soomething about foriegn workers taking the jobs in the UK.
If l was unemployed and looking for work l look at several points, the rent on my council house, my wife and the bills, l therefore look at what is there, l could not go for a job under £18.000 per year- reasons simple, if you get a job you have to work SIX weeks before claiming any benefit to put your money up, if you claim one benefit, you lose something else.

What l beleive is wrong is true what Rizzy King is saying if you go for Anti Tory, you get knocked down on this forum, it seems that everyone is saying that the coalition is correct in whats its doing.

Its always been known that the Tories will look after the rich, it proved yesterday that they will reduce the 50p tax down to 45p - WHY, if the rich have to pay more in taxes then so be it. They earn more money in interest sitting in the bank.

EVERYTHING has been done by the government is hitting the poor and the vulnerable - nothing to hit the rixch - in my book that is bad.

Foriegn workers, companies will always take on workers at the cheapest rate possible, and sometimes below the minimum wage, and dont please tell me that this does not go on - becuase it does.

Originally Posted by peanut (Post 35556251)

People like Philpott makes a good cause for limiting benefits to 1-2 children only. Instead of using them as cash cows and means to get bigger houses.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...ependency.html

Originally Posted by peanut (Post 35556251)

People like Philpott makes a good cause for limiting benefits to 1-2 children only. Instead of using them as cash cows and means to get bigger houses.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...ependency.html

Originally Posted by peanut (Post 35556251)

People like Philpott makes a good cause for limiting benefits to 1-2 children only. Instead of using them as cash cows and means to get bigger houses.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...ependency.html

Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35556256)

Amen to that. A man who demanded he be left alone to live to do as he wished but wanted everyone else to pay for it. Selfish, low life personified.

Originally Posted by Will21st (Post 35556265)

I feel it's sickening that our welfare state actually allows people like that to fester.
I think the problem is that it allows people like Philpotts to be completely unchecked by society since he lives in his own bubble and outside contact through work or other activities isn't really happening. The fact the guy has a dozen or so screws loose not-with-standing,obviously!

and yes,child benefit needs to be capped.... I'd actually prefer a system where those who work get tax relief for each child instead of cash,say a 2% reduction in income tax and NI,or something like that.Reward working families and leave more money in their pockets.

Originally Posted by peanut (Post 35556274)

He wasn't 'unchecked' as he's been on Jeremy Kyle and interveiwed by Ann Widdicome and seems to be well known in his area. But he gets away with because of the kids.

Though I do agree with the rest, but from what I also see that is childless couples (through choice or not) will be penalised by that.

Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35556280)

Is it really any surprise that children, being the gateway to many benefits and other forms of support, are seen by some as no more than a means to an end whether that be cash in their hands or larger homes? That doesn't bode well for the future of these poor children.