FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to Politics

Should people who get child benefit be ashamed?

Jump to newest
 

By *awandOrder OP   Couple
over a year ago

SW London

Should I be shamed because I claim child benefit? As its a universal benefit not means tested, I claim for my daughter, but apparently I am a leech on the state because of it .... even though I pay over a grand in taxes a month, someone begrudges my daughter eighty quid a month. This will be the same daughter who is funding the NHS in a few years.

I see something like child benefit as akin to the NHS or another universal benefit which everyone (every child) qualified for and which we all pay into, just not at the point of service .... what do others think?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *anes HubbyCouple
over a year ago

Babbacombe Torquay

It's your right to receive it and anyone that suggests otherwise is just trolling you.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *awandOrder OP   Couple
over a year ago

SW London

I think so, but just wondered how others felt, those with kids and without. For me the whole thing about the welfare state that we all pay into is that its there when we need it. I don't begrudge anyone who is ill taking up my monies I have put in, because I know the service is there when I need it. Some people are just bitten and angry ...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lackMaleLONDONMan
over a year ago

LONDON

I don't believe anyone should have child benefit. And yes people should be shamed for claiming it. With the reasoning being if you can't afford kids, then don't have them. And don't expect others to pay for them.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I don't believe anyone should have child benefit. And yes people should be shamed for claiming it. With the reasoning being if you can't afford kids, then don't have them. And don't expect others to pay for them. "

Except that those kids will one day be paying for the nhs your doddery old ass will inevitably be using and probably your state pension too!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Is everyone who has a kid allowed to claim child benefit? With no exceptions?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *LCCCouple
over a year ago

Cambridge


"I don't believe anyone should have child benefit. And yes people should be shamed for claiming it. With the reasoning being if you can't afford kids, then don't have them. And don't expect others to pay for them. "

If you don't believe in child benefit that's fine, campaign and try and change the law to get it removed, but don't try and shame people for receiving a benefit that they are legally entitled to.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *LCCCouple
over a year ago

Cambridge


"Is everyone who has a kid allowed to claim child benefit? With no exceptions?"

Yup, however if you are quite a high earner (something like £60k+, but I could be wrong) you pay it back, its deducted from your earnings.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *rishmocha2Couple
over a year ago

Beds


"I don't believe anyone should have child benefit. And yes people should be shamed for claiming it. With the reasoning being if you can't afford kids, then don't have them. And don't expect others to pay for them. "

You really think £80 a month helps you bring up a child??? Once you've grown up and become a parent? I'm sure you'll think again.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lackMaleLONDONMan
over a year ago

LONDON

I don't care if it's 80p a month. I should not be forced to pay for other people's kids. There parents should.

- and regarding the point about these kids paying for my old ass, via the NHS, they should not have to pay for me either, people Should take responsibility for themselves and stop taking money from others.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ngel n tedCouple
over a year ago

maidstone


"I don't care if it's 80p a month. I should not be forced to pay for other people's kids. There parents should.

- and regarding the point about these kids paying for my old ass, via the NHS, they should not have to pay for me either, people Should take responsibility for themselves and stop taking money from others."

Will you take it upon yourself to pay back the child benefit your mum received for you then?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

In Belfast its called dicky money cause u had a dicky in ya to entitle u too it

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 05/12/16 02:29:46]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

If people who opposed social benefits had to pay the full price of the benefits they received directly or indirectly from the State they would be the first to insist on their entitlement. Universal benefits are there for a purpose, take the money and remember that for every opposer there are more that believe in that aid. Myself as someone who is childless and a tax payer, I would be happy, on principle, to pay for the future British generations.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I think the problems here,is that we run a system that needs somebody in the future to pay for a service we use today ... That's an exponential curve that's always going to end disaster

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

It is interesting to read the posts from those who would remove universal benefits. They seem to be the same who want to reduce income tax for the rich and highest earners and increase spending taxes. No doubt they are also the ones who (if old enough) supported the poll tax.

I wonder how many of them fall into the genuine high income category?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I don't believe anyone should have child benefit. And yes people should be shamed for claiming it. With the reasoning being if you can't afford kids, then don't have them. And don't expect others to pay for them. "

Other peoples kids grow up to be nurses Doctors looking after people Soldiers Airmen?women & sailors protecting our country. in fact other peoples kids are people. Without them your old age would be a nightmare and wouldnt last very long.

If you're unlucky enough to suffer disease in your old age - Cancer dimentia etc it will be other peoples kids looking after you.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *entralscotscpl7Couple
over a year ago

Falkirk


"I don't believe anyone should have child benefit. And yes people should be shamed for claiming it. With the reasoning being if you can't afford kids, then don't have them. And don't expect others to pay for them.

Other peoples kids grow up to be nurses Doctors looking after people Soldiers Airmen?women & sailors protecting our country. in fact other peoples kids are people. Without them your old age would be a nightmare and wouldnt last very long.

If you're unlucky enough to suffer disease in your old age - Cancer dimentia etc it will be other peoples kids looking after you.

Well said.

"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *LCCCouple
over a year ago

Cambridge


"I don't care if it's 80p a month. I should not be forced to pay for other people's kids. There parents should.

- and regarding the point about these kids paying for my old ass, via the NHS, they should not have to pay for me either, people Should take responsibility for themselves and stop taking money from others."

What about paying taxes for maternity wards and education? Do you think you shouldn't have to pay those either?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iewMan
Forum Mod
over a year ago

Angus & Findhorn

No they shouldn't feel ashamed, I hope they use it for the wellbeing and supporting the growth of the child in this world.

As for these kids will look after me is a load of pish as a reason for this benefit. They will be paid a salary to do so.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ensualtouch15Man
over a year ago

ashby de la zouch

[Removed by poster at 05/12/16 12:41:17]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lackMaleLONDONMan
over a year ago

LONDON

Thanks everyone for your counter-arguments to the points I raised. None of them have convinced me, as primarily I believe tax is theft. And I'm a small government libertarian.

So if there must be some taxes, it is not to be used to pay for other peoples kids.

Everybody here is of courses free to choose to pay for others children, but I don't think active should be forced to. And as a tangential point, I believe there is a correlation between these types of benefits. And a rise in single motherhood. And the stats show that kids raised by single mothers are at a disadvantage. And commit more crime, etc etc So besides my philosophical disagreement with child benefit. I think there is a sociological argument to be made here as well.

But my main point is, if you can't afford them. Don't have them.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *tillup4funMan
over a year ago

Wakefield


"Thanks everyone for your counter-arguments to the points I raised. None of them have convinced me, as primarily I believe tax is theft. And I'm a small government libertarian.

So if there must be some taxes, it is not to be used to pay for other peoples kids.

Everybody here is of courses free to choose to pay for others children, but I don't think active should be forced to. And as a tangential point, I believe there is a correlation between these types of benefits. And a rise in single motherhood. And the stats show that kids raised by single mothers are at a disadvantage. And commit more crime, etc etc So besides my philosophical disagreement with child benefit. I think there is a sociological argument to be made here as well.

But my main point is, if you can't afford them. Don't have them.

"

For every single mother there is a male somewhere that made her a mother.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston


"I believe tax is theft. And I'm a small government libertarian."

Of course you do and are.

However I notice your not rushing to live in a country with a small government and little or no taxes. There are many such countries in Africa, Asia and South America and funnily enough the majority of their populations seem to fare poorly under that particular system and those capable of it seem to be rushing to leave those countries in favour of places with big government and high taxes...

Have you ever stopped to wonder why that is the case?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lackMaleLONDONMan
over a year ago

LONDON

Actually I do plan to move to south America.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston


"Actually I do plan to move to south America."

Shut the door on the way out.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hicodiezMan
over a year ago

Newport

Maybe single/married people should get money to stay childless to help with their education, and skills result better educated smaller more manageable population , less single parents on the breadline, saving future global resources as opposed to being rewarded for having more offspring which will put pressure on all.When they have that better job from the education and are more mature bring up a few kids without the need for helpwith your good wage...just saying!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Your the type who thinks you know it all. Make sure it never comes to bite right back at you one day.

Will you negativity last in South America. Hhhhmm

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The problems with small government libertarian philospohy is that it only believes in taxes for things that support the believers, as they are usually minority those taxes are used for things that don't benefit the majority. Secondly every economic crash has debunked small government policies and given the failure of Friedmans economics and USA's return to Keynesian economics. Trickle down does not work.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ovely CummingsWoman
over a year ago

Peaky Nipples


"Should I be shamed because I claim child benefit? As its a universal benefit not means tested, I claim for my daughter, but apparently I am a leech on the state because of it .... even though I pay over a grand in taxes a month, someone begrudges my daughter eighty quid a month. This will be the same daughter who is funding the NHS in a few years.

I see something like child benefit as akin to the NHS or another universal benefit which everyone (every child) qualified for and which we all pay into, just not at the point of service .... what do others think? "

No, you shouldn't. Much in the same way anyone receiving their pension shouldn't be ashamed

Child benefit is awareded to every child, it's instead of a tax allowance.

It's traditionally paid to the main carer, has nothing to do with if you can afford to have kids or not.

There is now an upper limit imposed, because every child was entitled to it regardless if they were a prince or pauper

Confusing it with out of work benefits shows a lack of understanding, and even when on out of work benefits, i have no problem with people claiming what they are allowed to.

Shame shouldn't be attributed, the current demonisation of the poor is part of the problem in my imho, not the solution

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lackMaleLONDONMan
over a year ago

LONDON

To Julia 2000

Nope I don't think I know it all. I don't even know what you mean by that statement. Lol

-also I'm not sure what you mean by negatively last in south America.

I'm not trying to be rude. And please don't take offence. But is English your first language?

Because I'm trying to understand your points, but have no idea, what you're saying

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oncupiscentTonyMan
over a year ago

Kent

I don't think anyone should be but then I do think it's of its time, I'd prefer to see it scrapped and the money put into giving every child a healthy cooked meal at school or fund youth clubs or similar rather than paid out as cash

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lackMaleLONDONMan
over a year ago

LONDON

And Ozzie. Could you give an example of the type of taxes I believe in, which only benefit there minority?

Also the last major recessions where caused by government interfering in the economy not small government.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Without sounding like a cock, if you earn enough to pay a grand a month tax, you earn too much to be entitled to child benefit without paying the tax charge. Wasn't that brought in a couple of years ago for those who earn over £50k?

No one should ever be ashamed of claiming something they're legally entitled to though.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

No offence taken.

If you look up on history you will notice that English was never anyone's first language.

The same way you don't understand what my messages means is also similar to your limited understanding of why child benefits is available to many parents who have children.

I mean no offence either when I say stick to what you know best and try to refrain from giving opinions for which you have no experience in, Makes you look stupid when you can apply your negative biased judgments elsewhere

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *LCCCouple
over a year ago

Cambridge


"I don't think anyone should be but then I do think it's of its time, I'd prefer to see it scrapped and the money put into giving every child a healthy cooked meal at school or fund youth clubs or similar rather than paid out as cash"

Do you know much about school dinners now?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *LCCCouple
over a year ago

Cambridge


"The problems with small government libertarian philospohy is that it only believes in taxes for things that support the believers, as they are usually minority those taxes are used for things that don't benefit the majority. Secondly every economic crash has debunked small government policies and given the failure of Friedmans economics and USA's return to Keynesian economics. Trickle down does not work."

Give that man a medal

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston


"Without sounding like a cock, if you earn enough to pay a grand a month tax, you earn too much to be entitled to child benefit without paying the tax charge. Wasn't that brought in a couple of years ago for those who earn over £50k? "

With due respect I think you fail to understand why child benefit is not means tested and is generally paid directly to the main carer.

It does not matter how much a family income is if the main earner is an alcoholic or gambling addict there is no guarantee that the main carer will be given enough money to feed the family, child benefit supplies a safety net for all children.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lackMaleLONDONMan
over a year ago

LONDON

Well English is my first language, so that refutes your first point.

- although when someone asks you if it's your first language. It means are you a native speaker.

I didn't understand what your first post said, because it barely made sense.

I understand why child benefit is available, just like I understand why somebody, would steal or murder etc, it doesn't mean I agree with those actions though.

And my opinions arn't negative, they are just my opinions and all opinions where asked for by the OP.

I have plenty of experience with child benefit, it's best you don't assume what a stranger on the internet's experience is as to makes you look stupid.


"No offence taken.

If you look up on history you will notice that English was never anyone's first language.

The same way you don't understand what my messages means is also similar to your limited understanding of why child benefits is available to many parents who have children.

I mean no offence either when I say stick to what you know best and try to refrain from giving opinions for which you have no experience in, Makes you look stupid when you can apply your negative biased judgments elsewhere

"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Without sounding like a cock, if you earn enough to pay a grand a month tax, you earn too much to be entitled to child benefit without paying the tax charge. Wasn't that brought in a couple of years ago for those who earn over £50k?

With due respect I think you fail to understand why child benefit is not means tested and is generally paid directly to the main carer.

It does not matter how much a family income is if the main earner is an alcoholic or gambling addict there is no guarantee that the main carer will be given enough money to feed the family, child benefit supplies a safety net for all children."

I haven't failed to understand anything. It's not means tested no, but if you earn £60k+ then you pay it back as extra income tax.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

For clarity, I didn't mean that someone earning a certain amount "shouldn't" be entitled to it (I don't actually believe it should exist at all, but that's another debate entirely) - I mean that under the tax rules they literally *aren't*. Someone can still physically receive it but it must be paid back via a self assessment tax return, at a rate of 1% for every £100 earned over £50k and in full if over £60k. That was my point.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lackMaleLONDONMan
over a year ago

LONDON

To law and order, - Viewing the forum thread, you can see the Julia, is the first person to start with the ad-hominem attacks, and I merely responded in kind.

And as for my "inane racism" - the tone may not have come across to you, and I hope Julia can see I was being sincere with that question and not trying to offend. The reason I asked that question is because her profile says she is in Wales. So she may be a Welsh native speaker and because when she wrote.....

Your the type who thinks you know it all. Make sure it never comes to bite right back at you one day.

Will you negativity last in South America. Hhhhmm

I genuinely didn't think someone who is a native speaker could butcher the language like this.

Could you explain what "will you negatively last in south America" means? Because I'm still scratching my head.

.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lackMaleLONDONMan
over a year ago

LONDON

And ps. I'm not sure if i agree or disagree with Julia. Because I couldn't understand the point she was making, I may well agree, if I knew what she was trying to say. So your point about me disagreeing with her is incorrect.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Should I be shamed because I claim child benefit? As its a universal benefit not means tested, I claim for my daughter, but apparently I am a leech on the state because of it .... even though I pay over a grand in taxes a month, someone begrudges my daughter eighty quid a month. This will be the same daughter who is funding the NHS in a few years.

I see something like child benefit as akin to the NHS or another universal benefit which everyone (every child) qualified for and which we all pay into, just not at the point of service .... what do others think? "

Why are you a leech its a state benefit and nothing to do with not working. So dnt listen to people. You are entitled to it

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Tax policies and benefits are encouragements or discouragements to do stuff, like zero road tax on electric cars or tax relief on pension contributions.

Child benefit was brought in to replace child tax credits the obvious difference being you got it wether you work or not.

If you go back to the original policy it was a straight tax encouragement to have children which in the 1800s was what the state wanted.

.

With 7.2 billon people on the planet today, I suppose it's a question wether we should be encouraging it today

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *imiUKMan
over a year ago

Hereford

No, you shouldn't be ashamed. Children don't have a choice where or how they are born. In a civillised country, they all deserve a standard of living.

Child benefit is for children.

You should be asghamed if you are spending your child benefit on fags and booze, though.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *imiUKMan
over a year ago

Hereford


"I believe tax is theft. And I'm a small government libertarian.

"

Cool story, bro.

I believe property is theft, and I'm not a small government libertarian.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lackMaleLONDONMan
over a year ago

LONDON

Thanks,

Could you explain how property is theft?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *imiUKMan
over a year ago

Hereford


"Thanks,

Could you explain how property is theft?"

The more resources that are concentrated in private hands, the less there are available for the population.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ane DTV/TS
over a year ago

London - till 25th

When folk start complaining about Child Benefit, I quietly point out that in 30 to 40 years time, it will be these 'kids' that will be the doctor treating your dementia, the nurse changing your catheter and the carer feeding you your meal and cleaning your arse while your brain slowly melts itself.

Sort of brings home the need for kids and for the education of kids.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ango0505Woman
over a year ago

Dumfries


"I don't believe anyone should have child benefit. And yes people should be shamed for claiming it. With the reasoning being if you can't afford kids, then don't have them. And don't expect others to pay for them.

You really think £80 a month helps you bring up a child??? Once you've grown up and become a parent? I'm sure you'll think again. "

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lackMaleLONDONMan
over a year ago

LONDON

The more resources that are concentrated in private hands, the less there are available for the population.

---Ignoring the fact that private hands and the population may be the same thing.

Where exactly does all property being theft play a part in your answer?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *awandOrder OP   Couple
over a year ago

SW London


"To law and order, - Viewing the forum thread, you can see the Julia, is the first person to start with the ad-hominem attacks, and I merely responded in kind.

And as for my "inane racism" - the tone may not have come across to you, and I hope Julia can see I was being sincere with that question and not trying to offend. The reason I asked that question is because her profile says she is in Wales. So she may be a Welsh native speaker and because when she wrote.....

Your the type who thinks you know it all. Make sure it never comes to bite right back at you one day.

Will you negativity last in South America. Hhhhmm

I genuinely didn't think someone who is a native speaker could butcher the language like this.

Could you explain what "will you negatively last in south America" means? Because I'm still scratching my head.

."

I didn't make the comment but I can explain it ... the person who wrote it left the r off the end of your ...and didn't put a question mark on the end of their question sentence. One's ability to understand English as well as write it, understand the gist etc., is also measured in the command of one's native language, surely?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *awandOrder OP   Couple
over a year ago

SW London


"No, you shouldn't be ashamed. Children don't have a choice where or how they are born. In a civillised country, they all deserve a standard of living.

Child benefit is for children.

You should be asghamed if you are spending your child benefit on fags and booze, though. "

I know I don't, I give it directly to my daughter as her pocket money ... when I three younger children (my boys are adults now) it meant they stayed on at school and had books, shoes etc. Saying that, because we are living in London and it's just me (absent fathers in another country) I have to do the best for them. One's at uni now and the other is earning more than me ... and paying more taxes into the public coffers than I am ....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *nleashedCrakenMan
over a year ago

Widnes


"Thanks everyone for your counter-arguments to the points I raised. None of them have convinced me, as primarily I believe tax is theft. And I'm a small government libertarian.

So if there must be some taxes, it is not to be used to pay for other peoples kids.

Everybody here is of courses free to choose to pay for others children, but I don't think active should be forced to. And as a tangential point, I believe there is a correlation between these types of benefits. And a rise in single motherhood. And the stats show that kids raised by single mothers are at a disadvantage. And commit more crime, etc etc So besides my philosophical disagreement with child benefit. I think there is a sociological argument to be made here as well.

But my main point is, if you can't afford them. Don't have them.

"

I to am not in favour of big government and sympathise with some of the libertarian argument. I also don't think that a universal child benefit is the best way to help children or families that genuinely need help. However I have claimed Child Support as, at the time, I was entitled to, just as I also claim my full income tax free allowance. There is nothing shameful about claiming what you are entitled to, whether it's tax allowance or benefits, or whether you need it or not. As for the argument that paying £80 per month is going to encourage more single mothers, that's just not credible and, as everyone who has care for a child, whether single mother, father or couple, can claim it, there is absolutely no evidence to back that statement up.

Children are an overall benefit to any society, without them their really would be no society at all. It is only right that the society that is going to benefit from those children should do what it can to help them. Whilst I may not always agree with the 'help' society gives to its children, in fact I sometimes think the 'help' does more harm than good, I do not reject the notion that society, in its own self interest and the interests of all its members, should actually try to help.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I don't believe anyone should have child benefit. And yes people should be shamed for claiming it. With the reasoning being if you can't afford kids, then don't have them. And don't expect others to pay for them.

Except that those kids will one day be paying for the nhs your doddery old ass will inevitably be using and probably your state pension too!"
don't listen to him .

It's a benifit everybody in Scot and England get

Have been for years

Don't give two hoots what anybody says .especialy if they arnt providing for ur child .

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lackMaleLONDONMan
over a year ago

LONDON

Thanks law and order, I've always been rubbish at solving riddles.

I Appreciate you taking the time to explain what she meant, and for this thought provoking post you created, it's nice to hear people's ideas on things other then brexit. Lol

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I don't care if it's 80p a month. I should not be forced to pay for other people's kids. There parents should.

- and regarding the point about these kids paying for my old ass, via the NHS, they should not have to pay for me either, people Should take responsibility for themselves and stop taking money from others.

Will you take it upon yourself to pay back the child benefit your mum received for you then?"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *imiUKMan
over a year ago

Hereford


"The more resources that are concentrated in private hands, the less there are available for the population.

---Ignoring the fact that private hands and the population may be the same thing.

Where exactly does all property being theft play a part in your answer?"

"The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying 'This is mine,' and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody."

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *awandOrder OP   Couple
over a year ago

SW London


"Thanks law and order, I've always been rubbish at solving riddles.

I Appreciate you taking the time to explain what she meant, and for this thought provoking post you created, it's nice to hear people's ideas on things other then brexit. Lol"

I never give my opinions on brexit. I make it my mission not to .... so many people are too obsessed with it here.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lackMaleLONDONMan
over a year ago

LONDON

Very poetic quote, but niether it nor you have yet explained how property is theft.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

To the parents here.

Did the anticipation of receiving child benefit encourage you to have children?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *awandOrder OP   Couple
over a year ago

SW London

Nope, I had mine in america, and child benefit wasn't the reason I moved back either ....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *imiUKMan
over a year ago

Hereford


"Very poetic quote, but niether it nor you have yet explained how property is theft."

I explained it twice, as it happens.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lackMaleLONDONMan
over a year ago

LONDON

Nope you have never explained it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *awandOrder OP   Couple
over a year ago

SW London


"Nope you have never explained it. "

I understand it totally. Its about reading one's native language again

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *imiUKMan
over a year ago

Hereford


"Nope you have never explained it. "

Wage labor does not properly create any property for the laborer. It only creates capital, a property which works only to augment the exploitation of the worker. This property, this capital, is based on class antagonism

Capital is a social product, that is, capital only exists within some social system. The result of this is that capital is not a personal but a social power. Making property public then, is not changing the private to the social; it is only modifying its already inherent social character.

The average price of wage labor is the minimum wage, i.e. the quantum of the means of subsistence which is the absolutely requisite to keep the laborer in bare existence as a laborer. The proletariat, then, is absolutely dependent on the capitalist for his very survival. He does not acquire any property because his wage must be given immediately to his own subsistence. I wish that the laborer exists for more than merely the increase of bourgeois capital. Labor should not be directed towards the accumulation of wealth on the part of the capitalist. Rather, capital, or property in general, should be directed toward the enrichment of the laborer's life.

Abolition of private property means, then, only the abolition of bourgeoisie property. The freedom which the bourgeois believe is underwritten by private property is a very narrow freedom, one available only to a very small subset of the population. Moreover, this form of property depends on its radically unequal distribution.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *LCCCouple
over a year ago

Cambridge


"Nope you have never explained it.

Wage labor does not properly create any property for the laborer. It only creates capital, a property which works only to augment the exploitation of the worker. This property, this capital, is based on class antagonism

Capital is a social product, that is, capital only exists within some social system. The result of this is that capital is not a personal but a social power. Making property public then, is not changing the private to the social; it is only modifying its already inherent social character.

The average price of wage labor is the minimum wage, i.e. the quantum of the means of subsistence which is the absolutely requisite to keep the laborer in bare existence as a laborer. The proletariat, then, is absolutely dependent on the capitalist for his very survival. He does not acquire any property because his wage must be given immediately to his own subsistence. I wish that the laborer exists for more than merely the increase of bourgeois capital. Labor should not be directed towards the accumulation of wealth on the part of the capitalist. Rather, capital, or property in general, should be directed toward the enrichment of the laborer's life.

Abolition of private property means, then, only the abolition of bourgeoisie property. The freedom which the bourgeois believe is underwritten by private property is a very narrow freedom, one available only to a very small subset of the population. Moreover, this form of property depends on its radically unequal distribution. "

Some interesting points in there. There are some key reasons as to why some people chose not to work in the private sector.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lackMaleLONDONMan
over a year ago

LONDON

I understand it totally. Its about reading one's native language again

Could you explain what he means Law and Order?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"To the parents here.

Did the anticipation of receiving child benefit encourage you to have children?"

Looking at the demographics in the next 30 years its looking a bit grim should be paying them more

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *lackMaleLONDONMan
over a year ago

LONDON

Again another great quote, but I wasn't asking about Marxist economic theory, I was asking you to explain how property is theft, which you still haven't done?

For example of a villager build himself a Hut, who had he stolen from?

If I buy a new iPhone 7, who have I stolen from?

And also how do you define property?

And how do you define theft?

Hopefully law and order will explain, as she's great at deciphering incoherent speech.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *nleashedCrakenMan
over a year ago

Widnes


"Nope you have never explained it.

Wage labor does not properly create any property for the laborer. It only creates capital, a property which works only to augment the exploitation of the worker. This property, this capital, is based on class antagonism

Capital is a social product, that is, capital only exists within some social system. The result of this is that capital is not a personal but a social power. Making property public then, is not changing the private to the social; it is only modifying its already inherent social character.

The average price of wage labor is the minimum wage, i.e. the quantum of the means of subsistence which is the absolutely requisite to keep the laborer in bare existence as a laborer. The proletariat, then, is absolutely dependent on the capitalist for his very survival. He does not acquire any property because his wage must be given immediately to his own subsistence. I wish that the laborer exists for more than merely the increase of bourgeois capital. Labor should not be directed towards the accumulation of wealth on the part of the capitalist. Rather, capital, or property in general, should be directed toward the enrichment of the laborer's life.

Abolition of private property means, then, only the abolition of bourgeoisie property. The freedom which the bourgeois believe is underwritten by private property is a very narrow freedom, one available only to a very small subset of the population. Moreover, this form of property depends on its radically unequal distribution. "

If you're going to quote Karl Marx at least have the honesty to make that clear in your post.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oorland2Couple
over a year ago

Stoke


"I don't believe anyone should have child benefit. And yes people should be shamed for claiming it. With the reasoning being if you can't afford kids, then don't have them. And don't expect others to pay for them. "

You should see the amount some of the families in the ethnic enclaves in Bradforstan receive

Mother pretends to work for father for 16 hours a week, never leaves home speaks English

And claims in excess of 18K in different types of benefit

Merc on the drive 5 bedroom houses but apparently they are too poor to replace their own boilers and need to claim for a free one on the ecodeal scheme

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *imiUKMan
over a year ago

Hereford


"Nope you have never explained it.

Wage labor does not properly create any property for the laborer. It only creates capital, a property which works only to augment the exploitation of the worker. This property, this capital, is based on class antagonism

Capital is a social product, that is, capital only exists within some social system. The result of this is that capital is not a personal but a social power. Making property public then, is not changing the private to the social; it is only modifying its already inherent social character.

The average price of wage labor is the minimum wage, i.e. the quantum of the means of subsistence which is the absolutely requisite to keep the laborer in bare existence as a laborer. The proletariat, then, is absolutely dependent on the capitalist for his very survival. He does not acquire any property because his wage must be given immediately to his own subsistence. I wish that the laborer exists for more than merely the increase of bourgeois capital. Labor should not be directed towards the accumulation of wealth on the part of the capitalist. Rather, capital, or property in general, should be directed toward the enrichment of the laborer's life.

Abolition of private property means, then, only the abolition of bourgeoisie property. The freedom which the bourgeois believe is underwritten by private property is a very narrow freedom, one available only to a very small subset of the population. Moreover, this form of property depends on its radically unequal distribution.

If you're going to quote Karl Marx at least have the honesty to make that clear in your post."

I didn't directly quote Marx. I paraphrased chapter 2 of the Communist Manifesto. It's more fun to put things in (more or less) my own words.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

A better use of child benefit money would be if it was paid directly into a childs bank account from birth and not accessible until the child is 18 and only by the child. They would then have a decent start to adult life, money for education or to start a business or deposit on a flat or whatever. Of course a lot would waste it but a lot of parents already do that

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Nope you have never explained it.

Wage labor does not properly create any property for the laborer. It only creates capital, a property which works only to augment the exploitation of the worker. This property, this capital, is based on class antagonism

Capital is a social product, that is, capital only exists within some social system. The result of this is that capital is not a personal but a social power. Making property public then, is not changing the private to the social; it is only modifying its already inherent social character.

The average price of wage labor is the minimum wage, i.e. the quantum of the means of subsistence which is the absolutely requisite to keep the laborer in bare existence as a laborer. The proletariat, then, is absolutely dependent on the capitalist for his very survival. He does not acquire any property because his wage must be given immediately to his own subsistence. I wish that the laborer exists for more than merely the increase of bourgeois capital. Labor should not be directed towards the accumulation of wealth on the part of the capitalist. Rather, capital, or property in general, should be directed toward the enrichment of the laborer's life.

Abolition of private property means, then, only the abolition of bourgeoisie property. The freedom which the bourgeois believe is underwritten by private property is a very narrow freedom, one available only to a very small subset of the population. Moreover, this form of property depends on its radically unequal distribution.

If you're going to quote Karl Marx at least have the honesty to make that clear in your post.

I didn't directly quote Marx. I paraphrased chapter 2 of the Communist Manifesto. It's more fun to put things in (more or less) my own words. "

still bollocks though

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"To the parents here.

Did the anticipation of receiving child benefit encourage you to have children?"
yup that 20 a week certainly made my mind up . Lol .was being sarcastico

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"A better use of child benefit money would be if it was paid directly into a childs bank account from birth and not accessible until the child is 18 and only by the child. They would then have a decent start to adult life, money for education or to start a business or deposit on a flat or whatever. Of course a lot would waste it but a lot of parents already do that"

I see that point but as my mum and dad pointed at Child benefit is in part to help a child out through childhood.

Id suggest a scheme where you request the funding and it gets checked. E.g, school trip coming up for a kids GCSE's, kid need to go, parents can't afford it. They make a request, the money is transferred to them after the gov clarifies it with the school.

I know that sounds very rigorous but atleast it stops a limited number of people giving others a bad name by spending said benefit on themselves rather than their kid.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *edangel_2013Woman
over a year ago

southend


"I don't believe anyone should have child benefit. And yes people should be shamed for claiming it. With the reasoning being if you can't afford kids, then don't have them. And don't expect others to pay for them.

You should see the amount some of the families in the ethnic enclaves in Bradforstan receive

Mother pretends to work for father for 16 hours a week, never leaves home speaks English

And claims in excess of 18K in different types of benefit

Merc on the drive 5 bedroom houses but apparently they are too poor to replace their own boilers and need to claim for a free one on the ecodeal scheme"

Been reading the Daily Mail again?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

ok lets get really basic.

stop all benefits and bollox to everyone.

The rich will have the power to pay a few quid a month pay and you should be grateful!

Only thing is when people have nothing they also have nothing to loose.

If you give people just enough to manage on they wont riot or start a revolution.Benefit is also an insurance policy to keep the rich safe.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top