Ex-pats to lose benefits.

[Lord P G Blakely]

Before the political class attempt to steal the state pension from those who contributed for decades through National Insurance,they would do better toaren't shot extravagant and unjustified items of public expenditure.International aid is an obvious candidate and the Taxpayers' Alliance has listed many more examples of obscene sums of our hard earned money being frittered away by our politicians.What is obvious,is the continuing cowardice of our politicians in failing to make hard choices and sanction real reductions in wasteful state spending.Don't penalise those who have contributed all their working lives,to subsidise all those that do the opposite.

 

International aid to those who don't need it should be cut, eg India, but we have a moral duty to give to countries that are way behind us. The Taxpayers alliance are run by bunch of Tory rightwingers who campaign for a low tax government. Take away taxes as they want and you have no welfare state.

[For Us All]

Have never understood the concept of child benefit as such and think child deficit would be a better idea. Hopefully putting off the career Mum`s whose goal in life is to produce more and more pups so the state gives them a bigger better council house after each offspring More responsible parents and otherwise the taxpayer have to care for the little blighters until they`re 16 and now that`s becoming 18 or more as the school leaving age increases . Having children is a blessing and a great responsibility and prospective parents need to understand their commitments are exactly that and they need to pay their way and not be a burden on the rest of society.

 

The UK has the highest proportion of single mothers in the EU simply because it offers the biggest incentives and pays the highest benefits.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Have never understood the concept of child benefit as such and think child deficit would be a better idea. Hopefully putting off the career Mum`s whose goal in life is to produce more and more pups so the state gives them a bigger better council house after each offspring More responsible parents and otherwise the taxpayer have to care for the little blighters until they`re 16 and now that`s becoming 18 or more as the school leaving age increases . Having children is a blessing and a great responsibility and prospective parents need to understand their commitments are exactly that and they need to pay their way and not be a burden on the rest of society.

 

All true but once the child exists the state has a responsibility to protect and care and provide for it if the parents cannot or will not.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

The UK has the highest proportion of single mothers in the EU simply because it offers the biggest incentives and pays the highest benefits.

 

And perhaps a different attitude to sex, responsibility, sexualisation of youngsters/children, family life and so on?

[JOHNNYAITCH]

International aid to those who don't need it should be cut, eg India, but we have a moral duty to give to countries that are way behind us. The Taxpayers alliance are run by bunch of Tory rightwingers who campaign for a low tax government. Take away taxes as they want and you have no welfare state.

 

Not necessarily true. You might have a smaller welfare state or a welfare state funded by taxation on spending, profits, economic growth, reduced govt spending elsewhere, in creased capital savings by individuals, indirect taxation tax take increases and so on

 

1% of the top earners are responsible for 27% of income tax revenues which actually suggests that the balance is not right

 

There is a debate to be had