When my wife and I had a our children it never occurred to me to ask my employer for a pay rise because I had a new child. Why should the state behave differently to private sector employers?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1kMwQT49d

The 'professionally unemployed' often use children and children's benefit as a means of gaining a good income without having to get paid employment.

I think there should be a cap on the number of children that qualify for benefit and therefore help reduce this tax burden.

Common sense and therefore will never be applied by any Gov

_________________
Lets be careful out there !

Apparently some Bishop or other was moaning about the fact that "£26,000.00 is barely enough to live on". Until it was pointed out that one of his clergymen was paid £22,000.00.

It should be capped at minimum wage instead of average wage. Taxing working people who are on minimum wage to give nearly treble the minimum wage to workless people is obscene. It's little more than mediaeval serfdom.

One or two parties campaigned on lifting personal tax allowances which is probably the one big thing they could do to lessen demand on benefits and create the incentive to for people to return to work. If people were allowed to earn say £15,000 before paying tax it would make a hell of a difference.

Looking at it from another angle the majority of benefit paid to persons goes on housing costs. If rents were lower then there wouldn't be a requirement for higher levels of benefit.

Some persons are saying (and I agree with them) that the politicians are going for the easy solution in cutting the overall benefit entitlement. They could of course have looked at introducing a rent cap but seeing as a lot of MP's own and rent out property (some have quite large portfolio's) it is understandable why they did not.

Boy have some people got a rude awakening when it come to living on an old age pension.

_________________
Its not always the biggest and the bestest, its them that make the least mistakes.

It's a shame the Bishops don't spend more time studying their Bibles and less time studying The Guardian.
http://biblegateway.com/passage/index.p ... ersion=NIV

I wonder if they did a survey how many people on benefits with children smoke, own a mobile phone, own a the latest plasma tvs

The other scandal associated with this story is that somebody earning £35,000 has 32% (£8600) taken in tax just for working for their living.

Child Benifit , should be paid 100% for the first child ,then 50% for the second ,and no more for any other children , not retrosptive
As for £25 k , maybe the minimum wage is too low , and wages generally,
And housing rent and prices are I think at least 30 to 50% to high

Child benefit should be scrapped for everybody and replaced with a tax allowance against earned income for the father.

Several USA States already pay welfare based on the family as and when you start benefits with a 9 month delay in case the wife is already pregnant; any children born after this you DO NOT receive additional payments !

Uncommon ` Common sense ' .