Family allowance cuts

[kazalala]

Just been watching the news about the decision to stop Family Allowance ( Child benefit)

for parents who have at least one of them on £44000 or more a year. Some people on the news were saying its unfair, and what about mothers whop are on their own and making that much, or households with only one parent working making that much.

personally i think its ok, and i would have been glad to forfeit it if i had been earning that much.

What do you think:-2

[Oscar Namechange]

kazalala;1336635 wrote: Just been watching the news about the decision to stop Family Allowance ( Child benefit)

for parents who have at least one of them on £44000 or more a year. Some people on the news were saying its unfair, and what about mothers whop are on their own and making that much, or households with only one parent working making that much.

personally i think its ok, and i would have been glad to forfeit it if i had been earning that much.

What do you think:-2


My local Tories were telling me that they would do this long before the election if they got In. I actually agree with It. It Is un-fair that even single parents earning that kind of money, should be able to claim the exact same benefit as those on Income support.

It appears that they seem to be doing all of which they proposed before the election.... Just wait !!! Next is benefit replaced by food vouchers for the un-employed with children.

[Bez]

If my maths is correct that's £846 per week ...... that's a LOT of money...by my standard anyway. That's more than 4 times what I get on a state pension + private pension that I paid into for 30 yrs and which I pay tax on. I am not entitled to any benefits except the Winter fuel payment for which I am very grateful.

When I got 'Family allowance' 40 yrs ago we got zero for the 1st child and then around 90p for the 2nd and subsequent child. I needed it desperately then but my husbands earnings were very small.

I think it's Ok for those on larger incomes to forgo family allowance......I doubt they even notice much difference when it's paid into thier bank acounts

[kazalala]

i think some people may be living beyond their means to be now moaning about it

[Bez]

oscar;1336641 wrote: My local Tories were telling me that they would do this long before the election if they got In. I actually agree with It. It Is un-fair that even single parents earning that kind of money, should be able to claim the exact same benefit as those on Income support.

It appears that they seem to be doing all of which they proposed before the election.... Just wait !!! Next is benefit replaced by food vouchers for the un-employed with children.


To be honest this may not be a bad thing. Much of the money paid to keep kids from poor families fed and clothed obviously goes on fags, drink, drugs and luxury items.

[G#Gill]

I have always thought that people earning very good money should not get the child benefit, and that it should be paid to the less fortunate, the underpaid, the one-parent family etc. However, an interesting problem was mentioned on the radio (local) this afternoon. Family 'A' has mum at home looking after the children while dad works and earns £46,000 per year, so they loose their child benefit. Family 'B', next door, have both parents working full time, each bringing in £40,000 (total £80,000) therefore they qualify for child benefit ! I, personally think that the authorities should consider the sum total of earnings coming into a particular household, whilst making their decisions, like building societies do when arranging mortgages.

[Oscar Namechange]

Bez;1336646 wrote: To be honest this may not be a bad thing. Much of the money paid to keep kids from poor families fed and clothed obviously goes on fags, drink, drugs and luxury items.
My apologies to any-one reading this as I have written this post before on other threads. I myself am for It because I have a revolting neighbour who even puts getting tattoo's before feeding her children

Every 2nd friday the only excercise this woman gets Is bending down to pick the benefit cheque up off the door mat. She has a regualr taxi booked for every fortnight on a friday night to take her to Asda where she stocks up the cheap beer and ciggs. Then she phones my friends take-away for a £30 Pizza order and has It delivered. Her children are under-fed and dirty.

One day her little boy was In my house and asked If he could have an apple In the fruit bowl and I pointed out that there were no apples In there but they were pears. He was so excited about having a pear that It broke my heart.

Very often, one of her kids will call on us toward the end of the fortnight to ask for £10 for the electric meter because they have no power.

The Tories were talking about replacing benefit with food vouchers on a Supermarket loyalty card so they were non-transferable or salable. They were also talking about giving a proportion of benefit also In vouchers that could only be re-deemed on utility bills such as gas and electric.

After what I have seen, I have to agree with this.

[kazalala]

oscar;1336651 wrote: My apologies to any-one reading this as I have written this post before on other threads. I myself am for It because I have a revolting neighbour who even puts getting tattoo's before feeding her children

Every 2nd friday the only excercise this woman gets Is bending down to pick the benefit cheque up off the door mat. She has a regualr taxi booked for every fortnight on a friday night to take her to Asda where she stocks up the cheap beer and ciggs. Then she phones my friends take-away for a £30 Pizza order and has It delivered. Her children are under-fed and dirty.

One day her little boy was In my house and asked If he could have an apple In the fruit bowl and I pointed out that there were no apples In there but they were pears. He was so excited about having a pear that It broke my heart.

Very often, one of her kids will call on us toward the end of the fortnight to ask for £10 for the electric meter because they have no power.

The Tories were talking about replacing benefit with food vouchers on a Supermarket loyalty card so they were non-transferable or salable. They were also talking about giving a proportion of benefit also In vouchers that could only be re-deemed on utility bills such as gas and electric.

After what I have seen, I have to agree with this.


as long as they can use whatever vouchers etc to provide for their childfren wether it be food, clothing, or as you say utilities ,,, i cant see why anyone should be against it:-3

[Bryn Mawr]

kazalala;1336635 wrote: Just been watching the news about the decision to stop Family Allowance ( Child benefit)

for parents who have at least one of them on £44000 or more a year. Some people on the news were saying its unfair, and what about mothers whop are on their own and making that much, or households with only one parent working making that much.

personally i think its ok, and i would have been glad to forfeit it if i had been earning that much.

What do you think:-2


That it should have been on combined family income rather than just that of the major earner.

[Rapunzel]

I totally agree with everything said on this thread. My ex-sister-in-law used to boast about saving up her child benefit for months and then treating herself to some luxury item. She didn't need the money and she certainly never spent it on her kids.

The school I work in is in quite a low economic area and the parents DO spend their money on booze and fags! They also ALL seem to have nice cars. Meanwhile the kids come in complaining their tummies hurt because they weren't given any breakfast! Their clothes are usually stained, the kids are often smelly and the parents buy them one pair of trainers each which they wear to school as they have no proper school shoes.

However, will Sainsbury's (or wherever) take food vouchers for just food, or will they take them for fags as well? If they do then you're no better off. This needs to be enforced but then you're forcing a Big Brother State and also a Nanny State. Where do you draw the line?

[K.Snyder]

G#Gill;1336647 wrote: I have always thought that people earning very good money should not get the child benefit, and that it should be paid to the less fortunate, the underpaid, the one-parent family etc. However, an interesting problem was mentioned on the radio (local) this afternoon. Family 'A' has mum at home looking after the children while dad works and earns £46,000 per year, so they loose their child benefit. Family 'B', next door, have both parents working full time, each bringing in £40,000 (total £80,000) therefore they qualify for child benefit ! I, personally think that the authorities should consider the sum total of earnings coming into a particular household, whilst making their decisions, like building societies do when arranging mortgages. I don't know about in the UK but in the US one parent must work fulltime to be able to afford child day care. $1500 a month seems about the average I think

I will agree that this benefit must be expounded on a proportionate basis.

[fuzzywuzzy]

It's means tested here. I can tell you right now, that I rely heavily on it at the moment. Oh but in saying that if you recieve Child support it cuts into the payment . So you don't get as much .

[K.Snyder]

I'm curious what the allowance is if one has a 400 lb 8 year old.

[Rapunzel]

K.Snyder;1336721 wrote: I'm curious what the allowance is if one has a 400 lb 8 year old.


At my old school we had a child with Prader-Willi (sp?) syndrome. She couldn't stop eating, she'd even eat things like wallpaper. She could barely talk and she was huge, poor little mite. Apparently life expectancy is not great with that illness.

Ah, but I see you're teasing us. :sneaky: You mean a well-fed child. Sadly, lots of poorer people do have overweight kids. The well-meaning government bods look down on these poor families and say 'the parents have no idea how to cook a nourishing meal for their children' but I once saw a poor parent reply to this. She said 'fruit and vegetables are very expensive and go rotten very quickly. When money is tight you need food that fills your children up for very little money. Frozen pizza costs £1. It is full of sugars and preservatives but it fills them up. It is cheaper to buy the kids a bag of greasy chips than it is to buy potatoes, oil, gas/electricity to cook with, ketchup and washing up liquid. A mars bar will hold off hunger for longer than an apple. 5 mars bars = £1; a bag of apples = £2.'

That might not be much of a difference for one item, but for a whole shopping basket you might pay £50 for unhealthy food but £100 for lots of healthy fruits and vegetables.

There are arguments for buying cheap fruit and veg from market stalls, but they go bad within a day or two. Also, it's very disheartening to always have to buy the cheapest of everything and have to shop in several places to keep getting the cheapest.

So if an 8 year old were to weigh 400 lbs, I would say he either had a severe illness or disability or else he was overfed but under-nourished due to living within severe financial constraints.

[Oscar Namechange]

Rapunzel;1336733 wrote: At my old school we had a child with Prader-Willi (sp?) syndrome. . I am aware of this syndrome ans at last It Is being recognised and help Is getting to the young sufferers.

[Rapunzel]

oscar;1336736 wrote: I am aware of this syndrome ans at last It Is being recognised and help Is getting to the young sufferers.


But as always, not enough help and it's not given fast enough.

Also, recognition is slow. Very few people still seem to be aware of this condition and it's many serious and sad side effects, such as, children with this disease can become sexually mature at 5 years old. Girls with this syndrome can start their periods at 5 years old. For a child who can barely talk, who can understand so very little, who cannot even write her own name yet, this is a massive thing to accept and deal with.

Her parents are not a huge amount of help. Her dad adores her but her mum can't cope with her. She is not allowed ANY sugar as she is very short but already, literally, as round as a beachball. She has free school meals. Every day the free school meal has a pudding such as a biscuit, a small cake or a small pot of icecream. Jasmin is offered fruit, but refuses it. She wants biscuit, cake and icecream like the other kids. Her mum said 'well give her half.' Half a cake, half a biscuit, half a tub of ice cream. The other teachers are furious. They ask, whats the point of giving her all this medication and trying to stop her eating so much when mum feeds her sugar every day? I don't say anything. But Jasmin just wants to be like the other kids. She has this illness, it's not going to go away, is it really SO bad that she has a little of what her friends have? She is 6 years old, with a mental age of about 3. How can she understand that she cannot have something because it is not healthy for her, when she sees her other classmates eating it? Again, where do you draw the line? And how do you draw the line?

PS. Jasmin is the correct spelling, she used to scream at you if you stuck an E on the end. :wah:

Okay, rant over. Getting off my soap-box now.

[K.Snyder]

Rapunzel;1336733 wrote: At my old school we had a child with Prader-Willi (sp?) syndrome. She couldn't stop eating, she'd even eat things like wallpaper. She could barely talk and she was huge, poor little mite. Apparently life expectancy is not great with that illness.

Ah, but I see you're teasing us. :sneaky: You mean a well-fed child. Sadly, lots of poorer people do have overweight kids. The well-meaning government bods look down on these poor families and say 'the parents have no idea how to cook a nourishing meal for their children' but I once saw a poor parent reply to this. "how to cook a nourishing meal for their children'"? They're being held hostage ffs!Rapunzel;1336733 wrote: She said 'fruit and vegetables are very expensive and go rotten very quickly. When money is tight you need food that fills your children up for very little money. Frozen pizza costs £1. It is full of sugars and preservatives but it fills them up. I think this actually proves the above statement. Rapunzel;1336733 wrote: It is cheaper to buy the kids a bag of greasy chips than it is to buy potatoes, oil, gas/electricity to cook with, ketchup and washing up liquid. A mars bar will hold off hunger for longer than an apple. 5 mars bars = £1; a bag of apples = £2.'

That might not be much of a difference for one item, but for a whole shopping basket you might pay £50 for unhealthy food but £100 for lots of healthy fruits and vegetables.

There are arguments for buying cheap fruit and veg from market stalls, but they go bad within a day or two. Also, it's very disheartening to always have to buy the cheapest of everything and have to shop in several places to keep getting the cheapest.

So if an 8 year old were to weigh 400 lbs, I would say he either had a severe illness or disability or else he was overfed but under-nourished due to living within severe financial constraints.Well I personally find this to be untrue. The unhealthy products are more expensive because that's what the people buy. Case in point is beef and chicken liver. $0.50/lb. along with breads and canned vegetables are extremely cheap. Canned vegetables can be kept for months and years so wise spending will serve to help them in the long run. Unhealthy food being cheaper is just not true. Yes, fruits and vegetables spoil rapidly but with boiling water and mason jars one can make their own jam and fruit preserves. Nope what we have here is good old fashioned ignorance with a hint of fast food on top. I can literally make a fantastic chicken liver dinner with spinach and potatoes for two, all under 6$ with plenty of second helpings. Add some stewed Mexican style tomatoes and is enough to make your mouth water. In fact, I'm quite positive I could still purchase tomatoes and still be under $6.

So now that we take the grocery store out of the equation, considering the money is not the underlining factor(Unless of course extreme ignorance closer to the scale of mental retardation is obvious) then we must conclude that laziness is the key motivator to spend that "little" extra money to have others prepare the food for them.

What I propose?

An autobahn lane through McDonalds. It's a lane that never stops. People race passed in their vehicles throwing bills and coins out of the window into a trough to then have the merchant in the subsequent window throw the food through the drivers window.

Within minutes people will have discovered that leaving their passenger door window up is the precursor for "best" results.

I'd mentioned an innovative way to deal with this population. All of the proceeds will go toward the demand for such an obviously brilliant idea that of course would better benefit the whole of society the sole rights were in the hands of the government

[Rapunzel]

An interesting reply. I'm not quite sure whom you think is being held hostage, the government, the parents or the children?

And sadly, I don't know any children who'd eat a chicken liver dinner with spinach, but that's beside the point.

[K.Snyder]

Rapunzel;1336759 wrote: An interesting reply. I'm not quite sure whom you think is being held hostage, the government, the parents or the children?Well, it's a bit ironic considering it's the parents that initiates their own eventual procurement. It's obviously parentnapping in all it's "glory".

Rapunzel;1336759 wrote:

And sadly, I don't know any children who'd eat a chicken liver dinner with spinach, but that's beside the point.They surely have in history when kids didn't have fluffy beds, air conditioners and toothpaste. Scotland I'm sure you're familiar with takes great pride in wrapping the guts of a sheep into it's own stomach lining and serving it hot and steaming in all of it's "natural" custom. Good ole Scottish tradition, that

[Rapunzel]

Have you tasted haggis??

[K.Snyder]

Rapunzel;1336762 wrote: Have you tasted haggis??No, actually, I hear it mimics the smell of a dead skunks anus in July.

The point being that healthy food is equally relevant as one's level of intelligence. Everywhere there's horrible poverty there too is an insufficient means of education. When people are born into poverty they remain in poverty because of this. Then the ignorant within the same apparent class becomes racist as a means to make up for their inability to succeed, even with the head start.

So yes I see public assistance in many ways incredibly appropriate regardless of what another individual makes. It all speaks for itself really.

Logic 101: If one receives public assistance and their income supersedes "yours" then "you" by default qualify for said assistance. In all other cases what we have is a nation wide definition of pride in which is accompanied by resentment in which complete and utter irrelevance follows do to this definition being a relative and equally moot argument in the past, present, and future

[Rapunzel]

K.Snyder;1336764 wrote: No, actually, I hear it mimics the smell of a dead skunks anus in July.


So I can't understand why you seriously expect kids to eat this stuff!

K.Snyder;1336764 wrote: The point being that healthy food is equally relevant as one's level of intelligence. Everywhere there's horrible poverty there too is an insufficient means of education. When people are born into poverty they remain in poverty because of this. Then the ignorant within the same apparent class becomes racist as a means to make up for their inability to succeed, even with the head start.


No, I don't agree with this. Yes, as a generalisation. People living in poverty can't always afford healthy food. Yes, healthy food helps you body and brain work better. However, your body and brain are a result of your genes as well as your lifestyle. Living in poverty does not automatically mean that you are ignorant. As I said before, the school I work in lies in a poor economic area. A large proportion of children receive free school dinners. However, we have children that are incredibly bright as well as children that are struggling. The majority of those struggling have other problems such as dyslexia, autism, global delay, etc.

Ignorance, I agree, does lead to racism. However, children today are given a free education up to age 16, soon to be 18. There is no need for ignorance. Children in poverty can progress just as well as children in families that are more financially viable. Being born into poverty does not automatically mean a person is penned in poverty forever. Some are born with a burning desire to improve their situation and some study hard and move ahead. The old class system is slowly dying a death and rightly so.

K.Snyder;1336764 wrote: Logic 101: If one receives public assistance and their income supersedes "yours" then "you" by default qualify for said assistance. In all other cases what we have is a nation wide definition of pride in which is accompanied by resentment in which complete and utter irrelevance follows do to this definition being a relative and equally moot argument in the past, present, and future


This bit looks like it's written in English, but reads like Double Dutch. :-2

[gmc]

Bez;1336646 wrote: To be honest this may not be a bad thing. Much of the money paid to keep kids from poor families fed and clothed obviously goes on fags, drink, drugs and luxury items.


I find that really offensive. In the first place it is not poor families that will be affected by this but the well off ones, average earnings are around £24,000 so the vast majority will not actually be affected. I know plenty of young couples whose JOINT earnings barely reach the so called average. In the second place not every parent on benefits is there from choice or spends what they have on fags, drink, drugs and luxury items. Many families are poor through no fault of their own, right now there are many people in their thirties, forties and fities being laid off from what were always thought to be jobs for life in the financial services sector and soon the local government sector. The older ones might be able to claim their pension early the younger ones will have to take any job they can get. Just watch the number of repossessions in the months to come because the lenders are not helping at all, simplest way to cut back is switch to an interest only mortgage but many lender s won't do it until someone is actually in arrears and there are idiots that want to ban interest only altogether no matter what the circumstances. Unemployed can't pay your mortgage homeless where next? After two months they can repossess and that keeps the bad debt off the books. What will make you feel much better is all those who will say you shouldn't have bought a house you couldn't afford and we need to cut back to reduce the deficit. Tough **** iof it's you. Forget moving to another area for a job - ever tried getting a job in an area where you have no address? bet you haven't it just doesn't work. How would you like to go from even average earning to unemployment benefit?

I grew up in a council housing estate in a single parent family. Like most single parents it wasn't a choice, most single aparents are that way because of divorce or death of one or other of the parents. How many of your friends are single parents because of divorce - statistically it should be one in three, try asking them how many fags they smoke and how much they spend on beer and luxury items while their kids are running around bare arsed and what steps they are takling to get the former husband to support them because you are fed up with scroungers like them living it large on the state.

No offence Bez, I don't know you and I'm sure you're a nice person so I don;t mean anything except as a general reply to something you said that I feel compelled to reply to. But I'd love to take people that think like you, stick you in a council flat, give basic state benefits and young children to look take away all your nice clothes and then tell you to find yourself a job in the next six months, and by the way for every £ you earn you will lose £ in benefit so make sure it is a good job because part time won't help much at all. By the way you have no references and no useful skills because you have been a housewife for ten years. Off hand i can think of tghree women who find themselves exactly that position, they can't buy a house because theior income is insufficient so they pay more in rent than the joint mortgage used to be.

I actually think this is a good idea so long as money is still targeted at those who actually need it. i have no sympathy for someone in a higher rate tax brand losing benefit the whole point was to help those who actually need it. There is a sub- culture of people that scrounge the benefits but the vast majority are not like that. Meanwhile the real crooks that have wrecked the financial system get jobs as consultants to government, the logic apparentlu beimng since they totally f_)_LLD it up they must know how to fix it - oh and don't reguklate them or they will take all theor toys away to another country, let them go I say. 60% of our GDP is made in the city of london, we have a very weak econmy when you depend so much on just one sector.

posted by K snyder

They surely have in history when kids didn't have fluffy beds, air conditioners and toothpaste. Scotland I'm sure you're familiar with takes great pride in wrapping the guts of a sheep into it's own stomach lining and serving it hot and steaming in all of it's "natural" custom. Good ole Scottish tradition, that


If you want the recipe I am quite willing to offer help to a culinary philistine like your good self adda dollop of nippy brown sauce and your taste buds will think they have died and gone to heaven. But I fear you would never be able to enjoy a big mac ever again without reminiscing. In fact I fear macdonalds may have ruined your palate forever. They have healthy big macs here now, as you can tell from the piles of lettuce leaves thrown away by the diners.

[kazalala]

Bryn Mawr;1336709 wrote: That it should have been on combined family income rather than just that of the major earner.
Yes i agree Bryn,,, its been on telly again this morning, and it does'nt seem evenly balanced does it? two people earning 40 grand each say,, can still have it while a single parent earning the 44 grand will not be eligible:-3 It seems it would have been just as easy to base it on the whole income amount coming in to the household.

Rapunzel;1336759 wrote: An interesting reply. I'm not quite sure whom you think is being held hostage, the government, the parents or the children?

And sadly, I don't know any children who'd eat a chicken liver dinner with spinach, but that's beside the point.
er, mine did :wah: both of mine loved good old fashioned meat and veg meals as they were introduced to them as early as possible, and were brought up with it, Thats not to say they never got the junk as well, as they sometimes did. In past years and when the children were little we went through some hard times financially, and i never noticed it was cheaper to buy junk food I think mine usually got a mixture, but honestly when they were little they loved nothing better than a meat and veg dinner:D Veg does not seem to last as long and i know why:sneaky:years ago we did'nt have the heating throughout the house like we do now, hence our houses are kept lovely and warm now whereas before the kitchen especially was always freezing so now i keep most of my veg in the fridge or the front porch;)it lasts pretty well

[gmc]

O.K. I wasn't going to ask but I can't resist it any longer.

posted by K Snyder

No, actually, I hear it mimics the smell of a dead skunks anus in July.


How do you know what a dead skunks anus smells like? I can't think of any sensible reason why you would want to find out and I don't think I want to know what you were doing to find out accidentally.

[Bez]

oscar;1336651 wrote: My apologies to any-one reading this as I have written this post before on other threads. I myself am for It because I have a revolting neighbour who even puts getting tattoo's before feeding her children

Every 2nd friday the only excercise this woman gets Is bending down to pick the benefit cheque up off the door mat. She has a regualr taxi booked for every fortnight on a friday night to take her to Asda where she stocks up the cheap beer and ciggs. Then she phones my friends take-away for a £30 Pizza order and has It delivered. Her children are under-fed and dirty.

One day her little boy was In my house and asked If he could have an apple In the fruit bowl and I pointed out that there were no apples In there but they were pears. He was so excited about having a pear that It broke my heart.

Very often, one of her kids will call on us toward the end of the fortnight to ask for £10 for the electric meter because they have no power.

The Tories were talking about replacing benefit with food vouchers on a Supermarket loyalty card so they were non-transferable or salable. They were also talking about giving a proportion of benefit also In vouchers that could only be re-deemed on utility bills such as gas and electric.

After what I have seen, I have to agree with this.


This is the part that I agree with too....stop giving cash that doesn't benefit the kids.

A point that really irritates me about these announcements and previous ones by other parties through the years, is that they don't appear to think these things through before 'going public'. I have heard numerous politicians and so called experts this morning on the radio, who when pushed, are very fuzzy about the details. I reckon there will be a lot of backtracking in the future.

In my experience, when you plan a change in policy / organisation / procedure etc you need to have your facts absolutely accurate or you will be caught out. Us ordinary citizens are not so stupid as the politicians think.

[Bez]

gmc;1336838 wrote: I find that really offensive. In the first place it is not poor families that will be affected by this but the well off ones, average earnings are around £24,000 so the vast majority will not actually be affected. I know plenty of young couples whose JOINT earnings barely reach the so called average. In the second place not every parent on benefits is there from choice or spends what they have on fags, drink, drugs and luxury items. Many families are poor through no fault of their own, right now there are many people in their thirties, forties and fities being laid off from what were always thought to be jobs for life in the financial services sector and soon the local government sector. The older ones might be able to claim their pension early the younger ones will have to take any job they can get. Just watch the number of repossessions in the months to come because the lenders are not helping at all, simplest way to cut back is switch to an interest only mortgage but many lender s won't do it until someone is actually in arrears and there are idiots that want to ban interest only altogether no matter what the circumstances. Unemployed can't pay your mortgage homeless where next? After two months they can repossess and that keeps the bad debt off the books. What will make you feel much better is all those who will say you shouldn't have bought a house you couldn't afford and we need to cut back to reduce the deficit. Tough **** iof it's you. Forget moving to another area for a job - ever tried getting a job in an area where you have no address? bet you haven't it just doesn't work. How would you like to go from even average earning to unemployment benefit?

I grew up in a council housing estate in a single parent family. Like most single parents it wasn't a choice, most single aparents are that way because of divorce or death of one or other of the parents. How many of your friends are single parents because of divorce - statistically it should be one in three, try asking them how many fags they smoke and how much they spend on beer and luxury items while their kids are running around bare arsed and what steps they are takling to get the former husband to support them because you are fed up with scroungers like them living it large on the state.

No offence Bez, I don't know you and I'm sure you're a nice person so I don;t mean anything except as a general reply to something you said that I feel compelled to reply to. But I'd love to take people that think like you, stick you in a council flat, give basic state benefits and young children to look take away all your nice clothes and then tell you to find yourself a job in the next six months, and by the way for every £ you earn you will lose £ in benefit so make sure it is a good job because part time won't help much at all. By the way you have no references and no useful skills because you have been a housewife for ten years. Off hand i can think of tghree women who find themselves exactly that position, they can't buy a house because theior income is insufficient so they pay more in rent than the joint mortgage used to be.

I actually think this is a good idea so long as money is still targeted at those who actually need it. i have no sympathy for someone in a higher rate tax brand losing benefit the whole point was to help those who actually need it. There is a sub- culture of people that scrounge the benefits but the vast majority are not like that. Meanwhile the real crooks that have wrecked the financial system get jobs as consultants to government, the logic apparentlu beimng since they totally f_)_LLD it up they must know how to fix it - oh and don't reguklate them or they will take all theor toys away to another country, let them go I say. 60% of our GDP is made in the city of london, we have a very weak econmy when you depend so much on just one sector.

posted by K snyder



If you want the recipe I am quite willing to offer help to a culinary philistine like your good self adda dollop of nippy brown sauce and your taste buds will think they have died and gone to heaven. But I fear you would never be able to enjoy a big mac ever again without reminiscing. In fact I fear macdonalds may have ruined your palate forever. They have healthy big macs here now, as you can tell from the piles of lettuce leaves thrown away by the diners.


GMC....there was no intent on my part to cause offence. The point I was making was that in some cases.....I repeat SOME.... benefit money doesn't get to the ones it was intended for....the KIDS.... The parent/parents spend it on fags, drink and booze.

I have 3 kids with young families who all work but are really struggling to make ends meet as a lot of us are. I am only advocating the possible use of vouchers as a way to try and keep kids fed and clothed.

I'm retired now... a single pensioner since I divorced after 42 years yrs of marriage. In the early years of marriage my kids wore jumble sale clothes and hand me downs....I didn't know where the next penny was coming from and the Bailliff knocked on the door a few times. I have single parents in my own family that struggle ! I DO know what it's like to be poor so please don't say that I'm probably a nice person with nice clothes living in a nice house. I have to pay my mortgage, bills and eat and clothe myself like everyone else and I live in a bedsit on an ex-local authority estate......mmmmm....I always thought I was a NICE person. Now you've got me thinking.

P.S. I do realise that those on lower incomes will not be affected by the Family allowance cut....I was just responding to something else that was posted

[Oscar Namechange]

On the subject of feeding a family on a budget I believe there has been some-what of a food revolution In the past 20 years.

For one:

Even Council houses used to have large enough gardens In order to grow your own vegetables. We have become so materialistic In the past 20 years that the latest flat screen and 4 X 4 Is the must have over what some can really afford, forcing both parents out to work full time to pay for It, leaving no time to tend a garden should they want to.

Today, new builds, even the half a million houses seem to have gardens the size of a postage stamp.

Then there Is the food advertising campaigns over the last 20 years. Children watch tv and see the rubbish that is pumped out by food manufacturers clearly designed to target children leaving them fastidious with food unless It has a million E numbers In It and comes with a cute cartoon character on the box.

In actual fact, you can feed a family on a low budget and It Includes fresh fruit and Veg If you are not too bone Idle to shop around. The problem these days, Is that most people live far beyond their means, spank the plastic, mortgage to the hilt and then need 4 jobs to pay for It leaving no time to shop around.

By the way... I adore Haggis :-4 Yummy

[K.Snyder]

Rapunzel;1336834 wrote: No, I don't agree with this. Yes, as a generalisation. People living in poverty can't always afford healthy food. Yes, healthy food helps you body and brain work better. However, your body and brain are a result of your genes as well as your lifestyle. Living in poverty does not automatically mean that you are ignorant. As I said before, the school I work in lies in a poor economic area. A large proportion of children receive free school dinners. However, we have children that are incredibly bright as well as children that are struggling. The majority of those struggling have other problems such as dyslexia, autism, global delay, etc. I'm not suggesting the poor are ignorant I'm saying poverty is defined by an insufficient education system and no potential for economic growth. Those kids getting a free education are incredibly not poor in my mind. It goes back to the days of hunters and gatherers. The more time one spends hunting and gathering the less time they have to philosophize and truly use their brain. Poor by definition is too much work that sees no personal time, whether by educating themselves or their children, they've none of it. Free education is hardly classified as poor, I find it to be incredibly fortunate.

The cost of food argument is relative to where one lives as well. The streets of India are horribly unsanitary but their food I hear is orgasmic and looks the part. Indeed what we have here are two completely different definitions of "poor". A child being raised on greasy unhealthy food compared to one brought up on fruits and vegetables will be conversely compared to each other as far as intellect is concerned. If one has difficulty in grasping concepts then that persons ancestors hadn't eaten healthy(Equally as much to his/her ignorance). It's entirely why the misfortune of a 400 lb child is the result if his/her parents' ignorance and not because the food is cheap because it isn't, it's just a matter of what education system they have at their disposal.



"insufficient means of education" and "ignorance" couldn't be further away in definition. The former is a crime, the latter a choice and a very horrific one at that

Which leads me to what you'd had trouble with and I'll attempt to clarify.

When the public disapproves of assisting those that cannot afford education and healthy food they ultimately illustrate their inability to define "poor". Their inability to define "poor" at that moment directly ends in them unable to define themselves as "deserving" which automatically questions their pride ending in the resentment that follows, hence why socialism is a very noble ideology yet with hardly no precedence

People are genuinely selfish, hypocritical, and equally as ignorant

Chip?

[K.Snyder]

gmc;1336853 wrote: O.K. I wasn't going to ask but I can't resist it any longer.

posted by K Snyder



How do you know what a dead skunks anus smells like? I can't think of any sensible reason why you would want to find out and I don't think I want to know what you were doing to find out accidentally.Well I don't want to insult your culture gmc so let's get that out of the way. On that, I said "I hear" not that I knew. That question would be better suited for all of those I'd asked and not a single one that enjoyed it.

Here's my question. What does Haggis taste like and do you generally like it, love it, dislike it, or hate it? I'd actually like to try it, all I'm saying is that I doubt I'd get a portion bigger than a fork full because I generally do not like to waste food

[gmc]

K.Snyder;1336998 wrote: Well I don't want to insult your culture gmc so let's get that out of the way. On that, I said "I hear" not that I knew. That question would be better suited for all of those I'd asked and not a single one that enjoyed it.

Here's my question. What does Haggis taste like and do you generally like it, love it, dislike it, or hate it? I'd actually like to try it, all I'm saying is that I doubt I'd get a portion bigger than a fork full because I generally do not like to waste food


It's actually really good, originally it was a way to make the most of every bit of the slaughtered animal, same kind of idea as black pudding or blood sausage as the germans would have it. Given the number of people of scots and irish descent I would have thought it would be available somewhere in the states. Thanks to food regulations I don't think I am allowed to send you one.

[Oscar Namechange]

gmc;1337088 wrote: It's actually really good, originally it was a way to make the most of every bit of the slaughtered animal, same kind of idea as black pudding or blood sausage as the germans would have it. Given the number of people of scots and irish descent I would have thought it would be available somewhere in the states. Thanks to food regulations I don't think I am allowed to send you one.
Send me one please please please. I adore Haggis and It Is so hard to get around here.

I am also partial to a Faggot.

[K.Snyder]

gmc;1337088 wrote: It's actually really good, originally it was a way to make the most of every bit of the slaughtered animal, same kind of idea as black pudding or blood sausage as the germans would have it. Given the number of people of scots and irish descent I would have thought it would be available somewhere in the states. Thanks to food regulations I don't think I am allowed to send you one.


I know that I can get it somewhat easily. There's a place about 30 minutes from here that specializes in international foods. I'm not talking about American versions either. A bit ironic considering that I'm preparing yuka tonight. It's South American for anyone curious and sorry if I misspelled it.

Anyway my sister in law's mother attends Scottish gatherings and they dance and on numerious occassions serve haggis. She's Scottish ancestry as do I the difference being that she's actually tried it.

Back on course is haggis healthy and do the majority of children eat it?

[gmc]

K.Snyder;1337481 wrote: I know that I can get it somewhat easily. There's a place about 30 minutes from here that specializes in international foods. I'm not talking about American versions either. A bit ironic considering that I'm preparing yuka tonight. It's South American for anyone curious and sorry if I misspelled it.

Anyway my sister in law's mother attends Scottish gatherings and they dance and on numerious occassions serve haggis. She's Scottish ancestry as do I the difference being that she's actually tried it.

Back on course is haggis healthy and do the majority of children eat it?


Like all things taken in moderation it does you no harm. It's quite popular - you get haggis suppers at all the chip shops, best served with nippy brown sauce. You should try it, if you can manage a macdonald's anything is edible after that.

Posted by oscar

I am also partial to a Faggot.


Tried them once in a pub in Somerset they're disgusting, also had a couple of pints of scrumpy and spent the rest of the evening trying not to fall over.