So Lets Shaft Our Farmers.....
News1 min ago
Tories Think Child Poverty Is Ok
Another long read for those who don't believe in taxing the rich.
https:/
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by diddlydo. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I suggest you and scratchy have a policy meeting, he was arguing for cutting taxes yesterday:
https:/
https:/
Gulliver and didddlydo do not understand/cannot comprehend that everybody ultimately ends up losing when employing the old Socialist dogma of taxing the rich (£80k, by any stretch of the imagination, is not 'rich').
Many of the highest taxpayers, the likes of John Caudwell, and the highest earners (the top 1% of taxpayers pay 27% of the income tax collected) may decide to decamp to countries that do not punish the rich - ultimately this could end up in the shortsighted policy of punishing the rich actually reducing the amount of tax collected.
Many of the highest taxpayers, the likes of John Caudwell, and the highest earners (the top 1% of taxpayers pay 27% of the income tax collected) may decide to decamp to countries that do not punish the rich - ultimately this could end up in the shortsighted policy of punishing the rich actually reducing the amount of tax collected.
Boris derangement syndrome (BDS) on full display once again with multi threads running from early doors all with the same theme. If anyone cared they would be concerned that the poster is suffering some sort of mental breakdown. The left wing zealots never did learn that it is better sometimes to keep their mouths under control.
https:/
diddlydo- have a look at the chart entitled Poverty Rates in the UK A New Measure- the one showing percentages. You'll see that poverty RATES were higher under New Labour than they are now.
But do you really believe 34% of children are in poverty? Do you know what the definition is? It's based on relative poverty. Any family that has 54% or less of what that median family has is defined as being in poverty. So you can be in poverty but still eat well, have a car, phone, Netflix,,
diddlydo- have a look at the chart entitled Poverty Rates in the UK A New Measure- the one showing percentages. You'll see that poverty RATES were higher under New Labour than they are now.
But do you really believe 34% of children are in poverty? Do you know what the definition is? It's based on relative poverty. Any family that has 54% or less of what that median family has is defined as being in poverty. So you can be in poverty but still eat well, have a car, phone, Netflix,,
This is one of diddly’s most ridiculous posts… and that’s saying something! A bit of a whoosh moment all round!
“Nine years ago” says the left-wing muck-stirrer that is Polly Toynbee, “I watched Thiara Sanchez make a heart-stopping speech.”
Now to the facts. Nine years ago saw the end of thirteen long and difficult years of a Labour government during which time Thiara says she lived in poverty. Ask what Labour did for Thiara, Polly. You too, diddly.
“Nine years ago” says the left-wing muck-stirrer that is Polly Toynbee, “I watched Thiara Sanchez make a heart-stopping speech.”
Now to the facts. Nine years ago saw the end of thirteen long and difficult years of a Labour government during which time Thiara says she lived in poverty. Ask what Labour did for Thiara, Polly. You too, diddly.
Ummmm.
So, there’s no such thing as people having 4 children when they can barely afford 1?
No such thing as people already on benefits having more children?
No such thing as people on low wages having more children?
OK then - everyone who has children, no matter how many, can always afford to feed and clothe them with no help whatsoever.
Now that would be an “utter bull” statement.
I think that a lot of people, when they have children, do experience some amount of financial hardship, but the sensible ones know how to prevent that hardship getting any worse, by not having any more children.
I would say that there are more poor parents with large families, than there are financially secure parents with large families.
So, there’s no such thing as people having 4 children when they can barely afford 1?
No such thing as people already on benefits having more children?
No such thing as people on low wages having more children?
OK then - everyone who has children, no matter how many, can always afford to feed and clothe them with no help whatsoever.
Now that would be an “utter bull” statement.
I think that a lot of people, when they have children, do experience some amount of financial hardship, but the sensible ones know how to prevent that hardship getting any worse, by not having any more children.
I would say that there are more poor parents with large families, than there are financially secure parents with large families.
Latest Posts
Home & Garden2 mins ago
Body & Soul10 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles11 mins ago
ChatterBank12 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.