to keep up with you i could easily afford to lose a leg. and develop asthma.



cretin? that's so sweet.

Should be fun if the prediction of a triple dip comes true.

a line has to be drawn somewhere if you want the 'rich' to start paying more/losing more.

good lord. is cancer now a death sentence that makes it impossible to work? my ex boss had it all wrong, working almost to the end, when she should have been at home/hospital simply waiting to die.

absolutely it's fair.

you do know that the taxes you pay don't sit in your own special account somewhere, waiting for you when you're a bit strapped. pensions have to be paid, wars have to be funded, bins need emptying, the terminally bone idle need cigarettes, etc etc. there'll be a bit set aside for you. but not much.

they're being as fair as previous governments. i mean the 10p tax removal that screwed the very poorest in society, shameful. and shame on labour voters who are now moaning about similar coalition policies.

There's a big difference between being long term unemployed and being the boss in a job. I've had two uncles gone through cancer and it's the one with the most money who has been able to move forward with his life since treatment.





What made these people terminally bone idle?



Are some people just born lazy?

Good luck trying to get a job when you tell them you have any serious illness.

You've completely missed the point. Under the system implemented yesterday the richer pay less, the poorer pay moore.



In most cases yes. If I was diagnosed with cancer, getting a job would be furthest from my mind, with beating the disgusting illness top priority.



Again, missed the point. I've worked hard all my life. I worked 3 jobs, paying my fair share of tax yet when it comes to being fair, you think the threshold of 7.5k is ok??? My husband is more than happy to provide for me, but at what expense? We lose our home?????



Not that same at all and you know it. Screwing the poorest in society is making them pay tax because they have a spare bedroom, forcing someone with terminal cancer (if they have more than 6 months to live) to seek work or lose ESA, forcing someone on JSA to work programmes for tax evading companies for a paltry £71 a week.

Maybe I've misread your quote but my question is why is either of those scenarios getting child benefit?



I'm sure people will disagree but to me anyone be it combined or single earning over 40k shouldn't be getting tax credits/ child benefit. I also believe child benefit should be payed for a maximum of 2 children.

I didn't say they should be. I said the system implemented yesterday wasn't fair. Why should a combined household income of two parents earning 98k between them get child benefit, yet only one parent working earning 49k not get it?? I'm with you, anyone needing child benefit earning 50k is doing something wrong. Its the implementation thats not fair.

Because for a considerable length of time it was cheaper to pay the benefit universally than means test it,

the only reason the have come up with the current cludge is cost.

Compare and contrast, Obama has resisted full- on austerity and has now had 13 consecutive quarters of growth.

Cameron, on the other hand, is pursuing his mission to dismantle as much of the welfare state as he can.

Thanks for the reminder of what a twerp you made of yourself on that outing, with your chronic lack of comprehension skills.

Cameron wants to carry on Thatcher's legacy I think as he does worship as if she is a God. Maybe Cameron should take a leaf out of Obama's book and see how he did it with the US economy.