View Single Post
Old 06-10-2010, 11:21 AM #25
Ammi's Avatar
Ammi Ammi is offline
Quand il pleut, il pleut
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 76,191


Ammi Ammi is offline
Quand il pleut, il pleut
Ammi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 76,191


Default

I agree that whatever the threshold they decided on it would p*** off some people so that part of it is fine. If they decided on 44k thats fine its fair and reasonable.
But its the absurdity of the fact that two joint incomes can be earned up to £86999 and they get it but a household where a mother or father has made the decision to be a stay at home parent earning £44000 lose out. Its ridiculous. And £44000 is a great income in some areas of the country but in other expensive areas its not especially high if you have a mortgage and children.
And the higher earners are supporting the 'poor and vulnerable' - well that is not necessarily the case. I come into contact with lots of families in my job and I would say that the 'poor and vulnerable' on different benefits - their children have a lot more games consoles, TV's in all their bedrooms, latest up to the minute phones, sky TV and basically every damn gadget and new craze that comes onto the market - whereas so called 'well off 'families cannot afford afford any of this stuff. And they could do with the extra towards school uniforms, school trips, christmas, birthdays, university fees etc as much as anyone. And they pay enough god damn tax and national insurance - why shoudn't they
Ammi is offline   Reply With QuoteReply With Quote