That's just 2million left then nearly there.

How about we stop everyone coming in for a year as well my god we would be nearly there we have just nearly sorted it Rock God awesome!!

A "fat d" private landlord who has invested his money in a fixed asset? Providing a house for those who either can't afford anything else, or prefer not to "tie up" their money in such a way?

Hardly deserving of your tag is it?

Tories "Social Engineering"?

Funniest thing I have heard in weeks given the Labour party's social engineering projects.

£40k a year for a made up local government job anyone?

Wonder who they will be voting for come the next election?


Carry on Cod Ed. You have made me chuckle after a hard day (earning money to keep the scroungers in Sky TV and White Lightening)

And we could stop anyone wanting to leave too, eh?

I moved to London to find work – fortunately, I didn't have any dependents. No children to uproot from their schools and homes and friends – that sort of thing.

Having been on the receiving end of that as a child myself (due to my father's employer being God, who doesn't actually believe in family life for his servants on Earth), I can say from experience that it is not particularly good for one's education etc – let alone one's capacity to make and keep friends.

Talking of landlords, I discovered today that yet another local business has been driven out by a local 'businessman'. They'd only just done the place up, too. This is not the first time that he's pulled the hiked rent trick on that property – with the same consequences a few years ago. And he's done the same with other local properties.

We need more of that – driving small businesses out of business. Great for the economy. Greed is good, remember.

So, after proving you cannot grasp the concept of child benefit, you now show you have buggerall idea about social engineering.

Carry on, you'll have us all pleading with Wiggy to return soon

Er..... hang on we keep going on about this child benefit which everyone's gets and i actually think if you earn enough you shouldn't get it.
When someone titles the page "Should Iain Duncan Smiths expenses be capped at £26k a year" We are not just talking about child benefit, or are you missing the point yourself my friend.

£80 x 52 = £4,160.00 a far cry from 26k (maybe we should change the title to (Should Iain Duncan Smiths expenses be capped at £4,160.00k a year) if we are just going to go on about child benefit

I dont need to cut and paste something to tell me what child benefit is.

I could go on, about the bit in bold and totally agree, stuff should be done about it. Their is a damn lot wrong with what's going on in our country, but the topic is about 26k capped benefit not what's going on on another thread, topic or Barry and Paul down at the local takeaway.

Im solely talking about benefit and ill be very glad when it is capped at 26k

You deal with 1 problem at a time, sort it and move on to the next. I presume the government are sorting the easy ones first (thats the ones with public MAJORITY in favour which they have in this case)

Look forward to you talking about the the topic in hand and not what else is wrong with the country

Are you serious?

Let me educate you a touch.

Firstly I understand child benefit (and all aspects of tax and income) better than probably 99% of people on this site (at least I would hope I would otherwise I am looking for another job)

Secondly the Tories generally favour "small government" with the idea that the economic role of government is simply to create the conditions for growth and prosperity.

Labour generally favour "big government" who think that more interference is required in the economy.

You can accuse the Tories of many things, but social engineering isn't one of them.

Coddy

Maybe i aren't explain myself properly 26k is about all benefit not just the child part.

I actually agree the rich don't need the Child Benefit

I don't expect the children to crawl around naked either. As i said earlier, explain to me if you cant afford the first child that you have (and i want a honest and fair answer on this don't dodge it) and we the tax payer pay for this child because they cant afford it for what ever reason.

Is it right we should then pay for every child they have, after that no matter what the price is??

What then gives them the right to continually have a second, third, forth, fifth child etc etc so we can keep paying for them there has to be a limit and that my fellow black and white will be 26k and thank god for that.

I shouldn't have to keep paying for someone who continually wants the shaft the system.
If you cant afford the first child then you shouldn't be allowed any more till you can

You miss the sell off of the social housing stock then? A policy revived and, it seems to be given new life. I seem to remember Westminster Council being involved with the biggest case of gerrymandering for quite some time too.

Why is it you and your ilk always think that these families have set out to live on benefits and milk the system, it is possible in the current climate to have made decisions years ago based on current and projected earnings and the found themselves out of a job, it is a bit hard to send a couple of kids back and say you can't afford them now...

That was driven through economics rather than social engineering.

Now Now coddy don't bring her into it we could go on for ten thousand pages for and against this stick to the topic 26k capped is what we want to talk about.

For the record seeing as you have said one this about her i will to.

She brings in far more to this country in revenue from wide variety of things then they will ever take out and the charity most of them do far out ways any mistakes they have made as well.

Complete cobblers and you know it.

Oh come on.

You are not seriously telling me that you don't think there are people who do this?

Honestly are you?

Because if you are then you are either naive in the extreme or arguing for the sake of it.