Children: Pay For Them Yourself You Twats

You know what, I'm sick of every budget being about the "family" and specifically about childcare. It doesn't matter who is running the country, they always try and pander to the "family".

Can someone please explain when and why it became the norm for the state (i.e. my taxes) to pay for other peoples sprogs?

In yesterdays budget there was more help for families with extra childcare set aside. But here's a fucking thought - stay at home and look after your kids yourself you selfish pricks. Not only does it give your children a better upbringing, it also means an unemployed person can have your job.

And if you can't afford to give up work then you shouldn't have had a sprog in the first place.

I really resent my taxes going towards someone else's childcare. Perhaps if the "family" got no help whatsoever with childcare there wouldn't be so many fucking births every year.

You know I'm right.

It's better for the economy if people are out there working and using childcare facilities you berk.

bwfc1874 wrote:It's better for the economy if people are out there working and using childcare facilities you berk.

Why?

If they stayed at home some of the thousands of unemployed could take their jobs - hence less people claiming benefits.

You berk.

"some of the thousands of unemployed"


Can we make that "millions" please to accurately reflect the current situation?


Nice try with the subtle (almost subliminal) Tory spin but no cigar.


You berk.

Yeah, lets not look after our children, lets look after the moaning twats instead.

What a joke.

Breadman wrote:"some of the thousands of unemployed"


Can we make that "millions" please to accurately reflect the current situation?


Nice try with the subtle (almost subliminal) Tory spin but no cigar.


You berk.

Tory spin? It's the fooking Tories that are pushing this "family" bullshit.

Where are the policies for single, ex-businesswomen of the year?

scottjames30 wrote:Yeah, lets not look after our children, lets look after the moaning twats instead.

Aren't they the same thing?

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Breadman wrote:"some of the thousands of unemployed"


Can we make that "millions" please to accurately reflect the current situation?


Nice try with the subtle (almost subliminal) Tory spin but no cigar.


You berk.

Tory spin? It's the fooking Tories that are pushing this "family" bullshit.

Where are the policies for single, ex-businesswomen of the year?

Can you not claim DLA because of your injury?

Or does having a slightly charred minge not qualify?

Natasha Whittam wrote:

scottjames30 wrote:Yeah, lets not look after our children, lets look after the moaning twats instead.

Aren't they the same thing?

You got a penny off a pint, what more do you want?

scottjames30 wrote:

Natasha Whittam wrote:

scottjames30 wrote:Yeah, lets not look after our children, lets look after the moaning twats instead.

Aren't they the same thing?

You got a penny off a pint, what more do you want?

But will we actually see the reduction!

That is the question!

Breadman wrote:

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Breadman wrote:"some of the thousands of unemployed"


Can we make that "millions" please to accurately reflect the current situation?


Nice try with the subtle (almost subliminal) Tory spin but no cigar.


You berk.

Tory spin? It's the fooking Tories that are pushing this "family" bullshit.

Where are the policies for single, ex-businesswomen of the year?

Can you not claim DLA because of your injury?

Or does having a slightly charred minge not qualify?

 

karlypants wrote:

scottjames30 wrote:

Natasha Whittam wrote:

scottjames30 wrote:Yeah, lets not look after our children, lets look after the moaning twats instead.

Aren't they the same thing?

You got a penny off a pint, what more do you want?

But will we actually see the reduction!

That is the question!

No, will we fuck, but its the thought that counts, George loves us.

Breadman wrote:

Can you not claim DLA because of your injury?

Or does having a slightly charred minge not qualify?

You have to prove that your fanny no longer works. As I am a virgin of 10 years (nearly 11) this is very hard to do without losing my virginity all over again.

Nats back on form again.

100% pure trolling this.

I assume Nat also hates her taxes (what little I assume she pays, owning a huge multinational PLC and all that) going towards schooling?

I'm with you on that one Nat, not only should nobody have a kid unless they earn over 50K a year, if they cant pay for education then they should be sent to a workhouse or something...

Reebok_Rebel wrote:Nats back on form again.

100% pure trolling this.

I assume Nat also hates her taxes (what little I assume she pays, owning a huge multinational PLC and all that) going towards schooling?

I'm with you on that one Nat, not only should nobody have a kid unless they earn over 50K a year, if they cant pay for education then they should be sent to a workhouse or something...

I have no problem with people having kids, but why should I pay for their lifestyle choices? If people are mature enough to have kids they should be mature enough to pay for them without expecting the taxpayer to fund them.

If the government announced they'd set aside millions of pounds of taxpayer money for people with horses there would be an outcry. What's the difference between a kid and a horse? They both eat shitloads and expect you to clear up after them.

You see nat, in this country we have free Healthcare, Free schooling and (almost) free childcare.

You cant pick and chose what your taxes pay for - all the 'free' services we get here come at a price, that price is high taxes - we are the most taxed nation on earth.

Its true I resent bums that pop out kids and live on benefits, but if honest hardworking people want a baby (regardless of the size of their pay packets) then they should have that right.

subsidized childcare allows parents to actually stay in work and contribute towards the economy - as opposed to staying at home and not doing, I think this is a good thing.

Before you throw out at me - no I don't get any help with childcare, I pay for it all myself, and its a lot. This is because im in a financial position to do so, my son goes to a private day nursery However, If I couldn't afford to send him to one of the best, I would use the council provided and subsidized childcare on offer to allow me to stay in my job.

Reebok_Rebel wrote:You see nat, in this country we have free Healthcare, Free schooling and (almost) free childcare.

You cant pick and chose what your taxes pay for - all the 'free' services we get here come at a price, that price is high taxes - we are the most taxed nation on earth.

Its true I resent bums that pop out kids and live on benefits, but if honest hardworking people want a baby (regardless of the size of their pay packets) then they should have that right.

subsidized childcare allows parents to actually stay in work and contribute towards the economy - as opposed to staying at home and not doing, I think this is a good thing.

Before you throw out at me - no I don't get any help with childcare, I pay for it all myself, and its a lot. This is because im in a financial position to do so, my son goes to a private day nursery However, If I couldn't afford to send him to one of the best, I would use the council provided and subsidized childcare on offer to allow me to stay in my job.

People should have the right to have a child so long as they can afford one. You don't have the right to own a Bentley unless you can afford one, but have as many kids as you want and the taxpayer will help you out - what sort of crazy message is that?

Children are not material possessions like houses and cars nat. Stupid comparison.

You also cant wake up one morning and 'accidentally' buy a Bentley.

However, you can fall pregnant even after putting all measures in place to prevent it.

What if a couple found out they were expecting a baby, they work in min wage jobs as its all they can do and people still need to do these jobs, in fact they enjoy their jobs and want to carry on going to work (after maternity leave obviously - something else your taxes help pay for regardless of the 'social class' of person)

They can either have the baby and use the childcare facility's, allowing them to pay their own housing costs, car/fuel costs etc and your taxes pay for their childcare.

Or you can tell them to have an abortion.

Failing that, workhouse's should be brought back - don't you think?

What would you advise these parents to do?

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Reebok_Rebel wrote:Nats back on form again.

100% pure trolling this.

I assume Nat also hates her taxes (what little I assume she pays, owning a huge multinational PLC and all that) going towards schooling?

I'm with you on that one Nat, not only should nobody have a kid unless they earn over 50K a year, if they cant pay for education then they should be sent to a workhouse or something...

I have no problem with people having kids, but why should I pay for their lifestyle choices? If people are mature enough to have kids they should be mature enough to pay for them without expecting the taxpayer to fund them.

That makes no sense at all, you don't have to be mature, do you?

Mugs like you pay for them, so people can have as many kids as they like.

People like you , Nat , can fund parents cigs and booze.

scottjames30 wrote:
That makes no sense at all, you don't have to be mature, do you?

Mugs like you pay for them, so people can have as many kids as they like.

People like you , Nat , can fund parents cigs and booze.

Exactly, it's a fooking outrage. It's just wrong that the taxpayer has to fund babysitters for these selfish pricks.