Author Topic: Lighthearted Joke with a moral message  (Read 3393 times)

bubble

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 797
Lighthearted Joke with a moral message
« on: April 22, 2013, 01:10:55 AM »

Fiz

  • Charter Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3369
Re: Lighthearted Joke with a moral message
« Reply #1 on: April 22, 2013, 05:01:27 AM »
lol this one made me giggle too

http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2012/01/12/groupon-voucher-offers-massive-discount-on-dignitas-trip/

edit > assisted suicide mentioned - Sunshine
« Last Edit: April 22, 2013, 08:52:57 AM by SunshineMeadows »

Dic Penderyn

  • Charter Member
  • Super Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5228
Re: Lighthearted Joke with a moral message
« Reply #2 on: April 22, 2013, 07:57:51 AM »
 >lol<  very droll but you may find this thread moved to the Cafe at some point.
Be careful in what you wish for, God has a sense of humour

Yvette

  • Charter Member
  • Super Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6143
Re: Lighthearted Joke with a moral message
« Reply #3 on: April 22, 2013, 08:56:21 AM »
I thought benefits can't be capped at £500 pounds a week if you have lots of children because the children would suffer.

SunshineMeadows

  • Administrator
  • Super Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7145
Re: Lighthearted Joke with a moral message
« Reply #4 on: April 22, 2013, 08:59:07 AM »
Both articles made me  :-)

The thread could take a more serious turn or stay light hearted so I'll leave it in Talk for a bit.

It might need a warning triangle if we end up taking more about assisted suicide, but otherwise probably not.

From the first link surely the mice having tails missing would cause balance issues?
Also aren't mice chronically incontinent, they wee as the move about?

KizzyKazaer

  • Global Moderator and Welfare Rights
  • Super Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7825
Re: Lighthearted Joke with a moral message
« Reply #5 on: April 22, 2013, 09:08:08 AM »
Quote
...as none of us can really wear glasses or contact lenses itís jolly hard running away from farmersí wives trying to cut off our tails.í The DWP has confirmed that their lack of tails doesnít affect ability to work either.
>lol<  Just the laugh I needed on a Monday morning as I prepare for my first Work-Focused Interview  >biggrin<

Fiz

  • Charter Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3369
Re: Lighthearted Joke with a moral message
« Reply #6 on: April 22, 2013, 10:23:57 AM »
I thought benefits can't be capped at £500 pounds a week if you have lots of children because the children would suffer.

Unfortunately not, it is capped for all non working families however many children there are so will lead to significant child poverty and deprivation. Working families won't be capped. However if any child in the family receives DLA that family won't be capped.

Hurtyback

  • Moderator 3am board
  • Super Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 5800
Re: Lighthearted Joke with a moral message
« Reply #7 on: April 22, 2013, 10:49:39 AM »
Those are both very good, thank you for posting them  >lol<

Yvette

  • Charter Member
  • Super Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6143
Re: Lighthearted Joke with a moral message
« Reply #8 on: April 22, 2013, 02:18:39 PM »
it is capped for all non working families however many children there are

I can understand that it is not acceptable for people to have large numbers of children if they do not intend to go to work - because the welfare state was not designed as a life style choice. It was developed as a *safety net*.  Expecting tax payers to keep one's children instead of going out to work makes a mockery of those people who do go out to work and decide to have only one or two children because they cannot afford more on their wages.

But the government could bring in the cap gradually so those who *already* have several children will continue to receive the same benefits, but those who decide to have children in the future will know that they will only ever receive up to £500 pw in benefits.  That, I think is more fair, instead of penalising children who are already born.

Sunny Clouds

  • Charter Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3814
Re: Lighthearted Joke with a moral message
« Reply #9 on: April 22, 2013, 04:26:29 PM »
When I think of the benefits cap and large families, I think of a woman I met a few times a few years ago.  It may be that she could be identified from this, but she was a public local figure with a website so I'm not saying anything she hasn't told the world.

She and her husband had about a dozen children.  It seemed over the top to me, but she was a committed old-school Catholic and believed that her religion required her to have many children.  She didn't do paid work but rather was a full-time mother and although I never met the children, I saw pictures of them and they seemed rosy-cheeked, smiling and well-fed, and they participated in community activities.

I wondered how she could afford so many.  Well, as we all know, if two or more people share a home, there are economies of scale, and children tend to grow out of clothes before they wear out of them so they can be handed down a few times.

Her husband was a policeman.  He'd got a good few years under his belt so had good rates of pay and did overtime, so the books balanced.

I haven't met them for quite a long time, but what of such a family now?  Cutbacks in police overtime, police redundancies, redundancies in similar public work, low wages in suitable jobs to move to etc. 

How would they cope?

Yvette

  • Charter Member
  • Super Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6143
Re: Lighthearted Joke with a moral message
« Reply #10 on: April 22, 2013, 05:23:53 PM »
I haven't met them for quite a long time, but what of such a family now?  Cutbacks in police overtime, police redundancies, redundancies in similar public work, low wages in suitable jobs to move to etc. 

How would they cope?


With great difficulty.

That is why I think that if there is going to be a benefit cap which affects children, it should be brought in for *future* children, not those who are here now.

oldtone27

  • Charter Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2520
Re: Lighthearted Joke with a moral message
« Reply #11 on: April 22, 2013, 05:31:41 PM »
You suggestion is very reasonable, Yvette, but I doubt it will happen because it won't bring down the cost fast enough. It would take 8 to 12 years to show an appreciable reduction. Camoron wants a reduction NOW and doesn't care who suffers (as long as its not his mates.)

Dic Penderyn

  • Charter Member
  • Super Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5228
Be careful in what you wish for, God has a sense of humour

Fiz

  • Charter Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3369
Re: Lighthearted Joke with a moral message
« Reply #13 on: April 22, 2013, 05:59:44 PM »
ah but the government takes no notice of those poverty figures, it says the measures are wrong and so the results are misleading. They would say that wouldn't they.

ATurtle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1429
    • The Awesome Turtle Blog
Re: Lighthearted Joke with a moral message
« Reply #14 on: April 22, 2013, 07:07:24 PM »
As I may have said on this site (if not, I've said it elsewhere) There should be a cap on the number of kids you can have "on the dole".

This may be contentious, many will say, "why should we be limited?" Well, here's why and here's how (not the contraceptive method though).

Let's take two couples, John and Tracy and David and Samantha. 

John and Tracy have been a couple for years, and got married, even though they are on Benefits.  The DWP should allow them to have two children and pay Child Benefits to this limit, this being roughly an average and reasonable number of children.  If Tracy falls pregnant for a third time, no further child benefits would be paid to the couple.  If John and Tracy split and Tracy wants to move in with a new chap who has care of two children, one of the two of them would lose the Child Benefit for 2 children.

David and Samantha have high paid jobs, and have been able to afford four children, although, unfortunately the first born has since died due to Cerebral Palsy and Epilepsy.  David loses his job (OK this will happen in 2015, but this is only a suggestion anyway).  The DWP will pay Child Benefit for the three living children.  Should Samantha give birth within the first nine months of the claim, then Child Benefit will be increased to cover this child.  However, should medical evidence prove that the child was conceived after the first month of the claim, Child Benefit will not be increased.

This is a fair way of dealing with Child Benefit and I propose to the committee that it be adopted into the Benefit Claims Amendments (Child Benefit) Bill.
Tony.

"I choose not to place "DIS", in my ability." - Robert M. Hensel