In the news

And people who say that you shouldn't have children unless you can afford them but are happy to accept child benefit - so either they themselves can't actually afford to have children or they are claiming benefit they don't really need and which will not be spent on their children.

There is strain of barely concealed misogyny in all this discussion of babies that are created apparently without the involvement of men or any notion that men have some responsibility in all this.
Virgin births are all the rage this millennium.

A company minimises tax on its earnings by paying for more finance staff they can work out ways to save money. Speculate to accumulate.

How is that the same as a woman being able to generate cash from thin air by having more children?

Nobody was saying that people shouldn't be able to claim the maximum amount of benefits available to them - they should always do so, but no more.

What they were saying is that you should not be able to increase your benefits income by making decisions such as to have more children.

None of this necessarily reflects my personal views, by the way. Your arguments just don't really make sense.

I didn't read the previous posts, I was just responding to your dismissal of tibby's post.

I'd be talking out my arse if I were to comment on the specifics of tax minimisation/avoidance measures, but it seems clear to me that companies and wealthy individuals minimise tax legally in a variety of ways. Yes many are routine and typical practice and accepted uses of tax legislation, but some are cynical exploitation of it. This is aside to discussion of the relative tax revenue gain from collecting this tax or not.

It's not the same as cynical exploitation of the benefit system no, it's an analogy, i.e. similar to, but not the same.

Further to the analogy, I'd say claiming JSA, housing & child benefit while looking for work and raising children is a legitimate use of the welfare system, just as your example of tax minimisation is a legitimate application of tax legislation.

This doesn't reflect my views either, I'm just saying that I think it's hypocritical to have a problem with one and not the other. Not that you do, but everyone else seems to, enlessly

I am with neu - it's a good analogy.

Tax avoidance (NOT evasion) is legal and maximises your money while minimising that going to the state.

The benefits system is the same thing.

Avoiding tax is generating more cash from thin air by reducing the size of your tax bill.
Having another baby on benefits is also generating more cash.
Although you will inevitably have SOME extra costs - presumably someone has done the sums and it nets out as more cash. Certainly the bigger house sounds like a nice perk although the screaming rug-rat might offset it somewhat.

To wiganwill.
I claim child benefit that I don't really need. That's why it's a good thing the govt are means testing it.
I also don't think there is any misogyny veiled or otherwise in the thread or particularly Sparky's contributions.

And people who say that you shouldn't have children unless you can afford them but are happy to accept child benefit - so either they themselves can't actually afford to have children or they are claiming benefit they don't really need and which will not be spent on their children.

You really are something special.

http://reuters.livestation.com/demo

In other news, Abu Hamza's wife is saying that she shouldn't have to downsize now that he's moved out.

Everybody: It's 3pm on a weekday. Get back to work/get a job.

Why, when we could be claiming benefits?

Justin Lee Collins found guilty of harrassment

Means testing is expensive. It may well yet turn out that means testing Child Benefit is more expensive than just paying it out.

Lots of people don't think this through. And politicians rely on the knee jerk reaction that cutting the number of people that it is paid to will save money, when it may not in fact do that at all.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/oct/09/policeman-cyclist-dangerous-driving

Copper hits a cyclist from behind doing 63 mph over a humpback bridge in a 30 zone. His van took off at one point. He's got two previous convictions for dangerous driving.

Gets a suspended sentence.

Justin Lee Collins found guilty of harrassment

Sentence?

another 8 episode run of that silly tv programme he does

140hrs community service

Justin Lee Collins found guilty of harrassment

Sentence?
Bloody grammar pedants.

Justin Lee Collins *has been *found guilty of harassment.

And is a has been as a result of this.

We can but wish.

You really are something special.

Why? He's right. Are all the Daily Mail readers queuing up to return their universal child benefit?

felix bumgardener

Checked the site and he's called Felix Baumgartner. I am disappoint.

Why? He's right. Are all the Daily Mail readers queuing up to return their universal child benefit?

They don't have to. They're Daily Mail readers and above the law. Ask any cab driver.

Justin Lee Collins found guilty of harrassment

When will we all receive compensation?

Justin Lee Collins found guilty of harrassment

Sentence?

140hrs community service

another 8 episode run of that silly tv programme he does

same thing surely?

Justin Lee Collins found guilty of harrassment

Bad times.

Why? He's a tit