Whitey Grandad

If I survive, can I come on here for advice? It's not the apocalypse that worries me, it's having to rely on you lot afterwards.

No, I can't agree with that. Don't stick anything in your ears that's smaller than your elbow.

Wasn't there a foul just before the ball hit Mertesacker?

They didn't show it on MOTD, shame as I was looking forward to seeing it again. Where did you see it?

Yes, but that was every week.

So do I.

He did ok. Shame he didn't score.

I know what it isn't.

Why not combine both?

There's a big difference between taking and earning. That's what this debate is all about.

But that's not fair. Some of the world will get longer than other parts! Perhaps it will be a rolling apocalypse, arriving with the daybreak? Or sunset? Maybe even afternoon tea. If we all go without our tea at four o'clock then perhaps we can be saved after all. See, there's always hope.

Whatever you may think, it cannot possibly be 'greedy' to aspire to earn more money and keep a reasonable proportion of it. Greed is when you want to take money away from somebody else so you can have an easier life yourself. Some call it sponging.

We used to have Child Tax Allowance (along with mortgage interest tax relief) and a separate Family Allowance but there were arguments that the tax allowance went to the father to spend on fags and beer and ought to go direct to the mother so it was all changed. You're right to suggest that the whole system is in dire need of simplification.

Any idea what time on the 21st?

Nor I, and some call me old-fashioned. I'm pretty sure that these two hoaxers never even considered this outcome, but that's the law of unintended consequences. It's not an action that I would ever have undertaken because I don't find it funny and like to think that I still have some dignity. There's always a victim in these circumstances.

There's no need for the abuse. My English may be succinct because it saves typing, but sometimes some readers need further elaboration.

Yes it does. In the former quote it is implicit. I have merely spelt it out in more detail.

Yes, understood. This is a separate argument about whether the state should offer financial assistance to parents.

Don't you mean 'pay a lot of tax'?

It's an increase of tax of £20 a week.

No I'm not. The point I am attempting to put across is that it costs the HMRC a lot less to give the benefit/allowance to everybody who fits the criteria and then increase tax rates slightly to compensate for it than it does to means-test everybody to decide whether they should receive it.

How can it possibly be greedy to earn your own money?

You pay a lot of tax and get some of it back in the form of 'child benefit'. It's far more efficient to hand this back to all who qualify than it is to means test it, and then adjust the tax rates accordingly. It's not a handout, it's a handback.

One more time... These are not handouts, they are merely handing back with one hand a little of the money that was taken with the other hand.

Very sad, may she rest in peace. I hope the hoaxers are feeling pleased with themselves now.