crustyngrizzly 1,700 Report post Posted September 14, 2017 Watching the tube last night,a lady was expressing her disgust at losing benifit money because she would not name the father of her baby.I think i heard correct when they said that 28000 woman are affected by this rule. Let me express my disgust at you ladies not naming the father and expecting the tax payer to keep you.Obviously there are exception to not naming the father but not many. These unnamed fathers are getting a free ride thru life. My son pays 17% of his gross pay for his sin as well as tax of 27%(guess) plus gst of 15% on everthing he buys,which means if he didn't save any money he would pay a tax rate of 59%. How about some of you deadbeat dads fronting up and helping the tax payer out Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chevy86 2,704 Report post Posted September 15, 2017 Those despicable tramps then do a deal/blackmail with the fathers for a bit of cash under the table . Agree Crusty that there will be a few justified due to violence issues but very small number. Then again there are a lot of skanks who actually do not know who impregnated them due to their "active" coital programme. crustyngrizzly 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
crustyngrizzly 1,700 Report post Posted September 15, 2017 19 minutes ago, Flagship uberalles said: Don't worry jacinda will have prepared a nice little package for them, so they can still lay on their backs and produce more tax payer liabilities. The Greens and Labour have already said that if elected they will repeal the section of the act that allows partial loss of the benefit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
