Ipswich Unemployed Action.

Campaigning for Unemployed Rights.

Tax Giveaway to Wealthy as Benefit changes ‘could push 200,000 children into poverty’.

with 56 comments

Image result for giveaway tax changes help rich osborne

Osborne’s Help the Rich Punish the Poor Policies Set to Get Worse.

Two stories, two worlds.

Sunday, the Observer.

Wealthy get 80% of rewards from tax and welfare changes introduced by George Osborne that begin to come into effect this week.

The richest will reap 80% of the rewards from the tax and benefit changes that start to come into effect this week, while the poorest will become worse off, according to detailed analysis by the Resolution Foundation.

The independent thinktank’s research shows that the effect of £2bn of income tax cuts and more than £1bn of welfare cuts will add up to a huge transfer of wealth from low- and middle-income households to richer ones.

The reforms, set in train by former chancellor George Osborne, run directly contrary to the political mantra of Theresa May, who has said she wants to govern in the interests of everyone and “not just the privileged few”.

The changes include raising the personal tax allowance from £11,000 to £11,500; lifting the threshold for higher-rate tax from £43,000 to £45,000; freezing all working-age benefits; removing the family element (£545) from tax credits and universal credit for new claims or births; and applying a two-child limit to new claims or births in the tax credit system.

David Finch, senior economic analyst at the Resolution Foundation, said: “The overall package amounts to a £1bn net giveaway from the public purse. But the skewed nature of this generosity means that better-off households will receive four-fifths of the gains, while the poorest third of households will be worse off overall.”

Finch said that reductions in the generosity of universal credit, which will have the effect of reducing work incentives, would affect relatively few families this year. But as millions more move on to the new system, the effects on the living standards of those on low incomes would become much clearer.

Today, from the BBC,

Benefit changes ‘could push 200,000 children into poverty’

Changes to benefit rules coming into force this week could push 200,000 more children into poverty, say campaigners.

From Thursday, payments for some benefits will be limited to the first two children in a family.

The Child Poverty Action Group and Institute for Public Policy Research say some families will be almost £3,000 a year worse off under the new rules.

Ministers say they are determined to tackle the root causes of disadvantage and make work pay.

The changes affect families who claim tax credits and Universal Credit – which is in the process of being rolled out and is due to replace tax credits completely by 2022.

The new rules mean that children born after Thursday 6 April into families where there are already two or more children will no longer be counted in benefit payments to their parents, under either tax credits or Universal Credit.

And from autumn 2018, families making new claims under Universal Credit will only receive payments for their first two children even if they were born before Thursday.

However, children already receiving Universal Credit or tax credit payments will not lose them for as long as their family’s existing claim continues.

And Child Benefit, which is separate, will be unaffected.

The latest official figures show that 872,000 families with more than two children were claiming tax credits in 2014-15.

And a similar number of families are likely to lose out under the changes, the researchers suggest.

In 2014-15, two thirds (65%) were working families and 68% had no more than three children, say the researchers.

Based on those figures, the researchers calculate that once the new policy is fully implemented an additional 100,000 adults and 200,000 children could face poverty.

 

Advertisements

Written by Andrew Coates

April 3, 2017 at 10:51 am

56 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Reblogged this on sdbast.

    sdbast

    April 3, 2017 at 11:21 am

  2. This is not good news for the children I work with and have posted about before. The school I work in is in one of the most deprived wards and is largely made up of ethnic minority kids…There’s a number of kids with 3 and 4 siblings…I would say I wish the government would come see already how bad things are already but they don’t care anyway

    katrehman

    April 3, 2017 at 1:24 pm

  3. Greedy old prick…

    Marie

    April 3, 2017 at 4:32 pm

  4. […] Source: Tax Giveaway to Wealthy as Benefit changes ‘could push 200,000 children into poverty’. […]

  5. Life on universal credit – no food and relying on hand-outs

    Tearful residents have flooded one MP’s office with harrowing tales of life on the new universal credit – including one toddler’s parent who was left without money, electricity and food after they were cut off for six weeks without explanation.

    http://www.inverness-courier.co.uk/News/Life-on-universal-credit-no-food-and-relying-on-hand-outs-31032017.htm

    ken

    April 3, 2017 at 9:22 pm

    • The question is: How long can the government get away with it? As more and more people – tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions – get clumsily transferred to Universal Credit and the suffering and chaos become impossible to ignore, will the government be able to carry on with the project when the rank stink of its failure rises to high heaven?

      Coldwater

      April 4, 2017 at 6:33 am

      • Who is going to stop them…..nobody that’s who,the tory filth are being well rewarded for the soft kill policies they are implementing for their murderous masters!

        foxglove

        April 4, 2017 at 9:18 pm

      • You can’t stop the State. It is backed up by the Police and then the Army. It reserves the right to use ultimate force. The State can do whatever it wants.

        Ultimate Force

        April 4, 2017 at 10:36 pm

    • The government has already backtracked on Housing Benefit for homeless families applying for Universal Credit. Already landlords and local authorities are up in arms about Universal Credit and its catastrophic effects on its neediest and most vulnerable families. Eventually, when enough people are affected, the cat will be out of the bag and the media will start attacking it and informing the public about how shit UC actually is. I feel that eventually the government will be shamed into action and the worst cruelties of Universal Credit watered down.

      Coldwater

      April 6, 2017 at 7:05 am

  6. To whom it may concern

    FLORA has been BANNED. Flora joins gadily.

    What’s it with these ‘lefty’? forums. They are run like Nazi dictatorships.

    Flying Swan

    April 3, 2017 at 10:55 pm

    • Flora? The margarine? Why has it been banned?

      Coldwater

      April 4, 2017 at 6:35 am

  7. Andrew Coates

    April 4, 2017 at 10:42 am

    • These Jobcentre closures began up in Scotcland, and we all shrugged our shoulders and thought: “Well, it is only happening up in haggis-munching Jockland. It is not like it is going to affect us soft southerners 😉 “

      Southern Comfort

      April 4, 2017 at 10:58 am

      • Yes, wasn’t the Poll Tax first introduced in Scotland?

        Mr Google says,

        “The Community Charge (commonly known as the “poll tax”) was a system of taxation introduced in replacement of domestic rates in Scotland from 1989, prior to its introduction in England and Wales from 1990. It provided for a single flat-rate per-capita tax on every adult, at a rate set by the local authority.”

        Andrew Coates

        April 4, 2017 at 11:05 am

      • We on the south coast won’t be exempt.

        enigma

        April 4, 2017 at 11:20 am

      • Universal Credit is also being rolled out faster in Scotland than England or Wales.

        Coldwater

        April 4, 2017 at 12:42 pm

      • Southern comfort & all

        Its not true it started in Scotland as i know of a place in the Midlands that saw many closures as far back as 2013. Government started the closures where offices were actually in close proximity to one another. Then expanded it to large cities where they removed offices from certain areas. They also removed certain offices from small towns close to large cities. Basically imagine a funnel and the spiral water would take while going down it.
        You all know or have forgotten governments plan is to close all offices bar the smallest stock so certain matters that cant be conducted online. Even then their still working to find a way to remove them as well.

        doug

        April 5, 2017 at 7:36 am

  8. OT

    The web’s creator Sir Tim Berners-Lee has attacked any UK plans to weaken encryption and promised to battle any moves by the Trump administration to weaken net neutrality.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-39490324

    enigma

    April 4, 2017 at 2:11 pm

    • “We’re talking about it being just a human right that my ability to communicate with people on the web, to go to websites I want without being spied on is really, really crucial.”

      Even the libraries are spying on us and handing the data to the jobcentre. We don’t even have to be under investigation for the ‘authorities’ to trawl through our internet records. And if we ever are under investigation the ‘authorities’ will have a treasure trove of information on us to draw on. In the States ISPs will sell your entire browsing history, financial records, information on your kids, your social security number to any old Tom, Dick or Harriet.

      Now they want to outlaw encryption save for connecting to online banking and shopping sites. And we just sit back an suck it all up. Tim Berners-Less must be rolling in his grave.

      iSpy

      April 4, 2017 at 9:15 pm

      • Basically the same way a government dictates in the real world is how they wish to behave in the virtual.

        Tim Berners is very right though that certain elements of the public are better at getting into a system than government and there getting younger every day. Governments are to put no finer point to it, just to late to the party so are scrambling about making the wrong assertions that are futile in nature ultimately.

        doug

        April 5, 2017 at 7:47 am

      • People will always be able to encrypt pretty much anything that travels in data packets over the internet, including VoIP. So if you take the trouble you can secure your communications with others using a PC or device like a tablet using TCP/IP as a protocol. Phones are a bit more difficult.

        Coldwater

        April 5, 2017 at 12:14 pm

  9. More computer woes.

    “Thousands of people in Plymouth have been affected by an error meaning housing benefit payments

    did not go out on time.

    Plymouth City Council has apologised and said payments would arrive with the 3,140 individuals a day later than usual.

    A spokeswoman said a “processing error” was to blame and those who had given the council an email address had been warned on Friday.

    Rob Hick, aged 44, from Stonehouse, did not receive his money.

    “I have been out of town dealing with a family bereavement,” he said.

    “My housing benefit usually shows up in my account on a Saturday even though it does not clear until the Monday.

    “I have been chasing it up this morning. It’s not very good if they don’t pay you when you need to be paid.

    “Luckily my rent wasn’t coming out today, but if this had happened in a fortnight it would have been. It’s a couple of hundred quid.

    “When I called up I got a recorded message saying anyone who was supposed to be paid today is going to be a day late. It’s just incompetent.”

    Read more at http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/thousands-not-paid-housing-benefit-in-plymouth-council-error/story-30246252-detail/story.html#SzaWyKX6jT5Ij3oI.99

    Andrew Coates

    April 4, 2017 at 3:52 pm

  10. Off topic but just seen on welfare weekly that the government is providing relationship support via jobcentre for families at loggerheads with each other as these kids do less well at school. A re hash of troubled families? Yet more state interference in people’s lives.

    katrehman

    April 4, 2017 at 5:59 pm

    • More interference in peoples lives.Wheres that in the regulations?

      ken

      April 4, 2017 at 6:14 pm

    • I hope the relationship counsellors (or whatever it is they will call themselves) are better than Work Coaches or there’s going to be a LOT of breakups. Mind you Labour under Brown was talking about putting DWP staff in doctor’s surgeries to “help” and “advise” the sick how to get into work and stay in work, which I thought was especially daft all things considered.

      Coldwater

      April 5, 2017 at 12:17 pm

    • Getting them back together, is it about the kids. or the usual.

      DWP to create a dating website!!

      enigma

      April 6, 2017 at 8:51 am

  11. Woman left with £24-a-week benefits because she missed Job Centre appointment due to miscarriage considered suicide

    Lyndsey Turnbull, 33, felt to ashamed to tell anyone about her circumstances

    She has dyslexia, dyspraxia and hearing problems and said her previous employer struggled to understand her needs.

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/woman-left-24-week-benefits-10153490

    ken

    April 4, 2017 at 6:18 pm

  12. Protest at Swansea Job Centre over ‘justifiable and ineffective’ sanctions

    Unite union says the sanctions are often given for ‘petty’ reasons such as being late for a job centre appointment

    Protests over benefits sanctions were staged outside Job Centres across South Wales and parts of the UK – with unions claiming they are punishing some of the most vulnerable people in society.

    http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/local-news/protests-job-centres-across-wales-12822893

    ken

    April 4, 2017 at 6:20 pm

  13. I had an interesting experience at the Jobcentre.

    ben

    April 5, 2017 at 10:40 am

    • Do tell, as in ‘interesting’….

      Andrew Coates

      April 5, 2017 at 12:12 pm

      • Sorry about that. I had an interesting experience at the Jobcentre when I signed on a few days ago from my perspective.. When I entered the Jobcentre a security goon asked for my book or card, asked my adviser’s name and my name and signing-on time yet someone on Universal Credit was allowed to go straight through. My work coach had her usual low, soft voice while I had ear wax rendering me a little hard of hearing and a bad night’s sleep but with my voice recorder safely hidden and recording smoothly. She wanted to know my reasons for refusing to sign electronically. I’d told her the reasons before that altering a signature slightly can cause it to be rejected but she went on and on about it and demanded that I give my own personal reasons. I pointed out that she couldn’t force me to sign electronically because it would breach the provisions of the Data protection Act. She claimed that it was changing and that Electronic Signing was going to become compulsory but I pointed that there were no proposed changes to DPA legislation and I had showed her the FOIs about electronic signing not being mandatory beforehand. She wants the proof to show to the manager. She said that if I was not prepared to do this they would need to look to see if I was entitled to benefits. She wants me to try contacting agencies that I have applied to before even though I usually get automatic responses. All appointments are now being entered into a Work Plan Booklet which she talked about while I told her that I’d be doing my jobsearch on paper after showing her a FOI that stated completion of a Work Plan Booklet was not mandatory. She also said that she would try and put me on some upcoming courses.
        I remembered reading a few years ago that if somebody asked why a person refused to allow access information under the Data protection Act that that was actually a violation of the DPA. Does anyone, Doug maybe, have knowledge of this legal statement that I could use to shut my Work Coach up. I’ve had little trouble with her before until my last session.
        I have been having trouble with my JSA payments being transferred into my bank account.. It has happened twice within the last 6 weeks and only since Electronic Signing was introduced. Every time I ask her if the bank transfer has been activated as she suggested and each time she says it has. Can anyone suggest a template letter about this and who to complain to if I get an extortionate phone bill for my landline. The last time it took me 15 minutes to get it sorted out and 30 minutes for the one before that. I have been using this site for years but have to use public terminals so I don’t post much. I do have a pile of printouts about 6 inches thick with advice, FOIs, etc ,that I have used in the past successfully.

        ben

        April 5, 2017 at 1:42 pm

      • Ben

        Your find it far easier to challenge what rule it is they think they can do so. No rule i know of exists that states a claimant must allow access to their (their as in claimant being the operative here) gateway account/UJM. If your advisor had any legal sway, she wouldn’t need your informed consent prior. The only power she currently has is to suggest and nothing more at this current juncture.

        As for the signing pad, use your head. Instead of debating law simply change how you use your hand when signing (ie lighter/heavier press, slower or faster writing speed, change one of the letters in the way you write it,use the other hand,etc). This will insure dew to how the device currently registers a signature that you will never reach a higher enough score or copy accuracy and force her to have to sing on via paper method. the problem of your payment via the device has happened quite a lot all over the country so be it that or on paper, always get your work coach to demonstrate on the screen that the process has gone through for payment. If it still happens then its not the work coach but the system further on down the line.

        doug

        April 5, 2017 at 7:55 pm

      • ben

        I second dougs suggestion with one of my own if you feel up to it.

        Just write a nice little note – two copies [five actually, two for them to sign & for you to keep & one to put up on LMS], one to you workroach, another to the section head [be sure to get the name at the same time and hand it over to him/her].

        Simple question in requiring these new conditions to be applied in your case they need to sign it – thereby accepting personal responsibility in requiring you to do something you are not required to do, but you dont tell them that its implied – watch the speedy retreat. but still require the copying onto LMS if they refruse and scribble on it before scanning that they refused to sign. it then becomes proof of wrong doing against you & no you dont want a complaint just the record made on file. Call Stratford vall centre etc and ask later if its visible. Maladministration if they don’t.

        Enjoy

        Gazza

        April 5, 2017 at 10:00 pm

  14. Andrew Coates

    April 5, 2017 at 12:11 pm

  15. OT, Greenwich selected as first London location for driverless trial.

    Marie

    April 5, 2017 at 12:26 pm

    • WTF,imagine if you turned up to the jokecentre to sign on in that,you’d probably get bloody sanctioned!

      foxglove

      April 5, 2017 at 12:38 pm

  16. Half of disabled PIP claimants have had benefits cut by DWP

    Ongoing reviews mean claimants need to prove they are entitled to benefits – and often fail to do so

    Nearly half of all Personal Independence Payments (PIP) claimants had their money cut or halted last year due to ongoing “planned reviews” which constantly reassess their entitlement.

    http://thirdforcenews.org.uk/tfn-news/half-of-disabled-pip-claimants-have-had-benefits-cut-by-dwp

    ken

    April 5, 2017 at 6:07 pm

  17. A father has lost his legal challenge against a fine for taking his daughter on an unauthorised term-time holiday.

    The Supreme Court has ruled against Jon Platt, who had won earlier legal battles against a £120 fine after a holiday taken without permission.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-39504338

    enigma

    April 6, 2017 at 9:10 am

    • Enigma

      If i remember right this child of this father is a very bright child,ahead in studies so hardly likely to struggle if she missed school for two weeks.

      Now government say the children are preparing for the world of work. Well then shouldn’t they be able to take their 21 days like the rest of us ?

      Its obvious this council and Dfe wanted to set an example so went after this like a dog for its bone and you know this as its not like they haven’t had 50’000 chances to set the record straight as concerns the law.

      doug

      April 6, 2017 at 6:55 pm

      • I remember someone posting this case some time ago, maybe it was you, an update to a case like this does everyone a world of good..

        enigma

        April 7, 2017 at 11:14 am

  18. There was some bloke on one of Channel 5’s benefits programme saying he He rented his TV. £1 bought six hours of viewing time. The money was collected once a month. The minimum charge was £23 a month “and anything over £46 we get to keep 😀 😀 “. That is at least £276 a year he is forking out – for a TV! He would be better listening to the radio for a few months, putting the money aside and buying a TV outright. He could get five, ten years out of a TV. Even if it only lasted a year he would be quids in.

    Dullhouse

    April 6, 2017 at 9:38 am

  19. And another bloke – 68-years-old – who was “drawing !7,000 a year in benefits and pensions” and trying to make out he was skint. Of course he had a 27-year–old Filipino wife.

    Dullhouse

    April 6, 2017 at 9:43 am

  20. “Don’t let anyone tell you that Conservatives don’t care about working people,”

    “As we leave the EU, our Conservative government will act to protect and indeed to enhance workers’ rights, and guarantee that in a modern, FLEXIBLE economy people are properly protected at work.

    no need for more!!

    enigma

    April 6, 2017 at 11:37 am

  21. Government unveils eight-page ‘rape assessment form’ for mothers hit by tax credit cuts

    Form NCC1 4/17 will assess whether a third child is conceived as a result of rape.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rape-clause-form-tax-credits-coercive-relationship-three-children-child-limit-a7669876.html

    enigma

    April 6, 2017 at 12:00 pm

    • And what are HM Gov supposed to do? Just take someone’s word for it? Like child benefits being sent abroad for non-existent children! People DO lie! For all sorts of reasons, and especially when money is involved. Look at how many ‘single parents’ are busted for living with a partner. “Just say you were ‘raped’ 😉 They will have to pay you 🙂 ”

      And what does “otherwise coercive” mean? And in any case, the number of children conceived due to rape must be minuscule in the extreme. Any old excuse to have a pop at HM Gov!

      Germaine Greer

      April 6, 2017 at 12:24 pm

      • Germaine Greer

        Do you know how many women receiving child benefit currently have claimed their third child is a byproduct of rape. Have government released any figures ?

        You yourself have just stated that mothers with a third child as a result of rape must be minuscule. If that’s the case why ask such a question for child benefits. Do you not think that perhaps government is suggesting women would resort to this dew to the new cut in child benefit ?

        Does this rape question get put to a woman who only has a single child as a result of rape and no other kids, does this mean she cant have child benefit either if she cant prove it ?

        Is government saying you can have two children as a result of rape and not prove it yet if you have a third, you better be sure to be raped a third time and be able to prove it.

        The gist here is obvious, any woman asserting rape under the third child rule sounds like a woman just trying to ensure she can take care of that child, whether its the case or not. Now you only defense here is to assert such a woman would spend this third child’s benefit on themselves and divvy up the two amounts of child benefit on three children. Well, if government don’t grant the third benefit, isn’t that the same thing or worse still what if the woman spends the second child benefit on themselves and only divvies up the single amount among the three children. You are aware it costs 100’000 per child per year to go into care right. As a tax payer did you realize you face paying more than had you simply gave the benefit in the first place.

        doug

        April 6, 2017 at 6:45 pm

      • You are making a gross assumption that the recipients of child benefit spend the money on their children. For instance, if the mother smokes the very first thing that will come out of the household budget is cigarettes. Even worse if they like their cigarettes and alcohol. If you have ever worked in Social Services you will find couples who have stashed quite a considerable sum of cash through the (child) benefits they have received, almost as if they have kids solely to obtain benefits to finance their own plans. These ‘parents’ send their kids to school on an empty stomach andl feed their kids on white bread and gravy in the evening. Paying child benefit to the mother is no guarantee that it will be spent on the kids.

        The Government isn’t introducing a two-child policy, it is child tax credits that are being restricted to the first two children. And of course there was the inevitable outcry of “what if the third child is conceived through rape”. Rather than rip up the entire policy this is the Government’s measured response. It is money we are talking about, doug, cold hard cash, of course the Government recognises that certain claimants may be “tempted”. It is only a ‘white lie’ after all, ‘victim-less crime’ and all that. And at the end of the day, human nature always wins out. Give the Government some credit – they are not stupid!

        Talking of scams, and scams are aplenty, again if you have ever worked in social services one of the most common scams is couples claiming they are “separated”. This means they receive two council houses and two lots of single people’s benefits. And back in the day, before the council got wise to it, households used to pretend that each others children were living with them to claim housing benefits,

        Social Worker

        April 6, 2017 at 10:44 pm

      • Social Worker

        Thanks, this is precisely the trap i wanted someone to fall into. That being admitting its nothing more than preempting because CSA failed to achieve what it was suppose to.

        I already have connections with not only social services but also nurses,doctors,support workers of old and young, special needs,challenging behavior.etc, teachers,nurseries,etc. The only way to be truly informed is to go to the horses mouths workers who are actually on the battlefield rather than sitting afar reading statistics and tick boxes.

        Im also glad you admit its all about money as government are actually as we speak claiming its not now its hit people radars. So its very interesting you tagged yourself as social worker as ask any of them and they all say the child comes first.

        https://www.nao.org.uk/report/children-in-care/

        Seeing how you want to talk about money, maybe you want to address the spiraling costs of kids in residential care and fostering and how your going to tackle the fundamental flaw in that you cant stop people getting pregnant and having a child whether of good nature or not.

        Its stated 40% of pregnancies are not planned. Its also stated we have the most teenage pregnancies in the world and i could go on but i think you get the gist here.

        While i do concede money makes the world go round, producing more opportunities for kids to go into residential care and or fostering (this includes caps and changes to benefit amounts and rules) isnt going to save the taxpayer a penny and infact increases there money burden.

        doug

        April 7, 2017 at 12:19 pm

      • doug

        You aren’t clever enough to lay a trap. Give over, sport!

        sen

        April 7, 2017 at 1:13 pm

      • Sen

        The only one not clever is the person that cant see this is just CSA 2.0.

        Children like old people cost the most and are a heavy public expenditure, especially when you consider youth is liquidity for the latter.

        The point i deliberately didn’t make in my original post was to highlight the famed attitude of if there not guilty of this then there guilty for something else which as anyone knows will be the stance that a woman will misappropriate her funds for the children on herself. The joke of that is the majority of mothers most certainly don’t but as we all know the Tories like to insinuate based on no real facts as the public are witnessing quite frequently these days and those as it turns up, the past included. I knew because normal folk cant afford PR, that when i gave out a few questions they couldn’t answer like government wont answer or misrepresent that a poster would come out swinging with the very comment i mentioned above in reference to mothers spending the funds on themselves. You see people wear there heart on there sleeve, emotion,emotion,emotion so for someone like me, its like stealing candy from a baby (like the pun) to provoke an expected response in order to demonstrate a point.

        Now moving on to my 2.0 point we all know how much of a failure the last attempt was as we all know or do now i posted a link the other day that residential care or fostering costs a lot of money, way more than government are taking away. Another point very valid is you cant legally stop a woman getting pregnant.
        Now just like sanctions and cuts act as a disincentive to not want to work, this rape and cuts both past and present are nothing more than disincentives to act as birth control. How do we know this is the case, well mostly all the kids in care or have been fostered out come from parent/s on low wages so even if they did work and we didn’t have benefits, couldn’t ever possibly afford to raise a child let alone more considering the yearly cost.

        So you can hide behind never actually having anything to say or lie if like as the Tories do but the truth is plain to see as are you and your intent.

        doug

        April 8, 2017 at 5:45 pm

  22. […] Tax Giveaway to Wealthy as Benefit changes ‘could push 200,000 children into poverty’. […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: