Daggers Posted 25 June 2012 Share Posted 25 June 2012 She was always over generous to scroungers. Why should I work if people are going to pay for my beer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I am Rod Hull Posted 25 June 2012 Share Posted 25 June 2012 What strikes me most, is how the working class (everyone on here) are so easily won over by half baked right wing crap that will not benefit them or their`s in the long haul..... "WAKEY WAKEY" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MattP Posted 25 June 2012 Share Posted 25 June 2012 A good start but why just the under 25's? Still far too much "compassionate Conservatism" from Cameron. I didn't vote for them for this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daggers Posted 25 June 2012 Share Posted 25 June 2012 What strikes me most, is how the working class (everyone on here) are so easily won over by half baked right wing crap that will not benefit them or their`s in the long haul..... "WAKEY WAKEY" It appeals to the selfish nature within people: fvck everyone else I'm going to be OK and I never use swimming pools or libraries anyway. Yet again, this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MooseBreath Posted 25 June 2012 Share Posted 25 June 2012 But, and this might surprise you, a large number of parents can't or won't - leaving the students to fund themselves. This ignores the growing mature student sector who don't benefit from your rich parenting either. Did you choose to ignore this or are you seriously unaware of it? Are you missing the point on purpose here or what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rincewind Posted 25 June 2012 Share Posted 25 June 2012 Just watched Panorama which was about the Greek crisis. Interesting part was a university professor was asked to come up with a program to change the tax and benefit system. This he did by suggesting the better off contribute a little more. This was turned down. He then came up with a plan involving the tax collectors who in turn tried to sue him. While this is happening those on the poverty line is growing and the very wealthy have not been affected. Just something for some of you to muse bout while you ar eating your caviar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 25 June 2012 Share Posted 25 June 2012 Just watched Panorama which was about the Greek crisis. Interesting part was a university professor was asked to come up with a progeam to change the tax and benefit system. This he did by suggesting the better off contribute a little more. This was turned down. He then came up with a plan involving the tax collectors who in turn tried to sue him. While this is happening those on the poverty line is growing and the very wealthy have not been affected. Just something for some of you to muse bout while you ar eating your caviar. If you want a workable solution to anything the last thing you should do is ask a professor to come up with a progeam. Just something for you to muse bout while you ar eating the last of the dripping on a piece of stale bread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flowwolf Posted 25 June 2012 Share Posted 25 June 2012 If you want a workable solution to anything the last thing you should do is ask a professor to come up with a progeam. Just something for you to muse bout while you ar eating the last of the dripping on a piece of stale bread. Well I can't afford even dripping and stale bread and I am a professor, though I must profess I don't know what a progeam is ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rincewind Posted 25 June 2012 Share Posted 25 June 2012 Don't worry about it I'm just talking shit again. Millionaires avoiding tax? What a silly idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobHawk Posted 25 June 2012 Share Posted 25 June 2012 :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink: My point being should that occur we wouldn't have a society! It would be a free for all on the streets and society would crumble Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acooling08 Posted 25 June 2012 Share Posted 25 June 2012 Daggers I am not going to challenge you directly on this topic because clearly you have done your homework much more than me, and you appear to have the big ol' book of stats ready and waiting. But I just want to ask you a question: - Do you think it is 'right' for people working to contribute via taxes to fund services for the unemployed on benefits, when they themselves cannot afford those services? For me the answer in no. I think that the welfare system should provide an amount of money to give people the bare essentials, such as food, gas & electricity, petrol, and other basic ammentities. If you want anything more, then you should have to work to be able to afford them. With benefits slashed, we would be better off as a country. An episode of yes minister comes to mind here. People would have more incentive to work = less benefits and more tax = economy grows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobHawk Posted 25 June 2012 Share Posted 25 June 2012 Are you missing the point on purpose here or what? Even students from the poorest backgrounds have to take out student loans. Yes they get grants but as of September English students will be expected to take out loans of around £12500 per year in order to study! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flowwolf Posted 25 June 2012 Share Posted 25 June 2012 My point being should that occur we wouldn't have a society! It would be a free for all on the streets and society would crumble Erm wasn't that the question I asked ? But we have had and still have societies in the world who do not have a welfare system but never the less they are societies. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobHawk Posted 25 June 2012 Share Posted 25 June 2012 Daggers I am not going to challenge you directly on this topic because clearly you have done your homework much more than me, and you appear to have the big ol' book of stats ready and waiting. But I just want to ask you a question: - Do you think it is 'right' for people working to contribute via taxes to fund services for the unemployed on benefits, when they themselves cannot afford those services? For me the answer in no. I think that the welfare system should provide an amount of money to give people the bare essentials, such as food, gas & electricity, petrol, and other basic ammentities. If you want anything more, then you should have to work to be able to afford them. I agree with your point but how much do you think people actually receive on benefits? It's not like they have the life O'Reilly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rincewind Posted 25 June 2012 Share Posted 25 June 2012 can't argue with that, there are other countries in the world that have societies and no welfare system. Well observed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I am Rod Hull Posted 25 June 2012 Share Posted 25 June 2012 Daggers I am not going to challenge you directly on this topic because clearly you have done your homework much more than me, and you appear to have the big ol' book of stats ready and waiting. But I just want to ask you a question: - Do you think it is 'right' for people working to contribute via taxes to fund services for the unemployed on benefits, when they themselves cannot afford those services? For me the answer in no. I think that the welfare system should provide an amount of money to give people the bare essentials, such as food, gas & electricity, petrol, and other basic ammentities. If you want anything more, then you should have to work to be able to afford them. With benefits slashed, we would be better off as a country. An episode of yes minister comes to mind here. People would have more incentive to work = less benefits and more tax = economy grows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rincewind Posted 25 June 2012 Share Posted 25 June 2012 I think a better incentive to work would be to have factories and industries that were still in existence but I expect that has not occur to some people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acooling08 Posted 25 June 2012 Share Posted 25 June 2012 We would, because people on benefits would have extra incentive to find work. This would mean less money lost through benefits, and more gained through tax. This would help the economy to grow. In turn, this reduces the need for immigration to fill labouring jobs, thus stopping the rapid population increase. This reduces strain on public services, and also makes it easier to get jobs. And so the cycle goes around... Nightguard, you should know that manufacturing many things is not sustainable anymore in countries like the UK when China can do it for a fraction of the price. There are plenty of labouring jobs going around, only to be seen by many as a lesser option than taking benefits. That's why so many immigrants are here, to take the shitty jobs our 'working' class feel above these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rincewind Posted 25 June 2012 Share Posted 25 June 2012 Now, why didn't I think of that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flowwolf Posted 25 June 2012 Share Posted 25 June 2012 I agree with your point but how much do you think people actually receive on benefits? It's not like they have the life O'Reilly Yes and having to work for a leaving is not exactly having the life of O'Reilly either is it ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smudge Posted 26 June 2012 Share Posted 26 June 2012 I was on housing benefit during the Thatcher years; I don't remember economically good times back in 1984. I'd argue that a credit-based economy which exploded in Major's face was never a good one. But at least we all learnt our lesson...oh... ****in scrounger! You probably don't remember much at all in the 80's. Lets face it even Daggers was in his 20's once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr The Singh Posted 26 June 2012 Share Posted 26 June 2012 ****in scrounger! You probably don't remember much at all in the 80's. Lets face it even Daggers was in his 20's once. That was before WWII Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnydipper Posted 26 June 2012 Share Posted 26 June 2012 To eradicate the Kyle subculture that pervades our society and is a cancer upon the nations moral fibre and well-being one needs to tackle the problem by instilling in our children the Tory values of hard work, self sufficiency and the ethos of "all for none and one for oneself" The answer is to simply provide an education for all our children in an environment in which their future earning potential can be maximised and in which they can be moulded to cherish the core Tory values of "self" and "money" throughout their lives. http://www.oundleschool.org.uk/index.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon the Hat Posted 26 June 2012 Share Posted 26 June 2012 To eradicate the Kyle subculture that pervades our society and is a cancer upon the nations moral fibre and well-being one needs to tackle the problem by instilling in our children the Tory values of hard work, self sufficiency and the ethos of "all for none and one for oneself" The answer is to simply provide an education for all our children in an environment in which their future earning potential can be maximised and in which they can be moulded to cherish the core Tory values of "self" and "money" throughout their lives. http://www.oundlesch...rg.uk/index.php What a ridiculous stereotype. I knew a chap who went to Oundle and he was a, well his, oh ok his dad was a Tory MP. Nice chap though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobHawk Posted 26 June 2012 Share Posted 26 June 2012 Yes and having to work for a leaving is not exactly having the life of O'Reilly either is it ? I have met many people on benefits desperate to find work all under the age of 25. Why take benefits away from those that want to work but cant get work just because of a small minority of people who can't be bothered with life so sit at home and take what they can get. Why be so reactionary?? Why not tackle the U25's that can't be arsed rather than punish them all?? Its very easy to presume all people on benefits are scroungers but they are there for a reason - as a safety net when things go wrong! It is ridiculous to assume that all U25's should live with their parents! What if the parents can't afford to keep them! Will child benefits be available to parents for children until the age of 25?? I think not!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.