The Doctor Posted 2 April 2013 Posted 2 April 2013 Investment = building offices/factories, employing people, increased tax revenue. The words pie in the ****ing sky come to mind - Investment could do all that, but instead we're seeing unemployment rising.
Zingari Posted 2 April 2013 Posted 2 April 2013 Ok, so £53 per week is £212 per month. These are my actual monthly bills (I live with my GF which makes some things a little cheaper) - £18 gym £10 tv/internet £40 gas/electricity/water £3 netflix £6 phone £5 Xbox live £100 food per month (£25 x 4 weeks) = £182 a month. That gives me £30 a month left over. . take another£14 off for the tv licence, and do you intend to walk around naked ?
pSinatra Posted 2 April 2013 Posted 2 April 2013 I don't think the argument is so much about us low-lifes having to survive on £53 a week. It's the arrogance of a shit like IDS saying he could. The man is a known liar & managed to marry into a very rich family. Hardly a role model.
The Doctor Posted 2 April 2013 Posted 2 April 2013 take another£14 off for the tv licence, and do you intend to walk around naked ? Don't see why not. Down with pants!
Webbo Posted 2 April 2013 Posted 2 April 2013 The words pie in the ****ing sky come to mind - Investment could do all that, but instead we're seeing unemployment rising. That's why we have these schemes, to encourage more investment.
I am Rod Hull Posted 2 April 2013 Posted 2 April 2013 Ok, so £53 per week is £212 per month. These are my actual monthly bills (I live with my GF which makes some things a little cheaper) - £18 gym £10 tv/internet £40 gas/electricity/water £3 netflix £6 phone £5 Xbox live £100 food per month (£25 x 4 weeks) = £182 a month. That gives me £30 a month left over. . I think they`d be the first things to go, and £40 for gas/electricity/water? are you sure about that? are you on a 1995 tariff?
The Doctor Posted 2 April 2013 Posted 2 April 2013 That's why we have these schemes, to encourage more investment. Right, so let me see if we've got this straight... We have schemes to encourage investment at the expense of losing tax revenue. In practise this has given us less money coming in, and reaping no benefits, with unemployment still rising. So, we should keep these schemes and instead cut back on spending. Yep, seems like a good idea, I can't see any flaw there...
MooseBreath Posted 2 April 2013 Author Posted 2 April 2013 but instead we're seeing unemployment rising. Except we're not.
Charl91 Posted 2 April 2013 Posted 2 April 2013 take another£14 off for the tv licence, and do you intend to walk around naked ? Don't need a TV license, I have Netflix and a laptop. £30 a month can buy you a bucket load of clothes from Primark. I don't spend more then £100 a year on clothes (not sure if I ever have!). I think they`d be the first things to go, and £40 for gas/electricity/water? are you sure about that? are you on a 1995 tarrif? Like I said, I share a house, so split the bills. My last bill was £150 for 3 months (so £50 a month), but that was winter where the bills are slightly higher. Costs less in the summer, so balances out. Also worth noting that these are my monthly bills without particularly trying to budget - I could do without a fair amount of those bills.
MooseBreath Posted 2 April 2013 Author Posted 2 April 2013 Oh really? Oh, yeah, you're right.The first time it has risen in a year, and it rose by 0.002%. You call that "rising"?
Webbo Posted 2 April 2013 Posted 2 April 2013 Right, so let me see if we've got this straight... We have schemes to encourage investment at the expense of losing tax revenue. In practise this has given us less money coming in, and reaping no benefits, with unemployment still rising. So, we should keep these schemes and instead cut back on spending. Yep, seems like a good idea, I can't see any flaw there... Someone like Starbucks may use clever accounting to avoid a lot of their tax liabilities but the owners of the Starbucks franchise still have to pay their income/corporation tax in this country,they pay business rates on their premises,they pay employers national insurance contributions. their employees pay income tax and NI, as well as not collecting dole. The businesses also collect VAT for the govt. Or we could do your idea and discourage investment.
Bayfox Posted 2 April 2013 Posted 2 April 2013 Ah, the attitude of "when a regime pushes you to the brink, push right back" - yep, horrible attitude to have, back to apathy we should go. Who knows, maybe we can go bomb the shit out of some other country to distract us from being buggered by our so-called representatives. I'm well aware where it comes from - primarily taxation, and I might point out if we actually ensured that that tax was paid, and then stopped spending it on flexing our muscles at other countries, then perhaps we could afford to give people enough to ensure they can live while out of work (which, given there's more people of working age than there are jobs at the moment, seems rather important to me). Yeah, it's lamentable that people get left out in the cold like that - but why draw a line between people? Why say "oh, they deserve help, but not that chappy over there. **** him". A small matter of a word called pride. People who have given something to this country deserve something back. People who think its right to spit out kids claim a house and claim every benefit going to spend on booze, fags and sky tv. What they show pride? They need looking after do they when they make a choice to live like that. I have no problem with people who want to work or cant work for a reason. But i do object to free handouts to everyone. I've worked as a cleaner at the walkers. Yes the work was shit but o was proud. I've worked at mcdonalds. Yes the work was shit but even at 17 i was earning 120 a week. If you dont want to live off 53 a week. Do something about it. Dont ****ing moan about it. Do we have no national pride left? Do people really not want to better themselves? Do they expect the working man to foot the bill?
acooling08 Posted 2 April 2013 Posted 2 April 2013 - Yeah, let's have a go at those who scrounge benefits. Never mind that they take absolute squat compared to those responsible for tax evasion/avoidance (like a certain shiny-headed **** in number 10 at the moment). Frankly, when benefits are being cut and there's **** all jobs out there, people playing the government really doesn't bother me, seems like a fair bit of revenge against an organisation too greedy to help those it's supposed to represent. Thought you were a pretty decent poster until I saw this. Where do you think the government gets it's money from? FROM TAXES. It's not screwing the government, it's screwing the decent honest hardworking people out there. Not saying that all people on benefits are screwing us - of course not - but there are plenty that do. Take Mick Philpott and his estate for example. Bunch of SCUM.
MooseBreath Posted 2 April 2013 Author Posted 2 April 2013 Also worth noting that these are my monthly bills without particularly trying to budget - I could do without a fair amount of those bills. Also your £53 per week is £229 per month, not £212, so you have an extra £17 per month to save for christmas or whatever.
I am Rod Hull Posted 2 April 2013 Posted 2 April 2013 Don't need a TV license, I have Netflix and a laptop. £30 a month can buy you a bucket load of clothes from Primark. Like I said, I share a house, so split the bills. My last bill was £150 for 3 months (so £50 a month), but that was winter where the bills are slightly higher. Costs less in the summer, so balances out. Also worth noting that these are my monthly bills without particularly trying to budget - I could do without a fair amount of those bills. That leaves you with £7.50 a week, good luck
Zingari Posted 2 April 2013 Posted 2 April 2013 Don't need a TV license, I have Netflix and a laptop. £30 a month can buy you a bucket load of clothes from Primark. I don't spend more then £100 a year on clothes (not sure if I ever have!). Like I said, I share a house, so split the bills. My last bill was £150 for 3 months (so £50 a month), but that was winter where the bills are slightly higher. Costs less in the summer, so balances out. Also worth noting that these are my monthly bills without particularly trying to budget - I could do without a fair amount of those bills. If you watch tv even on the internet you still need a tv licence
I am Rod Hull Posted 2 April 2013 Posted 2 April 2013 If you watch tv even on the internet you still need a tv licence Bless him
Charl91 Posted 2 April 2013 Posted 2 April 2013 That leaves you with £7.50 a week, good luck Well, as moose pointed out, it's more like £11 a week, enough money to meet up with friends once a fortnight. So really, I could live my current life style on JSA without much fuss. Plus wasn't this £53 supposed to be AFTER utilities AND the minimum amount you can possibly get? If you watch tv even on the internet you still need a tv licence No you don't. Only for live TV - not for Iplayer/ITV player if it's catch up. I can happily watch the programs I want a day later to save £140 a year.
Guest ttfn Posted 2 April 2013 Posted 2 April 2013 Ok, so £53 per week is £212 per month. These are my actual monthly bills (I live with my GF which makes some things a little cheaper) - £18 gym £10 tv/internet £40 gas/electricity/water £3 netflix £6 phone £5 Xbox live £100 food per month (£25 x 4 weeks) = £182 a month. That gives me £30 a month left over. . Seriously, if rent is not included in that £53 a week then it's an absolute piece of piss. Would I like to live on £53 a week? No. Could I live on £53 a week? Yes. Sounds to me like it's a sensible sum.
pSinatra Posted 2 April 2013 Posted 2 April 2013 The guy in question with £53 left at the end of the week is not a 'benefits scrounger'. This isn't about the benefits system. The guy in question works his spuds off week in week out. He works up to a 70 hour week & has feck all to show for it. Maybe he should consider a change of career.......like that's possible!!? We are all having to work harder & we all have less & less to show for it. The fact that we may as well be on benefits just shows what a shit state the economy is in.
MooseBreath Posted 2 April 2013 Author Posted 2 April 2013 That leaves you with £7.50 a week, good luck Why does he need luck when he has already paid for everything he needs?
Guest ttfn Posted 2 April 2013 Posted 2 April 2013 Why does he need luck when he has already paid for everything he needs? If he wanted, he could even afford to take a holiday with that £7.50 a week. A holiday from what exactly I'm not sure, but he could.
The Doctor Posted 2 April 2013 Posted 2 April 2013 Oh, yeah, you're right.The first time it has risen in a year, and it rose by 0.002%. You call that "rising"? More importantly is the amount 16-24 year old unemployment rose. That's key as far as I'm concerned - the emerging generation left high and dry and the knock-on effects in the years to come are going to be worse than if you had a group of 40-50 year olds coming out of jobs. Someone like Starbucks may use clever accounting to avoid a lot of their tax liabilities but the owners of the Starbucks franchise still have to pay their income/corporation tax in this country,they pay business rates on their premises,they pay employers national insurance contributions. their employees pay income tax and NI, as well as not collecting dole. The businesses also collect VAT for the govt. Or we could do your idea and discourage investment. Well yes they still have to pay, but what we're getting out of it in practise is less than what we'd be getting if we made people pay up. If discouraging investment is the price to pay to balance the books without having to systematically attack the lower rungs of society then it's a price worth paying. A small matter of a word called pride. People who have given something to this country deserve something back. People who think its right to spit out kids claim a house and claim every benefit going to spend on booze, fags and sky tv. What they show pride? They need looking after do they when they make a choice to live like that. I have no problem with people who want to work or cant work for a reason. But i do object to free handouts to everyone. I've worked as a cleaner at the walkers. Yes the work was shit but o was proud. I've worked at mcdonalds. Yes the work was shit but even at 17 i was earning 120 a week. If you dont want to live off 53 a week. Do something about it. Dont ****ing moan about it. Do we have no national pride left? Do people really not want to better themselves? Do they expect the working man to foot the bill? It's not as simple as "do something about it" though is it - there's more jobs than there are people. When you get nearly 2k people applying for 8 jobs at ****ing costa, you know there's a problem. Thought you were a pretty decent poster until I saw this. Where do you think the government gets it's money from? FROM TAXES. It's not screwing the government, it's screwing the decent honest hardworking people out there. Not saying that all people on benefits are screwing us - of course not - but there are plenty that do. Take Mick Philpott and his estate for example. Bunch of SCUM. Rest assured the feeling was never mutual - I always though you had a wide empty space where your brain was supposed to be. Yes, however basically - I pay the government £X, the government then is supposed to use it for the good of the country - which includes giving those in need of help, the help they need. Person Y needs £Z to be able to afford the basic food/electricity etc. that he needs to keep his life ticking over on the bread line. Government give £Z/3 to him and spend the remainder of it on a shiny missile capable of hitting a seals backside from 60 miles. That's the ****ing crime - that we're undercutting those in need of help (for instance - benefits to rise by 1% when inflation is at 2 and a half percent) and instead spending it on a military. Not a health service or any sort of public service, a collection of shit designed to threaten everyone else in the world.
acooling08 Posted 2 April 2013 Posted 2 April 2013 If he wanted, he could even afford to take a holiday with that £7.50 a week. A holiday from what exactly I'm not sure, but he could. People on benefits should not be able to afford fcuking holidays when the people who pay their fcuking benefits can't afford one ffs!!
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.