trousers Posted 25 June, 2012 Share Posted 25 June, 2012 How are, for example, school leavers unable to get work supposed to 'contribute'? Actually, that statement's a bit wrong as everyone contributes to some extent unless, of course, they are Portsmouth Football Club. There. Fixed it for you :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 25 June, 2012 Author Share Posted 25 June, 2012 Actually, that statement's a bit wrong as everyone contributes to some extent unless, of course, they never, ever buy anything. So hermits are the true scroungers? Those cave-dwelling b*stards! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 25 June, 2012 Share Posted 25 June, 2012 they could always live at home. of course, you will tell me about all these abusive parents and druggie parents like it is quite common... Come on, he does have a point. Have you seen how much tax is on ciggies and Booze? If they spend all their dole money on fags & booze, they are contributing towards the money that the taxpayer then pays them ,to buy fags and booze. It's trickle down socialist economics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 25 June, 2012 Share Posted 25 June, 2012 Come on, he does have a point. Have you seen how much tax is on ciggies and Booze? If they spend all their dole money on fags & booze, they are contributing towards the money that the taxpayer then pays them ,to buy fags and booze. It's trickle down socialist economics. I know I'm biased but that did give rise to an out loud chuckle here on coach 2 of 12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 25 June, 2012 Author Share Posted 25 June, 2012 they could always live at home. of course, you will tell me about all these abusive parents and druggie parents like it is quite common... Britain. The country where the kids can't afford to leave home. PS. If we're really suggesting that, can we at least go for hobbit holes? They are expandable and could offer some privacy to the 32 year old bachelor who plans on masturbating in his bedroom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 25 June, 2012 Share Posted 25 June, 2012 they could always live at home. of course, you will tell me about all these abusive parents and druggie parents like it is quite common... http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/resourcesforprofessionals/neglect/statistics_wda89685.html 10% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 25 June, 2012 Share Posted 25 June, 2012 Britain. The country where the kids can't afford to leave home. PS. If we're really suggesting that, can we at least go for hobbit holes? They are expandable and could offer some privacy to the 32 year old bachelor who plans on masturbating in his bedroom. I lived at home till I was 19....I then got a proper job and left Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 25 June, 2012 Share Posted 25 June, 2012 Britain. The country where the kids can't afford to leave home. A policy that keeps the extended family unit closer together. Excellent :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 25 June, 2012 Author Share Posted 25 June, 2012 I lived at home till I was 19....I then got a proper job and left Was that the age that you joined the mob? Not trying to say that the Navy isn't a proper job - far from it. However, don't they pretty much 'keep' you once you sign up? As in, all food provided, rent-free accommodation, etc? Respectfully, TDD - I'm not sure you faced the same challenges as a 19 year old working in civilian employment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 25 June, 2012 Author Share Posted 25 June, 2012 A policy that keeps the extended family unit closer together. Excellent :-) In theory. In practice, there's a bloody good reason kids fly the nest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 25 June, 2012 Share Posted 25 June, 2012 He's effectively starting his pitch for 2015 here. I don't think there has been any suggestion that this will go through this term, especially with the Liberal Democrats in government! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 25 June, 2012 Share Posted 25 June, 2012 Looking at some of the other proposals, only pay benefits to the literate : "People could be forced to learn to read, write and count in order to continue getting benefits under welfare plans unveiled by David Cameron today." http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/learn-to-read-and-write-if-you-want-to-get-benefits-says-david-cameron-7880659.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 25 June, 2012 Share Posted 25 June, 2012 In theory. In practice, there's a bloody good reason kids fly the nest I sometimes think that teenagers are genetically programmed to be obnoxious just to ensure that they are thrown out of the nest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 25 June, 2012 Share Posted 25 June, 2012 I sometimes think that teenagers are genetically programmed to be obnoxious just to ensure that they are thrown out of the nest. Every person over 19 was a teenager for 7 years, and should remember that. Similarly, most of today's teens will in 30 years time be moaning about their own hormonally driven spotty oiks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 25 June, 2012 Share Posted 25 June, 2012 I don't really understand people who take the attitude 'Just take away the benefits, all of them. THAT'LL SHOW THEM'. Same rubbish after the London Riots... if you take away too many benefits you'll end up with a deluge of homeless with nowhere to go and no hope who will inevitably turn to crime because of their situation. Benefits can keep people in society sometimes when they hit hard times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 25 June, 2012 Author Share Posted 25 June, 2012 Very amusing piece from the Guardian:- Cameron's welfare speech: he cannot be serious My favourite bit. Then there was the centrepiece of the weekend spinning – the abolition of housing benefit for the under-25s. With the cosy middle-class assumption that mum and dad can always welcome back jobless twentysomethings, this sounded like a suggestion from a gin-soaked colonel in his clubhouse. Does Mr Cameron even know that he recently legislated for cuts to force council tenants to downsize once adult children flee the nest? What about youngsters whose parents are mad, bad or dead? The PM talked about the special circumstances of foster care leavers, but what about those leaving prison? Would it be a good idea to have them roaming the streets? And what about the thousand who get the coach out of dead-end towns and find a job but don't earn enough to put a roof over their heads without some help from the state? This common-sense thing. Really eludes some of our politicians, doesn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 26 June, 2012 Share Posted 26 June, 2012 Every person over 19 was a teenager for 7 years, and should remember that. Similarly, most of today's teens will in 30 years time be moaning about their own hormonally driven spotty oiks. I read a great quote the other day: 'By the time I realised my dad was right I had a son telling me that I was wrong' I can't find the source, David Schwimmer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 26 June, 2012 Share Posted 26 June, 2012 I don't really understand people who take the attitude 'Just take away the benefits, all of them. THAT'LL SHOW THEM'. Same rubbish after the London Riots... if you take away too many benefits you'll end up with a deluge of homeless with nowhere to go and no hope who will inevitably turn to crime because of their situation. Benefits can keep people in society sometimes when they hit hard times. Hmm, pay them not to riot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 26 June, 2012 Share Posted 26 June, 2012 Hmm, pay them not to riot? And Andy wonders why the Lib dem oddballs will never be credible with the electorate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 26 June, 2012 Share Posted 26 June, 2012 Hmm, pay them not to riot? That tunnel you're looking through? It's getting so narrow it'll close up soon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 26 June, 2012 Share Posted 26 June, 2012 Hmm, pay them not to riot? Because that's exactly what I meant. As BTF, just said you are looking at this narrowly. It isn't about paying people off. It's about giving people a fair chance to compete in society, giving them a stake. When people drop out of society, that's when you get the UK Riots. I'm not saying that the Benefit system doesn't need reform, but if we slash it too far, it could lead to other more expensive consequences(and not just money expensive). What is your solution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 26 June, 2012 Share Posted 26 June, 2012 Because that's exactly what I meant. As BTF, just said you are looking at this narrowly. It isn't about paying people off. It's about giving people a fair chance to compete in society, giving them a stake. When people drop out of society, that's when you get the UK Riots. I'm not saying that the Benefit system doesn't need reform, but if we slash it too far, it could lead to other more expensive consequences(and not just money expensive). What is your solution? Giving them a fair chane FFS, ah bless. This is britain and everyone has a fair chance. The scum that rioted did so because they are criminal hoodlums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 26 June, 2012 Share Posted 26 June, 2012 Giving them a fair chane FFS, ah bless. This is britain and everyone has a fair chance. The scum that rioted did so because they are criminal hoodlums. Britain is as fair as it comes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 26 June, 2012 Share Posted 26 June, 2012 Giving them a fair chane FFS, ah bless. This is britain and everyone has a fair chance. The scum that rioted did so because they are criminal hoodlums. Yes, they are criminals. I agree with you there, they broke the law and should be punished accordingly. But how can we ever solve the problem if we just say 'They are just hoodlums. Lock 'em up and take away everything they have.' People aren't born criminals and they aren't born rioters. We need to look into why people ended up doing what they did and try to fix that. Get at the cause, not the symptoms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 26 June, 2012 Share Posted 26 June, 2012 Andy, no one is taking away everything they have. Maybe they could get jobs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 26 June, 2012 Share Posted 26 June, 2012 Andy, no one is taking away everything they have. Maybe they could get jobs I never said anyone was, I merely commenting on a hypothetical future based on the attitudes of some people since the Riots. And obviously I have never lived in one of the areas in which these kinds of social problems exist... but I do know people who do and they tell me it is pretty bad, no jobs, no money and because of that little hope for the future and this is what breeds the criminal activity such as the riots. It's the fact that people felt they had nothing to lose and had no stake in society. A lot of the people in these areas also don't have many qualifications, so their job options are reduced before they even try to search and jobs are hard to come by in this double dip recession. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 26 June, 2012 Share Posted 26 June, 2012 Andy, many of these people are just filth. And use the excuses you mention as a shield to deflect responsibility for their crimes. They go out and take what try want, because they can. They h e had a childhood of having for nothing. Why change that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 26 June, 2012 Share Posted 26 June, 2012 Andy, many of these people are just filth. And use the excuses you mention as a shield to deflect responsibility for their crimes. They go out and take what try want, because they can. They h e had a childhood of having for nothing. Why change that They aren't filth. I don't like that term and I reject it 100%. People aren't born criminals. Just saying 'Some people are filth' doesn't solve anything. You need to look behind the symptoms and at the causes of why people turn to crime in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 26 June, 2012 Share Posted 26 June, 2012 And obviously I have never lived in one of the areas in which these kinds of social problems exist... but I do know people who do and they tell me it is pretty bad, no jobs, no money and because of that little hope for the future and this is what breeds the criminal activity such as the riots. It's the fact that people felt they had nothing to lose and had no stake in society. . What a load of ****ing shiete. NO MONEY, ********, I bet they all had mobile phones. I just dont recongnise the picture of "povety" that lefties and sandal wearers portray in this country. 80% of the Worlds population would give their right arms to live in the "povety" that those riotting idiots live in. I'm glad my Gran's not around today to hear your definition of "no money". She had a disabled husband in a wheelchair before the welfare state. She was trying to bring up 2 children in the 1940's with a husband unable to work, yet she didn't riot. She didn't complain, or moan she just got on with it. I cant quite see her whining whilst trying to scrape some food togther "It's not fair , I didn't invade Poland" Before setting off to riot and burn down her neighbour's business' and communites where real people lived. She was too busy trying to survive than to waste time and energy rioting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 26 June, 2012 Share Posted 26 June, 2012 (edited) What a load of ****ing shiete. NO MONEY, ********, I bet they all had mobile phones. I just dont recongnise the picture of "povety" that lefties and sandal wearers portray in this country. 80% of the Worlds population would give their right arms to live in the "povety" that those riotting idiots live in. I'm glad my Gran's not around today to hear your definition of "no money". She had a disabled husband in a wheelchair before the welfare state. She was trying to bring up 2 children in the 1940's with a husband unable to work, yet she didn't riot. She didn't complain, or moan she just got on with it. I cant quite see her whining whilst trying to scrape some food togther "It's not fair , I didn't invade Poland" Before setting off to riot and burn down her neighbour's business' and communites where real people lived. She was too busy trying to survive than to waste time and energy rioting. Everything is relative though. It's all about getting a foot up in the system and some people in some areas are unable to even get on the first rung of the ladder. Again, you can froth at the mouth, but it won't solve anything. You need to treat the causes of the riots, not the symptom. When you start only treating the symptoms, you are effectively giving up and saying the problem is terminal. Edited 26 June, 2012 by Saintandy666 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 26 June, 2012 Author Share Posted 26 June, 2012 Lord D - have you thought through the consequences of removing housing benefit from the under 25s? Are you aware that many in receipt of housing benefit are doing full-time jobs? How do you reconcile your pantheon of Daily Mail beliefs with the thought of a working under-25 year old losing a house and job because of these reforms? What do you say to the kids when the procession of men start turning up at the family home so their mum can turn a few tricks for cash? The problem with right-wingers is you just don't think things through. Have a think about whether you're prepared to look the bedraggled kids in the eyes when you're pulling money out of the ATM. Consider whether that's the sort of country you'd like to live in, factor in the massive amount of potential cash the country could trouser if we changed plans, and then tell me whether you think these proposals are a good idea. This is a sickening set of proposals that will lead to universal misery if ever implemented. Thankfully, they've also exposed the Conservatives for the collection of nasty f**kers they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 26 June, 2012 Share Posted 26 June, 2012 Everything is relative though. It's all about getting a foot up in the system and some people in some areas are unable to even get on the first rung of the ladder. Again, you can froth at the mouth, but it won't solve anything. You need to treat the causes of the riots, not the symptom. When you start treating the symptoms, you are effectively giving up and saying the problem is terminal. Nonsense. What is the "first rung of the ladder"? Even if we give them a leg up onto the first rung of the ladder, to stop them rioting. Surely they'll want to get onto the second rung. If they see that having a riot got them onto the first rung, then they will work out that a good old riot will be rewarded with a free place on the second rung? "You need to treat the causes of the riots". The causes of the riot was greed & wanting to cause disruption, plain and simple. They weren't rioting to find food, they were nicking electrical goods, trainers ect.Or just pointlessly smashing up people's neighbourhoods. It wasn't some grand cause like the race riots in the USA during the 60's was it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 26 June, 2012 Share Posted 26 June, 2012 That tunnel you're looking through? It's getting so narrow it'll close up soon I wasn't advocating that, merely pointing out the logical extension of the argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 26 June, 2012 Share Posted 26 June, 2012 Because that's exactly what I meant. As BTF, just said you are looking at this narrowly. It isn't about paying people off. It's about giving people a fair chance to compete in society, giving them a stake. When people drop out of society, that's when you get the UK Riots. I'm not saying that the Benefit system doesn't need reform, but if we slash it too far, it could lead to other more expensive consequences(and not just money expensive). What is your solution? I know that giving them money for nothing in return is not the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 26 June, 2012 Share Posted 26 June, 2012 I know that giving them money for nothing in return is not the answer. Well, you do get something in return. You keep these people on the first rung of the ladder and in society. Do you want to cut all benefits then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 26 June, 2012 Share Posted 26 June, 2012 Regarding the rioters and their social poverty : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2025068/UK-riots-Middle-class-rioters-revealed-including-Laura-Johnson-Natasha-Reid-Stefan-Hoyle.html http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1456277_jailed-the-middle-class-yobs-who-joined-the-manchester-riots http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/dan-hodges/2011/08/middle-class-riots-jonnie I sure cancelling benefits payments and forcing them to find 'proper' jobs is an ideal solution for that lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 26 June, 2012 Share Posted 26 June, 2012 Regarding the rioters and their social poverty : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2025068/UK-riots-Middle-class-rioters-revealed-including-Laura-Johnson-Natasha-Reid-Stefan-Hoyle.html http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1456277_jailed-the-middle-class-yobs-who-joined-the-manchester-riots http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/dan-hodges/2011/08/middle-class-riots-jonnie I sure cancelling benefits payments and forcing them to find 'proper' jobs is an ideal solution for that lot. Stop trying to subvert the kneejerking with facts. Its unbecoming on TSW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 26 June, 2012 Share Posted 26 June, 2012 Regarding the rioters and their social poverty : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2025068/UK-riots-Middle-class-rioters-revealed-including-Laura-Johnson-Natasha-Reid-Stefan-Hoyle.html http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1456277_jailed-the-middle-class-yobs-who-joined-the-manchester-riots http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/dan-hodges/2011/08/middle-class-riots-jonnie I sure cancelling benefits payments and forcing them to find 'proper' jobs is an ideal solution for that lot. Yes, there are exceptions - but if you look at the overall stats... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15426720 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dune Posted 26 June, 2012 Share Posted 26 June, 2012 People aren't born criminals and they aren't born rioters. We need to look into why people ended up doing what they did and try to fix that. Get at the cause, not the symptoms. Give over nipper. I know of plenty of people that don't have much money and struggle to make ends meet - they didn't riot and loot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 26 June, 2012 Share Posted 26 June, 2012 Give over nipper. I know of plenty of people that don't have much money and struggle to make ends meet - they didn't riot and loot. Yes, that's true... some don't, but it doesn't change the argument at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 26 June, 2012 Share Posted 26 June, 2012 Lord D - have you thought through the consequences of removing housing benefit from the under 25s? Are you aware that many in receipt of housing benefit are doing full-time jobs? How do you reconcile your pantheon of Daily Mail beliefs with the thought of a working under-25 year old losing a house and job because of these reforms? What do you say to the kids when the procession of men start turning up at the family home so their mum can turn a few tricks for cash? The problem with right-wingers is you just don't think things through. Have a think about whether you're prepared to look the bedraggled kids in the eyes when you're pulling money out of the ATM. Consider whether that's the sort of country you'd like to live in, factor in the massive amount of potential cash the country could trouser if we changed plans, and then tell me whether you think these proposals are a good idea. This is a sickening set of proposals that will lead to universal misery if ever implemented. Thankfully, they've also exposed the Conservatives for the collection of nasty f**kers they are. Number 1, please point me in the direction of a post where I have agreed with removing housing benefit from the under 25's Number 2, I dont buy a paper, so certainly do not get my views from the Daily Mail. It appears to me that the latest insult when someone disagrees with a leftie is that they are a "Daily Mail" reader. It's become rather like a glory supporter, as in " I cant discuss football with you, because you're a glory supporter". I would just add that for such a disreputable rag the mail does appear to have a large readership. If I read this right, we have to continue to pay such a high level of benefits to stop the kids rioting and also to stop their Mums going on the game . I would also like to know if any of the taxpayers money will be used to pay for these services that these poor Mums are handing out, because if there is, then I'm against that as well. I am well aware that most housing benefit is paid to working people, and that the working poor is a major problem in this Country. However continuing to throw money at the unworking poor, will not make getting up and going to work very attractive. The way I look at it, there are 2 ways to make work more attractive then benefits. One is to increase pay and the other is to cut benefits. Now you could increase the minimum wage by £3 an hour, but that would load more costs onto employers at a time when they have enough already. Surely forcing employers to bare the burden of 40 years of Government failure is just not on, and will lead to mass job loses. The other politically and practically easier way is to cut benefits, to go back to what the welfare state was designed to do, be a safety net, and stop making benefits a lifestyle choice.This should have been done by the last Labour Govt, but they will never do anything about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 26 June, 2012 Share Posted 26 June, 2012 (edited) Yes, there are exceptions - but if you look at the overall stats... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15426720 Those stats show that overall it was a real mix of people. The only standout facts are that 90% of those arrested were men (do women not aspire to free tvs too?) and that two thirds had some kind of educational special need - effectively behavioural problems or generalised thickness. Young men with behavioural or learning difficulties are exactly the kinds of people who have trouble fitting in - either socially or in employment. Some kind of social intervention is necessary - but it isnt just throwing benefits at them. Edited 26 June, 2012 by buctootim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 26 June, 2012 Share Posted 26 June, 2012 Give over nipper. I know of plenty of people that don't have much money and struggle to make ends meet - they didn't riot and loot. I'm trying to get some money together so me and my nipper can get a S/T. I might start a riot and maybe Andy will help me out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Millbrook Saint Posted 26 June, 2012 Share Posted 26 June, 2012 We have a child just turned 18, we hound him to get a job, encourage him by 'saying get a job, we'll help pay for you to learn to drive and help you with a car' but the lazy sod always has a reason why he can't. We give him no money towards anything, everyday we make him get up when we go to work so he's not in bed all day, constantly on at him to look for work but he always has an excuse. Now he's leaving home because we keep harrassing him, going to get a flat on the social like his mates and there is absolutely nothing we can do about it. They bring this in at least we would have a few years to try and change his take take take attitude instead of having another benefit scrounger going through life never working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doddisalegend Posted 26 June, 2012 Share Posted 26 June, 2012 It's this sort of thing that causes half the problems those that abuse the system **** it up for those that need it (and he is not even British LOL).... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-18592468 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 26 June, 2012 Share Posted 26 June, 2012 Those stats show that overall it was a real mix of people. The only standout facts are that 90% of those arrested were men (do women not aspire to free tvs too?) and that two thirds had some kind of educational special need - effectively behavioural problems or generalised thickness. Young men with behavioural or learning difficulties are exactly the kinds of people who have trouble fitting in - either socially or in employment. Some kind of social intervention is necessary - but it isnt just throwing benefits at them. I think what it shows is that on the whole the trend is that it was poorer men who had received level of education below that of the national average. That is of course just on average though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 26 June, 2012 Share Posted 26 June, 2012 It's this sort of thing that causes half the problems those that abuse the system **** it up for those that need it (and he is not even British LOL).... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-18592468 Fcking hell, the blokes a lefties dream pin up. An Immigrant, on the social ,and working for the BBC. Surprised he 's not a Guardian columnist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 26 June, 2012 Author Share Posted 26 June, 2012 Number 1, please point me in the direction of a post where I have agreed with removing housing benefit from the under 25's I cannot. All I can do is point to your general rant on poverty and draw conclusions. For the record though, do you agree with removing housing benefits from the under 25s? Number 2, I dont buy a paper, so certainly do not get my views from the Daily Mail. It appears to me that the latest insult when someone disagrees with a leftie is that they are a "Daily Mail" reader. It's become rather like a glory supporter, as in " I cant discuss football with you, because you're a glory supporter". I would just add that for such a disreputable rag the mail does appear to have a large readership. Unlike you, I do actually read the Daily Mail from time to time. Bit of balance is always appropriate, I feel. You may not read it yourself, but you probably should. They like banging on about a lot of the same things as you do. In a bit of an upgrade from the standard Lord D position - they actually have the balls to be critical of the party they support when it warrants it. Filthy rag though, all things considered. If I read this right, we have to continue to pay such a high level of benefits to stop the kids rioting and also to stop their Mums going on the game . I would also like to know if any of the taxpayers money will be used to pay for these services that these poor Mums are handing out, because if there is, then I'm against that as well. You didn't read it right. I accused you of not thinking stuff through. We could just as easily go for kids chopping their own limbs off to become better beggars. I note that once again, you failed to answer any of the real questions in my post. Perhaps a career in politics? Besides, you're starting from the idiotic point of truth that "it is the way it is". Numerous posters on here have come up with better solutions than "spend more money". Rent control, land tax, flat tax, investment - none of those ideas a go-er for you then? I am well aware that most housing benefit is paid to working people, and that the working poor is a major problem in this Country. However continuing to throw money at the unworking poor, will not make getting up and going to work very attractive. The way I look at it, there are 2 ways to make work more attractive then benefits. One is to increase pay and the other is to cut benefits. Now you could increase the minimum wage by £3 an hour, but that would load more costs onto employers at a time when they have enough already. Surely forcing employers to bare the burden of 40 years of Government failure is just not on, and will lead to mass job loses. The other politically and practically easier way is to cut benefits, to go back to what the welfare state was designed to do, be a safety net, and stop making benefits a lifestyle choice.This should have been done by the last Labour Govt, but they will never do anything about it. At the end of all that, your two solutions are increasing wages and/or cutting benefits. And neither is really a solution. I say again, career in politics perhaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crisp Posted 26 June, 2012 Share Posted 26 June, 2012 I know that giving them money for nothing in return is not the answer. But it's not the real problem in my opinion. Cameron has played a blinder here by getting everyone talking about welfare reform which, although worthwhile, has little to no impact on the economic crisis we're facing. Proper investment in infrastructure and new industries is needed so there are jobs to fill. Taking a tough stance on tax avoidance would be much more effective than cutting a few quid off the welfare budget. But it is much easier to shift the focus onto the 'scroungers' than work hard to fix the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_clark Posted 26 June, 2012 Share Posted 26 June, 2012 Funny, I thought it took two to make a baby I know of a girl that slept about in order to get pregnant just to claim benefits. I doubt she even knows which bloke was the father. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now