We need a revolution

[DaytonaDog]

We had a revolution, it was called a general election.

This country was bordering on bankruptcy and is hughly in debt. We are currently paying 120 millions pounds a day in interest due to the current deficit.

I'm all for a fair society, but how is it fair that a person who has never done a days work, their parents have never done a days work and their parents parents have never done a days work, and has never ever contributed to society, has a better standard of living than someone who has worked their whole working life. This is not an exception to the rule. I go to houses were not a single member of the household works, yet there is a 50 inch plasma tv, plush leather sofas, a decent car, various gadgets and gizmos, they all smoke, drink, someetimes as early as 9.30 in the morning, (hardly employable), and have about 5 different pets. Everytime a fridge, washing machine etc etc breaks down it gets replaced by the tax payer. Housing is provided yet the house is treated like a pig sty and has to be repaired by the tax payer again.

Until you redress the balance of the benefits of not working against the benefits of working, a lot of people are going to take the easy option.

Its not that the minimum wage is too low, (at the end of the day you should cut you cloth accordingly) its that its too easy to have a comfortable lifestyle without working.

[pilninggas]

We had a revolution, it was called a general election.

This country was bordering on bankruptcy and is hughly in debt. We are currently paying 120 millions pounds a day in interest due to the current deficit.

I'm all for a fair society, but how is it fair that a person who has never done a days work, their parents have never done a days work and their parents parents have never done a days work, and has never ever contributed to society, has a better standard of living than someone who has worked their whole working life. This is not an exception to the rule. I go to houses were not a single member of the household works, yet there is a 50 inch plasma tv, plush leather sofas, a decent car, various gadgets and gizmos, they all smoke, drink, someetimes as early as 9.30 in the morning, (hardly employable), and have about 5 different pets. Everytime a fridge, washing machine etc etc breaks down it gets replaced by the tax payer. Housing is provided yet the house is treated like a pig sty and has to be repaired by the tax payer again.

Until you redress the balance of the benefits of not working against the benefits of working, a lot of people are going to take the easy option.

Its not that the minimum wage is too low, (at the end of the day you should cut you cloth accordingly) its that its too easy to have a comfortable lifestyle without working.

[smiley=thumbsup.gif]Great post, however comparing pigs to the work-shy is really rather unkind to porkers!

[JAYJAY]

I am really sorry DaytonaDog but I have to say that has to be one of the most biased, ill-informed, vitrilous, lopsided posts it's ever been my displeasure to have read!

If you think families on benefits, for whatever reason, are living a life of luxury with smart cars, huge plasma TV's, shall we assume nice holidays too, a new washing machine at the drop of a hat, all on us poor taxpayers, and presumably living a better life than you or I can afford, you are seriously deluded and totally out of touch with reality.

Pehaps your view is marred by the fact that by definition the people you are visiting (Quote "I go to houses were not a single member of the household works, yet there is a 50 inch plasma tv, plush leather sofas, a decent car, various gadgets and gizmos, they all smoke, drink" unquote) are criminals and their extra luxuries are paid for by crime!

With the liklihood of unemployment rising massively during this parliament, are you going to paint all the people unfortunate enough to lose there jobs and find it difficult to find work with the same brush? What if you lose yours? Is ANYONE on benefits to come under your dogmatic right wing description? I think Ken was a bit tongue in cheek when he titled this string - but the attitude you portray could possibly be a seed if given enough voice.

God protect the poor in your world, you obviously wont. Let's get it straight - Jobseekers benefit is £42 per week. Take a long time to live off that AND save for a 50" plasma - I hope you confiscated it!

Lock up the criminals by all means - please - we hate them. But be very careful with sweeping generalisations and dogmatic statements which bare no resemblance to the truth, that is damaging, totally inconstructive and unhelpful and fosters a feeling in society as unwelcome as race or religious hatred. There is a poverty trap in this country and too many of our citizens are caught in it. It is a social wrong which needs addressing. As do the criminally selfish bankers who are the architects of our debt.

[pilninggas]

I am really sorry DaytonaDog but I have to say that has to be one of the most biased, ill-informed, vitrilous, lopsided posts it's ever been my displeasure to have read!

If you think families on benefits, for whatever reason, are living a life of luxury with smart cars, huge plasma TV's, shall we assume nice holidays too, a new washing machine at the drop of a hat, all on us poor taxpayers, and presumably living a better life than you or I can afford, you are seriously deluded and totally out of touch with reality.

Pehaps your view is marred by the fact that by definition the people you are visiting (Quote "I go to houses were not a single member of the household works, yet there is a 50 inch plasma tv, plush leather sofas, a decent car, various gadgets and gizmos, they all smoke, drink" unquote) are criminals and their extra luxuries are paid for by crime!

With the liklihood of unemployment rising massively during this parliament, are you going to paint all the people unfortunate enough to lose there jobs and find it difficult to find work with the same brush? What if you lose yours? Is ANYONE on benefits to come under your dogmatic right wing description? I think Ken was a bit tongue in cheek when he titled this string - but the attitude you portray could possibly be a seed if given enough voice.

God protect the poor in your world, you obviously wont.

Lock up the criminal s by all means - please - we hate them. But be very careful with sweeping generalisations and dogmatic statements which bare no resemblance to the truth. There is a poverty trap in this country and too many of our citizens are caught in it. It is a social wrong which needs addressing. As do the criminally selfish bankers who are the architects of our debt.

i don't think DD is saying all people are benefits are living the life of luxury; only that far too many are.

The family opposite me could be the kind of place DD is visiting. The old-man (my age) doesn't work, about 2 years ago he got a job as a security guard, but packed it in after 6 weeks as he didn't like getting up at 5.30am (boo-hoo). Since then he's done nought - doesn't even look for work. They've got nice appliances, far better than most. They drink heavily, smoke (even though 3 out of 4 of their kids have asthma) and have a good standard of living. They are by no-means an exception in this area. You would be amazed at what they get hand-outs for; a taxi to the local health centre which is a 10 minute walk away!

What do you really mean by poor? I think you are seeing things from the very left-wing side. The government recently said they were gonna cap benefits at £26k p/a, this is still pretty significant and equates to £36k p/a if you are a tax-payer. That's more than most of us earn.

Whilst benefits cost more than income-tax generates, whatever your description of poor, things have to change.

[JAYJAY]

Again the supposed facts are wrong. Benefits DO NOT cost more than generated tax. In fact the expected tax take expected on closing the Swiss Bank loophole is set to benefit the exchequer billions.

£26k is the exception, not the rule (would equate to around £32K before deductions) but on the face of it I would cap it far lower and increase lower benefits. But not everything is as simple as it seems is it? There now seems to be a Goverment uturn about to happen as they have realised that without some of these 'taxpayer handouts' the major cities, especially London, the City will be 'cleansed of the poor which are currently supported to remain. That would mean no poor workers to empty the bins, no poor workers to clean the hospitals and offices, no poor workers to arrive and put the fire out. Nothing is so simple that a draconian measure can easily fix.

[commando1966]

[quote author=SupeRDel link=1287875218/0#1 date=1287905966]Good for Rooney. It don't matter wot job you do - If someone offerered you 230 grand a week you would not say No.

I am more concerned about the amount of benifit scroungers that are living good lives while some of us slave... >

Too right, as a Bristol Rovers supporter i hate Man Ure - but they are a successful business (arguably the most successful FC in the world) and they want the best people; they therefore pay the best money for that. Rooney for all his faults, is very successful at United and they want to retain him for many reasons.

Redken, you'd have more money for beer, if you weren't paying for all the dole scroungers, oxygen wasters, resource parasites etc who live on the estate i live on and have absolutely no intention of working - why should they, you and i will pay! The benefits bill is greater than the revenues collected in income tax, thats you and i, and even Rooney paying for those who want to watch 'The Generally vile Show', rather than earn an honest days money!

I think we need a revolution too - one where only those who put something of substance into the system, are entitled to anything back. [/quote]
Man U successful ?? LOL .. they are 300 million in Debt .. and as for Wayne (ape man) Rooney he's not worth £230 Quid a week .. never mind 230 Grand :P

[pilninggas]

Again the supposed facts are wrong. Benefits DO NOT cost more than generated tax. In fact the expected tax take expected on closing the Swiss Bank loophole is set to benefit the exchequer billions.

£26k is the exception, not the rule (would equate to around £32K before deductions) but on the face of it I would cap it far lower and increase lower benefits. But not everything is as simple as it seems is it? There now seems to be a Goverment uturn about to happen as they have realised that without some of these 'taxpayer handouts' the major cities, especially London, the City will be 'cleansed of the poor which are currently supported to remain. That would mean no poor workers to empty the bins, no poor workers to clean the hospitals and offices, no poor workers to arrive and put the fire out. Nothing is so simple that a draconian measure can easily fix.

Do i count as poor? i'm a teacher

[commando1966]

"Cap benefits to £26k ?!?!?!? thats TWICE what i earn working Full Time lol ..

[JAYJAY]

I'm a customer services executive and by no means well off. I am not one of the 'poor' caught in the poverty trap I refer to and neither are you. We have the luxury of feeling 'relative' poorness, not poverty.

There is an old socialist principle - To each according to their need, From each according to their ability. You would think that in a modern educated society in one of the richest countries in the world, we could come to somewhere near that principle which was actually founded in a socialogical study rather than socialism.

The problem is those that could afford to support the 'To each' part are the type who rob us of our tax monies to rescue the businesses they gambled away and then pay themselves millions in bonuses - with our money! You will never find those with such a criminal greed ready to play such a responsible part in society, they are too tied up with protecting the status quo and increasing personal wealth to the detriment of anyone or anything. And on the other side of the coin you have those who quite like the 'To each' part but conveniently forget the 'From each' part.

The straight fact in this country is that over the last 15 year the rich/poor divide has widened massively - in those terms I'm afraid you and I are on the poor side of that equation, unless you are a head teacher. On top of that the most disadvantaged have become poorer in the same period. You can check this out, it is fact, not opinion.

[DaytonaDog]

Jay jay, I think you missed my point. I was trying to highlight the reasons why staying on benefits may be more appealing than getting a job, because for some, not necessarily from the criminal fraternity have a very comfortable lifestyle because they know how to play the system. Is that fair? Not when you have student nurses on 8 grand a week and soldiers in afghan on less than 20,000 grand. An article I read a couple of weeks ago was about a lady who had 6 kids by 5 different fathers none if whom paid any maintenance. She receives 39000 pounds a year in benefits. I've got no issue with that as those children need a roof over there head and need feeding, however when she uses those benefits to give herself a 4500 pound boob job, take 3 holidays a year and fund a 10000 credit card bill I think I can justifiably question if that is right and fair especially when you have pensioners who have worked all their lifes barely able to afford to eat and keep warm.

I've got no issue whatsoever with those who have been or will soon become unemployed or are genuinely unable to work receiving benefits as we all have a right to a basic standard of living as it's not their choice to be out of work or in a poorly paid job. My issue is with those who manage to legitimately work the system, who have never worked nor intend to work and seem to be able to claim every single benefit going. Until you address that anomaly you will have people who choose not to work because it is the easier option. That was the point I was trying to make, albeit not very eloquently.

I can assure you I'm in touch with reality. I see reality on a far too regular basis. I see squalor, poverty and deprevation far too often, which is why I get annoyed with those I have moaned about as it diverts the money away from those who genuinely need it.