Paxtonloudmouth
Michael Brown
Oh he goes to a private school whose tax breaks we help fund. Great.
If you think New Labour were my side of centre you are wrong,they were hand in hand with your side of the debate. Just look at Peter Mandelson.
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
'Smart cards' plan to stop benefits being spent on drink
- Thread starter markysimmo
- Start date
Oh he goes to a private school whose tax breaks we help fund. Great.
If you think New Labour were my side of centre you are wrong,they were hand in hand with your side of the debate. Just look at Peter Mandelson.
Paxtonloudmouth
Michael Brown
On an economic and political system,yes yes you do.
I think you're being incredibly narrow in your judgement of knowledge and how you think it must be gained.
I suspect most even vaguely intelligent people have an understanding of socialism and why it doesn't work, without ever having needed to read a book on the subject.
Paxtonloudmouth
Michael Brown
Quite right. By saying educate yourself on as many perspectives as possible I am being incredibly narrow.
Come on now.
No, you're being narrow by deciding the only way one can understand socialism is to read a book dedicated to the subject.
Paxtonloudmouth
Michael Brown
I did not say the only,however it is a damn good place to start.
Get a room you two!
Sweeping statement - I don't think someone who is unemployed and claiming JSA should be able to buy alcohol, cigarettes or lottery personally. Why should they be able to? Luxuries like these should be earned not handed out to so this is a good move.
Sweeping statement - I don't think someone who is unemployed and claiming JSA should be able to buy alcohol, cigarettes or lottery personally. Why should they be able to? Luxuries like these should be earned not handed out to so this is a good move.
Paxtonloudmouth
Michael Brown
True the poor should suffer. Spot on,lets find ways to make peoples lives worse. How about they should have to sleep on spikes,oh wait that already happens in some areas of London. How about the have to sit at White Hart Lane when we are one nil down.
It has always been a fool proof way to make the poor richer by making their lives worse. Hold on no it hasn't.
Richie
Naybet
Making people spend their benefits on food, clothing and heating instead of beer and fags is making them suffer in your opinion?
SpursLodge
Nicola Berti
I think people are forgetting that benefits are not supposed to be in place of going out to work and earning a living. They are supposed to be there for those that can't get work and need help to buy food or with a place to live. Restricting luxuries might actually get people to realise that if you want something in life you have to work for it. Sadly at the moment in this country it's not the case.
A friend-of-a-friend has 10 kids, a luxury static caravan, a holiday home in Spain a massive council house and looks down on people that aren't wearing ralph lauren or ted baker or whatever. She's never worked a day in her life and lives like someone on the only way is chelsea. If she was suddenly told that she's going to get a pre-paid credit card that can only be used for necessities and not converted into euros for a holiday or spent in the boozer of the caravan park she might have to rethink her choice not to work.
The system should be that we help those that can't work (physical or mental disability) and we cover basics for those that can work but aren't and train them to get jobs.
To those complaining about the government telling people how to spend their money, it's not their money, it's mine and yours. We worked for it and paid it to the government in tax and were good enough to let it be redistributed to people going through hard times. Why should those people then be able to spend that money on things that I can't afford?
I think it's a great idea, the only problem being that people will obviously just buy goods that they are allowed to buy, sell them on for cash and then buy luxuries with the cash.
A friend-of-a-friend has 10 kids, a luxury static caravan, a holiday home in Spain a massive council house and looks down on people that aren't wearing ralph lauren or ted baker or whatever. She's never worked a day in her life and lives like someone on the only way is chelsea. If she was suddenly told that she's going to get a pre-paid credit card that can only be used for necessities and not converted into euros for a holiday or spent in the boozer of the caravan park she might have to rethink her choice not to work.
The system should be that we help those that can't work (physical or mental disability) and we cover basics for those that can work but aren't and train them to get jobs.
To those complaining about the government telling people how to spend their money, it's not their money, it's mine and yours. We worked for it and paid it to the government in tax and were good enough to let it be redistributed to people going through hard times. Why should those people then be able to spend that money on things that I can't afford?
I think it's a great idea, the only problem being that people will obviously just buy goods that they are allowed to buy, sell them on for cash and then buy luxuries with the cash.
glasgowspur
Nayim
[Q UOTE=Richie;611833]That's fair, but its become quite an old fashioned view. My grandfather refused benefits, he looked at it as charity and saw it as him not being able to take care of his own family.
These days everyone is on some kind of benefit, the state pays us from cradle to grave. To expect people to refuse benefits they are entitled to is a fools errand. The change has to come from the government side.[/QUOTE]
Er, I'm not in benefits of any kind. I work, my wife works, we have no kids and our own home (mortgaged).
I think think there is a lot of hypocrisy over the benefit system. I live in Scotland and during the Indy debate all you heard about was social justice. What's fair about sending your child to a private school until they are 18 then the state funding their degree! What's fair about pensioners on high private pensions getting state pension and £200 fuel allowance?whats fair about people earning £60000 per year claiming child allowance? Then they all bleat on about the poor people needing to go to food banks, yes because you are taking money from the state you don't need!!!
Sitting on my porcelain throne using Fapatalk
These days everyone is on some kind of benefit, the state pays us from cradle to grave. To expect people to refuse benefits they are entitled to is a fools errand. The change has to come from the government side.[/QUOTE]
Er, I'm not in benefits of any kind. I work, my wife works, we have no kids and our own home (mortgaged).
I think think there is a lot of hypocrisy over the benefit system. I live in Scotland and during the Indy debate all you heard about was social justice. What's fair about sending your child to a private school until they are 18 then the state funding their degree! What's fair about pensioners on high private pensions getting state pension and £200 fuel allowance?whats fair about people earning £60000 per year claiming child allowance? Then they all bleat on about the poor people needing to go to food banks, yes because you are taking money from the state you don't need!!!
Sitting on my porcelain throne using Fapatalk
Think about what you're saying before coming out with rubbish like this. As Richie said making them worse off by taking away fags and booze? Not at all.
Paxtonloudmouth
Michael Brown
Yes,if that is something they enjoy,why are they not allowed to do it. Is alcohol only for the rich?
Paxtonloudmouth
Michael Brown
You seem to be under the impression that those on benefits have never paid into the pot as well.
Paxtonloudmouth
Michael Brown
I do not agree,plus I am not sure how many luxuries you are getting on 72.40 a week. Anyway I am off to the game now. COYS.
Rich no. Only for those who work? Surely yes.
Schools is an interesting one, what about the indirect argument of a better educated country leads to a more intelligent workforce in later life to benefit the country through additional knowledge which can be applied to science and technology etc, or more intelligent people that know how to behave and therefore cause less social angst reducing costs in policing and health etc.
That's the argument of a man who doesn't interview applicants straight out of state school!
I see very little in the way of an education or any kind of knowing how to behave. My wife was, until very recently, a teacher in a sink estate state school and even she (one of those caring types) would tell you that many of those kids are lost causes and would be better off if they could just join the army or get onto a construction site a few years earlier.
Paxtonloudmouth
Michael Brown
Yawn. About time you ran the country.
Last edited: