Free handouts for the wealthy.

Northants_Simon

1echidna wrote: »

I don't mean to be offensive but compared to those living on state benefits, which was this discussion was about as I understand it, they will be, in general, very wealthy indeed.

Don't be so sure.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3160307/Mother-gets-170000-a-year-in-benefits-to-live-in-1.2m-house.html

Read the story on that link, someone on benefits getting £12400 a month in rent alone!, £170,000 a year on benefit is several times what I earn from working very hard.

1echidna

Northants_Simon wrote: »

Don't be so sure.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3160307/Mother-gets-170000-a-year-in-benefits-to-live-in-1.2m-house.html

Read the story on that link, someone on benefits getting £12400 a month in rent alone!, £170,000 a year on benefit is several times what I earn from working very hard.

I said "in general". You try living on typical benefits of about £90 per week.

Seajays

Northants_Simon wrote: »

Don't be so sure.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3160307/Mother-gets-170000-a-year-in-benefits-to-live-in-1.2m-house.html

Read the story on that link, someone on benefits getting £12400 a month in rent alone!, £170,000 a year on benefit is several times what I earn from working very hard.

The only person getting wealthy in that story is the landlord who is working the system (which admittedly shouldn't be allowed), by asking for the maximum possible rent under the governments rules, which the local authority is then forced to pay.

meester

iamesbo wrote: »

That is factually inaccurate on both counts.
What I am saying is that it is quite common for people to castigate people who are out of work, throught lack of jobs in the area or sickness, you know, "spongers living off the state" and all that.

Those people are infact recieving their rightful entitlement through the national insurance scheme to which they have paid contributions, or would do if they could get work, so it is not right to call it a 'handout'. The people being bailed out by the government have paid no such contributions so what they are getting truely is a handout. Yet you don't see headlines in the press such as "Mr X receives £300,000 hand out from the state do you? Perhaps because it was the newspaper editor who recieved it!!

The problem is you don't understand the first thing about economics.

There are no borrowers without savers. And without lending the economy grinds to a halt.

Indonesia in 1997 was a successful developing country with 27 years of uninterrupted economic growth. They had vast foreign reserves, but when banks began failing, savers lacked confidence in the government's actions, while 90% of depositors were covered by the 20 million rupiah guarantee, in terms of volumes money, that wasn't so, and more and more money was moved overseas or into tangible assets (bit strange how you're worried about house prices, yet you want to punish savers, not debtors). The currency eventually fell by 75%, GDP fell by 40% in a year, and it's debatable as to whether the economy has now recovered, 11 years later.

Sensible governments recognise that saving is a positive thing and ensure that confidence is maintained in it, for the good of the economy.

There's quite a separate set of arguments regarding benefits recipients, the parallels aren't there at all

And of course there is all those wealth bankers being kept in a job in which they managed to lose somethiing like half of the countries GDP, or more, the figures are mindblowing.

What has that got to do with people whose modest life savings have been stolen by Iceland? Stick to abusing one set of people at a time please.

meester

1echidna wrote: »

I said "in general". You try living on typical benefits of about £90 per week.

£90 is not typical. Anyone with children will get much, much more than that.

1echidna

meester wrote: »

£90 is not typical. Anyone with children will get much, much more than that.

It is typical for the majority, single or retired or with no children under 18.

iamesbo

fernandes wrote: »

So (and I'm re-quoting verbatim here) 'those people' (on benefits) are receiving their rightful entitlement through a scheme 'to which they have paid contributions, or would do if they could get work' (an acknowledgement that they perhaps haven't) yet Icesavers (to whom I assume you refer) 'have paid no such contributions so what they are getting is truely [sic] a handout'.

Well a) there's a good chance someone in a position to save is also in a position to work and earn, and is therefore paying in all probability a far larger contribution to the national insurance scheme, which makes your point truly inane, particularly as you even caveat that the people who are entitled, may not actually contribute.

But b) giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are perhaps making an asinine point that no such scheme exists to 'bail out' savers then you spectacularly miss the point that outside of ISA's, every saver is paying taxes to the treasury on interest earned, i.e. there is a tax on not spending which goes into the public purse.

Whether or not total revenues from tax on savings interest across all banks is enough to cover the bail out of savers on failed banks is neither here not there, the point is that savers make specific additional contributions to the treasury besides every other and to claim we have made 'no such contributions' is laughable and wrong.

The government are not stupid, the people they're bailing out are the people who via taxes have a very positive balance of contribution to the state, for whom being left to stew would be tantamount to betrayal of social justice. That's different to saying they are wealthy. Being a net contributor simply means responsible and hard working.

Finally to bury the notion that this is a hand out, the FSA and compensation schemes exist to keep UK banks and finance in good order. Don't think it doesn't work both ways. If banks were less regulated the government could not expect their support in other matters and there'd be less confidence in British finance, at cost to the state.

On the whole I think you've imagined in your head you've had some amazing social point to make but written down it makes little sense and I go along with the other poster who has concluded you have been jealous of other peoples prudence and are revelling in the opportunity to pick apart their quite innocent and unfortunate failure.

Which makes you a pretty sad and unfulfilled individual, with a fairly perverse grasp of logic or politics (judging by your moronic statement, as quoted above).

Oh dear I see you could not even finish without making a personal attack on me, despite not knowing anything about me.
Why should I be jealous of injustice, jealousy is always the shield thrown out by the rich to disguise their excesses, it don't fool me. Besides I am probably wealthier than most of the people where so what have I to be jealous of?

On the earlier points you make obviously national insurance is a group insurance scheme, it is idiotic to assume that one must have paid into it before one can be paid out. I would have though most people even of fairly low intelligence would grasp that, not you apparently!!
Secondly whilst some may tax on their savings that is nothing different it is the same as any tax it is to pay for the general running of the country, it is in no way an insurance premium specific to cover you money? Got that?

"The government are not stupid, the people they're bailing out are the people who via taxes have a very positive balance of contribution to the state,"

That's laughable those bankers cost the country a fortune and I don't expect the government to pay for mmy car if I crash it.


The FSA has set limits and those have been increased arbitarilly, and is covering money above and beyond those limits.

And as I proved earlier I am not jealous, but it not right tha the governmemnt fails to compensate more deserving people simply because hey are not wealthy.

So with respect, it is you who "is a sad and unfulfilled individual, with a fairly perverse grasp of logic or politics", not I.

fernandes

1echidna wrote: »

Is this type of personal abuse really necessary? He has made some good points and to be frank your rant seems much more confused to me.

Personal abuse is nothing compared to coming to a forum being used for information and advice at a difficult time, simply to make some smug comparison of questionable political or humourous basis. I stand by every word directed at the original poster, it is pathetic to be grandstanding at this time with some misplaced anti-rich posting.

Sorry that you didn't understand my point, but it wasn't for you. Nonetheless, if you feel someone is making 'good points' by using this weeks crisis to tell people who work themselves into the ground they're 'worse than people on benefits' simply for having their savings recovered, then good luck to you with your attitude to life.

The irony is you probably feel you and the original poster have some liberal hard life story sewn up and are bringing the wealthy down a peg, yet you know nothing of me or any other saver, being a mixed-race immigrant (there goes your Daily Mail bit) my family has worked hard for everything, not quite your cosseted Brit life I guess.

But dwelling on that would be 'personal' which you feel is unneccessary. Shame you didn't point that out to the original poster you're so fond of, who decided that it was appropriate to start a thread to speculate on the entitlement, wealth and greed of honest innocent people he doesn't know. But that's not too personal for you, right?

I will return to trying to find the informative helpful information shared by other MSE users about this situation (the point of this forum, I thought) so don't feel obliged to reply. I know I won't: couldn't even make out what the OP's latest reply was about, too busy caring about other peoples business to bother learning his own language.

iamesbo

meester wrote: »

£90 is not typical. Anyone with children will get much, much more than that.

JSA is £60.50, which could pay your gas or electric, but not both.

1echidna

fernandes wrote: »

Personal abuse is nothing compared to coming to a forum being used for information and advice at a difficult time, simply to make some smug comparison of questionable political or humourous basis. I stand by every word directed at the original poster, it is pathetic to be grandstanding at this time with some misplaced anti-rich posting.

Sorry that you didn't understand my point, but it wasn't for you. Nonetheless, if you feel someone is making 'good points' by using this weeks crisis to tell people who work themselves into the ground they're 'worse than people on benefits' simply for having their savings recovered, then good luck to you with your attitude to life.

The irony is you probably feel you and the original poster have some liberal hard life story sewn up and are bringing the wealthy down a peg, yet you know nothing of me or any other saver, being a mixed-race immigrant (there goes your Daily Mail bit) my family has worked hard for everything, not quite your cosseted Brit life I guess.

But dwelling on that would be 'personal' which you feel is unneccessary. Shame you didn't point that out to the original poster you're so fond of, who decided that it was appropriate to start a thread to speculate on the entitlement, wealth and greed of honest innocent people he doesn't know. But that's not too personal for you, right?

I will return to trying to find the informative helpful information shared by other MSE users about this situation (the point of this forum, I thought) so don't feel obliged to reply. I know I won't: couldn't even make out what the OP's latest reply was about, too busy caring about other peoples business to bother learning his own language.

I must say that you constantly get the wrong end of the stick. But I agree there is little point in prolonging this discussion.