Taxpayer funds familys £1,600 per week rent - The Times

The_White_Horse

dizzybuff wrote: »

However one thing i can not understabd is how the Governebt classes Alchololism (self inflicted ) as a disability..

Grrrrrrrr at them too.

because they are bleeding heart liberals, just looking for ways to take your cash away from you and give it to the undeserved masses.

moggylover

lostinrates wrote: »

As usual a quality post moggylover...good to have your input again.

However....I think its fair to point out that as someone who identifies with right more than left, much of the opinion and desired outcome is the same, but with a different answers and philosphies. I get frustrated with the left or righters who seem to feel those who do not share political philosphy must ''be mean'' or nasty or want less for their fellow man, or species. I agree totally, the answer is probably somewhere in the middle, but where and the drive behind policies is where the argument is. Its not always about money, on the right...for me its primarily obout personal choices. Money (and more importantly what money stands for) is a symptom of the philosophy from where I stand, not the cause.

I understand what you are saying LIR, what I believe you will find hard to grasp is just how little life is about real "personal choice" for those at the @rse end of the pile:o.

I come from that @!!!! end, I was VERY fortunate to have an IQ that was quite impressive (even if I do say so myself:o) and an inate pre-disposition to never being satisfied with the first and most obvious answer or the logic of others:D

I pulled myself some way out of my "gutter" and achieved some of those choices for myself but still cannot agree that a money led society achieves anything like what it could or should with a more equitable sharing out of those "life choices".

BTW, amongst my various colleagues and aquaintances, I have quite a large number of seriously wealthy ones who really would not leave the UK because of higher taxes. I also have some who despite all the protestations of how hard the rich work would make the most chav of chavs look positively productive in their days:D and whose sloth is matched only be that of my over-fed moggies:D. Their inherited wealth has done nothing to make them productive people and little for their ambitions.

Personally, I would like to introduce a kind of peaceable National Service. No military service here but EVERYONE upon leaving school would have to partake of two years on minimum wage, no assistance from the bank of mum and dad, no assistance in moving to another area, no nothing but that minimum wage (I still have not made up my mind whether this would be before or after Uni as both have their plusses) and the only people who would get out of this would be those who were going into such jobs as medicine or social services who are actually going to see much of that but end first hand anyway.

It would also be really nice (I think) if we could then give EVERYONE (especially those who performed particularly well during their minimum wage service) a two year taste of what it is like to have so many personal choices that you can't decide which one;) - but I suspect that might be a little too much of a eutopian expectation:D.

I do not personally wish for ANY personal choices which infringe on the life (but not particularly lifestyle or monetary choices) of another less fortunate human being: to do so requires an egotistical desire to be godlike that I would consider borders on serious mental decay:D

If we do not pay an amount for jobs done that provides enough for at least the basics of some kind of a life (and I do not believe that the desire for a REASONABLY sized family should be ruled out of this in order to pander to the consumers desire for cheaper and cheaper goods and services regardless of the longer term social cost) then we are simply NEVER going to even reduce the problems of poverty, unrest, crime and disenfranchisement that exists in our own country, let alone the rest of the World.

ETA: What I think I have failed to make clear is that is is not the "money" per se that is the problem: it is the power over other people lives that this brings, and the detrimental affect on other peoples lives that is. The rich can tuck themselves up with all the sad sacks of dosh they can hide for all I care, so long as this meaningless rubbish did not give them any power to affect other people.

carolt

Lovely post as usual, moggylover.

bo_drinker

The_White_Horse wrote: »

they should just cancel all benefits.

the only people who should get them are those who have worked and paid tax for 5 years - as a safety net should they need them, and only payable for 12 months.

also, disabled people should get more (provided three independent doctors all agree that the person CANNOT work. That doesn't mean "may find it difficult". I have worked with blind people and people in wheelchairs.

apart from that, no other benefits to anyone.

The trouble is we are into 3rd generation benefits culture now, it all kicked off before this Gov't but nothing has been done to stop them shelling out kids for an easy ride. Whole families/streets are on the make big time and there seems no answer from those who should be coming up with real answers just words. No party could sort this mess in a term, certain parts of the country are bordering on 3rd world while up the road others are creaming the system !!!!!! ???
Those that have paid their way and become unemployed due to recession deserve more due to paying their way but they get jack !!!!!!. Meanwhile the scum get their money week in week out a55es wiped from now till retirement and get the same pension . Is that right !!!!!! ??

the_ash_and_the_oak

If there are those that are able to pull themselves out of the gutter then why should we extend help to those that couldn't follow that example for themselves

vs

Why is there a gutter?

lostinrates

moggylover wrote: »

I understand what you are saying LIR, what I believe you will find hard to grasp is just how little life is about real "personal choice" for those at the @rse end of the pile:o.

No, I do understand that. I really do. There is, under any system, going to be some one at the !!!! end of the pild though ...if not money, then because of one of any numer of fctors (physical prowess, intelligence, health...even luck). My dad entered young adult hood with nowt, for example, and that included morl support from family. He had to leave his (grammer) school and get a job, cheiving on only his own merit, often at cost of social life (studying alone/working), and personal choice of saving . Likewise my mother (from a family that could have helped)...put herself through university, moved countries, was a singl mother in a strnage country when being a single mum was still scandalous, and worked through pretty miserable finacial times. Boh my parents had marketble skills, which is both luck, innate skill and skill allowed to flourish by certain circumstances. I'm sure other circumstances would have had impact too. Should they be asked to give of their har work sacrifice to help those who have not those skills: I think yes, and thse who life bit on the butt and were hindered. Should they be asked to help those who have the skills and didn't use them to their utpmost: I think no.

I come from that @!!!! end, I was VERY fortunate to have an IQ that was quite impressive (even if I do say so myself:o) and an inate pre-disposition to never being satisfied with the first and most obvious answer or the logic of others:D

I pulled myself some way out of my "gutter" and achieved some of those choices for myself but still cannot agree that a money led society achieves anything like what it could or should with a more equitable sharing out of those "life choices".

You have the choice to pass on the enefit of your experience and travails in many ways....or not.

BTW, amongst my various colleagues and aquaintances, I have quite a large number of seriously wealthy ones who really would not leave the UK because of higher taxes. I also have some who despite all the protestations of how hard the rich work would make the most chav of chavs look positively productive in their days:D and whose sloth is matched only be that of my over-fed moggies:D. Their inherited wealth has done nothing to make them productive people and little for their ambitions.
I know many who say the same, and again I know more who say the smae yet do different! Your rich friends have the choice now to stand y their principles, redistriuting wealth...through charity, employment, sponserships...in a way not state regulated...providing diversity of choice/experience. State funded ''uniformity'' is NOT fair to everyone, because people are different, esides money, our abilities are differently afforded, and our personalities too. Diversity, IMO, is key to survival eyond Darwinism!
Personally, I would like to introduce a kind of peaceable National Service. No military service here but EVERYONE upon leaving school would have to partake of two years on minimum wage, no assistance from the bank of mum and dad, no assistance in moving to another area, no nothing but that minimum wage (I still have not made up my mind whether this would be before or after Uni as both have their plusses) and the only people who would get out of this would be those who were going into such jobs as medicine or social services who are actually going to see much of that but end first hand anyway.

I agree. I think even a year would e enough. Whether forces, or manual, or clerical...we all get something from this !!!!ry, whatever ackground, we could all give something back. Time away from family and social circle would also e fantastic. I think the choice of before or after university, or even between 16 and 17...which is when I took my gap...or even in summer holidays from 14 plus, (as some university sandwhich course sytudents fit their industry experience in) could be left to the individual's circumstances...because we are all different.
It would also be really nice (I think) if we could then give EVERYONE (especially those who performed particularly well during their minimum wage service) a two year taste of what it is like to have so many personal choices that you can't decide which one;) - but I suspect that might be a little too much of a eutopian expectation:D.
It might well be. I think it would be equally good for a society who have many choices to have this period of time being more limited on choice!
I do not personally wish for ANY personal choices which infringe on the life (but not particularly lifestyle or monetary choices) of another less fortunate human being: to do so requires an egotistical desire to be godlike that I would consider borders on serious mental decay:D

Less fortunate comes in mny guises...to assume they are all financial is similarly...weird!

If we do not pay an amount for jobs done that provides enough for at least the basics of some kind of a life (and I do not believe that the desire for a REASONABLY sized family should be ruled out of this in order to pander to the consumers desire for cheaper and cheaper goods and services regardless of the longer term social cost) then we are simply NEVER going to even reduce the problems of poverty, unrest, crime and disenfranchisement that exists in our own country, let alone the rest of the World.

I'm sorry, I find this last it difficult to read (me not you)...so my answer will be disjointed. Reasnable family, sadly, is difficult, choice wise....of course the children have no choice..on family size/priority. Agree, earnings should enable choice not just to survive but to save, to have some degree of choice for earner and for someone entering adulthood...e.g. career direction. Think they do atm, think could be considerably better though. The focus soley on finaical equality is unequalising, and risks impoverishing many....as is the aim for untold riches. I do not feel the richer for a media and society focusing on bling and famous.

Never going to resolve proportional poverty, poverty extends beyond finance. We SHOULD have provision for no absolute poverty withn our political borders ..,to have such need to have the sustainable resouces for all within them.

Like wise crime...it never will be overcome. (Partly because crime extends further from ''instinct'' into rules to complicted for every one to adhere to..people can become disillusioned with the complexity. Ohers are just greedy but lazy. Others are unfortunate in one of many ways, others still just get it worn or make a mistake/error of judgement)


Sorry for lack of clarity towards end....:o

lostinrates

the_ash_and_the_oak wrote: »

If there are those that are able to pull themselves out of the gutter then why should we extend help to those that couldn't follow that example for themselves
?

Because some have skills/intelligence/curently required capabilty and some don't.

the_ash_and_the_oak

lostinrates wrote: »

Because some have skills/intelligence/curently required capabilty and some don't.

It was really a comparison of two philosophical viewpoints rather than questions requiring answers (ie - the way we ask/phrase questions is as telling as any answers to them)

SingleSue

The_White_Horse wrote: »

they should just cancel all benefits.

the only people who should get them are those who have worked and paid tax for 5 years - as a safety net should they need them, and only payable for 12 months.

also, disabled people should get more (provided three independent doctors all agree that the person CANNOT work. That doesn't mean "may find it difficult". I have worked with blind people and people in wheelchairs.

apart from that, no other benefits to anyone.

How would that work for carers of a disabled relative who is unable to take on work, or where work would be difficult due to the amount of care duties?

bo_drinker

You could probably cut crime easily by a third maybe more by legalising Heroin and other drugs that depend on crime to finance them. Open hostels for the users, if they want to inject let them. A bit harsh maybe but whatever glamourises it will also disappear when the hearse is seen on a weekly basis ferrying them away. No good pu55y footing around with these things. If alcohol didn't exist and was discovered tomorrow it would be banned by next week.