Tories are certainly getting stuck into our benefits system...

mbga9pgf

pop_gun wrote: »

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2008/10/2008109174223218644.html




tut tut. sticks and stones :rotfl:

the point if you missed it, is the arms industry is heavily subsizided from public coffers for private benefit. is there a theme developing here? does your meathead compute?!

If you think AlJazeera is independent, then you truly aere nuts... from the news agency that brought you video footage of beheaded westerners...

Its not subsidized. We buy hardware from them. You know, stuff. Stuff that then is sold to other nations, so that we get money back in weapons export duties... Money that more than covers the developmental costs and keeps lots of british people in work, as well as creating wealth for untold thousands of private sector pensions funds. Yes, those weapons are used to kill people, but trhats life I am afraid.

pop_gun

mbga9pgf;34443855]If you think AlJazeera is independent, then you truly aere nuts... from the news agency that brought you video footage of beheaded westerners...

the thing is that there was evidence of the alleged dumping of nuclear waste.

is the times or the sun any better for reporting the facts?

Its not subsidized. We buy hardware from them. You know, stuff. Stuff that then is sold to other nations, so that we get money back in weapons export duties... Money that more than covers the developmental costs and keeps lots of british people in work, as well as creating wealth for untold thousands of private sector pensions funds. Yes, those weapons are used to kill people, but trhats life I am afraid.

this, i'm afraid is where you're certifiably in la la land. the first sentence "it's not subsidized" summarises your ignorance in a sphere you should have some knowledge on.

http://www.caat.org.uk/issues/subsidies.php

Herbie_Hancock_I_wish

drc wrote: »

I think the benefits system is divided between those on benefits who are single/childless and those with children. If you are the latter, you are likely to get a lot of help in the form of tax credits/LHA/income support and all the extras such as free school dinners, free prescriptions, free laptops, sure start maternity grants etc. I have seen this myself on numerous "mothering" websites (I'm a mother myself btw not some perv checking out these sites ) and every day there is a post by some single mother with several kids going on about how she is spending £1k on new leather sofas/the latest nursery suites/the most expensive Next clothing for her kids etc etc or how much disposable income she has (and invariably it is much much more than the working mothers/couples on the forums).

In contrast, those who are single or couples with no kids do not get all the passport benefits that having children give you and so singles/childless couples do get a paltry return from the benefits system and invariably scrimp and save.

With respect to you, are you sure this is right? I know a single mother, 3 kids and of course gets HB and CT paid, free school meals, but with a disposable income of somewhere around £240 a week. I wonder how she might get a £1,000 suite and all the rest.

We are not high earners now the bad times are here but still have over twice that amount coming in, no mortgage and just now 2 of us. Oh maybe we could but we feel that paying £7,000 a year into pension funds is perhaps more important.

Having said that, we would not find it easy to live on £240 a week.

sjaypink

Herbie_Hancock_I_wish wrote: »

With respect to you, are you sure this is right?

Its all credit. Its supposed to have been tightened up, but it hasn't, not with the catalogues and storecards etc

headcone

mbga9pgf wrote: »

Unfortunately, politicians dont get the 6 months of shelling that left me twitching for a month after I got home from Basrah. If you want to find out what a mortar sounds like, slam your fridge door really hard... It sounds exactly the same (as my wife found out and left me spread-eagled on the floor)! :rotfl:

Which Mob did you serve with?

I have a passing interest. :cool:

Shakethedisease

Unfortunately, politicians dont get the 6 months of shelling that left me twitching for a month after I got home from Basrah

No, but there may be quite a few pensioners/wives/families and carers of those in WWII on LHA and benefits that will have experienced and saw much, much worse than you when we were at war last. Some of them were shot for the 'twitching' resulting from shell-shock or just perhaps the complete horror of what they saw as they were fighting,..shot as 'deserters' or 'cowards' by their own. We've moved on... thankfully.

The politican's in 1945 did 'get it' back then and started the welfare state shortly afterwards in order not to repeat the travasties of WWI and what happened to widows, the poor, the homeless, the disabled and the sick directly in the aftermath of war ( ie lots of hardship, employment issues and deaths ). The NHS and the welfare state were directly brought about because of war. The UK was determined never to make the same mistakes again.

Not sure you're a 'special case' financially in that sort of context really. Especially since you seem to be so 'against' most of what your predecessors fought for. Let the 'breeders' and their kids starve ? Come on. That's not what this country fought for. Quite the opposite in fact.

I'd drop it there if I was you considering...

mattcanary

carolt wrote: »

I do have a family, but we aren't entitled to anything bar child benefit, because we both choose to work. We live in the private rented sector but pay our own way, so I do rather resent people who choose not to work so I can pay their rent on top of my own.

No, you are both on good wages. Plenty of families have two income-earners but still claim benefits (such as Tax Credits).

Like I said, thinking of yourself and not a care for anyone else. Bet you still have more money left over after paying your taxes than myself or indeed many others currently on benefits.

Pennywise

mattcanary wrote: »

Bet you still have more money left over after paying your taxes than myself or indeed many others currently on benefits.

And so they should!!! They're out working so of course they should have more money left over than those on benefits. Do you really think that people should go out to work, that means losing around 5 days a week that they'd rather be spending doing something else, that means stressing themselves out trying to fit in appointments, shopping, school run, etc., around working hours, and not actually have more money left over than someone who has more time on their hands and doesn't have that kind of stress? If so, then why would anyone work?

mbga9pgf

headcone wrote: »

Which Mob did you serve with?

I have a passing interest. :cool:

I Lived in the tower/Cambridge lines and worked airops from around late 2004, was last there in 2007 when the place was taking an absolute hammering.

As for unit, not a chance!

mbga9pgf

mattcanary wrote: »

No, you are both on good wages. Plenty of families have two income-earners but still claim benefits (such as Tax Credits).

Like I said, thinking of yourself and not a care for anyone else. Bet you still have more money left over after paying your taxes than myself or indeed many others currently on benefits.

but she works hard for it! Why should you have all that extra disposable if you don't work for it?