We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
We're aware that some users are currently experiencing errors on the Forum. Our tech team is working to resolve the issue. Thanks for your patience.
Let's help Duncan Smith - how would YOU improve the benefits system?
Comments
-
Don't get uptight Bl - most people just ignore it!
+1
Liz Estelle is of the persuasion that each and every problem within the country can be traced back to those who have dared to be of above average intelligence or ambition and who over time have the utter temerity to provide for their own rather than sponge off the state.Go round the green binbags. Turn right at the mouldy George Elliot, forward, forward, and turn left....at the dead badger0 -
Interesting idea but I foresee a storm of protest from the overweight.
Who cares? Fat people are funny and their ideas aren't taken so seriously as the slim.
Besides, I would also propose limiting people's voting rights to weight too. For every stone you are over your optimum weight, the value of your vote is reduced 25% accordingly. So their protests would be irrelevant. You know it makes sense.0 -
Who cares? Fat people are funny and their ideas aren't taken so seriously as the slim.
Besides, I would also propose limiting people's voting rights to weight too. For every stone you are over your optimum weight, the value of your vote is reduced 25% accordingly. So their protests would be irrelevant. You know it makes sense.
I think there's a few rugby players who'd strongly protest otherwise.
Muscle weighs more than fat.0 -
I think there's a few rugby players who'd strongly protest otherwise.
Muscle weighs more than fat.
Good point.
In that case, we bring in another filter so it's not based on weight alone. The same weight restriction applies, but they can regain voting rights and benefit rights by being able to run.
If they can run a mile, 25% voting rights restored . . two miles, 50%. Etc etc.
There . . . I've got all the answers.0 -
Good point.
In that case, we bring in another filter so it's not based on weight alone. The same weight restriction applies, but they can regain voting rights and benefit rights by being able to run.
If they can run a mile, 25% voting rights restored . . two miles, 50%. Etc etc.
There . . . I've got all the answers.
Makes sense. If you can run a marathon do you get...
....does maths....
...does maths again....
..6.5 votes?Go round the green binbags. Turn right at the mouldy George Elliot, forward, forward, and turn left....at the dead badger0 -
The_White_Horse wrote: »it is. basically, if you genuinely cannot work for medical reasons, you are helped, otherwise get off you fat lazy backside and get a job.
if there are no jobs and the country is at 100% employment (yeah right), then perhaps some kind of workfare, where they are thrown a bit of cash in return for some manual labour so they can eat. they don't have to do this, and can choose to starve if they want.
Gets my vote. It's hard to argue against logic like this.
I've NEVER understood why those on benefits aren't obliged to do some kind of socially useful work in return for the benefit. The advantages are so obvious as to be irrefutable.0 -
Makes sense. If you can run a marathon do you get...
....does maths....
...does maths again....
..6.5 votes?
Pete, you're just not thinking this through are you?
NO NO NO NO NO.
Fatness is the key criterian. A skinny !!!!!! who runs the marathon just gets one vote. You only lose your voting and benefit rights if you're a lardarse, although you can get them back if you can run (so long as there is no incentive for the run, like chasing an icecream van).
And you can only ever have one vote.
Your proposal is just ridiculous. Stop messing about.0 -
Good point.
In that case, we bring in another filter so it's not based on weight alone. The same weight restriction applies, but they can regain voting rights and benefit rights by being able to run.
If they can run a mile, 25% voting rights restored . . two miles, 50%. Etc etc.
There . . . I've got all the answers.
Is it better to be bulimic than overweight then?
I know your comments are surreal, however I think overweight people receive enough stigma, and it's best not to tease them any more.
My BMI is 24 btw.
0 -
that's not really fair though and discriminates against women...The same weight restriction applies, but they can regain voting rights and benefit rights by being able to run.
If they can run a mile, 25% voting rights restored . . two miles, 50%. Etc etc.
There . . . I've got all the answers.
it's common knoweldge that women with a lot upfront <i'm being polite here> find it very painful to run.
would you suggest supplying these women with good sports support bras as part of their benefits package?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.5K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.4K Spending & Discounts
- 247.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.5K Life & Family
- 261.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards