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
Let's help Duncan Smith - how would YOU improve the benefits system?
Comments
-
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.
I'm sorry, I see it now. sorry again.
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.
You are a joker - as you have proven repeatedly and consistently on this forum.
If you don't give welfare to those who need it you will get much more crime - especially theft. And then the costs of putting people through the courts and imprisoning them will be hugely higher than anything paid out as benefits.0 -
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.
What socially useful work? A lot of people on long term benefits are hardly capable of dragging themselves out of bed. Get real.0 -
that's not really fair though and discriminates against women...
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?
Honestly, you people are slow slow slow.
Can't you see that one of the benefits of my brilliant scheme is innately linked to the very problem you mention? I had that thought through right from the start.
Given that women can't run (or throw), this is the most perfect incentive for them to keep in shape. And I'm afraid to exclude them from the second running test or treat them differently would be unfair, patronising and - yes, let's say it as it is - sexist.
And we couldn't have that, could we?
As an aside though, La Perla lingerie WILL be provided on the benefit system, but ONLY to those who have a benefit / vote winning figure.
Do I have to do ALL the strategic thinking around here?0 -
The birth rate among women who were born in this country is already below the replacement rate. Our population is increasing because of immigration and the higher birth rate among immigrant mothers (2.5 per woman compared with 1.84 for women born here).Do you know anyone who's bereaved? Point them to https://www.AtaLoss.org which does for bereavement support what MSE does for financial services, providing links to support organisations relevant to the circumstances of the loss & the local area. (Link permitted by forum team)
Tyre performance in the wet deteriorates rapidly below about 3mm tread - change yours when they get dangerous, not just when they are nearly illegal (1.6mm).
Oh, and wear your seatbelt. My kids are only alive because they were wearing theirs when somebody else was driving in wet weather with worn tyres.
0 -
It was a joke.
Whereas this...
Single mothers to receive benefits in relation to one child only. Any additional children disregarded. Same for tax credits.
Remove benefits for all criminal/anti-social families.
Is just nonsense. You want to introduce a one child policy in the UK? Good luck with that.
Removing benefits from criminals and anti social is likely to.. what.. make them.. yes.. more criminal / antisocial.
A one child policy for the poor - yes. Why not?0 -
You are an idiot - as you have proven repeatedly and consistently on this forum.
If you don't give welfare to those who need it you will get much more crime - especially theft. And then the costs of putting people through the courts and imprisoning them will be hugely higher than anything paid out as benefits.
You haven't heard TWH's thoughts on reform of the criminal justice system.0 -
that's not really fair though and discriminates against women...
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?
Doesn't seem to stop Serena Williams battering all the skinny minnies0 -
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.
Cheaper and less bueracratic solution would just be to fit narrow doors on poling stations and benefit offices. Sometimes the simple solutions are the most effective.0 -
The birth rate among women who were born in this country is already below the replacement rate. Our population is increasing because of immigration and the higher birth rate among immigrant mothers (2.5 per woman compared with 1.84 for women born here).
While unpopular (queue ninky with open border policy), I have before said that I'd like to see a balanced net migration figure into the UK.
With people generally living longer, 1.84 children may result in the population continuing to rise.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
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards