List The Benefits You Receive. Can the state afford them?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

ruggedtoast wrote: »

This kind of reductionist neo-liberal "commonsense" is contrived to strike a vein with most people.

Creating an ephemeral outgroup of shirkers to feel angry about has long been a tool of those wanting to create a socially divided, non-pluralistic society, for the gain of their own subgroup.

Who constitutes able to work but not willing to; people with arms and legs; children; a woman who quit work because her boss kept touching her or a man on a construction site whos boss refused to provide minimum safety equipment?

And this is the kind of emotive clap-trap that prevents society moving towards values of personal and familial responsibility, and maintains the dependancy trap that is the current nanny-state so beloved by the guardian reading liberal elites.

So you somehow seem to think that just because we stop paying thousands a year in child benefits to the highest earners, or force the life long dole claimants to work for a living, society will immediately descend into an amoral and abusive place where...
" a woman who quit work because her boss kept touching her or a man on a construction site whos boss refused to provide minimum safety equipment" ....are no longer protected by the existing, not to mention world leading, sexual discrimination and employment safety laws we have in place.

Talk about a straw man argument.

Forcing people back into work houses where McTavish would have them, too frightened to challenge poor employment conditions or turn down exploitative employment offers, would just lead us back to Dickensian times.

No, far better to pay people to have 7 babies by 7 fathers, reward the lazy and workshy, and enable a life long dependancy on the state.

That's a much better solution.....

There is a problem with a benefits culture in this country,

Huh... You think?

but it is a problem driven by a paucity of ambition, poor education, and a genuine lack of opportunities in sub stratas of our society.

No, it's a problem driven by a bunch of wet liberal elites enabling failure, and insisting the productive should forever support the unproductive.

We fail children, constantly, every day, kids turn up to badly resourced poorly constructed schools to be taught by teachers who have already written themselves off, let alone their progeny. We then send them back to chaotic, dismal homes where they are poorly fed, neglected, shouted at, and told that they will amount to nothing more than the things around them.

Rubbish.

We fail children by sending them to schools where discipline is non existent, where teachers are unable to control classrooms, and are scared they'll get arrested for assault if they touch a child who attacks them.

Then we send them home to a household where parents are paid not to work, where the concept of working seems to be a stupid choice when the state will pay people so well to do nothing but sit at home watching Jeremy Kyle, drinking super strength lager, and abusing their neighbours.

And then we wonder why these ill-educated brats grow up to be criminals and thugs with no respect for themselves or anyone else.

And we say and do nothing to improve their lots, paying billions to support financial services and foreign wars and strangling the pitiful funding for services like Sure Start down to nothing, and agonising as to whether we can afford to supply free milk and anything better than a turkey twizzler for someone who we expect to grow up and pay our pension for us.

And yet we spend more on social services than on defence, policing, education, science and business combined.

Then wonder why they turn into problem adults.

No, we know exactly why they turn into problem adults.

The problem is YOU.

And all the people like you, who enable and reward failure to achieve.

people our our greatest resource, lets maximise the possibilities not punish the deficiencies!

Productive, responsible people are our greatest resource.

Lazy, workshy, irresponsible people are the greatest drain on our resources.

It's an important difference.

Jacks_xxx

Pete111 wrote: »

No doubt.

I think it's also important to reiterate my view that provision of roads is a public 'service' not an individual 'benefit'

You may be capable of making that distinction but the OP thinks they shouldn't have to pay so much tax because they don't take anything from the state. The services and facilities we all could use and take for granted are paid for from taxation of one kind or another whether it's income, community, or road. You can't separate things out and say I haven't used that yet so I shouldn't have to pay that bit.

Everybody grumbles about taxation sometimes but most people have enough wit to understand the social contract.

Jacks_xxx

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

And this is the kind of emotive clap-trap that prevents society moving towards values of personal and familial responsibility, and maintains the dependancy trap that is the current nanny-state so beloved by the guardian reading liberal elites.

So you somehow seem to think that just because we stop paying thousands a year in child benefits to the highest earners, or force the life long dole claimants to work for a living, society will immediately descend into an amoral and abusive place where...
" a woman who quit work because her boss kept touching her or a man on a construction site whos boss refused to provide minimum safety equipment" ....are no longer protected by the existing, not to mention world leading, sexual discrimination and employment safety laws we have in place.

Talk about a straw man argument.





No, far better to pay people to have 7 babies by 7 fathers, reward the lazy and workshy, and enable a life long dependancy on the state.

That's a much better solution.....



Huh... You think?



No, it's a problem driven by a bunch of wet liberal elites enabling failure, and insisting the productive should forever support the unproductive.



Rubbish.

We fail children by sending them to schools where discipline is non existent, where teachers are unable to control classrooms, and are scared they'll get arrested for assault if they touch a child who attacks them.

Then we send them home to a household where parents are paid not to work, where the concept of working seems to be a stupid choice when the state will pay people so well to do nothing but sit at home watching Jeremy Kyle, drinking super strength lager, and abusing their neighbours.

And then we wonder why these ill-educated brats grow up to be criminals and thugs with no respect for themselves or anyone else.



And yet we spend more on social services than on defence, policing, education, science and business combined.



No, we know exactly why they turn into problem adults.

The problem is YOU.

And all the people like you, who enable and reward failure to achieve.



Productive, responsible people are our greatest resource.

Lazy, workshy, irresponsible people are the greatest drain on our resources.

It's an important difference.

And your solutions to the above perceived ills of society?

That you personally should pay less tax? :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Jacks_xxx wrote: »

That you personally should pay less tax? :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Jacks_xxx wrote: »

the OP thinks they shouldn't have to pay so much tax because they don't take anything from the state. .

Interesting.

So when I said this.....

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

What we are arguing is that some of us pay more than our fair share, whilst many pay far less than their fair share.

I'm not arguing for me to pay less, or get more. I am arguing that others should pay more.... And/or receive less.
.

...... It somehow confused you?

Jacks_xxx wrote: »

Everybody grumbles about taxation sometimes but most people have enough wit to understand the social contract.

Indeed.

Some people also have enough wit to read the thread before making baseless assertions.

Clearly not you though....

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Percy1983 wrote: »

Scary I agree with Hamish yet can't seem to wake up, is this really happening?

.

Stranger things have happened.

Not often, to be fair.....

Percy1983

Does show that not agreeing one house prices doesn't mean we can't unite against the work shy.

Jacks_xxx

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Interesting.

So when I said this.....

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I'm not arguing for me to pay less, or get more. I am arguing that others should pay more.... And/or receive less.

...... It somehow confused you?

It did. I had no idea that you were in favour of increased taxation. Your posts have always seemed to be saying quite the reverse.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Indeed.

Some people also have enough wit to read the thread before making baseless assertions.

Clearly not you though....

I've read the entire thread and probably all of your previous posts. My interpretation of what you think and what personal qualities you have are based on the whole picture not one disingenuous sentence - and my assessment is that you are arguing that you should pay less. Not that you are in favour of increased taxation. It's also my opinion that people who focus solely on what they get for what they pay do not in any way understand the social contract.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Percy1983 wrote: »

Does show that not agreeing one house prices doesn't mean we can't unite against the work shy.

Well said...

SingleSue

I am too ashamed to put up what we get, none of it is earnt and it is all from tax payers.

And I hate it.

I had pride once, paid my dues (at the high rate), had private health insurance, optical plans, dental plans etc...now I have no pride and have to rely on tax payers.

Best laid plans (and all that gibberish) can and do go wrong, sometimes in a spectacular way.

POPPYOSCAR

Just a small observation on private health care and the NHS.

My uncle nearly died during an operation that went seriously wrong in a private health care hospital and had to be rushed to intensive care in a NHS hospital.So just because you have private health insurance does not mean that you will never need the services of the NHS.