Council house rant....

Wee_Willy_Harris

abbadon3 wrote: »

I firmly believe people should be able to make there own choices and live a life along a path that they set for themselves. But this doesn't stretch to peoples whos choice is to live off of everyone else.

As long as your a decent human being who doesn't try to get a free ride from everyone else then be free to make all the choices you like.

But when your choices cause other people problems then you need to re-think your choices

"Tolerance" is clearly a meaningless term to you then?

wrightk

am now happy to sit back and let WWH tackle any questions/ill informed comments.
I think a few of you have been watching far too much jeremy kyle

abbadon3

I don't have to be tolerant of people who are parasites.

Like i have said i have no problem helping out with those who need the help, but those who are choosing to live off everyone else make me feel sick.

@tamarto - your examples crack me up!

Funnily enough a little fact that is overlooked when the smoker argument comes up is the ridiculous level of tax that is put on fags, which more than covers the treatment i'll need for my smoking related illness. What are we at, at the moment? 70% tax, 75% tax? smoking a pack a day at £3-6.00 over a course of the next 30 years. So we have 11,000 packs of fags bought. So thats a nice £33,000-£66,000 of taxable money (i won't do the tax calculations as i haven't looked up the current tax figures on fags). Thats from one person smoking for 30 years. How many smokers live in the country? How many of those smokers require medical attention due to there smoking? I'm going to assume the average smoker doesn't cost the country 50 odd grand in treatment.

Wee_Willy_Harris

abbadon3 wrote: »

I don't have to be tolerant of people who are parasites.

Like i have said i have no problem helping out with those who need the help, but those who are choosing to live off everyone else make me feel sick.

@tamarto - your examples crack me up!

Funnily enough a little fact that is overlooked when the smoker argument comes up is the ridiculous level of tax that is put on fags, which more than covers the treatment i'll need for my smoking related illness. What are we at, at the moment? 70% tax, 75% tax? smoking a pack a day at £3-6.00 over a course of the next 30 years. So we have 11,000 packs of fags bought. So thats a nice £33,000-£66,000 of taxable money (i won't do the tax calculations as i haven't looked up the current tax figures on fags). Thats from one person smoking for 30 years. How many smokers live in the country? How many of those smokers require medical attention due to there smoking? I'm going to assume the average smoker doesn't cost the country 50 odd grand in treatment.

So, benefit fraud is OK as long as it's just the minority who do it?

tamarto

abbadon3 wrote: »

I don't have to be tolerant of people who are parasites.

Like i have said i have no problem helping out with those who need the help, but those who are choosing to live off everyone else make me feel sick.

@tamarto - your examples crack me up!

Funnily enough a little fact that is overlooked when the smoker argument comes up is the ridiculous level of tax that is put on fags, which more than covers the treatment i'll need for my smoking related illness. What are we at, at the moment? 70% tax, 75% tax? smoking a pack a day at £3-6.00 over a course of the next 30 years. So we have 11,000 packs of fags bought. So thats a nice £33,000-£66,000 of taxable money (i won't do the tax calculations as i haven't looked up the current tax figures on fags). Thats from one person smoking for 30 years. How many smokers live in the country? How many of those smokers require medical attention due to there smoking? I'm going to assume the average smoker doesn't cost the country 50 odd grand in treatment.

Smokers deaths can be long drawn out expensive affairs, why are you so convinced fag tax will more than cover it, the cost of drugs alone needed for certain cancers cost that for a year.

Gandalfthegrey

abbadon3 wrote: »

I personaly have an issue with it due to the fact i am a hard working member of society who likes to contribute and improve my community.

I have never claimed benefits of any sort. Whilst unemployed for 6 months i refused to claim job seekers and ran myself financialy into the ground racking up debt. Since that time i found myself a job, worked hard, have moved through the ranks and not only am i out of debt i am buying a property.

The reason i refused to claim job seekers (despite fully qualifying for it) is because i felt i had other options available to me to help myself out of my rut without having to become a burden to the country and other people (granted credit cards are not the most sensible of safety nets).

I feel very strongly that people should do everything in there capability to not have to rely on other people to live. If you are a capable (note: include healthy under capable) human being you should not need to rely on others (or atleast not need to rely on others for long periods of time).

And i love smoking, can't stand people who preach to others about smoking and the likes!

Why would you choose to rack up debts for yourself when you have contributed in taxes? That's like saying when you needed a heart transplant you chose to go private instead of using the NHS because you didnt want to 'burden the country' or you sent your children to private school, got yourself in debt because you didnt want to burden us! even though you have every right to use these services, just seems a bit silly to me?

ILW

tamarto wrote: »

Smokers deaths can be long drawn out expensive affairs, why are you so convinced fag tax will more than cover it, the cost of drugs alone needed for certain cancers cost that for a year.

Oddly enough, "healthy" people tend to be more of a burden on the state, some require care for 20 or 30 years, your average smoker is gone within a year or two of diagnosis. Not really relative to the thread, but food for thought.

mynameisdave

abbadon3 wrote: »

I don't have to be tolerant of people who are parasites.

So what about people who choose to have kids to get benefit money? Stop paying money to them and just spend lots more taking the kids into care?

abbadon3 wrote: »

So thats a nice £33,000-£66,000 of taxable money (i won't do the tax calculations as i haven't looked up the current tax figures on fags). Thats from one person smoking for 30 years. How many smokers live in the country? How many of those smokers require medical attention due to there smoking? I'm going to assume the average smoker doesn't cost the country 50 odd grand in treatment.

According to e-How.com the average cost of a lung transplant was $400,000
http://www.ehow.com/about_4673807_much-does-lung-transplant-cost.html

Reliable figures for the UK are probably going to be hard to come by as medical insurance firms do not payout. Plus your consultations plus your lost productivity for not being in work and paying income tax plus your disability benefit plus your after care plus the costs associated with heart diease.

£60,000? Don't make me laugh.

diable

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

So, that's it, is it? You base your entire knowledge and opinion of social housing on this aquaintance who, as even you must know, could hardly be called a representative Social Housing tenant. One person out of the millions of social housing tenants. Are you seriously suggesting that this is typical behaviour? That there are great swaithes of social housing tenants who are also highly paid captains of industry? If that is the case then all I can tell you is that they spend their leisure time very heavily disguised!!!

Perhaps the affordable rents offered by social housing encouraged him to take that first step on the career ladder.

Yep as he's not the only one that I know playing the system.

Wee_Willy_Harris

diable wrote: »

Yep as he's not the only one that I know playing the system.

But he's NOT playing the system. He qualified for and was let a social housing property. He has chosen to excercise his right, as a secure tenant, to fully enjoy the security that brings. He could equaly have excercised his Right to Buy, but he chose not to. How is he playing the system? That's like saying that driving within the speed limit is somehow "playing the system".