Is this right?

Wee_Willy_Harris

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

We expected you to give a decent answer, god knows why we were expecting that with the state of some of your answers.

Is an ISA an example of a tax break for savers?

Wee_Willy_Harris

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

I wouldnt like to go for a pint with you, cant stand people who wont admit the truth.

You wouldn't know the truth if it stood in front of you wearing an "I am the truth" t-shirt and screaming "THE TRUTH" in your face while showing you it's birth certificate and passport.

Jimmy_31

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

But then the next deposit savers will move in and become a burden. Of course, the easing of deposit saving will also prop up house prices to an unrealistic level, so each successive set of saver become a greater burden as it takes them longer to save the bigger deposit needed. What do you do if they fail to save enough?

Im beginning to think you are just plain dumb.

I would rather people who wanted to get on in life were given the council houses instead of spongers, i would rather that than have a scumbag in a house for the whole of their lives and not pay a single penny for it.

Why are you in support of scumbags getting a free house for life and not letting somebody who wants to get on in life have the house instead, dont you see that if this happened then the scumbag population would decrease over time.

Graham_Devon

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

You wouldn't know the truth if it stood in front of you wearing an "I am the truth" t-shirt and screaming "THE TRUTH" in your face while showing you it's birth certificate and passport.

Well I can't wait until the momma insults.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Graham_Devon wrote: »

All I'm asking you to do is answer a very simple question, as to the reasons the family find themselves overcrowded. Your questions and debate is being answered, yet you categorically refuse to carry out the same courtesy.

You have declined to answer 3 times now.

I won't ask you any more. I think 3 times is sufficient. If you wish to carry on ignoring the absolutely obvious, thats your perogative. Unfortunately however, it renders all debate absolutely pointless.

They are overcrowded because the size of their property isn't sufficient to meet the demands of the household.

Unemployed households, employed households, black households, white households, scottish households, welsh households, single parent households, step family households, rich households, poor households, vegitarian households, 7th day evangelist households, tall households, short households, disabled households, glutton intolerant households, blind households, Irish households, households consisting entirely of uncles... ALL are overcrowded if the size of their property isn't sufficient to meet the demands of the household.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Well I can't wait until the momma insults.

Again, that was another poster.

Wee_Willy_Harris

Jimmy_31 wrote: »

Im beginning to think you are just plain dumb.

I would rather people who wanted to get on in life were given the council houses instead of spongers, i would rather that than have a scumbag in a house for the whole of their lives and not pay a single penny for it.

Why are you in support of scumbags getting a free house for life and not letting somebody who wants to get on in life have the house instead, dont you see that if this happened then the scumbag population would decrease over time.

You need to define scumbag. How can you tell, when a 19 year old single mum takes a tenancy, what she will do with the rest of her life. It must be more than an assumption because I know you don't approve of them either.

Graham_Devon

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

They are overcrowded because the size of their property isn't sufficient to meet the demands of the household.

Hmmm, I'm thinking of maybe rephrashing the question.

Ok, so you've given me the dictionary definition several times now and were not really moving any further forward. The PC claptrap below your answer doesn't really make your answer go any further, so I'm not sure what the political correctness stuff was in aid of. I thought I'd better acknowledge it though, before you start the tangent of calling me a racist.

So, can you answer this...

WHAT made the house overcrowded. It wasn't overcrowded when she initially got the house. Therefore, what was it that made the house overcrowded?

Jimmy_31

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

Of course it will. And the death penalty will reduce murder rates like it has in the good old US of A.... oh..... hang on..... If people need to commit criminal acts, they will. And the threat of prison won't stop them.

Are you saying that crime would not be reduced if the consequences were much harsher, 5 years for shoplifting would stop a lot of shoplifters wouldnt it.

PasturesNew

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

They are overcrowded because the size of their property isn't sufficient to meet the demands of the household.

Unemployed households, employed households, black households, white households, scottish households, welsh households, single parent households, step family households, rich households, poor households, vegitarian households, 7th day evangelist households, tall households, short households, disabled households, glutton intolerant households, blind households, Irish households, households consisting entirely of uncles... ALL are overcrowded if the size of their property isn't sufficient to meet the demands of the household.

Single person households are never deemed to be overcrowded because nobody cares if single people are living and sleeping on a small shelf in a room 6'x7'. Yet somebody'd go mental if it were suggested you can stack 4 small kids in a proper/full house with their bedroom 4x the size (12'x14') as they'd be deemed over-crowded.