Nice people thread part 4 - sugar and spice and all things

lostinrates

michaels wrote: »

Don't I know it - their are a few truffle posts out there but but you have to root through a lot of sh*t to find them. I had to stop posting on the Eugenics thread that started off so reasonably.

really? that might have been interesting.


how's your heating? and the boy? warmer now? hope so!

michaels

It is the one you posted on re dog breeding

Heating is all working - the boiler which was 'definitely delivered faulty' worked fine when connected correctly - however the downstairs toilet kept leaking and was finally found to have a crack inside the bowl so I will have to chase up the supplier, buiilder is getting fed up with spending lots of time dealing with faulty stuff from phone/internet orders.

DS is much better although Sister in law (DSIL?) visited 2 days ago with a cold and now he seems to be going down with it so we will watch and see with his breathing. Builders aer going to be concretign and screeding a floor on Monday which won't help for dust and fumes.

lostinrates

michaels wrote: »

It is the one you posted on re dog breeding

Heating is all working - the boiler which was 'definitely delivered faulty' worked fine when connected correctly - however the downstairs toilet kept leaking and was finally found to have a crack inside the bowl so I will have to chase up the supplier, buiilder is getting fed up with spending lots of time dealing with faulty stuff from phone/internet orders.

DS is much better although Sister in law (DSIL?) visited 2 days ago with a cold and now he seems to be going down with it so we will watch and see with his breathing. Builders aer going to be concretign and screeding a floor on Monday which won't help for dust and fumes.

Oh, a really barking thread.

Too silly. Its a shame that ntters are drawn to tense sbjects, they are interesting when debated with sense.

the letter between y and i on my com-pter keyboard doesn't seem to be working:o

vivatifosi

lostinrates wrote: »

Oh, a really barking thread.

Too silly. Its a shame that ntters are drawn to tense sbjects, they are interesting when debated with sense.

I think that's the thread I started on the John Humphreys programme. I've been a bit disappointed how its ended up. What was quite clear from the programme is that there is a broad middle ground between the "cut all benefits to !!!!less breeders" and "if I'm entitled I should get it" camps. A middle ground in which people like Sue can be treated fairly, but people can't milk the system. It's so blinklin' bloomin' obvious, I can't believe the positions taken sometimes:wall:.

Sometimes I think people do it just to bang heads, like a virtual Newton's Cradle.

lostinrates

vivatifosi wrote: »

I think that's the thread I started on the John Humphreys programme. I've been a bit disappointed how its ended up. What was quite clear from the programme is that there is a broad middle ground between the "cut all benefits to !!!!less breeders" and "if I'm entitled I should get it" camps. A middle ground in which people like Sue can be treated fairly, but people can't milk the system. It's so blinklin' bloomin' obvious, I can't believe the positions taken sometimes:wall:.

Sometimes I think people do it just to bang heads, like a virtual Newton's Cradle.

yep, I think that's the case.

the thing is I'm not sure it IS obvious...if you are in a position where the obvious means a cut for you then its hard to be disapassionate at times (child benefit and carolt springs to mind:eek::o). Its much easier to be cooler and calmer about things that don't impact directly on your life. I think that's the problem I have with the system over the last few years with so many people being on a credit or entitlement...its made sure more people are ''dependant'' on the system. But then of course, I say that from a heavily taxed household, and I can't be sure I can discount that element of the situation....what is obvious to others about my position might not be obvious to me...sitting here in the nice but wrecked house wanting to crack on with building work but not wanting to incurr debt to do that.

vivatifosi

Maybe you're right lir. I've only been unemployed for a few weeks just before my 18th birthday, that's the only time I've claimed anything. Have never qualified for tax credits, no kids so no bens there, studied with the OU (small funding) rather than getting grant for full time Uni (my Masters was fully funded by my then employer) and when I was ill found I wasn't entitled to anything as I ran a business! I'm definitely a net contributor. This may shape my judgements at times!

misskool

vivatifosi wrote: »

I think that's the thread I started on the John Humphreys programme. I've been a bit disappointed how its ended up. What was quite clear from the programme is that there is a broad middle ground between the "cut all benefits to !!!!less breeders" and "if I'm entitled I should get it" camps. A middle ground in which people like Sue can be treated fairly, but people can't milk the system. It's so blinklin' bloomin' obvious, I can't believe the positions taken sometimes:wall:.

Sometimes I think people do it just to bang heads, like a virtual Newton's Cradle.

Many things are obvious but difficult to change and implement.

The problem is people have become used to their entitlement and you can't take it away from them. They will fight every way they can. This is why despots and dictators don't relinquish power. (a bit of an exaggeration but the same general idea).

Human nature is inherently selfish for things that benefits itself.

LydiaJ

I agree with lir. It is not at all obvious. I mean, it's obvious to most people that what we want is a system that provides a decent standard of living for people who have either temporarily fallen on hard times or are in longer lasting difficult circumstances like Sue's. It's obvious to most of the same people that we shouldn't be incentivising a lifestyle choice to breed like rabbits while having no intention of working. It is very very far from obvious how one system, to be delivered on a national scale without incurring vast expenses, can do the first of these without inadvertently also doing the second.

If you provide a safety net, some people will use it as a hammock. If you take the hammock away, the people who fall off the high wire will crash to the ground.

vivatifosi

I think it has to be addressed one initiative at a time Lydia. I don't think it can be done any other way. Housing benefit: it makes total sense that benefit is capped. I'd also phase in so that 15 years from now (ie to give large households time to get to adulthood) it will be restricted to three bedrooms. Sometimes you have to lay down a marker for what you plan to do early.

I'd also restrict child benefits to the first three children, excepting children already born, but do this from one year from now so that it doesn't impact on anyone not already here (allowing also for multiple births: twins, triplets etc). I'd review council housing every five years to make sure it is a) still needed and b) still appropriate.

Changes have to come from both ends of the system though: there's no point in penalising people on benefits while letting companies not live up to their responsibilities under the Companies Act for example. I still feel that all bankers are being tarred with the same brush whereas RBS directors got away with acting irresponsibly.

sss555s

lostinrates wrote: »

the letter between y and i on my com-pter keyboard doesn't seem to be working:o

A Geordie keyboard! :rotfl::D

vivatifosi wrote: »

"cut all benefits to !!!!less breeders"

That's an oxymoron if I've ever seen one :beer: