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.
📨 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!
Could people REALLY lose all their savings?
Comments
-
longleggedhair wrote: »What a terrible thing to say. The Queen has worked tirelessly for decades for this country, and she continues to well into her 80's. She is one of the last aspects of Britishness I feel proud of. You have no business even putting her in the same sentence as some of the parasites that exist on the welfare state. Long live the Queen!
Do you know her well
The 30 full time spin doctors in the Buckingham Palace press office have done a good job of presenting her as middle class to appeal to the majority. Refusing to give interviews or answer questions has saved her from being asked any awkward questions, or account for herself in any way. Even to the extent of dropping all charges against Diana's butler at the last minute, rather than ask her to attend court and give evidence, in case Her Unelected Majesty might suffer the impertinance of being asked a question.
But whats she like really?.“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” --Upton Sinclair0 -
Glen_Clark wrote: »Do you know her well
The 30 full time spin doctors in the Buckingham Palace press office have done a good job of presenting her as middle class to appeal to the majority. Refusing to give interviews or answer questions has saved her from being asked any awkward questions, or account for herself in any way. Even to the extent of dropping all charges against Diana's butler at the last minute, rather than ask her to attend court and give evidence, in case Her Unelected Majesty might suffer the impertinance of being asked a question.
But whats she like really?.
What's she like really ? Well we can debate the constitutional monarchy vs republic issue indefinitely. But apart from anything else I'd rather have what we've got than the prospect of President Tony and First Lady Cherie.
The intended joke about the Royal Family's lack of work effort falls flat because to be funny a joke has to have some basis in reality. How much effort does the Duke of Edinburgh, 90, put in compared with the archetypal lazy, f e c kless, ignorant, semi-illiterate, unemployable scrote, 19, living on vastly over-generous state benefits, at levels set by a Labour government in the hope that he and his ilk would keep voting for them (he probably doesn't, probably isn't registered, would not even know how or where to vote, or even that there was election on).No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
GeorgeHowell wrote: »What's she like really ? Well we can debate the constitutional monarchy vs republic issue indefinitely. But apart from anything else I'd rather have what we've got than the prospect of President Tony and First Lady Cherie.
So would I. But the big difference is that we got rid of Tony Blair. We are not stuck with tony Blair, plus all his hangers on, plus all his descendants, plus al their hangers on, whatever they turn out to be like, ad infinitum, for evermoreGeorgeHowell wrote: »unemployable scrote, 19, living on vastly over-generous state benefits, .
So why don't you tell us how much these these 'vastly over-generous state benefits' are?
The amount expressed as a number would be less long winded, and more informative.
And how do these 'vastly over-generous' state benefits compare with the cost of royalty?“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” --Upton Sinclair0 -
Glen_Clark wrote: »So would I. But the big difference is that we got rid of Tony Blair. We are not stuck with tony Blair, plus all his hangers on, plus all his descendants, plus al their hangers on, whatever they turn out to be like, ad infinitum, for evermore
So why don't you tell us how much these these 'vastly over-generous state benefits' are?
The amount expressed as a number would be less long winded, and more informative.
And how do these 'vastly over-generous' state benefits compare with the cost of royalty?
We did get rid of Blair, but depending on the constitution it might not be so easy to get rid of him if he were President of a republic. Moreover I cannot countenance the thought of such an individual parading around as our head of state.
I don't have the figures for what the Royal Family costs versus welfare, but I'm pretty sure that it's millions versus billions. Welfare is self-evidently vastly over-generous because it enables large numbers of individuals who are physically fit to work to opt for serial unemployment on state benefits as a lifestyle choice. You might be happy to fund that, but I'm not.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
The Queen is essentially recieving an income for her duty as Head of State.
Whether or not she is overpaid for that duty is hard to say.
I believe it would be rather difficult to find a suitable replacement at lower wage.Said Aristippus, “If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.”
Said Diogenes, “Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.”[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica][/FONT]0 -
GeorgeHowell wrote: »We did get rid of Blair, but depending on the constitution it might not be so easy to get rid of him if he were President of a republic. Moreover I cannot countenance the thought of such an individual parading around as our head of state.
I don't have the figures for what the Royal Family costs versus welfare, but I'm pretty sure that it's millions versus billions. Welfare is self-evidently vastly over-generous because it enables large numbers of individuals who are physically fit to work to opt for serial unemployment on state benefits as a lifestyle choice. You might be happy to fund that, but I'm not.
I'll take thaty as a 'No' then shall I?
You don't actually know how much the 19 year old would get?
But you just go ahead and describe it as 'vastly over generous' anyway.
And you ignore the inconvenient facts like there aren't any jobs for them.:(“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” --Upton Sinclair0 -
Glen_Clark wrote: »I'll take thaty as a 'No' then shall I?
You don't actually know how much the 19 year old would get?
But you just go ahead and describe it as 'vastly over generous' anyway.
And you ignore the inconvenient facts like there aren't any jobs for them.:(
One pence per week, for sitting around and doing nothing, is vastly over generous.
It is difficult to state exactly how much a person gets because it's not as simple as "money goes into account". Housing benefit, for example.
And there are jobs available. The problem is that they cost the taxpayer. Giving out jobseeker's allowance is 'creating a job'. The title is "Jobseeker". Your job is to go out and seek jobs.
Why then, given that as you say, we don't have a lot of those (private sector) jobs around at the minute, don't we create other "jobs" that actually benefit society? We're giving the money out anyway.
Or is it fine to "force" someone to send off CV's, but not to "force" them to clean streets? Why?Said Aristippus, “If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.”
Said Diogenes, “Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.”[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica][/FONT]0 -
Glen_Clark wrote: »I'll take thaty as a 'No' then shall I?
You don't actually know how much the 19 year old would get?
But you just go ahead and describe it as 'vastly over generous' anyway.
And you ignore the inconvenient facts like there aren't any jobs for them.:(
They get enough not to need to seek work as a dire necessity, and that's enough for me to call it over-generous regardless of the actual amount (which anyway varies widely according to perceived circumstances etc). The fact that so many are unemployable is the reason there are no joibs for them -- the jobs have largely been taken up by immigrants who do have a work ethic. As I have said before the government could implement all sorts of job creation/public work schemes with the money saved on welfare. It does not do so because it knows that many of them would have to be dragged kicking and screaming into them, if at all, and it (especially the Lib Dem contingent) has not got the political will or backbone to face up to the left-wing led backlash that would result from such a policy.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
The Queen cost £38.2 million for 2009/10. Note this paragraph:Glen_Clark wrote: »And how do these 'vastly over-generous' state benefits compare with the cost of royalty?
"Head of State expenditure is met from public funds in exchange for the surrender by The Queen of the revenue from the Crown Estate. In 2008-09 the Treasury’s gross receipts in respect of the Crown Estate were £230 million."
The DWP (table 1a) expects to spend £4.5 billion on jobseeker's allowance alone in 2010/11. £5.5 billion is spent on incapacity benefit. Total benefit expenditure is £153 billion, £70 billion of which is the state pension.0 -
Not much in the way of Savings and Investments going on here anymore. Seems like there escapees from the Debate forum around...:pLiving for tomorrow might mean that you survive the day after.
It is always different this time. The only thing that is the same is the outcome.
Portfolios are like personalities - one that is balanced is usually preferable.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards