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.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. 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!
Question Time
Comments
-
donnajunkie wrote: »i havent talked about benefits that go to people who dont need them. i have only talked about the people at the bottom. if benefits are too generous for some then obviously that needs looking at. the issue i have been talking about is taking money away from everyone at the bottom.
Can you point to any cuts that have been bought in that effect people at the bottom.
Apart from disability benefits which I admit are not being implemented very well but as I said before do you really think all the people who were claiming it were entitled to it.0 -
As nobody apparently wants to answer this question I'll tell you what I believe.
There are far more unemployed out there than jobs available. It is an inconvenient truth which this shower of a government and their apologists have successfully hidden away.
Thanks I thought it may be conveniently forgotten."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
Can you point to any cuts that have been bought in that effect people at the bottom.
Apart from disability benefits which I admit are not being implemented very well but as I said before do you really think all the people who were claiming it were entitled to it.
1) Freeze on child benefit - real terms cut
2) Housing benefit changes - on how the rate for area calculated.
3) Disability changes
4) Education Maint. allowance
5) Cuts to social services
etc etcUS housing: it's not a bubble - Moneyweek Dec 12, 20050 -
donnajunkie wrote: »why would you support something when the majority of the people it hits are innocent? they dont distinguish between the genuine and the workshy. its like knowing there is a murderer living in a street but not knowing which person it is. so you choose to send everyone in the street to prison to ensure the murderer doesnt get away with it.
Because I don't believe that the majority of those affected are innocent nor that they don't distinguish between genuine & spurious cases. That's the standard excuse used by those who believe that those who are willing to work must support those who are 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 -
donnajunkie wrote: »you dont have a clue. assuming everyone is workshy shows this.
I don't assume everyone is workshy -- saying that is just a smokescreen over a poor argument.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 -
donnajunkie wrote: »yes of course it cant be left to them to decide however it is obvious it would be impossible for them to beat an able bodied person to a job. i only spoke to him briefly and only met him today as he knows someone i work with. i forgot to mention his speech is also affected and he doesnt seem like he is all there.
picking up on something said earlier i agree there should be help there for people but i think when a persons chances of employment are severely affected by a health condition then i dont think the same should be expected of them as is of a healthy person.
If he's really that disabled he needs to appeal. I'm more concerned with those who are completely able bodied but have a "bad back" or suffer from "stress". The social workers make sure that they and their kids have a car, a 40" television, a nice house, foreign holidays etc, all on the hard working taxpayer, in case they would otherwise feel "socially excluded". That's what I'm complaining about.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 -
donnajunkie wrote: »i havent talked about benefits that go to people who dont need them. i have only talked about the people at the bottom. if benefits are too generous for some then obviously that needs looking at. the issue i have been talking about is taking money away from everyone at the bottom.
Who says that money is being taken away form those at the bottom (whatever that means). Is there someone suffering from malnutrition, or hypothermia ? Or is it a case of not having a five year old TV in perfect working order replaced by an HD Ready one, courtesy of the taxpayer ?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 -
As nobody apparently wants to answer this question I'll tell you what I believe.
There are far more unemployed out there than jobs available. It is an inconvenient truth which this shower of a government and their apologists have successfully hidden away.
Sure there are, because immigrants have filled the jobs that many of our unemployed should be doing if they were not a) workshy and b) benefiting from a ludicrous, irresponsible, socialist welfare regime which encourages the workshy not to work. That's the inconvenient truth that the left does not wish to hear.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 -
I realise that jobs are hard to get and in some cases people on benefits might struggle but a couple with 2 kids will have £258 a week after paying rent and council tax I don’t think that puts them on the poverty line.0
-
Let us have a look at these welfare reforms and their impacts then:
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/welfare-reform-suicides-must-not-be-overlookedIt's getting harder & harder to keep the government in the manner to which they have become accustomed.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards