Deleted

ILW

VfM4meplse wrote: »

One thing I know, Italians love their bambini!

From the few Italian men I know, they would be deeply ashamed at the idea of not supporting their own children and relying on others to do it for them.

PaulF81

pqrdef wrote: »

But none of them understood either genetics or socioeconomics. The population will distribute itself between classes not as determined by ancestors but as required by the socioeconomic system. If society needs an underclass, it will create one, and if it doesn't like the people and wipes them out, it will create another one, which won't be any better.

You could round up all the long-term benefit claimants and eliminate them, but if long-term unemployment continues to be a feature of the economy, you'll have another crop soon enough, and their attitudes won't be any different, irrespective of who their parents were or how they were brought up. It's the situation and the prospects that breed the attitudes.

We won't make progress until we stop blaming the unemployed for unemployment.

Sorry, but if everyone had the choice, work or starve, they would work. Everything I have seen whilst spending time in the third world supports this view.

LydiaJ

pqrdef wrote: »

You could say the same about car insurance.

Not at all. If you cannot afford to insure your car, you can sell it, or SORN it. You cannot do anything equivalent with a child - not without causing devastating trauma to the child, anyway.

lostinrates

business_man wrote: »

Shall we all thank you twice?:j

Its pointless paying taxes in an economy where a couple working on low wages have less money to spend that benefit scroungers.

People keep moaning about the likes of Jimmy Carr but we keep forgetting that likes of Jimmy Carr only cost us a few millions, its the chav class which effective costs us billions and high rate of crime.

Most cases of alcoholism in the UK are seen in benefit class families.

If 25% of the population in Wales receive housing benefit, it clearly shows the expectancy of quality of life for the low class is too high.

I am not sure it right that more cases of alcoholism are in 'benefit class' families, though agree its likely more cases of treated or reported alcohol abuse are.

ILW

lostinrates wrote: »

I am not sure it right that more cases of alcoholism are in 'benefit class' families, though agree its likely more cases of treated or reported alcohol abuse are.

Seems odd that many working people cannot afford to drink, yet your benefit type can somehow afford to get totally out of it on a daily basis.

lostinrates

ILW wrote: »

Seems odd that many working people cannot afford to drink, yet your benefit type can somehow afford to get totally out of it on a daily basis.

I think its clear that in many cases some prople prioritise differently. Another taboo to bust is the silly saying that parents always put their children first. They do not, and this might include people who spend benifits or part of a low income on disproportional recreational spends (including alcohol). Its also worth wondering about a motivation issue...if you have to get up at seven every day for work the chances are you have less desire to have a hangover and more motivation to spend your income differently.

A lot of alcolism exists in wealthy situations, and there are a great many 'functioning alcoholics' in work, often in high pressure, high income and middle income jobs, so receiving benefits and alcoholism are clearly not as equatable as the first reference to it appeared.

Quasar

business_man wrote: »

Only if you ever went to school you would've known something, needless to say I stopped reading after benifits and not being able to find a full stop in your para.

PS: UK is no where near the 4th richest country in the world, number 4 stands out and got my attention.

Amazing isn't it, how people confuse size of economy with actual wealth available to the state and pupulation.

RenovationMan

lostinrates wrote: »

I think its clear that in many cases some prople prioritise differently. Another taboo to bust is the silly saying that parents always put their children first. They do not, and this might include people who spend benifits or part of a low income on disproportional recreational spends (including alcohol). Its also worth wondering about a motivation issue...if you have to get up at seven every day for work the chances are you have less desire to have a hangover and more motivation to spend your income differently.

A lot of alcolism exists in wealthy situations, and there are a great many 'functioning alcoholics' in work, often in high pressure, high income and middle income jobs, so receiving benefits and alcoholism are clearly not as equatable as the first reference to it appeared.

I saw a documentary where many low income families had the priority of 'Dad's fags' over food for the kids.

"*cough, cough* It's me only pleasure in life! *cough*"

lostinrates

RenovationMan wrote: »

I saw a documentary where many low income families had the priority of 'Dad's fags' over food for the kids.

"*cough, cough* It's me only pleasure in life! *cough*"

Obviously this is not to be dismissed as a very real issue in a depressing hner of households (i think it happens in earning households too, and not always smoking or drinking being the issue) But not sure that the simple answer of 'give'em less to stop 'em drinking/smoking' is the answer. If the habit already takes precidence over food then where would the line be where these reprobates suddenly prioritise feeding, adaquately clothing and in all other ways caring for their kids?

Edit , tbc, neither do i see it as a jusitfiation for aociety to be more provident!

MacMickster

lostinrates wrote: »

A lot of alcolism exists in wealthy situations, and there are a great many 'functioning alcoholics' in work, often in high pressure, high income and middle income jobs, so receiving benefits and alcoholism are clearly not as equatable as the first reference to it appeared.

My understanding is that functioning alcoholics generally tend to remain so for very long periods, and strive to hang on to their job as that is what funds their addiction.

When it reaches the stage that the illness/addiction has progressed to the point that they can no longer function and consequently lose their job, then this is when the addiction takes over completely and they will spend their money on alcohol at the expense of anything and everything else.