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!
The BBC's "Growing up poor". Poverty seen up close
Comments
-
Yeah crazy, but this is to encourage landlords not to have housing benefit paid directly to them.
The problem will get far worse when universal credit comes in. These wasters are going to be given a couple of grand at the start of each month, and are supossed to pay their rent council tax and everything before they blow it all.
I can't believe that Duncan Smith and his advisors have not thought about that problem. Whether they have the political courage to deal with it by financially punishing these morons in some way for their irresponsiblity is another matter.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 -
All that will do is put up the crime figures and have some !!!!!! steal our war memorial for scrap again.0
-
John_Pierpoint wrote: »All that will do is put up the crime figures and have some !!!!!! steal our war memorial for scrap again.
You're absolutely right. One of the main reasons that they don't slash benefits for the scrounging layabout fraternity is the fear that they will just come out and take what they want, a la August 2011. And of course they don't have the political courage to address that with the kind of nip-it-in-the-bud draconian criminal justice that it needs. Effectively the tax paying, law abiding majority is blackmailed into chipping in in order to keep the non-contributory parasites secure and comfortable. What a state for a country to get in.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: ». It is becoming a godless, soulless society, and the attendant social problems and divisions that are ever more evident are the unfortunate consequence.GeorgeHowell wrote: »You're absolutely right. One of the main reasons that they don't slash benefits for the scrounging layabout fraternity is the fear that they will just come out and take what they want, a la August 2011. And of course they don't have the political courage to address that with the kind of nip-it-in-the-bud draconian criminal justice that it needs. Effectively the tax paying, law abiding majority is blackmailed into chipping in in order to keep the non-contributory parasites secure and comfortable. What a state for a country to get in.
Well that is a very christian way of viewing the world - I'm sure JC would be proud of you! I have to say, wouldn't it be great to have more christians in the world - like your dearself:)A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step
Savings For Kids 1st Jan 2019 £16,112
0 -
GeorgeHowell wrote: »Effectively the tax paying, law abiding majority is blackmailed into chipping in in order to keep the non-contributory parasites secure and comfortable. What a state for a country to get in.
Well move to another country then. Nobody makes you stay here.A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step
Savings For Kids 1st Jan 2019 £16,112
0 -
GeorgeHowell wrote: »And of course they don't have the political courage to address that with the kind of nip-it-in-the-bud draconian criminal justice that it needs. Effectively the tax paying, law abiding majority is blackmailed into chipping in in order to keep the non-contributory parasites secure and comfortable. What a state for a country to get in.
What do you have in mind in this draconian criminal justice system?
Doesn't it cost considerably more to keep individuals locked up or under supervision or perhaps you would prefer something more final?"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 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »Doesn't it cost considerably more to keep individuals locked up or under supervision or perhaps you would prefer something more final?
He'd have them shot if it wasn't for the cost of bullets :rotfl: which he probably thinks are kept artificially high due to some lefty, commie, liberal, lad-di-dah, peace and love, hippy conspiracy.Having a signature removed for mentioning the removal of a previous signature. Blackwhite bellyfeel double plus good...0 -
GeorgeHowell wrote: »Nevertheless it appears to be happening and needs dealing with, badly and urgently. You are dyed in the wool Labour and will never concede this, but it needs more open-minded and uncommitted voters to see it.
You're jumping to conclusions that are wrong George but nothing new there.
I don't support any party as it happens. I have straddled both the poor and incredibly wealthy in my life. I have worked with both camps, I have family in both camps.
I have never claimed anything other than Child Benefit and don't intend to.
I accept that there is good and bad in all.
We will always have a welfare issue and it isn't going to diminish and skulk away just because benefits are rearranged and cut arbitrarily.
Things are rarely black and white. The world moves on.
Rubber truncheon treatment will just cause a whole host of other problems that IDS/GO haven't even thought about let alone budgeted for. A few sustainable carrots would be better.
All the time the real issues continue. We will have moved a five years and the country will have simply slipped further.
I guess you are what one would call an open-minded and uncommitted voter as you can see it.
Just to help you:-
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ugly-Fish-R9030-Sunglasses-Black/dp/B007MLLE0A/ref=sr_1_6?s=automotive&ie=UTF8&qid=1358879497&sr=1-6
"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 -
We will always have a welfare, however it is not predetermined it will always be an issue.grizzly1911 wrote: »We will always have a welfare issue and it isn't going to diminish and skulk away just because benefits are rearranged and cut arbitrarily.
In any business or economy, you must strive to ensure that the production (income) is higher than the upkeep (expenditure).
There's no doubt that the welfare largely contributes to our deficit
A good business method is to reduce your costs and these directly hit the bottom line, hence cutting benefits is a realistic way to achieve what is economically stable
In my opinion, benefits should be there to provide the most basic of cover, not something that some people can make a choice on as a lifechoice.
It should always be more beneficial to gain meaningful employment.:wall:
What we've got here is....... failure to communicate.
Some men you just can't reach.
:wall:0 -
IveSeenTheLight wrote: »We will always have a welfare, however it is not predetermined it will always be an issue.
In any business or economy, you must strive to ensure that the production (income) is higher than the upkeep (expenditure).
There's no doubt that the welfare largely contributes to our deficit
A good business method is to reduce your costs and these directly hit the bottom line, hence cutting benefits is a realistic way to achieve what is economically stable
In my opinion, benefits should be there to provide the most basic of cover, not something that some people can make a choice on as a lifechoice.
It should always be more beneficial to gain meaningful employment.
You are of course right I that books need to be balanced.
I totally agree it shouldn't be a life choice and for the vast majority it isn't. I also acknowledge that a small minority take the mick but I doubt they will really be affected by these reforms.
If we had a strong economy I doubt the welfare debate would have such prominence.
"Meaningful" is a key word as are employment opportunities.
There is one other key difference - this is not a business."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
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