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
-
grizzly1911 wrote: »Guess you'd enjoy playing Scrooge.;)
Of course Bob Crachit was a striver.
He was reliant on handouts and was a drain on the country.
Free turkeys and trimming. Whatever next.0 -
He was reliant on handouts and was a drain on the country.
Free turkeys and trimming. Whatever next.
Survival of the selfish and corrupt is much better. Would engender a much more balanced quality of life no doubt.
When Scrooge is visited by The Ghost of Christmas Present he is shown just how ill Tim really is, and that Tim will die unless he receives treatment (which the family cannot afford due to Scrooge's miserliness)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiny_Tim_%28A_Christmas_Carol%29
"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: »Still time then.
You're way behind the times -- in more than one sense.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 -
And in our time, if you are too poor to support yourself and can't get a job, you end up on workfare.
This is what the UK's welfare policies have produced -- a generation where a large proportion literally believe that the world owes them a living.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 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »Survival of the selfish and corrupt is much better. Would engender a much more balanced quality of life no doubt.
Is that what you think about everyone who contributes, creates wealth, is self-reliant, and who strives to better themselves -- that they are automatically selfish and corrupt ?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: »This is what the UK's welfare policies have produced -- a generation where a large proportion literally believe that the world owes them a living.
A tiny minority, relatively, but I appreciate it doesn't have the same headline.."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 -
GeorgeHowell wrote: »Is that what you think about everyone who contributes, creates wealth, is self-reliant, and who strives to better themselves -- that they are automatically selfish and corrupt ?
No merely a counter to the "reliant on handouts and was a drain on the country."
There is of course the vast majority that don't fit into either camp.
It seems it is OK to denigrate the underclass but not the uberclasss.
"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: »It seems it is OK to denigrate the underclass but not the uberclasss.
That's not true either. I am sure that there is at least as much outrage about the Fred Goodwins of this world who leeched off society and created havoc as there is with the benefits skivers and scroungers.
All selfish, greedy, irresponsible, anti-social people are a scourge on society, whether they be underclass, uberclass, or in the middle like for example cowboy tradesmen who do a crap job, get paid in cash, and don't declare it.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 -
Yes the rich and wealthy can do far more damage to the UK.
If anything they tend to have a switch in their brains that goes click:
"I am God given to be rich and powerful and can do no wrong - my wealth is a just reward for my brilliance and virtue" [Nothing to do with my luck or my near pathological desire to climb the greasy pole, never mind my ability to choose my rich parents].
With the exception of the rich parents Robert Maxwell (he is dead he cannot sue) is a good example of someone who believed his own propaganda.
However for every top of the pile selfish, greedy, irresponsible, anti-social person, there are a whole lot more at the bottom of the pile, as changes in the distribution of wealth (and the demography of solidity) is changing the distribution back from a diamond towards a pyramid. (with a squeezed no longer secure middle class).0 -
John_Pierpoint wrote: »That is right the workhouse was "Dickensian" and had been introduced to avoid the no longer fit for purpose "parish" relief systems.
"Workfare" is an inherently sensible method for getting those unable to sell their labour for minimum wage to earn some sort of support and get out and about meeting other people.
It's not that particular consequence of workfare that people ought to be concerned about. Providing people to corporations for free will undermine the security of the paid workforce already in place, not to mention the chances of anyone wanting paid work actually getting a job. Look at all the companies who participated during the christmas rush. Argos, superdrug, tesco, WHSmith, to name just a few of them.
The ability of these companies to secure suitable staff for free meant that thousands of young people like students, who needed that work just to be able to get through the coming year, missed out.
Yes, if you take into account housing benefit and council tqax benefit, for a 30 hour week, working for "free" works out to around £4 an hour after tax from the taxpayer (which they were going to pay anyway so are no worse off) and free for the employer. A deal that threatens to undermine as many NMW jobs as there are free people to do the work instead.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