Labour & the Conservatives

PaulF81

mildredalien wrote: »

Ah I see, you prefer prejudice, stereotypes and misinformation to facts. Then sorry, I can't help you!

I'll leave you with another link that you probably won't read, but just in case:
http://www.neweconomics.org/blog/2012/08/29/why-clegg%E2%80%99s-one-off-wealth-tax-does-not-go-far-enough

If you are confused, the graph shows that the top 1% of the population own more wealth than the whole bottom half of the population put together. The fact that you think that the unemployed or otherwise reliant on benefits are greedy is hilarious.

Oh and here's another link to peruse if you fancy educating yourself:
http://www.jointpublicissues.org.uk/truthandliesaboutpoverty/
(if you need help - you click the link that says 'download the full report')

You probably won't, because it's far easier to sit there from your comfortable lifestyle blaming problems on and judging those less fortunate than yourself.

Here is one for your socialist mind..

Want to define Wealth as how it is different to INCOME? Want to tell me then why then the top 10% of earners (IE income) pay over 70% of the income tax that keeps the great unwashed in the business of siring benefits kids and fed with fast food?

I checked out your links. I suggest you check wikipedia for 'Confirmation Bias', because your brain has been polluted with left leaning thinkings. I wouldnt mind betting socialism is in your genetic makeup.

Here's a thought, why not start a business, and instead of using the class system as an excuse of your own inability to perform, why not consider you too could be in the top 10% of earners and maybe someday, wealth? Your goal might be a bit difficult with all those 'hard up' people expecting a free ride and hanging onto your coat tails though. Its not the rich that stop social mobility, its those who are happier to live off benefits than do something about their !!!! situation.

dryhat

PaulF81 wrote: »

How many carrots would this miscreant have to pick before she could be considered for a proper job?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2300962/Obese-Jay-Cole-went-This-Morning-complain-fat-job-caught-stealing-cakes.html

From that link ...

A woman who appeared on TV claiming that no one would give her a job because she was too fat was caught shoplifting cakes just hours later, it emerged today.

What a fantastic opening line to an article.

mildredalien

No need to get personal Paul. Get back to me when you've read all the links I posted and given yourself time to reflect on them.

It amuses me that you try to defend the huge wealth inequality in the UK. The Daily Mail and the Tories have done their job well, demonising those who are poor, uneducated, unemployed or otherwise disadvantaged. I just hope you never go through anything that means you end up on the other side of the fence, wondering why people are looking down on you when all you want to do is find a job and feed your family.

PaulF81

mildredalien wrote: »

No need to get personal Paul. Get back to me when you've read all the links I posted and given yourself time to reflect on them.

It amuses me that you try to defend the huge wealth inequality in the UK. The Daily Mail and the Tories have done their job well, demonising those who are poor, uneducated, unemployed or otherwise disadvantaged. I just hope you never go through anything that means you end up on the other side of the fence, wondering why people are looking down on you when all you want to do is find a job and feed your family.

Ask yourself, with a state education system, why are they uneducated? was it the states fault or their 'cant be ars&dness' when attending the same education system we all did? How many chances do we give people before we accept they are frankly wasters who will do nothing with their lives unless they are made to?

I have no issue with people trying to get on in life. I have plenty of problems that throw 'woe is me' stories the minute the coalition try and sort out the mess that the welfare state has become thanks to the filth that is Labour.... who use the welfare state effectively to buy votes, fully in the knowledge that the welfare state is the biggest barrier to social mobility that has ever existed. I see Milliband made a few million this year on the conference and speaking circuit. How much did he donate to socialist causes (I am not talking about sponsorship of the unions here) perhaps some of these champagne socialists should put their money where their mouth is, just like many conservatives do in local rural communities, to help each other?

Community is where it is at. Most socialists wont even know the name of their neighbour and their children. Every rural tory area I have lived in so far led to invites for dinner within a fortnight of moving in, from 2 out of our 3 neighbors in our current pad. Would a socialist do this if the state didnt pay?

dryhat

PaulF81 wrote: »

Ask yourself, with a state education system, why are they uneducated? was it the states fault or their 'cant be ars&dness' when attending the same education system we all did? How many chances do we give people before we accept they are frankly wasters who will do nothing with their lives unless they are made to?

I don't know where you were "educated" mate - but you could do with some punctuation lessons yourself.


(forgive me if English is not your first language)

PaulF81

It is, unfortunately fat fingers don't help on touchscreen. No excuse!

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

PaulF81 wrote: »

Here's a thought, why not start a business, and instead of using the class system as an excuse of your own inability to perform, why not consider you too could be in the top 10% of earners and maybe someday, wealth? Your goal might be a bit difficult with all those 'hard up' people expecting a free ride and hanging onto your coat tails though. Its not the rich that stop social mobility, its those who are happier to live off benefits than do something about their !!!! situation.

I realise you are from a working class background and that a great deal of hatred goes on within the working classes because of the old age divide between those who aim for respectability and those who disdain it and that a lot of your views are an expression of frustration at the anti social elements in your own communty. It's also true that the impact of anti-social behaviour and crime are a class issues - both are statistically more likey to affect working class people than middle classes. Those therefore on the receiving end - unsurprisingly - have little sympathy for the perpetrators, particularly if they share a similar set of difficult circumstanances but do not resort themselves to anti-social behaviour.

It's also true that hostilty to supposed benefit cheats is not the sole preserve of the middle classes - if you are someone scraping by in a low paid job, the feeling that there are people living it up at your expense may well infuriate you.

BUT this just becomes an age-old example of the "poor against the poor" and right wing politicians and media exploit such sentiments ruthlessly. So extreme examples of benefit fraudsters are hunted down with relish and are shown as a representative of an endemic and far bigger problem. The "scounger" becomes the public face of the unemployed.

BUT such fraud represents less than 1% of total welfare spendng and up to 60 times less than tax avoidance at the other end of the economic spectrum.

So ask you again why are you so angry at the poor and not the idle rich that avoid paying taxes? Do you think the rich might just be exploiting you?

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

mildredalien wrote: »

I'll leave you with another link that you probably won't read, but just in case:
http://www.neweconomics.org/blog/2012/08/29/why-clegg%E2%80%99s-one-off-wealth-tax-does-not-go-far-enough

From the article:-

Net Housing wealth

• It is estimated that the top 1 per cent have up to £15 million per household.
• The bottom third of households have 0.

Total aggregate wealth (housing + financial + physical + pensions)
Top 1% of households: £1.3 trillion
Bottom half of households: £1.0 trillion

Yes, you’ve got it – the top 1 per cent have more aggregate wealth than the whole bottom half of the population put together.

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

mildredalien wrote: »

Oh and here's another link to peruse if you fancy educating yourself:
http://www.jointpublicissues.org.uk/truthandliesaboutpoverty/
(if you need help - you click the link that says 'download the full report')

From the article:-

In 1753 John Wesley said, “So wickedly, devilishly false is that common objection, ‘They are poor, only because they are idle’.” Yet today church-goers and the general public alike are willing to believe that the key factors driving poverty in the UK are the personal failings of the poor – especially ‘idleness’.

And here we are - goodness how much was spent on Paul's education - and he still believes the same. It's like being a fully paid up member of The Flat Earth Society.

Moby

PaulF81 wrote: »

Can someone please explain the much higher benefits claimant rate in labour constituencies? I still contend that socialism is a major cause of poverty, despite frothing lefty claims to the contrary. A limited safety net would give the !!!!less unwashed no option other than work.

With the exception of a very few disabled individuals and the likes of young widows, e majority of gripes I hear into welfare reform still revolve around 'cant be bothered to work, the jobs you suggest are below me'. I say tough. If you want to eat cake, work for it!

Already answered this you plonker. Ghettoisation.