Corbynomics: A Dystopia

Cakeguts

economic wrote: »

scope are a charity, they would be the ones playing with the definitions to make the situation more serious then it is. do you see 1 in 5 people in the public disabled enough to not work?

it says 3.4m disabled in employment. it also says there are 2.4m disabled people who are working age. sure some are pension age who also work. but some pension age disabled may not need to work.

disabled born here who have parents born here are more then likely to be financially ok. their parents would have owned homes which will be passed onto the disabled.

those who are disabled who immigrated here - well maybe we should restrict immigrants who will be a burden on our economy.

those born here to parents who are immigrants - chances are the parents would also be owning homes here, if not then sure financially they wont be great but then you really have to be severely disabled to not work and there are not that many like that that it is easy to support them through benefits.

You may be thinking of people who are physically disabled. There are a lot of people who are disabled but don''t look as if they are. They can't live on their own. They often have to have supported housing. There is a shortage of supported housing. Inheriting a house if you need supported housing doesn't help you.

Thrugelmir

Originally Posted by Moby
Capitalists hardly run their businesses based on principles of philanthropy. We see it time and time again from the cotton mill owners to the mine owners to the bankers taking advantage of de-regulation. They are all looking for an edge to maximise profit and guess what the easiest way is to reduce their costs. The biggest cost for most businesses is what they have to pay to employees and the standards of conditions employees are required to work in.

Let's remind ourselves what socialists are like before painting pictures.

Loses court battle over flat payments
In 2013 Scargill lost his legal fight to have the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) continue to meet the £34,000 per year costs of his London flat for his lifetime.

Next time before getting on your high horse. Best to remember that politics has no boundaries when it comes to conduct of oneself. Many people are inherently greedy. That's their nature.

economic

Cakeguts wrote: »

You may be thinking of people who are physically disabled. There are a lot of people who are disabled but don''t look as if they are. They can't live on their own. They often have to have supported housing. There is a shortage of supported housing. Inheriting a house if you need supported housing doesn't help you.

yes that is very true. but i still dont think its 1 in every 5. much much lower then that. i wonder how they define "disabled".

antrobus

economic wrote: »

scope are a charity, they would be the ones playing with the definitions to make the situation more serious then it is. do you see 1 in 5 people in the public disabled enough to not work?

it says 3.4m disabled in employment. it also says there are 2.4m disabled people who are working age. sure some are pension age who also work. but some pension age disabled may not need to work.

Didn't I say "play with your definitions".:)

You can try this as well. Official government numbers. From 2011/12.

The Office for Disability Issues has updated Department for Work and Pensions estimates which show there are 11.6 million disabled people in Great Britain, of whom 5.7 million are adults of working age, 5.1 million are over state pension age and 0.8 million are children.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/321594/disability-prevalence.pdf

Your claim that the disabled are "very small minority compared to young people by a massive margin" was just plain, well, I think the word is 'wrong'.:)

economic wrote: »

...
disabled born here who have parents born here are more then likely to be financially ok. their parents would have owned homes which will be passed onto the disabled.

those who are disabled who immigrated here - well maybe we should restrict immigrants who will be a burden on our economy.

those born here to parents who are immigrants - chances are the parents would also be owning homes here, if not then sure financially they wont be great but then you really have to be severely disabled to not work and there are not that many like that that it is easy to support them through benefits.

Pure waffle.

Whether or not the disabled are "financially OK" has no bearing on how many there are.

economic

antrobus wrote: »

Didn't I say "play with your definitions".:)

You can try this as well. Official government numbers. From 2011/12.

The Office for Disability Issues has updated Department for Work and Pensions estimates which show there are 11.6 million disabled people in Great Britain, of whom 5.7 million are adults of working age, 5.1 million are over state pension age and 0.8 million are children.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/321594/disability-prevalence.pdf

Your claim that the disabled are "very small minority compared to young people by a massive margin" was just plain, well, I think the word is 'wrong'.:)



Pure waffle.

Whether or not the disabled are "financially OK" has no bearing on how many there are.

never meant to say how many there are. so not waffle. all i am doing is replying to the comment on care costs for disabled. those who inherit the property who are disabled have obvious financial resources to pay for the costs - the inherited house.

antrobus

economic wrote: »

yes that is very true. but i still dont think its 1 in every 5. much much lower then that. i wonder how they define "disabled".

There's a definition in the Equality Act 2000.

But why are you asking such a question? Anyone who makes such a statement as "disabled people in this country are a very small minority compared to young people by a massive margin. this wont ever change" should already know this.

Do the research. Exercise your judgement. Then base your opinions on the facts and not prejudice.

antrobus

economic wrote: »

never meant to say how many there are. so not waffle. all i am doing is replying to the comment on care costs for disabled. those who inherit the property who are disabled have obvious financial resources to pay for the costs - the inherited house.

Yes you did.:)

You said ""disabled people in this country are a very small minority compared to young people by a massive margin. this wont ever change".

Stop wriggling on the hook, and just admit that you were wrong.

P.S. How many of these disabled do you think have inherited property and have obvious financial resources to pay for the costs?
What costs are you talking about? Has it occurred to you that the inheritance of the property might not happen until the last aged parent has finally died at the age of 90, by which time the disabled person may well be 65?

Cakeguts

The point about some disabilities is that inheriting a house doesn't help. If you need supported housing because you are unable to arrange to feed yourself, do your shopping, cook or manage finance and there is not enough supported housing the inherited house or the money from it is no good to you. The kind of people who need supported housing are living at home with parents because there is nowhere else for them to live it isn't from choice. This situation isn't to do with lack of personal money it due to lack of a particular type of housing and the support needed. The problem is that many people don't know that there are these vulnerable adults who have no choices because they are often invisible. Living at home, not going to work, not going out much because of lack of support and money means that many people don't know they exist.

If you have a physical disability and you are single you might have to rely on council provided carers and council provided transport. How many people here think that you can get council provided transport for a disabled person to go out in the evening?

These single disabled adults often have nothing. No choice.

Moby

cogito wrote: »

The self serving capitalists who invest huge amounts of money to develop technologies which should then not be left in their hands? I can see big investment in the UK if Jeremy got his way.

Just because you invest money in something doesn't automatically mean you should have control over what results. That's simply not democratic and gives undue influence to people with money who speculate. You may trust them to do the right thing....I don't! Besides there's a difference between investing in widgets that you can choose to buy or not but everyone needs to travel, needs access to clean water and power. Wanting to have state control in those areas is hardly radical.

Cakeguts

Moby wrote: »

Just because you invest money in something doesn't automatically mean you should have control over what results. That's simply not democratic and gives undue influence to people with money who speculate. You may trust them to do the right thing....I don't! Besides there's a difference between investing in widgets that you can choose to buy or not but everyone needs to travel, needs access to clean water and power. Wanting to have state control in those areas is hardly radical.

Why would anyone want the state to control a water supply? You only need a communist like Jeremy Corbyn with some weird ideas from Momentum and you have a water supply at risk of all sorts of contamination.

What sort of state control would you suggest for the power produced by privately owned solar panels?