A Question for Tory Supporters

BikingBud

Drawer_full_of_socks wrote: »

The point being made is that the average voters perception of welfare spending is grossly inaccurate, nobody has argued that too much is spent on pensioners. Maybe you'd like to discuss the actual topic of debate?


I can virtually guarantee that you're nearer 70 years of age than you are 30, and you definitely voted Brexit and Conservative. But that's irrelevant, a bit like your last 5 posts.

Your assumptions like your logic are grossly inaccurate:o

What other gross biases do you have?

What is an average voter?

How do we balance the budget if we already share the funds equally?

What would you prefer to do without?

We still spend nearly 8% of GDP servicing current debt do you want to buy some more?

BikingBud

Drawer_full_of_socks wrote: »

I thought that bit was obvious , I focused on UB as Cakguts argument was that statistically significant number of people "view benefits as a way of life".


Are you suggesting that hard working people receiving a poor rate of poor who rely on Tax credit's etc are playing the system in some way? Or is it because the majority of large employers pay people less than they need to live?

This shouldn't be difficult.

And the old UB is out so perhaps your argument would have greater significance and applicability if you addressed the new system:

Universal Credit is a benefit payment for people in or out of work.

It replaces some of the benefits and tax credits you might be getting now:

Housing Benefit.
Child Tax Credit.
Income Support.
Working Tax Credit.
Income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance.
Income-related Employment and Support Allowance.

I never said anybody was playing the system there goes your assumptions and biases again. :mad: I was commenting about the overall funds made available via the welfare state, now provided via UC not the legacy benefits listed above.

We could get into a further extended debate about the living wage but as many on here consider housing affordability not to be an issue then that would appear pointless.

Drawer_full_of_socks

BikingBud wrote: »

Your assumptions like your logic are grossly inaccurate:o


Which bit? Brexit? Conservative? or your age?


What is an average voter?


the voters expressing the central typical value


How do we balance the budget if we already share the funds equally?



Is too much spent on the poorest in society or not? Are there not enough disabled people dying?


What would you prefer to do without?


The 6th richest country in the world allowing the most disadvantaged and disbaled to die unnecessarily.

Good night Nige :beer:.

Drawer_full_of_socks

BikingBud wrote: »

And the old UB is out so perhaps your argument would have greater significance and applicability if you addressed the new system:


I never said anybody was playing the system there goes your assumptions and biases again. :mad: I was commenting about the overall funds made available via the welfare state, now provided via UC not the legacy benefits listed above.

We could get into a further extended debate about the living wage but as many on here consider housing affordability not to be an issue then that would appear pointless.

Ok 1 quick reply, you're not making any point about the amounts spent on welfare, simply that we need to balance the books and although you know there has been a rise in deaths amongst the most vulnerable such as the disabled and homeless https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46613609, the main point to consider is we have to balance the books..... Got you. :money:

Cakeguts

Drawer_full_of_socks wrote: »

Is 1% of the welfare budget spent on unemployment benefits indicative of a significant number of people living a benefit lifestyle? Simple question......



Child Benefit = £13p/w for additional children, I'd hardly say people having multiple children are raking it in.

Me and the wife are professionals working full time, thankfully neither of us have ever needed to claim a benefit, but we don't begrudge supporting others who have fallen on hard times or simply haven't had the ability or opportunity to attain secure full time work.

I imagine this probably comes down to each individuals background, it's a shame that the majority have become so cynical.

I don't begrudge supporting people who have fallen on hard times or who are disabled or too ill to work. But I do begrudge supporting people to have a lifestyle choices paid for by other people.



The situation is this. If you single and disabled and can't work you are unlikely to be able to access housing that suits your needs so you may have to live with your parents when all your contemporaries have got housing benefit or social housing to house their families that you are never likely to have. If you need supported housing you will probably have to wait a long time for something that is suitable simply because there isn't enough supported housing. Councils are too busy housing families who can't be bothered to move somewhere cheaper.



If you are sleeping rough because you have a serious mental illness that has not been supported either by the NHS or the local authority so you have self medicated by using alcohol or drugs you are less likely to be housed because of course the families who want a lifestyle paid for by others get preference.



The people who are right at the bottom are the single disabled they are not families. Single disabled people have difficulty finding suitable housing, and often have to continue living with their parents long after the time when non disabled people would have been offered suitable housing or had got housing benefit.



Children are a lifestyle choice now similar to a new car or a dog. No one needs to have them. Planet earth would be a much better place to live if there were fewer people on it. Many single disabled people do not get the choice to have children ever.



I am totally in favour of supporting people who are disabled or ill and cannot work. I am totally against supporting paying for anyone's child. No one has the right to have a child. Children do not ask to be born.

Drawer_full_of_socks

I see, so people from disadvantaged backgrounds who lack the education or ability to do anything other than basic menial work don't have the right to have children. Sounds a lot like social cleansing. But you crack on. :eek:

BikingBud

Drawer_full_of_socks wrote: »

Good night Nige :beer:.

Mate I think you need more than one beer.

Originally Posted by BikingBud

Your assumptions like your logic are grossly inaccurate.

Which bit? Brexit? Conservative? or your age? 3/3

What is an average voter?

the voters expressing the central typical value . Like the ones that voted Brexit?

How do we balance the budget if we already share the funds equally?

Is too much spent on the poorest in society or not? I don't know what are the figures? We have a budget of 667.7 Billion about 24% (7.25% GDP up from 5.1 in 2000) goes on health and 11% on welfare i could list more but to what end you would still want more cash however large the sums were.

Are there not enough disabled people dying? I don't know what are the figures?

What would you prefer to do without?

The 6th richest country in the world allowing the most disadvantaged and disbaled to die unnecessarily.Really!! Is this people starving to death? Or not being cared for medically? Show me the figures. Also what would you like to do without?

SpiderLegs

Drawer_full_of_socks wrote: »

This kind of thinking is ruining the country, Labour suspects that a Brexit deal better than the one arranged by the May government is possible, and would like to explore that possibility. It also suspects that even an improved deal would be worse than no Brexit at all. Nonetheless, it would like to give the people the final say on the two options. It is hard to imagine any democrat objecting to this position.

I’m afraid this is basically nonsense. Labour suspects nothing of the sort. Labour has a massive internal conflict that it cannot resolve with any kind of definitive policy, therefore it is spending all its time focusing on its own problems. Sound familiar?

You seem to have fallen hook, line and sinker for this load of spin. Don’t you understand? This ‘final say’ is not a policy, it’s just an excuse for an absence of policy.

The tories have now dealt with their version of this exact same issue (that has blighted them for three years) and have coherent aims.
The Lib Dem’s have finally had the balls to say what they have always believed in.

But not so hard when you consider the amount of hysteria whipped up in the Sun et al whenever Mr Corbyn so much as utters a thought.

Perhaps if Mr Corbyn could manage to utter a coherent thought it would help.

Cakeguts

Drawer_full_of_socks wrote: »

I see, so people from disadvantaged backgrounds who lack the education or ability to do anything other than basic menial work don't have the right to have children. Sounds a lot like social cleansing. But you crack on. :eek:

No one has the right to have children. It is a lifestyle choice. Because of the situation of the planet being overpopulated having a child is now on the level of getting a pet or buying a car. The planet doesn't need any more people so anyone having more than two now anyway is being anti-social.



People from disadvantaged backgrounds who work can have the number of children they can afford to pay for by themselves. That is what everyone else does.



People who don't work can wait until they have got a job before they have children. You have also got to consider the children. They don't ask to be born to parents who only think about themselves. If some people actually thought about what they were bringing their children into they wouldn't do it. That lack of thought based on pure selfishness is a big problem.



Now what would you suggest for someone like a person I used to work with? They were diagnosed with MS in their early 20s. It was one of the aggressive types. By 29 they could no longer feel their feet and had to use a stick to walk and drive a car that didn't have pedals. At what stage in the middle of all that do you think your idea of everyone having a right to have a child should have happened? Or is it only people who are not disabled who have the right to have children?



It seems to me that in your nice comfortable world everyone except the disabled have a right to children and suitable housing. But disability is not a choice and having children is.



If you have children that you cannot afford to house without someone else paying for you are taking available money away from the poor. Those people who cannot find suitable single social housing because of illness and disability. The poor are not families with children the poor are the disabled single people.

Sailtheworld

Cakeguts wrote: »

No one has the right to have children. It is a lifestyle choice. Because of the situation of the planet being overpopulated having a child is now on the level of getting a pet or buying a car. The planet doesn't need any more people so anyone having more than two now anyway is being anti-social.

People from disadvantaged backgrounds who work can have the number of children they can afford to pay for by themselves. That is what everyone else does.

People who don't work can wait until they have got a job before they have children. You have also got to consider the children. They don't ask to be born to parents who only think about themselves. If some people actually thought about what they were bringing their children into they wouldn't do it. That lack of thought based on pure selfishness is a big problem.

Now what would you suggest for someone like a person I used to work with? They were diagnosed with MS in their early 20s. It was one of the aggressive types. By 29 they could no longer feel their feet and had to use a stick to walk and drive a car that didn't have pedals. At what stage in the middle of all that do you think your idea of everyone having a right to have a child should have happened? Or is it only people who are not disabled who have the right to have children?

It seems to me that in your nice comfortable world everyone except the disabled have a right to children and suitable housing. But disability is not a choice and having children is.

If you have children that you cannot afford to house without someone else paying for you are taking available money away from the poor. Those people who cannot find suitable single social housing because of illness and disability. The poor are not families with children the poor are the disabled single people.

You almost seem to be blaming poor people with children for you or someone else not getting sufficient disability benefits. What's the story?