The bigotry of low expectations.

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
The difference between a hand up and a handout, the system should support those who need some help to get them back on their feet, sadly it's often used by many as a lifestyle choice, one that's been aided by those who've bred an entitlement culture for political ends.
Ah, the ‘working’ class.
 
Are you happy being compelled to contribute to the highways budget if you don’t drive a car?

Are you happy being compelled to contribute to the NHS if you‘re fit and healthy and can afford private healthcare?

You might as well dismantle the state now and return to Victorian values of self help - all fine and dandy for those born with a decent start in life, but a self-perpetuating shitstorm for those less fortunate.
But keep the Post Office , though
 
I once suggested that mongs were given say £30k to be sterilised, they'd be queuing up, my wife's leftie friends were horrified at the idea.
I have suggested that before on this site, but you would only need a grand. FFS, for 30 grand, I will get sterilized, never mind some smackhead who shits out babies.
 
The difference between a hand up and a handout, the system should support those who need some help to get them back on their feet, sadly it's often used by many as a lifestyle choice, one that's been aided by those who've bred an entitlement culture for political ends.
Thats most of the country, how many times have heard that child benefit should be limited to 2 kids? Its alright to get free money when you have 1 or 2 for some reason, but not any more than that.
 
I once suggested that mongs were given say £30k to be sterilised, they'd be queuing up, my wife's leftie friends were horrified at the idea.
It would save a lot of blokes money on the divorce as well, £30k vs the missus gets up the duff then wants a divorce
 

daz

LE
Thats most of the country, how many times have heard that child benefit should be limited to 2 kids? Its alright to get free money when you have 1 or 2 for some reason, but not any more than that.
You've got to start the cutback somewhere, I did note that once again there's been calls for the 2 child cap to be scrapped again this morning, along with lifting the total cap as its "unfair"
 
You've got to start the cutback somewhere, I did note that once again there's been calls for the 2 child cap to be scrapped again this morning, along with lifting the total cap as its "unfair"

My point is most people think benefits should be capped/stopped, just not theirs.
 
How about when hubby runs away and Mum is left to provide for 2 children?
Or quite often, their is no hubby, just some regular acquaintance who shall never be named

My wife is a Midwife, the amount of young partnerless mothers is beyond a joke
 
PS. To the OP @halo_jones are you having a particularly harsh visit from the painters?
 

daz

LE

Yokel

LE
"No taxation without representation" becomes "No representation without taxation"... I'd be on board with that :)
Are you going to apply this fairly? What about tax dodgers or the directors of companies who offshore their accounts to aviod tax liability?

Is making social worth a function of economic activity not hugely corrosive for society? Already in some parts of society being a drug dealer or gangster is seen as preferable to doing an honest job.
 

endure

GCM
absolutely, but no IVF, Tattoo removal etc either
Anyone undergoing IVF desperately wants a child and would be expected to be a good parent. Same with people who adopt - they actually want children.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Or quite often, their is no hubby, just some regular acquaintance who shall never be named

My wife is a Midwife, the amount of young partnerless mothers is beyond a joke
Define 'partnerless'.

SWMBO used to have a flat in Purely. She rented it out to a single mother with twins, who wanted a better place for her kids to grow up in. This was a private rent but all the money was coming from the state.

The father of the twins was around a suspicious amount considering they'd 'split up'. They then went on a date night and - gasp - a third child was on the way.

She now lives in a three-bedroom house in Worth, one of the better areas of Crawley. Cost to the state? Considerable. Her contribution to the state so far? Sod all. Oh, and she's still seeing the boyfriend that she 'split up' from.

In other words, he absents himself when the social turn up.

A girl that used to get in my old local started a relationship with a local drug dealer. She got pregnant. The first thing she did when she fell was 'split up' with him. Why? Because the council then gives him a two-bedroomed flat as well, so the kids can 'visit'. The reality was an illegal sub-let and a tax-free income of quite a bit each month.

These are the 'poor and disadvantaged'. Actually, some of them are devious and grasping, and until such scams are rolled up it's the working class who'll pay for it.
 
Are you going to apply this fairly? What about tax dodgers or the directors of companies who offshore their accounts to aviod tax liability?

Is making social worth a function of economic activity not hugely corrosive for society? Already in some parts of society being a drug dealer or gangster is seen as preferable to doing an honest job.
Applying more taxes at corporate level will get the majority of the public support

Crime versus an honest lifestyle is more cultural than economic, but there is some cross over.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Is making social worth a function of economic activity not hugely corrosive for society? Already in some parts of society being a drug dealer or gangster is seen as preferable to doing an honest job.
How about socially functioning, then?

The gangster/dealer aspiration is largely to do with perceived wealth and lifestyle.
 
Define 'partnerless'.

SWMBO used to have a flat in Purely. She rented it out to a single mother with twins, who wanted a better place for her kids to grow up in. This was a private rent but all the money was coming from the state.

The father of the twins was around a suspicious amount considering they'd 'split up'. They then went on a date night and - gasp - a third child was on the way.

She now lives in a three-bedroom house in Worth, one of the better areas of Crawley. Cost to the state? Considerable. Her contribution to the state so far? Sod all. Oh, and she's still seeing the boyfriend that she 'split up' from.

In other words, he absents himself when the social turn up.

A girl that used to get in my old local started a relationship with a local drug dealer. She got pregnant. The first thing she did when she fell was 'split up' with him. Why? Because the council then gives him a two-bedroomed flat as well, so the kids can 'visit'. The reality was an illegal sub-let and a tax-free income of quite a bit each month.

These are the 'poor and disadvantaged'. Actually, some of them are devious and grasping, and until such scams are rolled up it's the working class who'll pay for it.
Okay, you got me there.

There's two types of partnerless.

  • The Baby-mothers - Can be black, brown yellow or white cum-buckets, that see having babies as a career choice and aren't fussy who supplies the raw ingredients. Probably only worked a few years after school in a supermarket until baby 1 came along. Probably will never work again, as eventually they'll meet some sucker in early middle-age to support them and the step kids. Always moaning about the lack of money, but will have the latest phone, cable TV and be rather obese.

  • The convenient single mother - as described above. Single but all in name. Boyfriend lives there but officially it's once a month etc. He has all his correspondence, bank details at his mother's house to keep the trail cold. She's got a PhD in Benefit claiming and advises all her friends in how to claim and dodge the awkward questions. Latest phone, car, foreign holiday etc. etc.
The former is the usual type encountered. If it's the latter, then the boyfriend is usually there as the NHS aren't interested in things like who's living where and who's claiming what.
 

daz

LE
Are you going to apply this fairly? What about tax dodgers or the directors of companies who offshore their accounts to aviod tax liability?

Is making social worth a function of economic activity not hugely corrosive for society? Already in some parts of society being a drug dealer or gangster is seen as preferable to doing an honest job.
Tax evasion is already illegal, oddly, its on a larger scale at the bottom end of society, cash in hand jobs etc. directors of companies in the main, will pay tax in some form or other, either directly as personal tax, or indirectly as corporate taxes, anybody evading tax by using non-compliant schemes should be prosecuted- using legal means to reduce tax liability is not the issue.


PS, drug dealer or gangsters, hang the little bastards :)
 

daz

LE
Applying more taxes at corporate level will get the majority of the public support

Crime versus an honest lifestyle is more cultural than economic, but there is some cross over.
Why?? jacking the taxes up does not necessarily bring more money in, educating people that just because a company has made X amount of £'s in sales, does not equal X amount of £'s in corporation tax, neither is corporation tax the only tax that companies pay, employers NI contributions, pension contributions, business rates etc all go towards the tax pot.
 

Latest Threads

Top