Youre Poor, Well Patronise You

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by Brick, Mar 12, 2008.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Read this comment piece in The Times this morning whilst waiting for the bank to open and it pretty much sums up a lot of my attitude on the general subject so thought I'd share it and see what other people thought.

    Now of course there are always going to be some people that are feckless and wast the money but why should everyone have to put up with the system just because of them? Give people the money normally but for the serial no-hopers keep a much smaller version of the current system that they can be forcibly moved onto if they can't be trusted to look after themselves. Seems to make sense or can anyone spot any holes in the argument?
     
  2. The hole in your argument is the government and the article itself. It seems to me that people relying on state handouts, rightly or wrongly, think that the next government might be conservative. If it is they might think the conservatives will do away with a shite load of that benefit (I remember working for less than £1 an hour for 8 months after I left the army with no state handouts to top it up. That was a Tory government who allowed it, do you see the connection?). So, the Labour government surmises that so long as they provide these handouts, the benficiaries will carry on voting for them because they are too scared not to, which is what I think the article is trying to say.

    A big question mark hangs over everybody's job in a global market economy. No jobs for life, no real security. I might benefit from some of the proposed tax changes but what happens if I lose my job? I'm on the wage I am on because I have worked where I am working for many years not because I have any special skills. I've seen promotions, pay rises, bonuses and all sorts but if they shut us down and move our jobs to Edinburgh as the grapevine is suggesting and I can't go with it, I cannot see me getting another job earning the same wage. I hit 40 this week, I have two small kids in nursery costing us as much as our mortgage. It doesn't clean us out and we can save a bit but it is tight and if I end up on the trash heap, my wife's semi secure job in the NHS will not pay all the bills. What happens then if a Tory government repeals the benefit safety net?

    I don't dissagree that the benefit system is an economic black hole, in fact I think it is scandelous but I if I lose my job I may have to rely on it for a short time at least. It is a dilema and I have to put some thought into it come the next election. I still doubt very much that I'd vote Labour though the fecksters can spin on it. Tories or no, job or no, I've got broad shoulders and I'll muddle through one way or the other but many may think differently and whatever the popular perception most are not chavscum oxygen thieves. It is how it is because this government wants it that way, they profit from it.
     
  3. Going a little off-thread here,but there are those with jobs for life under this government,and they are the public sector so carefully built up by Labour with the warning to those so employed within(I won't use the word 'work' when writing about the public sector) that if a conservative government is elected,then your jobs are at risk.
     
  4. Ord_Sgt

    Ord_Sgt RIP

    Fair one Tazzers, we all need a helping hand at some point.

    One question though, why at age 40 do you not have any skills, what have you been doing during your working life?
     
  5. By that do you mean squaddies, sailors and airmen. Not to mention nurses?

    They all work for the public sector.

    Liebour will, to a certain extent, try to keep the financialy dormant (ie doleys and fake sickness claimers) happy to ensure their vote.

    Believe me most "front line" public sector workers are as sick as this government as anyone.
     
  6. Putting up the tax of the poorest by a Labour Government was an astonishing move - countered by the "well, help yourselves to some benefits". IE you pay tax to the tax man and then another tax man pays it back to you. This is called "THE CLIENT STATE" and is economic madness. Its why the Soviet Union failed as will any other client state. Parts of Scotland, the North East and Wales already have a greater proportion of their 'GDP' provided by the state than was the case in the Soviet Union.

    The answer is NOT TO TAX THE POOREST. Make the entry level for income tax £15k and bin benefits for all those with a job. If you keep the minimum wage structure, that would ensure a much fairer society, more tax (as there would be less incentive to take 'cash') and less bureaucrats.

    This won't happen.
     
  7. No. I said I don't have any special skills. Sometimes things just pan out like that. I'm not skill(less) but I'm not a seasoned and successful 'professional'. I just work for a living, we can't all be successful businessmen and tradesmen. I have built up a lot of transferable currency in the job I am doing now so finding a job if I lose this one won't be a major issue. However I am not 'white collar', I like to think of myself as a grafter but that might be pushing it a bit and I don't think I can find much paying what I am earning now.

    I suppose it depends on your definition of skill and no skills.
     
  8. Le_addeur_noir

    How wonderfully patronising you are, I 'work' for the public sector, as do most of the other users of this site, to b fair, i am now a civi, and not in greens, but my civil servant status still stands, and we dont have a 'job for life' nor are we highly paid, but i suppose you would know all about that in your glass bubble wouldnt you..... tit
     
  9. Not quite that simple unless the minimum wage is turned into something that is actually possible to live on, Xerxes. By that, I mean something that the bloke in a decent job, with a pregnant wife (why shouldn't he have one?) and one child already, who's suddenly made redundant and takes "anything going" can live on.

    £5.52 p/h for 45 hrs a week is £248.20 a week. With all "benefits for working people" withdrawn, could you honestly survive on that - with your £120 a week rent, £15 a week council tax plus all utilities (varying wildly from area to area thanks to privatisation) to pay?

    Bear in mind, you're likely to need transport to get to your "anything goes" job in some areas - and those areas are likely to be the "desirable" rural ones where rents and utilities are high, property prices (and hence mortgages) are higher and public transport is non-existant!

    Totally agree with the article that taking tax then handing it back in "credits" is a waste of time and money but is the middle class, small-business-owning public really prepared for the alternative?

    People need a certain amount to survive on; if they're putting in a full week's work for their employer they deserve to do a little more than "survive" (yes, I even include someone tossing burgers in Maccy D for 45 hrs a week!) and that costs a hell of a lot more than the natinoal minimum if there are no "top-ups" to help!
     
  10. The_Seagull,

    I should have excluded the armed forces and the police/emergency services from my rant about the public sector.

    However employment in the public sector is far more secure than the private sector(with guaranteed inflation proof pensions to boot).

    Labour have been engaging in'pork-barrel politics' by placing public sector jobs in favoured areas-example the moving of a government office from Corby to Leicester last year on the pretext of there being a lack of"cultural diversity" in Corby.