http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16675314

 

To cap, or not to cap?

Edited January 23, 201214 yr by Uncle Albert

i thought it was about 79 before child allowance was paid for the first child

 

before then, you got nowt for the fist one?

lifes fcuking harsh

 

its harsh that i have to support those 'less fortunate' than myself

 

its harsh i was made redundant from a very nice job a few years back and work now for half as much

 

its harsh i've been made jobless 3 times in 5 years and each time haven't been able to claim a penny

 

I think I said life isnt fair further up the thread. It isn't and people need to get to grip with this fact.

The terminology 'nanny state' seems quite apt .

lifes fcuking harsh

 

its harsh that i have to support those 'less fortunate' than myself

 

its harsh i was made redundant from a very nice job a few years back and work now for half as much

 

its harsh i've been made jobless 3 times in 5 years and each time haven't been able to claim a penny

 

If thats your definition of life being harsh going from one comparatively well paid job to another then we've very different definitions of harsh.

Whilst the euthanasia thing is a tad harsh: the pensioners play a massive role in all of this.

Instead of extending the working life beyond 65 as is now happening, they should be forcing pensioners to retire earlier.

Give their jobs to those who "can't find work" and let them earn their keep and pay their way.

 

This doesn't reduce the burden on the state financially as such, but it would cut crime and make daytime life more tolerable in town centres as you wouldn't have loads of scrotes just milling around.

But wouldn't town centres then be filled with mobility scooters, the stench of piss and old people generally milling around, yet at a slower, more annoying speed?

You've not thought this through, Traf.

Edited January 25, 201214 yr by no balls

But wouldn't town centres then be filled with mobility scooters, the stench of piss and old people generally milling around, yet at a slower, more annoying speed?

You've not thought this through, Traf.

 

exactly...the only people to benefit would be m & bloody s......

 

go on then due to people living longer...ill push the cut of age to 80...but not a day more...

 

I only remember I had a 3 month old kid, my partner earned ?11 p/w as an apprentice, and drove a taxi for bank street at night . I had a job at weekend at tetrosyl and the family looked after the little 'un at weekends, so we could both work to supplement our income

Didn't drink or smoke , and I distinctly remember having just a tin of peas in the cupboard and no money.

All our furniture was given to us by friends, we had no washing machine, and the electric cooker had one ring that worked and the oven

It was so cold at night we had to sleep downstairs

 

I am not complaining, it made me the hard nosed, fighting bitch I am today

 

I wouldn't want to put any hard working family through that!

 

Ah, now we're talking about having what you can afford instead of the ridiculous idea that Bright House are doing you a favour by supplying you with all manner of soft furnishings and electrical items that you can't afford for about 10 x the retail price.

 

I see the insides of a lot of houses where the occupants are below what would be accepted as "The Poverty Line" Strange then that they always have a fucking big TV and a games colsole attached to it; they always seem to have a beer and they always smoke.

i thought it was about 79 before child allowance was paid for the first child

 

before then, you got nowt for the fist one?

 

'77 for first child & if you were a lone parent it was ?1.50 instead of ?1, so you were even rewarded back then to be a single parent?

 

By '79 this had risen to ?4 or ?6 for lone parents, amazing really, given that family allowance was brought in after the war to make it affordable to have children & replenish the population.

 

I'm thinking that's no longer the case, therefore why do we still have it? Get rid and lower taxes, that way it benefits everyone. JSL

If thats your definition of life being harsh going from one comparatively well paid job to another then we've very different definitions of harsh.

 

and if it meant i couldn't afford the mortgage, i'd have to move to something cheaper, away from where i was living...change the kids school? - how harsh do you want life to be...it was only a few posts above that karl marx was saying it was unreasonable to expect folk to do that

 

you don't have to live on a bury corpy estate to experience shite in your life

What i don't think has been mentioned are some actual figures, the coalition say a cap (implemented their way) would save a potential ?290 million next year. Sounds like a lot, but in reality, it's like grubbing down the back of a sofa for loose change - whilst some rich fat tw*t sits on it; eating caviar, quaffing champagne, dressed in mink/bling, snorting bugle and burning fifty pound notes.

 

I'd say it's merely window dressing/knee-jerking, to appease the rightfully p*ssed-off hardworking. This would be at the expense of many feckless and undeserving, but also swathes who are simply down on, or haven't had much luck in life.

 

There are other revenue streams to tap. Take the Vodafone scandal, they dodged tax (when purchasing another interest for ?180 Billion), that's billion with a B. By transacting this in Luxembourg, Vodafone alone avoided a ?6 billion one-off levy - over twenty times the potential (annual) benefit cap saving...This may be a bit of oversimplification/manipulation of figures - but it's there in black and white, in that Commie's bible, The Financial Times.

 

Finally, if there's forced conscription and formation of an army of doleites to clean up dogshit and graffiti, what will happen to those who do that for a job already? Why not have the workshy digging holes then filling them up again instead? Or undercut China by employing them in factories manufacturing crap we currently import; Airmax, fake Uggs, Henley T-Shirts, G-Star jeans, gold-digga 'jewellery', faux leather bed/televisions, Dr Dre headphones*, white cider and mephedrone could be produced in these 'Coolags' (sic). The sweetener for the workforce would be, working here they could nick loads of what they would be buying regardless. The better qualified unemployed could work as oberseers.

 

Power to the people!

 

 

*Has anyone else seen how much these are? over ?250! I'm going to take up mugging (again). This topic deserves a thread of it's own...

Edited January 27, 201214 yr by Youri McAnespie

Some poor womans just been made redundant. For that, we're gonna make her clean graffiti off walls and pick up dog shit like a common criminal doing community service. Dont be bloody daft. There may be work out there for some people, but not everyone, hence why there's over 2 and half million unemployed folk in the UK.

Hang on, further down i said i wouldnt have the people who had worked all there lives and just got made redundant doing it. Im not for penalising someone who has just been redundant. Id have some kind of system that looked at how long you had worked from age 18 to whatever you are now. Those youths 16-21 claiming benefits id have on work placements etc if not in education, older people id evaluate by age, if your 30 and worked 10 years out of 12 from 18 and been redundant youd be able claim jobseekers etc longer, and without being sent out do the graffiti (that was just one extreme measure i put in, what i meant was out doing community work) whereas someone whos 30s whos barely worked for any length of time id have those out doing community work for their "benefits". I hate the word benefit too like ita a positive thing to say you get, call it something like a "poverty payment" and put a stigma towards it (i dont mean child beneift here, i mean claiming for not working)

Edited January 26, 201214 yr by tarian1979

So basically you've gone back on what you said originally. It started with "Anyone on Jobseekers Allowance should be made to pick up dog shit" to "A select few" now. I'm not even gonna start on your idea on changing some benefit names to 'Poverty Payments', like I said, clueless.

tarian, in future posts i suggest you add much more detail, plenty of disclaimers and have a lawyer check over before posting.

I've never heard anyone claiming using the term 'benefits' anyway, it's all 'rock 'n' roll', 'nash', 'beer/tab tokens' or, best of all...'free-money'

Edited January 26, 201214 yr by Youri McAnespie

I've never heard anyone claiming using the term 'benefits' anyway, it's all 'rock 'n' roll', 'nash', 'beer/tab tokens' or, best of all...'free-money'

 

People seem to think benefits are rights these days.

They do know this gravy train hasn't been going that long, don't they?

I reckon those who set it up are now turning in their graves.

I like the term "poverty payments". Another one could be pauper pounds and peasant pennies. ::

 

I would prefer it if it was paid in food tokens though.

 

Some twats get on more holidays than me. Its also fucking annoying when these people face book statements are "im so stressed" and the like when theyve been sat on there arse for 10 years.

Because its ignorant of other people's circumstances, environment, poverty and the rising cost of property and selfish private landlords.

 

I agree after claiming jobseekers for a short while voluntary work should become compulsory. But making people scrub off grafitti and dog shite simply because they havn't got a job. What kind of country do you want to live in?

 

Moving people out of a community they have known all their life because they can't afford rent is also a bit harsh.

 

Bullshit

 

I rent a property and have done for the last ten years. I rent off the open market and pay for the rent out of my own pay packet (not housing benefit). The property I rent and have rented on the whole are available to everyone dss or not.

 

I currently rent a property for ?550 / month and it is up for sale for ?125,000 (?40,000 cheaper than same house next door). If you do the sums on it the landlord is getting just over ?6k a year for an asset valued at ?125k. Less than 5% return, hardly if at all covering the mortgage repayments. In the 18 months I have been in the roof has needed doing along with aload of other things (well over ?5k spent on repairs). To say sellfish private landlords are robbing folk on housing benefits is well wide of the mark.

 

Would a tennant help a landlord if the property drops in value and goes into negative equity? Would they fuck

 

Many landlords I have worked with (previous commercial debt recovery work) have been burnt from DSS tennants who dont pass the housing benefit onto the landlord and do a flit. Difficult to recover even with court action.

 

It aint Landlords that are the problem and without buy to let investors the rental market would be short on housing causing higher rents due to short supply.

Edited January 27, 201214 yr by birch-chorley

What i don't think has been mentioned are some actual figures, the coalition say a cap (implemented their way) would save a potential ?290 million next year. Sounds like a lot, but in reality, it's like grubbing down the back of a sofa for loose change - whilst some rich fat tw*t sits on it; eating caviar, quaffing champagne, dressed in mink/bling, snorting bugle and burning fifty pound notes.

 

 

So, there's a need to sae this ?290 million?

 

How much is that glorified Sports Day in London costing now? 12 BILLION?

Another 2.4bn more than the most recent estimate of 9.6billion which was 4 times what we were originally told it would cost.

 

Fuck off Coe you nonce.

So, there's a need to save this ?290 million?

 

How much is that glorified Sports Day in London costing now? 12 BILLION?

Another 2.4bn more than the most recent estimate of 9.6billion which was 4 times what we were originally told it would cost.

 

Fuck off Coe you nonce.

 

?6 Billion from Vodafone, a ?9.6 Billion minimum spend for that two week jamboree that's probably going to be shit - and even if it isn't, it will be a pale shadow of Beijing*. The stadium (a mere ?486 million according to The Guardian) is a f*cking embarrassment - even West Ham are umm'ing and ahh'ing over it now. But no, it's paramount to save 1/50 of the combined cost of The Games and the Vodafone scandal - anyone who can't see this is a diversionary/appeasement tactic needs their eyes testing.

 

But anyone who points this out is obviously a; dyed-in-the-wool, pinko, lefty, Trotskyite friend to doleys and sundry unwashed chavs.

 

* They should have fucked it off when that bespoke stage/routemaster pitched up at the closing ceremony in 2008. It was about as inspirational as chlymidia when Boris, Beckham, Jimmy Page and that bint no-one outside of her immediate family has heard of, did their bit...

Edited January 27, 201214 yr by Youri McAnespie

..........I currently rent a property for ?550 / week .......

 

Kin ell. Do you fancy moving? I'll rent you a 5 bedroom inc services for ?475/week!!

 

ps - any jobs going at your place?

was gonna say, 2k a month for a house worth 125k

 

good lord

 

money than more sense

i think he meant 550 pcm

aye, looking at it, you're reet

 

6k a year

There people go again with facts!

compulsory euthanasia at 75 may add a bit back into the coffers ....

 

if anyone thinks this is extreme ....please walk around any marks and Spencer store during the week....

 

its like a waiting room for overdale ....

 

oh and abolish the national.health service....what a fucking drain that thing is....

 

You will get your wish with the NHS as Cameron and his wealthy private health service backers will see to that.

 

Just remember your wish when your sat in A&E and they won't treat you until you've entered your pin number!