Starbucks - Boycott?

[no balls]

 

 

There's got to be a way to arrest living off the social as the 'family business'. But how? That's the holy grail of benefit reform...

Stop paying them?

You really do have to be cruel to be kind sometimes.

[maaarsh]

Calm down, I'm perfectly aware the current situation is not setup as the goal of the Beveridge Report. I don't listen to a great deal of Radio 4 (not good for the blood pressure) but the institution of the welfare state did come up in British Politics of the 20th century at university.

 

I do not, and would not, argue for world without safety nets. I'm simply asking people to realise that there is no perfect solution which delivers on all metrics. It is a simple reality of life that if you make the state the safety net rather than their family, you remove a strong incentive to moral behaviour and reduce community cohesion. If I relied on the people I saw everyday for support in extremis, I would be more likely to behave like a decent bloke towards them. As it is, I know the state has got my back and so I'm the cunt I am.

[Big_Sharps]

I've been boycotting them for years on the basis I hate tea and coffee.

[Maggie Tate]

Well say that then.

 

You very clearly claimed that the reason for the country's moral disintegration (the existence, or otherwise, of which is another argument in itself) is the very existence of the welfare state. At least you've taken the opportunity to tell the class you didn't really mean it.

[maaarsh]

It's a rather meagre distinction to say that it's not the welfare state's fault, it's just that we did the welfare state wrong.

 

All I clarified is that I don't believe it was a deliberate design, but then socialists rarely do think of the unintended consequences of their meddling. There is no way to give people an unconditional safety net without removing the incentives to good behaviour that a conditional safety net has.

[Maggie Tate]

We'll have to disagree on your first point, as that is no meagre distinction whatsoever. One is entitled to bring about new policies without concern for how future generations might mess it up. You may as well say no press, in case it hacks phones, or no military, in case future leaders misuse it. No tax, in case Starbucks dodges it. No cars, the idiots will only crash them.

 

It's debatable, by the way, whether or not Beveridge was a socialist (as you know he was a member of the Liberals, not Labour). In any case, his recommendations were embraced by all quarters (point to note - the Labour Party was the last to accept them, some time after the Tories did). Lastly, the welfare state as he envisaged it simply did not give people this 'unconditional safety net' you speak of. The longer you put in to the pot, the greater your entitlement was when you needed it. It was a simple vision which worked well until short-sighted politicians began to fuck about with it from the 1960s to the present day.

 

There is no way to give people an unconditional safety net without removing the incentives to good behaviour that a conditional safety net has.

 

So you're four square behind Beveridge, despite having blamed the very existence of a welfare state for this perceived moral decay of society. Hmmm. Can't have it both ways.

[maaarsh]

I'm not going to take lectures on having it both ways from someone who thinks it's a great idea and yet feels no need to defend what actually happens in practice because that is something completely different, and if only it had been done properly it would have worked out beautifully (where have I heard that before...).

 

Even at implementation it did not meet the supposed ideals, given that it was a Ponzi scheme from the very beginning. Bevan's old chestnut, 'the secret of the national insurance fund is that there ain't no fund'.

 

Anyhow, I'm off to bed - I tried to strike a note of conciliation given I really have no interest in lengthy discussions, and you decided to push on anyways sharing everything you learnt off the radio. I spent enough time debating with over-educated lefties at University to get the experience thoroughly out of my system. Political issues are always value judgements wrapped up in empiracle clothing, and I don't rate either of our chances at changing anyone's opinion.

Edited December 3, 2012 by maaarsh

[MickyD]

We have a costa coffee in work anyway, 1.60, so go there

 

Even that's extorsion.

[Danny G]

Big difference between Tax Avoidance and Tax Evasion

[Smiley]

Enjoyable discussion!

So how many in the Costa corner?

How many in the Starbucks corner?

(we've already implied that anyone drinking at Town Cafe is degenerate scum)

[Smiley]

Big difference between Tax Avoidance and Tax Evasion

Neither pay tax - so not that big?

[chief wiggum]

I'm not going to take lectures on having it both ways from someone who thinks it's a great idea and yet feels no need to defend what actually happens in practice because that is something completely different, and if only it had been done properly it would have worked out beautifully (where have I heard that before...).

 

Even at implementation it did not meet the supposed ideals, given that it was a Ponzi scheme from the very beginning. Bevan's old chestnut, 'the secret of the national insurance fund is that there ain't no fund'.

 

Anyhow, I'm off to bed - I tried to strike a note of conciliation given I really have no interest in lengthy discussions, and you decided to push on anyways sharing everything you learnt off the radio. I spent enough time debating with over-educated lefties at University to get the experience thoroughly out of my system. Political issues are always value judgements wrapped up in empiracle clothing, and I don't rate either of our chances at changing anyone's opinion.

 

Sharing everything he learned off the radio....you don't know much about Maggie do you..?

 

And its empirical not empiracle

[no balls]

 

 

Sharing everything he learned off the radio....you don't know much about Maggie do you..?

 

And its empirical not empiracle

But Maarsh went to a posh uni and Maggie is a Leyther, don't you know.

[chief wiggum]

But Maarsh went to a posh uni and Maggie is a Leyther, don't you know.

 

Aaah right. Thanks for clearing that up. Must have been terrible for maaarsh having all those arguments with over-educated lefties while Maggie was tossing it off listening to Radio 4..

[Danny G]

Tax Avoidance is Legal. Tax is Evasion is illegal

[Maggie Tate]

I'm not going to take lectures on having it both ways from someone who thinks it's a great idea and yet feels no need to defend what actually happens in practice because that is something completely different, and if only it had been done properly it would have worked out beautifully (where have I heard that before...).

 

There need be no connection between the idea as it was conceived and the way it was mis-applied by later generations. There is no resemblence between what Beveridge recommended and what we have today. No expert claims there is. You should familarise yourself with James Bartholemew, as savage a critic of the modern welfare state there is and as strong an admirer of its original conception there could be:

 

Among other things, I said that if Beveridge brought forward his plan today he would be regarded as a right-wing fanatic. The modern welfare state is a travesty of what he proposed. If his system had been put in place and persisted, much of the damage done by the welfare state would not have taken place.

 

He wanted a system of flat rate contributions for flat rate benefits. Means-tested benefits were designed be a tiny part of the system. In fact the very opposite has developed. Means-tested benefits are vastly more significant than unemployment benefit.

He did not specify any particular favours for lone parents. He was, provisionally, against special payments for housing benefit. He never even dreamed of those who became too ill to work being given more money or different conditions from those who are unemployed. The modern welfare state has very little to do with Beveridge. It is a corruption brought about by vote-seeking politicians – notably during the governments of Macmillan, Wilson and Heath – who knew and cared little about what could go wrong in welfare.

 

Beveridge proposed that the insurance flat rate payments should be at ‘subsistence’ level and that the non-insurance, means-tested assistance should be “something less desirable than insurance benefits; otherwise the insured persons get nothing for their contributions.” So the insured benefits would be ‘subsistence’ and the means tested benefits would be significantly less than that.

 

http://www.thewelfarestatewerein.com/welfare-benefits/2010/06/beveridge-would-now-be-regarded-as-a-right-wing-fanatic.php

 

You see, he is able to distinguish between conception and execution. You ought to do the same.

 

Even at implementation it did not meet the supposed ideals, given that it was a Ponzi scheme from the very beginning. Bevan's old chestnut, 'the secret of the national insurance fund is that there ain't no fund'.

 

Make your mind up, are you in favour or not??!! At various stages you have claimed that:

 

- The very existence of any form of welfare state is responsible for moral decay

- Any form of welfare state reduces the will to work

- You are opposed to a world without safety nets

- Welfare is a Ponzi scheme

 

Then you brought in all this stuff about it being another example of socialist extravagance despite all the facts contrary (Beveridge wasn't a socialist, Labour were the last to support his proposals and so on). So excuse me if I will reserve the right to argue that you are having it both ways and I refuse to told I am not entitled to do so.

 

Anyhow, I'm off to bed - I tried to strike a note of conciliation given I really have no interest in lengthy discussions, and you decided to push on anyways sharing everything you learnt off the radio. I spent enough time debating with over-educated lefties at University to get the experience thoroughly out of my system. Political issues are always value judgements wrapped up in empiracle clothing, and I don't rate either of our chances at changing anyone's opinion.

 

Firstly, you could have fooled me and secondly, one hardly ought to be criticised for taking account of the facts.

 

I rather enjoyed the inevitable personal attack as it's always a sign things are going one's way. I'll ensure I refuse future opportunities for healthy topical debate if it interferes with your 9pm bedtime. Be aware of how idiotic you are made to look by your claim to have some sort of greater entitlement to knowledge.

Edited December 3, 2012 by Maggie Tate

[Breightmet Boy]

Is it funny to mock instead of acting on this? Are we that blind or lazy, are we a country full of comedians that are too laid back and ignorant to what our forefathers fought for? Serious questions and possibly boring I know, but I'd rather buy off a WWayer than anywhere else, I sure you understand

[THunter]

Is it funny to mock instead of acting on this? Are we that blind or lazy, are we a country full of comedians that are too laid back and ignorant to what our forefathers fought for? Serious questions and possibly boring I know, but I'd rather buy off a WWayer than anywhere else, I sure you understand

Really?

 

Most on here would rather buy from the big companies who don't pay tax.

[Youri McAnespie]

So we should keep paying them then?

 

Pay it in decreasing amounts over time? Some sort of halfway system for those who show willing, nobody should be better off on benefit - if that means topping up low wages with social fund payments so be it. Surely it's better to continue to pay 50% of a claimant's benefit, whilst they break the cycle, than 100% year after year.

 

The unemployable, the grown men you see with a bag of chips on each shoulder, dressed like Kevin and Perry well into their thirties and hanging around Town Centres on workdays...I haven't a f*cking clue. They could start introducing a dress-code - refusing to let them sign on dressed in; baseball caps perched on back of skull, three quarter press-stud trackie bottoms and wispy moustaches - if only to improve the aesthetics of our various city/town centre hovels.

Edited December 4, 2012 by Youri McAnespie

[Smiley]

If we stop paying benefits all the tattoo parlours will go out of business.... think about it.

AND Sky come to think of it!

Edited December 4, 2012 by Smiley

[stevieb]

And Iceland.

[Casino]

Neither pay tax - so not that big?

 

you're bored aren't you

[DazBob]

And Bright House.

 

And Foxy Bingo.

[Smiffs]

Say the uk descended into chaos and there were riots etc, if the state got shut of the bone idle sponging underclass in the meantime would it be such a bad thing?

 

Obviously I'd want to add junkies and kiddie fiddlers to the pile but I don't think it would be a bad thing. I wouldn't I as far as hitler did and throw gingers Jews academics the disabled and old folk on it, because that would be silly not to mention a tad unreasonable.

 

To even it out we could throw some politicians and bankers on there too.

 

The EU, bedwetters united, et al might object but hey!

[Smiley]

you're bored aren't you

 

Did you not have to sit through that Variety shite?