January 23, 201313 yr We are taking about employment benefits here, aren't we? This may be too Machiavellian but if you've never put in or at least done some sort of traning, why are you taking out? That works for me
January 23, 201313 yr Okay, how's about if I I quit tomorrow, shirley that'll mean I'm entitled to something? You'd better give me something or I'll be impregnating a girl per night until you cough some money up. See, it's all a bit silly innit. How would you manage that then? If you were trying to impregnate 'good' girls, as in work for a living etc. (rather than morally upright ). you wouldn't get very far. Similarly, if we were rewarding benefit dependant girls, and she'd had 10 years child-free and was on a decent whack - you'd get short shrift with her an' all. This has failed before in practise - rewarding men for not breeding (look up India, vasectomies and radios). You reward the women, as usual, they pull all the strings in reality - even if we kid ourselves we do.
January 23, 201313 yr We are taking about employment benefits here, aren't we? This may be too Machiavellian but if you've never put in or at least done some sort of traning, why are you taking out? I'd agree with that, the whole thing needs addressing holistically - they should offer apprenticeships well into adulthood, not mickey-mouse six week outdated computer driving licences and other shite, real skills... They might bleat on about jobless figures etc. but, successive governments shrink when real training schemes are talked about, it's easier to have armies of workshy scum on the dole, than thousands trained and ready to go - yet no work to go to. I agree though, there are some who'd refuse to do this, for them, simply reduce the benefit every year they refuse to join a scheme.
January 23, 201313 yr Slags getting paid not to use their ovaries. Why not? Surely it's better to grasp the nettle? Buy the farm outright, and other random phrases... I'd rather see some of the girls around at the moment reach 'the change', having successfully fought off the advances of Rockport and Baseball cap clad suitors (or took precautions) and that's the end of that chapter... What's the alternative, they've spawned five replacements who'll be taking five times as much. Exponentially the benefit bill would increase. The mathematics work, I think. Edited January 23, 201313 yr by Youri McAnespie
January 23, 201313 yr Why not? Surely it's better to grasp the nettle? Buy the farm outright, and other random phrases... I'd rather see some of the girls around at the moment reach 'the change', having successfully fought off the advances of Rockport and Baseball cap clad suitors (or took precautions) and that's the end of that chapter... What's the alternative, they've spawned five replacements who'll be taking five times as much. Exponentially the benefit bill would increase. The mathematics work, I think. So you think we should pay them to sit on their arse and not have kids? i'm missing your logic here.
January 23, 201313 yr We're paying them for sitting on their arse and having kids already, the likelihood is these kids will then go on to do the same... It would be cheaper in the long term, mathematically it'd work - it'd be hard to stomach socially, but, we can't have it all. Take this theoretical example (figures plucked out of thin air - they're just to illustrate the maths). Sharon has 24 years on benefits of £20,000 p.a. for herself and brood of four. 1 x 20,000 x 24 = £480,000. Her children do the same... 4 x 20,000 x 24 = £1,920,000 total cost: £2,400,000. Sharon has 24 years on benefits of £24,000 p.a. for herself and one child. 1 x 24,000 x 24 = £576,000 Her daughter does the same. 1 x 24,000 x 24 = £576,000 Total cost: £1,152,000. That's a saving of £1,248,000 within one generation. It paid to reward her for limiting her children to one. If this child did the same, the bill would remain the same, it'd be static at £576,000 per generation. The 'other' Sharon's kids did the same, the bill for them would be £7,680,000. Edited January 23, 201313 yr by Youri McAnespie
January 23, 201313 yr We're paying them for sitting on their arse and having kids already, the likelihood is these kids will then go on to do the same... It would be cheaper in the long term, mathematically it'd work - it'd be hard to stomach socially, but, we can't have it all. I'll not be voting for your policy as i'm in the 'don't pay the lazy slags anyway' camp.
January 23, 201313 yr How about paying fuck all to anyone who hasn't put in? Fuck em That's my policy. If you want to use it, you'll have to give me a job in your cabinet.
January 23, 201313 yr Some interesting points - just to clarify as I think Youri said, the decision to close schools is usually taken by individual head teachers. This needs to be looked at. I also agree that some teachers probably were overjoyed to be told to stay at home....as plenty on here would be. Teachers bragging about it on Facebook - well that's pathetic. However, it's wrong to say that MOST teachers lack real world experience and that MOST do a 9-3 and that's all the job involves.
January 23, 201313 yr Give them an incremental rise every year they remain childless, or don't add any more (to their first, or second maximum). They can't claim it was some Nazi like programme of sterilisation (incentivised or not). They'd simply have chosen not to have children in order to increase their benefit. It's genius, it'd stop long-term claimants spawning a new generation of long-term claimants and be cheaper in the long run. How about any one claiming for alcholic benefits gets the snip? It's reversible if they come off the benefits
January 24, 201313 yr Apart from spastics of course You'll just have people who previously claimed to have had a poorly back now claiming, "I'm a spaz, me. Honest." Edited January 24, 201313 yr by DazBob
January 24, 201313 yr You'll just have people who previously claimed to have had a poorly back now claiming, "I'm a spaz, me. Honest."
January 24, 201313 yr Because with £1000s in fees each year from most of their pupils parents they can/have to provide a better service than free schools. So to be boring but.......... The education budget in 2008 was £62.2billion, the number of kids in education in the same year was circa 8.0 million, of the 8.0 million 7% went to private schools so therefore 7.4 miliion in state schools. So these free schools are actually costing £8,360 per child per year. Shirley we should be able to provide a first class education and facilities on £8,360 per year per child. Bolton School provide an first class education with exceptional facilities for £9.5k. Basically anything that is run by the government, be it local or national, is a fucking joke. Nothing is run commercially and no fcuker is accountable. NHS is same, Royal Bolton Hospital cannot account for £13 million, no fucker knew, bollocks nobody cared more like. They know there will be no sackings , more a case of they'll get to take to take early retirement with a nice golden hand shake (not what your thinking little whit) and then have the gaul to write to the newspapers telling them how proud they are about what they have achieved and the legacy they are leaving. Give the £100 and odd billion a year (cost of NHS) to Bupa and let them run it, Bupa to get 75% of the savings it makes or 75% pain of additional costs it incurs. If i was a betting man i reckon it would cost the country less. Fcuk me there would be some demo's then.
January 24, 201313 yr The figures quoted would support you're argument, if the education budget went solely toward state schooling of children 4-18. It didn't, it doesn't. http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/year_spending_2008UKbn_12bc1n_20#ukgs302 Edited January 24, 201313 yr by Youri McAnespie
January 24, 201313 yr Shirley we should be able to provide a first class education and facilities on £8,360 per year per child. Bolton School provide an first class education with exceptional facilities for £9.5k. aye, I'm a brilliant exampal off that
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.