Comment deleted by Site Moderator
It's like blaming Labour for the economy collapsing back in 07/08 while conveniently forgetting the very simple notion that is was a worldwide economic collapse and would have affected the UK whoever had been in power at the time.
===============
Not true. It didnt affect Australia, for one.
They didnt cause the change to the economy, they simply made it 100 times worse.
I appreciate some people have a bad time in life (i have already said that) but quite a large proportion of people on benefits prefer to be that way because they would rather earn say, £12k per year than work 9 to 5, 5 or 6 days a week for £13k - its just the way it is.
----------------------------
Who on benefits is earning 12 k per year ?
I'm pretty sure that those on the dole or whatever they call it these days barely get a third of that in a year.
Nobody lives well off that and not everyone on the dole is lazy, many of them just can't get jobs sadly.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Chicken (If Carlsberg did consistent posters..... (U1043)
posted 6 minutes ago
It's like blaming Labour for the economy collapsing back in 07/08 while conveniently forgetting the very simple notion that is was a worldwide economic collapse and would have affected the UK whoever had been in power at the time.
===============
Not true. It didnt affect Australia, for one.
They didnt cause the change to the economy, they simply made it 100 times worse.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have friends in Australia and they told me a very different story after I naively told them that Australia was lucky not to have been hit by the worldwide recession.
As for making it 100 times worse that's naive to say the least. The whole EU was plunged into recession and countries like Greece, Spain and Portugal are still very much in it with little sign of recovery.
Superb,
Who on benefits is earning 12 k per year ?
================
Are you kidding me? How much do you think housing costs for example?
Even a one bed flat would cost nearly £7k per year. I dont know how much the dole is but say its £50 per week, thats another £2,600, so we're already up to £9,600 without any other bits and pieces, and this based on the smallest property.
A 3 bed house would smash the £12k in rent alone.
whole EU was plunged into recession and countries like Greece, Spain and Portugal are still very much in it with little sign of recovery.
================
More reasons to be grateful to the Tories for how they have managed to claw us back from the hell left by labour....
comment by Chicken (If Carlsberg did consistent posters..... (U1043)
posted 1 minute ago
Superb,
Who on benefits is earning 12 k per year ?
================
Are you kidding me? How much do you think housing costs for example?
Even a one bed flat would cost nearly £7k per year. I dont know how much the dole is but say its £50 per week, thats another £2,600, so we're already up to £9,600 without any other bits and pieces, and this based on the smallest property.
A 3 bed house would smash the £12k in rent alone.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You've lost me here. We're talking about earning.
What are you talking about ? Housing benefit ?
Superb
You've lost me here. We're talking about earning.
What are you talking about ? Housing benefit ?
======================
Benefits in general. Too many people would rather accept £12k (as per the previous example given) in benefits, housing, dole, or whatever, than take a job of £13k and pay for housing etc by themselves.
Giving benefits is saving people having to go to work and get a wage.
Did you not think free housing counted as benefits?
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
By the Hell caused by the greedy bankers and the world wide economic crash
==============
And the poor regulatory bodies......appointed by labour.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Sizzle
In fact it was Gordon Brown who saved us from the world wide crash.
================
Was that through the pasty tax?
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Chicken (If Carlsberg did consistent posters..... (U1043)
posted 2 minutes ago
Superb
You've lost me here. We're talking about earning.
What are you talking about ? Housing benefit ?
======================
Benefits in general. Too many people would rather accept £12k (as per the previous example given) in benefits, housing, dole, or whatever, than take a job of £13k and pay for housing etc by themselves.
Giving benefits is saving people having to go to work and get a wage.
Did you not think free housing counted as benefits?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes I think free housing counts as benefits but I'd like to think that free housing is given to the most needy who would otherwise be living in squalor or possibly not even in accommodation at all.
Either way I'm pretty sure that housing benefit isn't given out like candy as is given to those who need it most.
The Tories gave done a very good job of turning people against the most needy and unfortunate in this country.
At the same time the bankers keep getting their obscene bonuses and the big corporations who make billions continue to pay no corporation tax.
Superb,
Either way I'm pretty sure that housing benefit isn't given out like candy as is given to those who need it most.
====================
I'm sorry pal but they hand them out like smarties. An ex bird of mine got a flat as soon as she had a kid (she had the kid before i met her). After me she had another kid...simply to get a bigger house. She currently lives in a 3 bed house in the centre of Romford. I couldn't afford to buy the house she lives in and i've worked since i was 16 (i'm 40 now). Since she's lived there she's had new windows, she's decorated twice, had her garden re-laid, brand new kitchen and downstairs toilet installed...all for jackshít.
She could go out to work - but she knows she couldnt afford to live how she currently does. And that is wrong.
Oh and this isn't Labour's fault by the way - but its why the poor dont deserve to be taking more of the rich's money.
The housing is too high for some and too low for others.
If you're a single person you're knackered, get a kid and you get a ton of money.
Well it sounds to me that she's been very fortunate or maybe fiddled the system a bit.
Not everyone on housing benefit gets handed three bedroom houses, I'm pretty sure of that.
Speaking of fiddling the system it's not as if politicians haven't been doing that themselves for years anyway as we found out.
Superb,
Both her sisters and her Mum have all done it. They could go to work and earn an extra £1k, or even another £10k they could really be bothered.
Naa...far easier to take from the rich...they'll give us nearly half their wages..why bother.
Naa...far easier to take from the rich...they'll give us nearly half their wages..why bother.
--------------------------------
Well she certainly won't be taking anything from the corporations who make billions in profits every year and pay little to no corporation tax.
Well she certainly won't be taking anything from the corporations who make billions in profits every year and pay little to no corporation tax.
===================
She would if she could though - same as many others who cant be bothered to work for a living.
Chicken, something needs to change to make working pay more than scrounging I agree.
Naa...far easier to take from the rich...they'll give us nearly half their wages..why bother.
==========================================================
Yes, let’s base the entire economy on what your ex does.
Benefit claiming is now capped, it’s time to stop whining about it. This is not a high-tax economy...we pay lower taxes than most of Europe, and not even very much more than in the US (Corporation tax, in fact, is higher in the US).
We also spend less than most of the other western democracies on welfare (even the US, if you include healthcare spending), and the largest proportion of it is taken up by pensions, not by your ex. We really ought to base our decisions on economic facts, rather than on what annoys us in the pub.
Yes, there was no money left when Labour left office, because of something called the “global banking crisis”...have you heard of it? Because of it, the debt had leapt up to about 700bn. We had to bail several banks out, to stop the economy crashing even further.
But under the Tories, the debt has reached 1.5 trillion...yet somehow this is perceived as ”fixing the mess left by Labour” If a debt of 700bn is a mess, how is a debt of 1.5 trillion not a mess?
The debt inherited by Labour in 1997 was around 42% of GDP. The debt up until the banking crisis was around 37% of GDP...ie. lower than the one they inherited from the Tories.
The debt now is around 80% of GDP, and half of that has been racked up in the last 5 years.
A debt of 1.5 trillion is not better than a debt of 700bn.
The Tories are planning spending cuts of 12bn (though they wouldn’t tell us what they’re cutting)...but they are borrowing 90bn a year....where are they going to get the other 78bn from?
They are trying to pretend that running an economy is the same as running a beer-kitty, when in truth, neither party will be able to start paying off the debt until the global economy picks up. The Tories are making these cuts for ideological reasons, and hoping the global economy picks up in time for them to say it was the cuts that achieved it. Most economists, in both the US and the UK, think that cuts are slowing down the economic recovery.
They are not going to pay off the debt by making cuts, it would take about 800 years.
Most businesses, and most national economies, run off debt. The UK has only been in surplus for 4 years out of the last 40: for all of the rest of the time, it has run on deficit.
All 4 of the surplus years, by the way, were under a Labour government.
These are the facts. Your ex has not had a material effect on the economy, no matter how nice her house in Romford is.
These are the facts. Your ex has not had a material effect on the economy, no matter how nice her house in Romford is.
================
Of course it does. If she, and the God knows how many other thousands / millions of people who have their housing paid for - didn't, and instead that money was used for other things (i'm sure we could all think of something we'd like more spending on), then the economy would be in a seriously better place.
I'm not saying she caused it by herself - but this was just in reference to the fact she - and people like her - do not deserve any taxes that are deducted from high earners, who ALREADY give up many thousands every single month.
As i've already said, i'm far from a high earner but if i was, why the hell should i give, not only a higher amount of my money to these people, but also a higher percentage?
Its like saying rich people should pay more for a pint of beer or to get on a train. That cant be fair, surely?
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Sign in if you want to comment
Russell Brand
Page 5 of 7
6 | 7
posted on 9/5/15
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 9/5/15
It's like blaming Labour for the economy collapsing back in 07/08 while conveniently forgetting the very simple notion that is was a worldwide economic collapse and would have affected the UK whoever had been in power at the time.
===============
Not true. It didnt affect Australia, for one.
They didnt cause the change to the economy, they simply made it 100 times worse.
posted on 9/5/15
I appreciate some people have a bad time in life (i have already said that) but quite a large proportion of people on benefits prefer to be that way because they would rather earn say, £12k per year than work 9 to 5, 5 or 6 days a week for £13k - its just the way it is.
----------------------------
Who on benefits is earning 12 k per year ?
I'm pretty sure that those on the dole or whatever they call it these days barely get a third of that in a year.
Nobody lives well off that and not everyone on the dole is lazy, many of them just can't get jobs sadly.
posted on 9/5/15
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 9/5/15
comment by Chicken (If Carlsberg did consistent posters..... (U1043)
posted 6 minutes ago
It's like blaming Labour for the economy collapsing back in 07/08 while conveniently forgetting the very simple notion that is was a worldwide economic collapse and would have affected the UK whoever had been in power at the time.
===============
Not true. It didnt affect Australia, for one.
They didnt cause the change to the economy, they simply made it 100 times worse.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have friends in Australia and they told me a very different story after I naively told them that Australia was lucky not to have been hit by the worldwide recession.
As for making it 100 times worse that's naive to say the least. The whole EU was plunged into recession and countries like Greece, Spain and Portugal are still very much in it with little sign of recovery.
posted on 9/5/15
Superb,
Who on benefits is earning 12 k per year ?
================
Are you kidding me? How much do you think housing costs for example?
Even a one bed flat would cost nearly £7k per year. I dont know how much the dole is but say its £50 per week, thats another £2,600, so we're already up to £9,600 without any other bits and pieces, and this based on the smallest property.
A 3 bed house would smash the £12k in rent alone.
posted on 9/5/15
whole EU was plunged into recession and countries like Greece, Spain and Portugal are still very much in it with little sign of recovery.
================
More reasons to be grateful to the Tories for how they have managed to claw us back from the hell left by labour....
posted on 9/5/15
comment by Chicken (If Carlsberg did consistent posters..... (U1043)
posted 1 minute ago
Superb,
Who on benefits is earning 12 k per year ?
================
Are you kidding me? How much do you think housing costs for example?
Even a one bed flat would cost nearly £7k per year. I dont know how much the dole is but say its £50 per week, thats another £2,600, so we're already up to £9,600 without any other bits and pieces, and this based on the smallest property.
A 3 bed house would smash the £12k in rent alone.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You've lost me here. We're talking about earning.
What are you talking about ? Housing benefit ?
posted on 9/5/15
Superb
You've lost me here. We're talking about earning.
What are you talking about ? Housing benefit ?
======================
Benefits in general. Too many people would rather accept £12k (as per the previous example given) in benefits, housing, dole, or whatever, than take a job of £13k and pay for housing etc by themselves.
Giving benefits is saving people having to go to work and get a wage.
Did you not think free housing counted as benefits?
posted on 9/5/15
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 9/5/15
By the Hell caused by the greedy bankers and the world wide economic crash
==============
And the poor regulatory bodies......appointed by labour.
posted on 9/5/15
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 9/5/15
Sizzle
In fact it was Gordon Brown who saved us from the world wide crash.
================
Was that through the pasty tax?
posted on 9/5/15
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 9/5/15
comment by Chicken (If Carlsberg did consistent posters..... (U1043)
posted 2 minutes ago
Superb
You've lost me here. We're talking about earning.
What are you talking about ? Housing benefit ?
======================
Benefits in general. Too many people would rather accept £12k (as per the previous example given) in benefits, housing, dole, or whatever, than take a job of £13k and pay for housing etc by themselves.
Giving benefits is saving people having to go to work and get a wage.
Did you not think free housing counted as benefits?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes I think free housing counts as benefits but I'd like to think that free housing is given to the most needy who would otherwise be living in squalor or possibly not even in accommodation at all.
Either way I'm pretty sure that housing benefit isn't given out like candy as is given to those who need it most.
The Tories gave done a very good job of turning people against the most needy and unfortunate in this country.
At the same time the bankers keep getting their obscene bonuses and the big corporations who make billions continue to pay no corporation tax.
posted on 9/5/15
Superb,
Either way I'm pretty sure that housing benefit isn't given out like candy as is given to those who need it most.
====================
I'm sorry pal but they hand them out like smarties. An ex bird of mine got a flat as soon as she had a kid (she had the kid before i met her). After me she had another kid...simply to get a bigger house. She currently lives in a 3 bed house in the centre of Romford. I couldn't afford to buy the house she lives in and i've worked since i was 16 (i'm 40 now). Since she's lived there she's had new windows, she's decorated twice, had her garden re-laid, brand new kitchen and downstairs toilet installed...all for jackshít.
She could go out to work - but she knows she couldnt afford to live how she currently does. And that is wrong.
Oh and this isn't Labour's fault by the way - but its why the poor dont deserve to be taking more of the rich's money.
posted on 9/5/15
The housing is too high for some and too low for others.
If you're a single person you're knackered, get a kid and you get a ton of money.
posted on 9/5/15
Well it sounds to me that she's been very fortunate or maybe fiddled the system a bit.
Not everyone on housing benefit gets handed three bedroom houses, I'm pretty sure of that.
Speaking of fiddling the system it's not as if politicians haven't been doing that themselves for years anyway as we found out.
posted on 9/5/15
Superb,
Both her sisters and her Mum have all done it. They could go to work and earn an extra £1k, or even another £10k they could really be bothered.
Naa...far easier to take from the rich...they'll give us nearly half their wages..why bother.
posted on 9/5/15
Naa...far easier to take from the rich...they'll give us nearly half their wages..why bother.
--------------------------------
Well she certainly won't be taking anything from the corporations who make billions in profits every year and pay little to no corporation tax.
posted on 11/5/15
Well she certainly won't be taking anything from the corporations who make billions in profits every year and pay little to no corporation tax.
===================
She would if she could though - same as many others who cant be bothered to work for a living.
posted on 11/5/15
Chicken, something needs to change to make working pay more than scrounging I agree.
posted on 11/5/15
Naa...far easier to take from the rich...they'll give us nearly half their wages..why bother.
==========================================================
Yes, let’s base the entire economy on what your ex does.
Benefit claiming is now capped, it’s time to stop whining about it. This is not a high-tax economy...we pay lower taxes than most of Europe, and not even very much more than in the US (Corporation tax, in fact, is higher in the US).
We also spend less than most of the other western democracies on welfare (even the US, if you include healthcare spending), and the largest proportion of it is taken up by pensions, not by your ex. We really ought to base our decisions on economic facts, rather than on what annoys us in the pub.
Yes, there was no money left when Labour left office, because of something called the “global banking crisis”...have you heard of it? Because of it, the debt had leapt up to about 700bn. We had to bail several banks out, to stop the economy crashing even further.
But under the Tories, the debt has reached 1.5 trillion...yet somehow this is perceived as ”fixing the mess left by Labour” If a debt of 700bn is a mess, how is a debt of 1.5 trillion not a mess?
The debt inherited by Labour in 1997 was around 42% of GDP. The debt up until the banking crisis was around 37% of GDP...ie. lower than the one they inherited from the Tories.
The debt now is around 80% of GDP, and half of that has been racked up in the last 5 years.
A debt of 1.5 trillion is not better than a debt of 700bn.
The Tories are planning spending cuts of 12bn (though they wouldn’t tell us what they’re cutting)...but they are borrowing 90bn a year....where are they going to get the other 78bn from?
They are trying to pretend that running an economy is the same as running a beer-kitty, when in truth, neither party will be able to start paying off the debt until the global economy picks up. The Tories are making these cuts for ideological reasons, and hoping the global economy picks up in time for them to say it was the cuts that achieved it. Most economists, in both the US and the UK, think that cuts are slowing down the economic recovery.
They are not going to pay off the debt by making cuts, it would take about 800 years.
Most businesses, and most national economies, run off debt. The UK has only been in surplus for 4 years out of the last 40: for all of the rest of the time, it has run on deficit.
All 4 of the surplus years, by the way, were under a Labour government.
These are the facts. Your ex has not had a material effect on the economy, no matter how nice her house in Romford is.
posted on 11/5/15
These are the facts. Your ex has not had a material effect on the economy, no matter how nice her house in Romford is.
================
Of course it does. If she, and the God knows how many other thousands / millions of people who have their housing paid for - didn't, and instead that money was used for other things (i'm sure we could all think of something we'd like more spending on), then the economy would be in a seriously better place.
I'm not saying she caused it by herself - but this was just in reference to the fact she - and people like her - do not deserve any taxes that are deducted from high earners, who ALREADY give up many thousands every single month.
As i've already said, i'm far from a high earner but if i was, why the hell should i give, not only a higher amount of my money to these people, but also a higher percentage?
Its like saying rich people should pay more for a pint of beer or to get on a train. That cant be fair, surely?
posted on 11/5/15
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Page 5 of 7
6 | 7