so what you are saying is... The Government having more money > the welfare of poor people. very humane.

 

I want the money to go to the right people at the moment it is not

 

It is going to millionaires in child benefit, it is going to immigrants and home grown spongers who haven't paid a penny into the system, it is going to chavs who get pregnant after a few drinks and have no idea who the dad is, it is going to people who don't want to work, it is going on people who live in mansions at my expense

 

While at the same time elderly people are freezing to death in the winter, elderly many of whom liberated this country from the nazis are having to sell their homes to pay nursing fees and care homes, wheelchair bound people are being stripped of their independence and dignity because of lack of money.

 

Now who is more deserving of our money ?

 

Get rid of the first lot from the system and that frees up money to pay the heating bills of pensioners in the winter, it frees up money to pay for their residential care, it provides a greater standard of living for the handicapped and disabled.

 

 

 

Ahahaha, I knew we were reading from the same hymn sheet! That book is my Bible :heart:

 

I'm assuming you've read my OTHER Bible, Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine?

 

Haha, yeah, The Spirit Level is fantastic - and it says everything about how good and credible it is that conservative commentators are desperately attacking it, because they know that, if it's ideas start spreading, they'll be screwed. Ed Miliband has been talking about how he wants it to become one of the focal points - which is another reason why I really want him to be leader. I really SL has the potential to be this century's Beveridge Report - although that might be being too idealistic, haha.

 

I've not read the Shcok Doctrine, although I've heard quite a bit about it, and it sounds like it's also right on the money.

The welfare state is a monster that is totally out of control, a rampant beast that is eating away at the financials of this country and eating away at the morals of this country, the monster needs taking down

 

It has become a way of life, a career option for many and that is utterly wrong and unacceptable to me.

 

The welfare state should be there to help the elderly and the disabled and offer a temporary safety net to those who have fallen upon hard times because of losing their job, a safety net to stop the person starving until he has found a job

 

Instead it is a haven for fraudsters, career spongers who see welfare as a career, feckless chavs and housing benefit fraudsters, the whole system needs overhauling.

 

I think pensioners should get MORE money, I think that the genuinely physically and mentally handicapped should get MORE but that means ripping out the welfare state from top to bottom and weeding out the career scroungers, feckless chavs, fraudsters etc.

 

Welfare should not be a way of life or a career for able bodied people of working age it should be a temporary safety net.

 

It's only become a 'career option' because there aren't enough jobs to go around. And it will become a 'career option' for many more if this Government has it's way and slashes up to a million public-sector jobs.

 

In answer to your earlier question: I don't think either me or Tyron is actually suggesting the market is abolished completely. What social democrats DO want is to control the extremes that capitalism throws up, at both ends of the scale. No sane person can seriously say it's right that the wealthiest 100 people in Britain could, if they chose to, atleast halve the budget deficit while keeping billions, but they choose not to, instead making the most vulnerable in society have to give up some of their already fragile way of life.

 

Btw, in the fair societies such as Holland and Sweden, the surgeon you talked about stilll has a lot more money than a McDonalds worker - as they should do. But the difference is that the surgeon might have a few hundred thousand less in his already bulging savings account, while the McDonalds worker is able to actually afford a decent flat and decent diet.

Edited August 8, 201014 yr by Danny

I want the money to go to the right people at the moment it is not

 

It is going to millionaires in child benefit, it is going to immigrants and home grown spongers who haven't paid a penny into the system, it is going to chavs who get pregnant after a few drinks and have no idea who the dad is, it is going to people who don't want to work, it is going on people who live in mansions at my expense

 

While at the same time elderly people are freezing to death in the winter, elderly many of whom liberated this country from the nazis are having to sell their homes to pay nursing fees and care homes, wheelchair bound people are being stripped of their independence and dignity because of lack of money.

 

Now who is more deserving of our money ?

 

Get rid of the first lot from the system and that frees up money to pay the heating bills of pensioners in the winter, it frees up money to pay for their residential care, it provides a greater standard of living for the handicapped and disabled.

The main reason most people are opposed to means testing in child benefits is because barely any millionaires et al take it up, contrary to what the tabloids would have you think. In order for it to pay for itself it would have to start cutting into child benefits for people who DO need it.

 

Your rhetoric would be rather effective, if it was based on general fact rather than spurious claims and trumpeted-to-the-skies one-offs.

My manifesto for welfare reform

 

 

6) Life ban from welfare for anyone caught faking a disability or mental illness

 

 

How do you propose they "catch" or prove whether someone's got a back or depressed or not then Craig? It's impossible! It's either physical pain or a feeling of lowness inside the brain. No Dr. can feel either too so there's no way it can be proved or disproved!!! One of the guys my parents used to go dancing with claimed to have a bad back but could go sequence dancing 3 nights a week! :rolleyes: He used to hobble in to his Dr's or every DWP medical and they never stopped his IB, was on it 20 odd years. He admitted to everyone he knew that there was nothing wrong with his back but no-one reported him.

Edited August 9, 201014 yr by Common Sense

The main reason most people are opposed to means testing in child benefits is because barely any millionaires et al take it up, contrary to what the tabloids would have you think. In order for it to pay for itself it would have to start cutting into child benefits for people who DO need it.

 

Your rhetoric would be rather effective, if it was based on general fact rather than spurious claims and trumpeted-to-the-skies one-offs.

 

This. I understand that there is enough people frauding and living off benefits that there should be something done about, the sort of cuts you would suggest Craig stops a lot of people who do need it, and what matters is the ones who do need it get the money, rather than them having $h!te welfare due to cuts.

This. I understand that there is enough people frauding and living off benefits that there should be something done about, the sort of cuts you would suggest Craig stops a lot of people who do need it, and what matters is the ones who do need it get the money, rather than them having $h!te welfare due to cuts.

 

Yep, exactly.. But then, this sort of "sod the poor" rubbish is the sort of thing you come to expect from Craig... If the Tories bring in the sorts of Welfare cuts they propose, it'll actually make it MORE difficult for those who HAVE paid into the system and lost their jobs due to the tory cuts to get anything out of the system.... While I've always thought it was pretty messed up that some chav who's never done a day's work jumping through less hoops to get anything than some poor sod who's lost their job through no fault of their own, I cant see how the Tory cuts and the way that they're going about doing things makes things any easier for the genuine working classes.... Benefits should also continue for the first month that a person is in a job seeing as how they have to wait a month to be paid and would still need to pay things like rent, bills, food, travel, etc....

 

And, Craig, sorry mate, the Tories had options - they could've closed the tax loopholes which see large companies screw this country out of BILLIONS of tax revenues every year, stop the "sweeteners", really hammer the banks with a "Robin Hood" tax (well, the fukkers OWE US THE MONEY ANYWAY..... <_< <_< ), tax bonuses at a level of at least 60% (because it's really nothing to do with wages as such, and most of the time they're not even earned..). Craig, you're argument of the poor having to burden the cuts is ridiculous, the poor didn't cause the banking crisis, or take this country into recession, so the poor should not be the targets for such punitive actions...

 

I was born on a council estate, I lived my school years on a council estate, I am not some old Etonian born with a silver spoon in his mouth, I know what it is like to share a bedroom with 3 or 4 people, taking it in turns to sleep on floor so each of us would get a bed for 2 or 3 nights in the week, I know what it is like to have to walk miles an miles across snow drifted fields to work as we didn't have a car, I know what it is like to be poor, you know what ? it was the best thing that ever happened to me because it gave me the drive and determination to break out from those surroundings, others don't want to do that that is not my problem

 

Now, why does this remind me of a certain Monty Python sketch....... :rolleyes:

 

Surprised you missed out (adopts Yorkshire accent) "We 'ad to get oop half an hour before we went to bed, work down pit for 25 hour a day.....".... Puh-leeeeeeeezzzzzeeee dude, pull the other one....

1) Child benefit only payable for the first child and only available to households earning less than £30,000 a year

Don't be so bloody ridiculous. My household sits on that £30k p.a. fringe line, and we have done for as long as i have been alive. Without the child benefit for my little sister we'd be f***ed and we definitely wouldn't have been able to pursue swimming as a competitive sport as we just wouldn't have been able to afford it. My folks haven't been able to give me anywhere near the supposed 'parental contribution' towards my uni education, yet as i now sit fractionally above the sodding cut off [it was less than a tenner last year] i get $h!t all. My student loan was £600 less than my rent last year.

 

You are quite clearly out of touch with the working and lower middle classes, i think you'll find it is them that keep the economy moving not the c**ts at the top. WE work in the retail shops, without us nobody would be there to staff them, we spend money on the high street too. It's naive to say the poor don't spend money, we do, we just don't spend it on frivolous things but rather key items such as clothing and food.

Don't be so bloody ridiculous. My household sits on that £30k p.a. fringe line, and we have done for as long as i have been alive. Without the child benefit for my little sister we'd be f***ed and we definitely wouldn't have been able to pursue swimming as a competitive sport as we just wouldn't have been able to afford it. My folks haven't been able to give me anywhere near the supposed 'parental contribution' towards my uni education, yet as i now sit fractionally above the sodding cut off [it was less than a tenner last year] i get $h!t all. My student loan was £600 less than my rent last year.

 

You are quite clearly out of touch with the working and lower middle classes, i think you'll find it is them that keep the economy moving not the c**ts at the top. WE work in the retail shops, without us nobody would be there to staff them, we spend money on the high street too. It's naive to say the poor don't spend money, we do, we just don't spend it on frivolous things but rather key items such as clothing and food.

 

Whether its 30k, 40k. 50k or whatever there still needs to be a cut off point so that child benefit is only going to those that really need it, I said 30k off the top of my head as that is roughly where the cut off for EMA is I think so I would link child benefit to EMA thresholds, John Terry's wife is entitled to child benefit, a surgeons wife is, the Duke of Westminster's wife is entitled to it, it is ridiculous that in a time where money is tight that those that don't need child benefit can pick it up.

 

I think limiting it to 1 child is fair too, might make people think twice before dropping their knickers and spawning kids they can't afford to fund, am not talking about your family I am talking about chavs

Whether its 30k, 40k. 50k or whatever there still needs to be a cut off point so that child benefit is only going to those that really need it, I said 30k off the top of my head as that is roughly where the cut off for EMA is I think so I would link child benefit to EMA thresholds, John Terry's wife is entitled to child benefit, a surgeons wife is, the Duke of Westminster's wife is entitled to it, it is ridiculous that in a time where money is tight that those that don't need child benefit can pick it up.

 

I think limiting it to 1 child is fair too, might make people think twice before dropping their knickers and spawning kids they can't afford to fund, am not talking about your family I am talking about chavs

Yes, but it doesn't matter at all. Barely anybody above £40K claims child benefit as most people earning that amount don't really care that much about an extra £20 a week.

 

The rather tiring catch-all 'chavs' (I'm assuming this is people who happen to be poor/unemployed who have children?) aren't the only ones who have more than one child, you know.

Yes, but it doesn't matter at all. Barely anybody above £40K claims child benefit as most people earning that amount don't really care that much about an extra £20 a week.

 

The rather tiring catch-all 'chavs' (I'm assuming this is people who happen to be poor/unemployed who have children?) aren't the only ones who have more than one child, you know.

 

Even if only 1000 above 40k claimed it that would still be 20k a week and £1m a year, that £1m could buy a lot of school books and pay for 50 new police or nurses, I don't have the figures but I would say as a guess off the top of my head that more like 100,000 claimed it so now we are talking £100m a year, serious money. I see nothing wrong in stopping everyone over a certain income claiming it.

 

I have no objection to anyone having kids be it 1 or 10 so long as they can afford to pay for the kids themselves

You think 100,000 of the families earning more than £40,000 a year would seriously go to the effort to claim an extra £20 a week? In any case, means testing these things costs a large amount of money through your oh-so hated administration, and would require cutting child benefit far below the so-called 'millionaires' rate - probably to about £25,000 or so.

Yep, exactly.. But then, this sort of "sod the poor" rubbish is the sort of thing you come to expect from Craig... If the Tories bring in the sorts of Welfare cuts they propose, it'll actually make it MORE difficult for those who HAVE paid into the system and lost their jobs due to the tory cuts to get anything out of the system.... While I've always thought it was pretty messed up that some chav who's never done a day's work jumping through less hoops to get anything than some poor sod who's lost their job through no fault of their own, I cant see how the Tory cuts and the way that they're going about doing things makes things any easier for the genuine working classes.... Benefits should also continue for the first month that a person is in a job seeing as how they have to wait a month to be paid and would still need to pay things like rent, bills, food, travel, etc....

 

And, Craig, sorry mate, the Tories had options - they could've closed the tax loopholes which see large companies screw this country out of BILLIONS of tax revenues every year, stop the "sweeteners", really hammer the banks with a "Robin Hood" tax (well, the fukkers OWE US THE MONEY ANYWAY..... <_< <_< ), tax bonuses at a level of at least 60% (because it's really nothing to do with wages as such, and most of the time they're not even earned..). Craig, you're argument of the poor having to burden the cuts is ridiculous, the poor didn't cause the banking crisis, or take this country into recession, so the poor should not be the targets for such punitive actions...

 

I see nothing wrong in the welfare state being focused on those in the greatest need, those being the elderly, the disabled and the mentally handicapped, more money should be spent on people in those 3 catergories and less spent in other areas such as housing benefit, child benefit and tighter controls on unemployment related benefits.

 

Restricting child benefit to those under a certain income, weeding out immigrants who have never contributed a penny from the system, time restrictions on unemployment benefits, taking those off disability benefit that are not genuinely disabled, restricting housing benefit etc would save several BILLION which could be diverted to providing more to the catergories above who I deem to be in the greatest need.

 

I see nothing wrong with what I am suggesting.

You think 100,000 of the families earning more than £40,000 a year would seriously go to the effort to claim an extra £20 a week? In any case, means testing these things costs a large amount of money through your oh-so hated administration, and would require cutting child benefit far below the so-called 'millionaires' rate - probably to about £25,000 or so.

 

I think having the same threshold as EMA would ensure it goes to those that need it the most, while it can't be merged with EMA as that only applies to over 16's I do think that the thresholds are pretty spot on

Whether its 30k, 40k. 50k or whatever there still needs to be a cut off point so that child benefit is only going to those that really need it, I said 30k off the top of my head as that is roughly where the cut off for EMA is I think so I would link child benefit to EMA thresholds, John Terry's wife is entitled to child benefit, a surgeons wife is, the Duke of Westminster's wife is entitled to it, it is ridiculous that in a time where money is tight that those that don't need child benefit can pick it up.

 

I think limiting it to 1 child is fair too, might make people think twice before dropping their knickers and spawning kids they can't afford to fund, am not talking about your family I am talking about chavs

That the thing Craig, you say you are talking about Chav;s but your measures trap thousands of non-chav families who are on low incomes.

 

 

I think having the same threshold as EMA would ensure it goes to those that need it the most, while it can't be merged with EMA as that only applies to over 16's I do think that the thresholds are pretty spot on

That's just horse $h!t. When you miss out on a grant [scottish uni grants cut off at the EMA points] BY A f***ING TENNER, come back to me and heap praise on that cunting limit.

 

If i had fiddled my application and accidentally left my Dad's RAF pension out [Disability pension at that] I would have a grant. When you find yourself in situations like this come back to me and then attempt to champion your welfare reforms.

That the thing Craig, you say you are talking about Chav;s but your measures trap thousands of non-chav families who are on low incomes.

That's just horse $h!t. When you miss out on a grant [scottish uni grants cut off at the EMA points] BY A f***ING TENNER, come back to me and heap praise on that cunting limit.

 

If i had fiddled my application and accidentally left my Dad's RAF pension out [Disability pension at that] I would have a grant. When you find yourself in situations like this come back to me and then attempt to champion your welfare reforms.

 

Your situation is unfortunate but policy can not be changed nor can opinion based on the unfortunate circumstances of one individual

 

No matter what threshold is set it is inevitable that some borderline cases will lose out

 

I can't make decisions based on the individual circumstances of BJ members, no room for sentiment

 

It would be like saying I should not replace my car or take a holiday because a BJ member can't afford one

Your situation is unfortunate but policy can not be changed nor can opinion based on the unfortunate circumstances of one individual

 

No matter what threshold is set it is inevitable that some borderline cases will lose out

 

I can't make decisions based on the individual circumstances of BJ members, no room for sentiment

 

It would be like saying I should not replace my car or take a holiday because a BJ member can't afford one

 

This proves what an idiot you are... Do you honestly think that Phil is the only one in this position of being stuck in the Poverty Trap, there's TENS OF THOUSANDS of Phils out there, and frankly this is the Tories returning us to the policies of the 80s.... If these "reforms" cannot target the cheats and the wasters ONLY, then, sorry, it's not worth having when it adversely affects potentially tens of thousands of others who aren't the intended targets.... The Tories need to go back and think again and come up with a policy which affects only those who are the legitimate targets.....

 

This proves what an idiot you are... Do you honestly think that Phil is the only one in this position of being stuck in the Poverty Trap, there's TENS OF THOUSANDS of Phils out there, and frankly this is the Tories returning us to the policies of the 80s.... If these "reforms" cannot target the cheats and the wasters ONLY, then, sorry, it's not worth having when it adversely affects potentially tens of thousands of others who aren't the intended targets.... The Tories need to go back and think again and come up with a policy which affects only those who are the legitimate targets.....

 

I don't consider £30,000 to be poor, it is borderline middle class and certainly above average earnings, £30k does not get you far in London but move up north it buys a damn comfortable lifestyle, I seriously question whether someone on over 30k a year really NEEDS child benefit

 

The gravy train has hit the buffers, the state (taxpayer and government) can't afford to just throw free money away to all and sundry with national debt so high, money needs to be accounted for and targeted at those in DESPERATE need, I don't consider £30k+ as being desperate need.

I see nothing wrong in the welfare state being focused on those in the greatest need, those being the elderly, the disabled and the mentally handicapped, more money should be spent on people in those 3 catergories and less spent in other areas such as housing benefit, child benefit and tighter controls on unemployment related benefits.

 

Restricting child benefit to those under a certain income, weeding out immigrants who have never contributed a penny from the system, time restrictions on unemployment benefits, taking those off disability benefit that are not genuinely disabled, restricting housing benefit etc would save several BILLION which could be diverted to providing more to the catergories above who I deem to be in the greatest need.

 

I see nothing wrong with what I am suggesting.

 

We'd also have SEVERAL BILLIONS if the fukkin Tories actually brought in a Robin Hood Tax to make the banks pay for what they did to screw up the economy... We'd also have SEVERAL BILLIONS more if we closed the tax loopholes which let the likes of Tesco funnel off millions to off-shore tax havens to avoid paying their full share Corporation and Cap Gains Tax.....

 

You and your b'astard Tories want to make the poor (and it's by no means only the welfare cheats and the "scroungers" who are gonna be made to suffer as a result of Tory policies on welfare when you actually look at the facts) pay for the crimes of the rich, and, sorry mate, but there is something VERY wrong with that as far as I'm concerned..... <_<