Oh dear, the benefit scroungers are scared!

TheLegendOfMart said:
If it were that easy everyone would start a business.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Most people lack the drive or will to start a business and would never take the dive, even if they had £50,000 in the bank to see them through for a year or two. It's a rare breed of person who takes a risk.

I would be interested to know how you plan to live and pay rent after you have spent £10 on a business, not being able to collect benefits the second you do.
Click to expand...

Well naturally I'd have to get a job or live at home in the interim, but what has that got to do with anything? My point (which was stated very imply) was that you could turn £10 into a business, nothing more.

There are literally thousands of different things you can do with zero startup capital.
 
Thompson_NCL said:
Well naturally I'd have to get a job or live at home in the interim, but what has that got to do with anything? My point (which was stated very imply) was that you could turn £10 into a business, nothing more.
Click to expand...

Yes and 86JR whole point was that people on benefits are lazy and should just start a company like he did with £10.

He completely neglected to mention the fact that he has a business partner in the form of his mother who put money into the company, he had student loans that helped finance it and he still lives at home and probably lived rent free while he was starting his business up.
 
TheLegendOfMart said:
Yes and 86JR whole point was that people on benefits are lazy and should just start a company like he did with £10.

He completely neglected to mention the fact that he has a business partner in the form of his mother who put money into the company, he had student loans that helped finance it and he still lives at home and probably lived rent free while he was starting his business up.
Click to expand...

I've followed the thread, I know what it's about (foaming masses foaming). My point was simply that you could make a business with next to nothing.

And so what if he lives at home? I'd probably consider returning home if I was a single guy looking to setup my own business. It makes perfect sense to do so.

In fact people on benefits should really be living with their parents anyway. Why should the state being paying for housing?
 
Thompson_NCL said:
You absolutely can start a business with just £10.
Click to expand...

+1

I did Although not a registered one.

£10 bought me 3 iPhone 3GS Touch screens.
I used those 3 touch screens to make £60 (£50 profit)

I then used that £50 to buy more touch screens and then did it again.

When i got to the £500 saved mark i started doing Other Devices such as DSi's and consoles.
I was pulling in around £200 a week, Some weeks when i had iPads to do i could get £500 profit..

Problem is if you get all caught up in the whirlwind of it all you forget to register for VAT and pay tax... I was forced to stop and now am the manager of an already established Mobile Accessories & Repair Shop earning around the £350 a week mark (after tax). Not the most but at least im safe from the tax man :D

Basically £10 can start you up
 
Thompson_NCL said:
I've followed the thread, I know what it's about (foaming masses foaming). My point was simply that you could make a business with next to nothing.

And so what if he lives at home? I'd probably consider returning home if I was a single guy looking to setup my own business. It makes perfect sense to do so.

In fact people on benefits should really be living with their parents anyway. Why should the state being paying for housing?
Click to expand...

I never said living at home was a bad thing, I was just calling him out on his BS when he said he started with just £10.

So a grown man should give up the house he was renting, move all his stuff back home to live with his elderly parents until he finds a job just to make people like yourself feel better about themselves?

Why should the state pay for housing? I've paid more into the state than I have taken out via benefits, I will take the help until I find myself another job, if that's ok with you...
 
TheLegendOfMart said:
So a grown man should give up the house he was renting, move all his stuff back home to live with his elderly parents until he finds a job just to make people like yourself feel better about themselves?
Click to expand...

Because you're now unemployed. The responsible thing to do is move back home. The selfish thing to do is make society pay for your rent, if moving home is an option.

Why should the state pay for housing? I've paid more into the state than I have taken out via benefits, I will take the help until I find myself another job, if that's ok with you...
Click to expand...

Your taxes pay for a whole range of things on a daily basis: Doctors, nurses, soldiers, firemen, police officers, teachers, infrastructure, courts and so forth. It's not a savings account. You cannot say 'Oh I paid £5000 in this year, so I am entitled to £5000 in benefits'.
 
It's also assuming that everybody in the nation has living parents (or ones they are on good terms with) - not everybody is quite so fortunate to have a safety net to fall back on (via the bank of mum & dad).

As I said earlier, I've got nothing against people who are motivated enough or fortunate enough to have a business start-up succeed (many fail & leave people in debt, that's one of the risks), it's a good thing & commendable - just that people have a modicum of understanding for those currently unable to work & have fallen on hard times.

Thompson_NCL said:
Because you're now unemployed. The responsible thing to do is move back home. The selfish thing to do is make society pay for your rent, if moving home is an option.

Your taxes pay for a whole range of things on a daily basis: Doctors, nurses, soldiers, firemen, police officers, teachers, infrastructure, courts and so forth. It's not a savings account. You cannot say 'Oh I paid £5000 in this year, so I am entitled to £5000 in benefits'.
Click to expand...
If you had children would you claim child benefit?, the responsible thing to do would be not to breed (as otherwise society will be paying for your children).*

Society already covers the cost of anybody on less than £35k PA anyway (the estimated wage requirement for a single person to be a net contributor), it's just a matter of degree.




*not that I think this, I'm just giving you a different angle.

Edit - also, as pointed out below - you assume people have somewhere they can instantly move to & live for free.
 
Last edited:
Thompson_NCL said:
Because you're now unemployed. The responsible thing to do is move back home. The selfish thing to do is make society pay for your rent, if moving home is an option.



Your taxes pay for a whole range of things on a daily basis: Doctors, nurses, soldiers, firemen, police officers, teachers, infrastructure, courts and so forth. It's not a savings account. You cannot say 'Oh I paid £5000 in this year, so I am entitled to £5000 in benefits'.
Click to expand...

Yeah so selfish using the benefits in the way they were intended when some people live out their while life on benefits.

My father lives with me. I let him move in with me when he got made redundant. He can't afford the full rent, not would I ask him to just to keep self righteous people like yourself happy.

I don't have anyone to move in with. Maybe I should go homeless instead of claiming benefits if its such a sin.
 
Last edited:
The sad thing is, I can almost understand the anger at the long term unemployed who have no intention of ever trying to find work.

Yes, it's misguided anger directed at people who are the result of a poor upbringing, failed society & system which can sometimes lack enough of an incentive to work (as Dolph correctly pointed out earlier).

But to hold such disdain for people who are actually looking for a job, those who end up redundant after a life-time of employment - or those disabled & in need of welfare is beyond reprehensible. Even my friends on other side of the political spectrum are willing to concede the point of welfare for the above.
 
You're taking it as black and white though, it's never straight cut and there are always circumstances where it's not possible. The trouble is there are far more people who think that they should have a house paid for for them. Just as a basic form of living.

elmarko, I know you joked about the kids, but in seriousness, why the hell should the state pay for them? Just because you want them? (not you, the "you")
You should be able to support yourself before you can consider bringing another life in to the world.
 
elmarko said:
The sad thing is, I can almost understand the anger at the long term unemployed who have no intention of ever trying to find work.

Yes, it's misguided anger directed at people who are the result of a poor upbringing, failed society & system which can sometimes lack enough of an incentive to work (as Dolph correctly pointed out earlier).

But to hold such disdain for people who are actually looking for a job, those who end up redundant after a life-time of employment - or those disabled & in need of welfare is beyond reprehensible. Even my friends on other side of the political spectrum are willing to concede the point of welfare for the above.
Click to expand...

You are right in all of this and I agree. As I said, it's never black and white but the media/ perception of the many that are long term unemployed or who have never worked, won't work that tars everyone with the same brush. Wrongly.

It is the fault of the system though, and the upbringing, but it's a vicious cycle now. They have more kids, who know nothing but my parents stay home, I'm owed a living and repeat to fade. There needs to be a radical reform which incentivises people actually getting out there to work, but whatever people do (the gov) they won't because it will rock the boat and cost potential votes.
 
elmarko said:
The sad thing is, I can almost understand the anger at the long term unemployed who have no intention of ever trying to find work.

Yes, it's misguided anger directed at people who are the result of a poor upbringing, failed society & system which can sometimes lack enough of an incentive to work (as Dolph correctly pointed out earlier).

But to hold such disdain for people who are actually looking for a job, those who end up redundant after a life-time of employment - or those disabled & in need of welfare is beyond reprehensible. Even my friends on other side of the political spectrum are willing to concede the point of welfare for the above.
Click to expand...

As far as i'm aware no one has said that, and if they do then they're right idiots. All my disdain is for those on the benefits lifestyle as in the first paragraph.

i mean man almighty i was on JSA for 2 months last year when was made redundant. Thats what it's there for. I used it correctly and treated looking for a job as a job in itself. and 2 months i was back in work with better pay then ever before
 
I look forward to some of you falling on hard times and you will as nothing is certain in these time, then we shall see how righteous you are. Its **** being unemployed and not everyone is capable or able to run there own startup. It is a nightmare once you start playing by the rules (hence why spending £1500 a year on a accountant is worth it) and the TAX man will find you, no matter how much you make. Again this is how it should be.

As i said before, the money these people take is next to nothing of the benefit system, not even 2%, thats not to say it wrong but it does not deserve the "crap TV and vitriol" its getting. What is fraud and more evil and dangerous to the public is large corporation not paying there taxes. IT IS EXACTLY THE SAME fraud, and yet the government don't want you to kick up a fuss about it. LAST COUNT 24billion.

Lets see Chanell 4 do a ****umentery on those cheating CEO`s etc.
 
elmarko said:
It's also assuming that everybody in the nation has living parents (or ones they are on good terms with) - not everybody is quite so fortunate to have a safety net to fall back on (via the bank of mum & dad).
Click to expand...

Well when it's not an option, people should have course be given a minimum standard of housing. But society should not be paying for rent on a private property.

As I said earlier, I've got nothing against people who are motivated enough or fortunate enough to have a business start-up succeed (many fail & leave people in debt, that's one of the risks), it's a good thing & commendable - just that people have a modicum of understanding for those currently unable to work & have fallen on hard times.
Click to expand...

Well I am not proposing that everyone can or should setup their own business. I am all in favour of a safety net for people who have lost their job. But people should not view this as an entitlement, that is the wrong attitude. You're not entitled to live off the sweat of another's brow.

If you had children would you claim child benefit?, the responsible thing to do would be not to breed (as otherwise society will be paying for your children).*
Click to expand...

Children have a net benefit* to society, being unemployed does not. Apples and oranges.

* Assuming they are intelligent, healthy and contribute to society themselves.

Society already covers the cost of anybody on less than £35k PA anyway (the estimated wage requirement for a single person to be a net contributor), it's just a matter of degree.
Click to expand...

This is primarily due to high government spending on the underclass. The proportion of my taxes spent on services I use is of course greatly reduced due to a significant portion of my taxes going towards welfare and pensions for those who never worked.

Edit - also, as pointed out below - you assume people have somewhere they can instantly move to & live for free.
Click to expand...

This is the reality for most people, but I don't assume it will be available to all. Low value housing should be available to those who cannot move home.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom