Oh dear, the benefit scroungers are scared!

[elmarko]

That's great. I will keep on being too. In fact, I am going to go out of my way to be cruel to people from now on, I am sick of trying to be good and getting criticised for it, so I simply don't care anymore.

Thanks for revealing to me that there is no point in working so hard to be a nice person. I am sure my quality of life will improve greatly

You make it sound like your personality had anything positive to offer beforehand.

Don't get me wrong, I don't hate you - I feel sorry for you.

 

[Frightful Boar]

I'm pretty sure this has been said to you repeatedly, but it's not the fact you run a business that's causing you to get flamed, but your quite frankly disgusting attitude towards those less fortunate than you. You're totally oblivious to the advantages you've had and seem incapable of putting yourself in someone else's shoes. Showing a complete lack of compassion and empathy to the least well off people in society isn't going to endear you to anyone.

By "less fortunate" do you mean "much lazier"?

 

[86JR]

The brilliant thing about the internet is that it is full of people like this; People that claim they are a successful rich CEO of a business that will soon be worth millions. Then you find out they sell a few nicknacks on Amazon whilst still living with their parents.

You also find a lot of people who claim they earn 30k a year doing some kind of career and then find out they are on benefits.

I guess your example is worse though right?

 

[SPG]

You brought it on yourself OP tbh, your attitude towards others less fortunate than yourself has a great deal to be desired along with others in this forum.

No one is denying your ability to "get out of hole" (with help from mummy, but thats what mums do i guess).

As for the fool who complains about paying tax whilst others sit at home, I look forward to your son trying to get a job when old enough. Again what these people take out of the system is minuscule. You should be in uproar about unpaid taxes from large corperations, but no the less fortunate are a easier target. This thread makes me sick tbh.

(oh and yes i work and have worked all my life, apart from a 9 months hiatus when i felt like a well deserved mid-life break)

 

[86JR]

You do realise that although large corporation have been known for getting out of £xmillion in taxes, they still pay upwards of £xxmillion in taxes, don't you? It is not like they get out of every single tax dollar.

Why is it we should be mad at the rich for not paying tax but not mad at the poor for taking tax?

I see no one has answered my question about 95% tax yet

 

[JeditOjanen]

I don't watch it either. Ironically the only reason I was made aware of it was because it appeared in my email from change.org, because someone (i presume on benefits) was angry about it and suggests the public donate more money to a charity to do with people on benefits.

You presume. You haven't seen it. Right.

Here's the thing. The issue with Benefits Street is not that there are no benefit cheats or career unemployed - there are, it's folly to deny it. The issue is that by deliberately selecting career unemployed from a single area, the programme paints a misleading picture of entire communities of such people and implies that all people on benefits are like that. If they made a companion programme called Entrepreneur Street and interviewed you, implying that everyone on your street was running their own business, that would be equally inaccurate.

The reality is that of the £160.2bn spent on the welfare state, fraud and error costs £1.2bn. However, note that this includes error, so the actual figure for fraud is significantly less, and that figure is not just benefits fraud: it's spread across the entire system. The number of unemployed people "getting more on the dole than I would for an honest day's work" is tiny. When the benefits cap was put in place last year, fewer than 40 households in the entire country were affected.

 

[JeditOjanen]

Why is it we should be mad at the rich for not paying tax but not mad at the poor for taking tax?

Why should we be mad at the rich for not giving what they should, but not be mad at the poor for taking what they need? Beats me.

 

[elmarko]

I see no one has answered my question about 95% tax yet

That's because it was a stupid question without saying what the tax would be spent on.

 

[86JR]

That's because it was a stupid question without saying what the tax would be spent on.

It would be spent on what it is spent on now, but obviously in larger proportions. That obviously means providing for more people on benefits too.

I think a lot of people would feel differently if they were paying 95% of their income in tax and then seeing people on benefits getting 55% more free money (based on the 40% tax threshold).

I don't expect an answer though...

 

[elmarko]

It would be spent on what it is spent on now, but obviously in larger proportions. That obviously means providing for more people on benefits too.

I think a lot of people would feel differently if they were paying 95% of their income in tax and then seeing people on benefits getting 55% more free money (based on the 40% tax threshold).

I don't expect an answer though...

But if everybody was paying 95% tax - a much larger proportion of the population would then be eligible for benefits (via top-ups etc) - you also forget that welfare for the unemployed is only a minute amount of total government spending (even total welfare doesn't account for everything, due to police costs, NHS, defence, etc) - meaning an increase to 95% tax rate would yield significantly more than just a rise in the benefits payout to job-seekers.

You really haven't thought this through have you? (like pretty much everything else you have posted).

It's a stupid question.

Edit - did you seriously just take 40% off 95% to get the 55% 'more free money' calculation?.

Really?......

This guy is amazing.

 

[Yaayuh!]

Excellent.

Much butthurt flowing in here.

 

[Schlong&Stable]

You presume. You haven't seen it. Right.

Here's the thing. The issue with Benefits Street is not that there are no benefit cheats or career unemployed - there are, it's folly to deny it. The issue is that by deliberately selecting career unemployed from a single area, the programme paints a misleading picture of entire communities of such people and implies that all people on benefits are like that. If they made a companion programme called Entrepreneur Street and interviewed you, implying that everyone on your street was running their own business, that would be equally inaccurate.

What proportion of claimants do you believe are genuine? That is to say people who are purposefully seeking realistic employment or have a legitimate disability? I suspect the majority are not genuine claimants.

 

[smelly_legend]

Excellent.

Much butthurt flowing in here.

Yes, ring-sting ahoy.

I've got a good idea, we should completely scrap the NHS to make sure non of those worthless jobseekers can't get any more of our moneyz!

 

[robgmun]

I'm sorry, I didn't realise that I said all long term unemployed work-shy scrotes have disabled children.

Maybe because I didn't.

I dismissed all the other excuses and you came back with one last one, one that effect a tiny tiny number of the population, note that i said unlikely, and you know what? Having a disabled child doesn't have to mean the end of you life either, loads of people have disabled children and still work. Got anything else?

 

[mrk]

Hey guys, what is a tax?

 

[elmarko]

I dismissed all the other excuses and you came back with one last one, one that effect a tiny tiny number of the population, note that i said unlikely, and you know what? Having a disabled child doesn't have to mean the end of you life either, loads of people have disabled children and still work. Got anything else?

Did you even read the post, or do you have a problem with reading comprehension?.

You said you have done fine without needing money from the state.

I said in response that yes, you don't need money now - but obviously (as we agreed earlier) support for the disabled is fine & if you found yourself in the position of needing support you could rightly get it - I was responding to the point made by Chinchilla which you quoted (as he was talking about the OP, not you).

I fail to see what point you are trying to defend against, the only conclusion I can come up with is that you simply didn't' read the post & went off on some defensive rant.

What proportion of claimants do you believe are genuine? That is to say people who are purposefully seeking realistic employment or have a legitimate disability? I suspect the majority are not genuine claimants.

Taking into account on average 56% of all JSA claimants are less than six months (with 73% being less than 12 months) I'd say a majority are seeking employment.

I agree we have a number of long term unemployed who may need additional training/further assistance to get into work - but it's not a majority by any stretch, you also need to account for the unemployable (those who apply for hundreds of jobs, but are simply overlooked due to having no experience or being simply terrible at interviews).

Regarding your point about genuine disability, well - as I highly doubt you are a doctor/psychologist or know enough about the field of medicine to have an opinion on that.

 

[robgmun]

Thanks for revealing to me that there is no point in working so hard to be a nice person. I am sure my quality of life will improve greatly

I've mentioned this before and i did this a few years back and yes my quality of life improved massively.

Before i was such a nice guy people were walking all over me and i didn't even realise it half the time. Then when my marriage got so bad that my wife had a mental breakdown and tried to kill me then kill herself.

I decided to get selfish for a change and see where is got me. I'm not going into detail of what happened but my life is amazing now. Better gf's, better jobs with a heck of a lot more money and i feel like my life is finally going in the right direction.

 

[randomshenans]

Although I wouldn't like this to get lost in here, I have a genuine question...

Are there any companies that offer discounts to people on benefits for things?

Serious Q.

 

[elmarko]

I've mentioned this before and i did this a few years back and yes my quality of life improved massively.

Before i was such a nice guy people were walking all over me and i didn't even realise it half the time. Then when my marriage got so bad that my wife had a mental breakdown and tried to kill me then kill herself.

I decided to get selfish for a change and see where is got me. I'm not going into detail of what happened but my life is amazing now. Better gf's, better jobs with a heck of a lot more money and i feel like my life is finally going in the right direction.

Do you often find that people you spend time with want to kill themselves?.

I only ask as I get that urge from reading some of your posts.

 

[Dolph]

I'm angry my parents taxes were wasted educating a few posters in this thread.






Out of curiosity, what is your ideological goal?.

Is it based around a notion of economic 'fairness' or what you believe is required to increase social cohesion?.

If our goals are different it's unlikely we will agree on any methods.

You are correct in many of your observations, which makes me intrigued to find our your end goal - I agree with the last paragraph entirely - I also agree with a majority of the top part (but again, don't expect we would agree on the method of 'fixing it').

Do you for example, put value in the consequences of an increase in the lifestyle differential (if it was achieved by a reduction in standard of living the bottom of society) - I mean, you seem intent from other posts to be in favour of a 'fairer taxation system' - leaning towards that of reducing the high end, but as we both know - this could not be achieved without a reduction in the bottom half of society.

My ideological goal is to balance the equal treatment of all individuals with an assurance that the minimum needs of all are met and that there is enough equality of opportunity to generate a naturally more equal society based on effort and ability. Quite lofty I know, and very far removed from what we currently manage in this country.

The question is how we do this, and I would imagine that is where we differ because I believe this is best achieved by freedom where possible, and equal treatment where freedoms have to be restricted.

The current systems don't assist social cohesion, but competition between groups for favours and a entitlement attitude that the state owes some people a lifestyle. Social cohesion comes from working together and forming a societt that supports by choice, not by threat of force.