Tory Government to take from the poor to give to the old?

OhEsEcks said:
You mean you didn't post a Why do so many gay men cycle thread or a Why is the UK under threat from decades of immigration thread?

You're so conservative I bet you only have sex for procreation.

And as for "legal consequences", blow it out your ass.
Click to expand...

None of my threads are Xenophobic, homophobic or racist.

Are we not allowed to discuss such issues? I think our great Prime Minister said we are allowed to talk about these issues.

As I say, think very carefully about what accusations you make online. I have the means to pursue these claims.
 
craptakular said:
We need to cut spending so it should be every man for himself; cant provide for you and your own? Then sort it out or get no help.
Click to expand...

I highly doubt many people on this board (myself included) would survive very long if our society truly degenerated into "every man for himself".

Or would you enjoy being confined to a walled, gated compound 24/7 unless you went out with armed bodyguards?
 
Semple said:
Something else I had read in the news this morning, the Tories are trialling a benefits pre-paid card so that it can only be used for essential things like buying food, paying bills, clothing children.

I've been saying for years that we should have a system like that in place. I'm sorry but if you're claiming benefits you should not be able to buy life's luxuries such as smoking and drinking. The whole point of benefits is to allow you to survive, not lead a cushy lifestyle.
Click to expand...

Totally agree. I am glad they are trialling this and i hope it actually gets implemented.
 
cheesyboy said:
They pay tax too. Tax credits are, the clue's in the name, a credit of tax. That's why they aren't called "benefits".
Click to expand...

Pointless semantics - the amount of tax they've paid is irrelevant - tax credits are a benefit regardless.

And "Benefits really ought to be reduced across the board": so you agree that the pension benefit should be reduced, if we are reducing the others?
Click to expand...

Yep, that would be consistent with 'benefits ought to be reduced across the board'...
 
craptakular said:
Why don't you move to a cheaper part of the country if you salary cannot support your family?

Sussex is expensive...
Click to expand...

Not all people can move, what if everyone moves to a cheaper part of the country what happens then ? if you take that attitude then why don't we stop foreigners from buy property in the UK.
The housing problem was created by politicians to make those that own vast lands wealthy, its because of their policies that we have these problems. from the end of the war to May 1979 we were building 200k to 300k social homes and 150k to 200k private homes a year.

Since 1979 it dropped and has been dropping by 10% per year, 2001 to 2010 we build 4000 social homes in the UK, and each year since 2000 we built 100k private homes, not only that the UK government is subsidising newly built homes so that rich foreigners can purchase, by selling the land below market price to developers.

Now coming to rents social rents are being done away with with the introduction of affordable rents, let me tell you that affordable rents are between 200 to 300% more expensive than social rents. Now what do you think that would do to housing benefit bills? low rents means less housing benefit bills means more money for other areas, the cheaper teh rent the more chance of people working.


The welfare bill had been around the same proportionally for the past 50 to years to our income received.
So where is the money going? look into PPI look at how much individuals are making.
 
Surely they need to start forcing companies to pay better wages if people in work are still such a huge strain on the economy because of their top-up benefits.
 
dowie said:
increase stamp duty or inheritance tax if you want to target owners if expensive property.
Click to expand...

Increase inheritance tax! Blasphemer. If anything to help the working class nowadays you need to increase the threshold. Most working class families obliterate the threshhold (currently £325k per person) on just their house. These people aren't rich, but their house means they lose 40% of everything above that level, sometimes even a good wedge of the house.

This is all stuff you have paid tax on throughout your life, then they tax you 40% when you die.

It's disgusting.
 
Moses said:
Well, the difference is that you might not be able to afford as much champagne if and when you suffer a real terms cut in income, whilst the people on benefits might be put into poverty or further poverty when they suffer a real terms cut in income. So it depends how you define fairness - whether you want all to suffer the same in terms of real terms income cuts, or if you accept a cut for the poor is harsher than a cut for the better off... to simplify it quite a lot.
Click to expand...

Ok fair points.

I didn't actually read it's the working class my bad.

They shouldn't have to accept cuts.

/goes for donkey jacket.

Given that Belgium is currently suffering negative inflation I could be looking at a cut next year as well :eek: index linked you see....

Come on UK/germany give us some high inflation :)
 
Both party conferences so far have been completely uninspiring. Both Labour and Conservatives are doing a "core voter" strategy and playing it safe with whatever they feel their core voters will like.

Complete lack of vision from either of them.
 
cheesyboy said:
So it's the norm for you too :rolleyes:

You have to earn a lot of money before you start to give more than you take, all things considered. Maybe you do, but you'd be in the minority.
Click to expand...

But I have never received any benefits over and above what any single other person is entitled to.

I also seem to consider "the basics" to be a lot less than people who are apparently in a lot more need than me.
 
balky12 said:
Little stalkerish dude. Just because you create a thread, posing a question about immigration, doesn't mean you are a racist. (especially when in fact there are big problems with immigration policies)
Click to expand...

Nothing stalkerish about it. It's a very simple forum function to see what threads people create. Here's some more of his stupid threads.

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18613986
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18577688
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18550722

craptakular said:
None of my threads are Xenophobic, homophobic or racist.
Click to expand...

Yes they are. People can go through your post and thread making history to see the ones that are.

craptakular said:
Are we not allowed to discuss such issues? I think our great Prime Minister said we are allowed to talk about these issues.
Click to expand...

Nobody said you weren't or aren't. Just don't try and act like you're somehow offended when people call you out on your ********.

craptakular said:
As I say, think very carefully about what accusations you make online. I have the means to pursue these claims.
Click to expand...

No you don't. And nothing I've said can't be backed up with any thread or post of yours that is searchable on this forum.
 
Wealthy individuals and mega-corps have the ways and means to organise their finances such that they pay very little tax and probably get loads of money back from various schemes, allowances and incentives (benefits) = ok.

A very small minority of individuals get a few quid in benefits and some still have an iPhone, smoke, drink and buy their food from Asda = OMG!!!!11111 We must take all their money off them; they have too much!!!!12211!

We had the chance to try out 'everyone for themselves' when the banks went belly-up. But we decided to print some more money. It was a lost opportunity for some 'social equalisation' - I know who'd be up against the wall first and I know which side of the gun I'd be on. :D

As for most working-class families homes being worth so much it places them above the threshold - the SE/London does not = most. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
NexusK said:
Surely they need to start forcing companies to pay better wages if people in work are still such a huge strain on the economy because of their top-up benefits.
Click to expand...

But low wages = economic growth it's been that way in the UK for a while now. Low wages and flexible working methods (i.e. shafting the worker) :o
 
dowie said:
Pointless semantics - the amount of tax they've paid is irrelevant - tax credits are a benefit regardless.
Click to expand...
It's not pointless semantics when it's in response to you making the claim that the money they receive is "courtesy of the rest of us taxpayers" when, in fact, they are just getting a rebate.
dowie said:
Yep, that would be consistent with 'benefits ought to be reduced across the board'...
Click to expand...
I appreciate that you're consistent :)

Though, in a thread which draws the comparison of pensions vs working credits, it's interesting that you haven't beaten the drum for pension cuts at all, whilst hammering your support for cuts to working families.
 
NerveAgent said:
But I have never received any benefits over and above what any single other person is entitled to.

I also seem to consider "the basics" to be a lot less than people who are apparently in a lot more need than me.
Click to expand...

But you have received an awful lot of non-cash benefits. Like education (circa £6k/year), healthcare, roads, policing etc. They all cost money, and it's other peoples' tax which pays for it.

As I said, you have to earn a lot before you put more in than you take out.

(besides which, you too are entitled to the benefits we are talking about here - you just need to get yourself a nice low-paid job)
 
hurr durr, the poor are stupid hurr durr.

Pensioners are safe from cuts because they vote. No other reason. Pensioners are the biggest voting block don't you know.

To make people more wealthy we need to reduce the cost of living. This puts money in everyones pocket.

This can be done via tax cuts, or effecting market conditions to lower prices.

Tax cuts are expensive, and the government budget is extremely tight, so thats out.
So whats left is to effect market conditions to reduce costs. The biggest cost by a large margin is the cost of housing.
Solution? Build more housing.

Oh but pensioners don't benefit very much as they are the most likely to own their own house. Pensioners are the biggest voting block don't you know.

The only way to build the accommodation cost efficiently and preserve green space is to build vertically.

Oh but people hate vertical buildings in this country, and pensioners are the most likely to complain about them. Pensioners are the biggest voting block don't you know.

Why don't we free up empty rooms then, to move people into housing sizes more suitable for them.

Oh wait we tried that and it didn't work. Mostly because of complaining poor (who would benefit long term) and pensioners. Pensioners are the biggest voting block don't you know.

I guess the last option is to make buy to let more expensive so that owning a second or third house isn't seen as a no-brainer investment, moving money away from property into shares, bonds, and consumption. Benefiting the economy in two ways simultaneously.

Oh wait, the people most likely to own second or more properties to rent out are pensioners. Pensioners are the biggest voting block don't you know.

I sense a theme here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom