Tories giving the disabled another kicking

Unicorn · 13 Mar 2016 at 15:12

The Mad Rapper said:
Suspended for what? I haven't attacked anyone. I've posted my views and that's it. If having an opinion is worthy of suspension then that's sad.

Maybe your views would be seen as a little.. Draconian is all. We are in 2016 now we are no longer living in the ages before were the disabled were seen as inferior and shunned for it. If we all had opinions and views like yours we would be no-were in terms of equality.

Dolph · 13 Mar 2016 at 15:13

Bear said:
Well if it isn't based on merit then stop pretending it is or should be.

My earnings are based on merit, should I not be allowed to use those proceeds as I see fit?

Should I also be banned from sharing knowledge with my daughter because it might give her an advantage against others?

Arazi · 13 Mar 2016 at 15:23

Freakbro said:
I'll get back to my film!

It's got people killing the disabled in it....

Fixed for you so that the mad rapper would approve.

robfosters · 13 Mar 2016 at 15:26

The Mad Rapper said:
Anyone on state support is living on the charity of others. So clearly what I meant was that you should be grateful that support is being provided at all, don't complain that it isn't enough.

It's not charity. How can it be charity when someone has paid into the system before they fall ill/become disabled?

Bear · 13 Mar 2016 at 15:30

Dolph said:
My earnings are based on merit, should I not be allowed to use those proceeds as I see fit?

Should I also be banned from sharing knowledge with my daughter because it might give her an advantage against others?

Of course not, and of course as a parent I can understand why you would want to provide the best future you can for her. You give the best chance for her to thrive. Your argument is ridiculous beyond that, and there is nothing meritocratic about being given a lump of money.

You earnings are based on your merit and yours alone. If people are to be judged on their decisions and rewarded on their merit then they need to be judged on their own choices.

Dolph · 13 Mar 2016 at 15:31

robfosters said:
It's not charity. How can it be charity when someone has paid into the system before they fall ill/become disabled?

Because they paid for someone else's care then. The money wasn't invested for them, it was spent on current claimants.

Also you don't pay in, your money is taken from you.

Efour · 13 Mar 2016 at 15:34

The Mad Rapper said:
I dislike it when a forum member is pressured for an opinion, then when they provide it are barracked by the very same people. Personal attacks are not acceptable on this forum. If I can't defend myself as I would IRL without getting banned, then I am not going to accept some of the personal things some of you have posted either.

Just an observation.

Haven't caught up with the thread did you say why you think disabled people should be left to die in the gutter? (paraphrased) Was it you that thought that way or someone else? Its all so exciting and confusing i get lost trawling through the posts.

You can defend your self with words and try to win them over with your valid opinion!

Also i'm sure you are grown up enough to survive "personal" attacks on the internet? I always love receiving a personal attack, it shows you are actually posting something edgy. (no matter how sociopathic)

OFC you are entitled to your opinion etc etc, but when it goes so far against the norm its interesting to see why you have them.

Any other less fortunate members of society you dislike? Whats your stance on Foreign people and the EU ? Im probing here !

Does the phrase "send them back" make you feel warm inside?

How would you defend yourself IRL ? Start a fight ? call 999 ? Call mum?? Im very interested.

I make my self laugh, so much ! ha ha ha

Caged · 13 Mar 2016 at 15:34

Dolph we get it, what the majority consider to be tax payments you see as tax takings/property theft/whatever. Constantly reiterating this doesn't add anything to the argument, it's like correcting people whenever the phrase "road tax" is used.

Does paying for someone else's care in the past not permit you to have someone else pay for your care in the present?

robfosters · 13 Mar 2016 at 15:37

Dolph said:
Because they paid for someone else's care then. The money wasn't invested for them, it was spent on current claimants.

Also you don't pay in, your money is taken from you.

Even in your example it's still folly to label it charity. Charity is benefitting from the kindness and goodwill of others. Benefits are nothing like that as many people detest their money being taken from them to pay for it.

And of course your money is taken from you, it has to be. People are hardly going to volunteer it are they, which again proves its not charity.

Arazi · 13 Mar 2016 at 15:37

Dolph said:
Or plan for yourself and take responsibility perhaps?

You cannot plan for something bad that could happen tomorrow, or the next hour.

The Mad Rapper · 13 Mar 2016 at 15:38

robfosters said:
It's not charity. How can it be charity when someone has paid into the system before they fall ill/become disabled?

That's not true of everyone, but assuming your scenario how can the level possibly be set correctly for everyone's personal circumstances? What might be insufficient for you may be perfectly sufficient for the next claimant.

The system now is that such claimants are supported, but that shouldn't mean that is shouldn't be examined to see if cuts can be made.

The Mad Rapper · 13 Mar 2016 at 15:39

Arazi said:
You cannot plan for something bad that could happen tomorrow, or the next hour.

Of course you can. Critical illness and personal injury insurance is available. As is private healthcare.

Dolph · 13 Mar 2016 at 15:39

Bear said:
Of course not, and of course as a parent I can understand why you would want to provide the best future you can for her. You give the best chance for her to thrive. Your argument is ridiculous beyond that, and there is nothing meritocratic about being given a lump of money.

You earnings are based on your merit and yours alone. If people are to be judged on their decisions and rewarded on their merit then they need to be judged on their own choices.

But how is my daughter receiving money different to other advantages I can give her?

If inheritance tax was 100%, all that would happen is the money would be transferred sooner, or spent to her advantage.

My choices will always be influenced by my background, which is based on a lot more than money, to target only money is to miss the point entirely.

The Mad Rapper · 13 Mar 2016 at 15:41

Efour said:
Haven't caught up with the thread did you say why you think disabled people should be left to die in the gutter? (paraphrased) Was it you that thought that way or someone else? Its all so exciting and confusing i get lost trawling through the posts.

You can defend your self with words and try to win them over with your valid opinion!

Also i'm sure you are grown up enough to survive "personal" attacks on the internet? I always love receiving a personal attack, it shows you are actually posting something edgy. (no matter how sociopathic)

OFC you are entitled to your opinion etc etc, but when it goes so far against the norm its interesting to see why you have them.

Any other less fortunate members of society you dislike? Whats your stance on Foreign people and the EU ? Im probing here ! Does the phrase "send them back" make you feel warm inside?

How would you defend yourself IRL ? Start a fight ? call 999 ? Call mum?? Im very interested.

I make my self laugh, so much ! ha ha ha

This thread isn't about me. I've nothing more to contribute.

Dolph · 13 Mar 2016 at 15:42

Caged said:
Dolph we get it, what the majority consider to be tax payments you see as tax takings/property theft/whatever. Constantly reiterating this doesn't add anything to the argument, it's like correcting people whenever the phrase "road tax" is used.

Does paying for someone else's care in the past not permit you to have someone else pay for your care in the present?

This is the problem with taxation, you don't have any real say in it. You can be forced to pay for someone else's care at one point, and not get the same care later when it happens to you. The government has no real obligations in what it does with the money it takes from you, because we lack sufficient protections.

robfosters · 13 Mar 2016 at 15:43

Dolph said:
This is the problem with taxation, you don't have any real say in it. You can be forced to pay for someone else's care at one point, and not get the same care later when it happens to you. The government has no real obligations in what it does with the money it takes from you, because we lack sufficient protections.

So if you had the option would you pay no tax at all?

Arazi · 13 Mar 2016 at 15:44

The Mad Rapper said:
This country would be in a fair better position in all aspects if we just removed the drains on it. Don't give me a hard time about it, it's the reality.

Rather than throwing in little snippets like the above in every post can you instead say what you really mean? Can you expand on the highlighted above.

Efour · 13 Mar 2016 at 15:44

The Mad Rapper said:
This thread isn't about me. I've nothing more to contribute.

ok

Caged · 13 Mar 2016 at 15:46

Arazi said:
Rather than throwing in little snippets like the above in every post can you instead say what you really mean? Can you expand on the highlighted above.

Clearly it was a comment about how storm water is removed from developed land

robfosters · 13 Mar 2016 at 15:50

People like MadRapper need to realise that the wheel of life is constantly moving. What you disagree with may one day protect you.