The General Election Thread

[whp.blue]

The financial crutch as you put it is being removed already in the form of sanctions for any person capable of working who does not achieve DWP standards. This has contributed to the massive rise in foodbanks.

Im sure and know there are people who choose not to work, but to punish the majority for the sins of the minority is surely not the right and proper thing to do. And some people do well, but more dont and the figures that show income inequality to be the highest for nigh on 100 years do not lie. The meritocracy is failing as it is an impossible dream without more redistribution of resources.

Funny thing is Wythenshawe was created by Socialism, it was the garden city to replace the old Mancunian inner city slums. The socialist welfare state,health service and state schools helped you get a start in life and gave you an opportunity to do well, but now you are doing well you disown the system that gave you a chance in life. You have taken plenty out already, do you not think now that you are doing well you perhaps owe a little back?

You are doing it again aren't you talking drivel and jumping to conclusions
I am not really disowning any system I just want a system that is fair to the Majority of people who work hard and try to get on with their lives not a Labour system that makes people better off by not working. And I have certainly put more back in than I have taken out I have paid the higher rates of taxes all my life and have at times had to pay corporation tax etc I have always employed people and given others willing to take it the chance.You have no idea what I have or have not given back.
I can say with almost 100% certainly I have in my working life given more money to various Charities than I have ever taken out of any system and I am as sure I have given more than you so thanks for the lecture but you can go fuck yourself on that one.
It may come as a big shock that people who make a bit of money give some of it away I know that doesn't sit well with your left wing brainwashing or snappy soundbites.

I am not advocating people don't have a right to good education and health care what I am advocating is we stop paying people to scrounge off the working people of this country. We would then have enough money to improve state Education and health care.

Fuck ing hell what a self righteous cu nt you are.

Thanks for your opinion

 

[The perfect fumble]

Not really. Big fuck up, regardless of how you want it painting.

Even if it was a fcuk up ( which it wasn't), the case for this is overwhelming and Ed has scored another victory, hence his lead in the latest polls.
Why should non doms be treated favourably in this way?
Answers on a postcard please.

It was a massive fuck-up. Non-doms do not get favourable treatment. They have to pay tax on UK earnings and on any overseas income brought into the UK. Those that have been here seven years have to pay an additional fee of £30k. George Osborne increased this to £90k for those that have been here for 17 years.

Non-dom tax rules have been in place since Pitt the Younger introduced them - why have none of the Labour governments we have had in between put a stop to it? Because it would be stupid! As I have said, non-doms do pay tax. In addition, they spend shit-loads of cash on expensive items, upon which VAT is charged. Ed Balls-up was right in January - scrapping the rules will cost us. Suddenly saying we will make millions in tax shows what a spectacularly incompetent shower of retards the Labour party are.

Where money is generated is immaterial, if you are resident here for a prolonged period of time then you should pay tax here like everyone else, I have a modest portfolio of shares in a number of companies overseas but the income is taxed here. As for trickle down because of all the expensive stuff they buy, please, you're killing me, no one peddles trickle down any more, not even the Tories.

Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, recently had to pay tax to the USA where he was born, he did, for the benefit of holding dual citizenship. The USA takes a far harsher view on these things than we do and I don't see the luxury condo and yacht market drying up there.

Very few, if any non doms will leave, taking their companies with them, the cost of relocating, loss of staff, suppliers, customers, and more importantly where would they go? They're here to make money, the UK has many things going for it beyond non dom "pay as you please", asking them to pay their fair share makes economic sense and is above all fair.

 

[Mustard Dave]

Even if it was a fcuk up ( which it wasn't), the case for this is overwhelming and Ed has scored another victory, hence his lead in the latest polls.
Why should non doms be treated favourably in this way?
Answers on a postcard please.

It was a massive fuck-up. Non-doms do not get favourable treatment. They have to pay tax on UK earnings and on any overseas income brought into the UK. Those that have been here seven years have to pay an additional fee of £30k. George Osborne increased this to £90k for those that have been here for 17 years.

Non-dom tax rules have been in place since Pitt the Younger introduced them - why have none of the Labour governments we have had in between put a stop to it? Because it would be stupid! As I have said, non-doms do pay tax. In addition, they spend shit-loads of cash on expensive items, upon which VAT is charged. Ed Balls-up was right in January - scrapping the rules will cost us. Suddenly saying we will make millions in tax shows what a spectacularly incompetent shower of retards the Labour party are.

Where money is generated is immaterial, if you are resident here for a prolonged period of time then you should pay tax here like everyone else, I have a modest portfolio of shares in a number of companies overseas but the income is taxed here. As for trickle down because of all the expensive stuff they buy, please, you're killing me, no one peddles trickle down any more, not even the Tories.

Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, recently had to pay tax to the USA where he was born, he did, for the benefit of holding dual citizenship. The USA takes a far harsher view on these things than we do and I don't see the luxury condo and yacht market drying up there.

Very few, if any non doms will leave, taking their companies with them, the cost of relocating, loss of staff, suppliers, customers, and more importantly where would they go? They're here to make money, the UK has many things going for it beyond non dom "pay as you please", asking them to pay their fair share makes economic sense and is above all fair.

As would any overseas income a non-dom brings into the country. The stuff they aren't taxed on is the stuff that doesn't cone into the UK.

 

[Mustard Dave]

garbage Mustard dave
uninformed garbage

How the fuck can non dom status be inherited by people raised in the UK WHO HAVE NEVER BEEN OUTSIDE?
Because it is.
personally I'd adopt the US tax system whereby a citizen pays tax wherever they earn income and wherever they live in the world.

if they don't like it they have to renounce US citizenship.

There's no question that the rules are a bit odd, however, the fact is those who it are being targeted by Beaker and Balls-up will contribute more under the current rules than they would if they didn't like the changes and fucked off.

 

[The perfect fumble]

It was a massive fuck-up. Non-doms do not get favourable treatment. They have to pay tax on UK earnings and on any overseas income brought into the UK. Those that have been here seven years have to pay an additional fee of £30k. George Osborne increased this to £90k for those that have been here for 17 years.

Non-dom tax rules have been in place since Pitt the Younger introduced them - why have none of the Labour governments we have had in between put a stop to it? Because it would be stupid! As I have said, non-doms do pay tax. In addition, they spend shit-loads of cash on expensive items, upon which VAT is charged. Ed Balls-up was right in January - scrapping the rules will cost us. Suddenly saying we will make millions in tax shows what a spectacularly incompetent shower of retards the Labour party are.

Where money is generated is immaterial, if you are resident here for a prolonged period of time then you should pay tax here like everyone else, I have a modest portfolio of shares in a number of companies overseas but the income is taxed here. As for trickle down because of all the expensive stuff they buy, please, you're killing me, no one peddles trickle down any more, not even the Tories.

Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, recently had to pay tax to the USA where he was born, he did, for the benefit of holding dual citizenship. The USA takes a far harsher view on these things than we do and I don't see the luxury condo and yacht market drying up there.

Very few, if any non doms will leave, taking their companies with them, the cost of relocating, loss of staff, suppliers, customers, and more importantly where would they go? They're here to make money, the UK has many things going for it beyond non dom "pay as you please", asking them to pay their fair share makes economic sense and is above all fair.

As would any overseas income a non-dom brings into the country. The stuff they aren't taxed on is the stuff that doesn't cone into the UK.

it makes no difference, it's not where your money comes from, but where you are, wherever you lay your hat, and if you lay it here for a prolonged period of time, then you fall under our tax system and it's only right you pay here.

 

[The perfect fumble]

garbage Mustard dave
uninformed garbage

How the fuck can non dom status be inherited by people raised in the UK WHO HAVE NEVER BEEN OUTSIDE?
Because it is.
personally I'd adopt the US tax system whereby a citizen pays tax wherever they earn income and wherever they live in the world.

if they don't like it they have to renounce US citizenship.

There's no question that the rules are a bit odd, however, the fact is those who it are being targeted by Beaker and Balls-up will contribute more under the current rules than they would if they didn't like the changes and fucked off.

Every time there is talk of tax increases on the super rich, they say they'll bugger off, but they very rarely do.

 

[EalingBlue2]

I would start by removing the Financial crutch that is Benefits for anyone capable of working and if you think people on £63 per can't smoke etc you need to get your arse down to the Wythenshawe dole office and ask them signing on how they manage to afford their fags,

And lots of people from Wythenshawe have done ok for themselves lots however had made the choice not to work take drugs and knock out kids that the rest of us are expected to pay for.
It is more about attitude than you will ever admit. There is one quite well known Wythensahwe Entrepreneur who left Poundswick hardly able to read or write who has worked ever day doing gardens on the estate he has never claimed a penny in benefits so do you want to tell me how lucky he is? or is having genuine hard work ethic enough?

The financial crutch as you put it is being removed already in the form of sanctions for any person capable of working who does not achieve DWP standards. This has contributed to the massive rise in foodbanks.

Im sure and know there are people who choose not to work, but to punish the majority for the sins of the minority is surely not the right and proper thing to do. And some people do well, but more dont and the figures that show income inequality to be the highest for nigh on 100 years do not lie. The meritocracy is failing as it is an impossible dream without more redistribution of resources.

Funny thing is Wythenshawe was created by Socialism, it was the garden city to replace the old Mancunian inner city slums. The socialist welfare state,health service and state schools helped you get a start in life and gave you an opportunity to do well, but now you are doing well you disown the system that gave you a chance in life. You have taken plenty out already, do you not think now that you are doing well you perhaps owe a little back?

Why should he? Why shoudl anyone? He doens't "owe life" anything as his parents like yours and mine all contributed to that system of education and health as have the rest of us when we start going out to work. You seem to be confusing "benefits" with "paying for state services", something few people are against and understand its importance to society. What's your opinion on those people who, after spurning their opportunities in school by voluntarily slacking off, then expect government benefits having never made any contribution to the system you refer to in the first place?
What are they "owed" having never made a single contribution?

Would you let kids of parents who aren't in your words contributing die? I assume not? So if not would you then build modern day workhouses for the kids whose parents didn't deserve benefits. Then what about the parents who would surely turn to crime before starving to death, would you be happy paying 100k a year to keep them in prison, or do you think workhouses could work in the modern world and that other countries would do business with the UK if this was the case?
It is all very well saying no benefits to those who don't contribute but how do you deal with the wave of either crime, starvation or abandoned children which could be the result?

No benefits without contribution is one of the easiest views in the world to have - it's easy. But no government will ever implement as it is still far cheaper and better for society than the alternatives when the state has to step in in far more expensive ways!

 

[whp.blue]

The financial crutch as you put it is being removed already in the form of sanctions for any person capable of working who does not achieve DWP standards. This has contributed to the massive rise in foodbanks.

Im sure and know there are people who choose not to work, but to punish the majority for the sins of the minority is surely not the right and proper thing to do. And some people do well, but more dont and the figures that show income inequality to be the highest for nigh on 100 years do not lie. The meritocracy is failing as it is an impossible dream without more redistribution of resources.

Funny thing is Wythenshawe was created by Socialism, it was the garden city to replace the old Mancunian inner city slums. The socialist welfare state,health service and state schools helped you get a start in life and gave you an opportunity to do well, but now you are doing well you disown the system that gave you a chance in life. You have taken plenty out already, do you not think now that you are doing well you perhaps owe a little back?

Why should he? Why shoudl anyone? He doens't "owe life" anything as his parents like yours and mine all contributed to that system of education and health as have the rest of us when we start going out to work. You seem to be confusing "benefits" with "paying for state services", something few people are against and understand its importance to society. What's your opinion on those people who, after spurning their opportunities in school by voluntarily slacking off, then expect government benefits having never made any contribution to the system you refer to in the first place?
What are they "owed" having never made a single contribution?

Would you let kids of parents who aren't in your words contributing die? I assume not? So if not would you then build modern day workhouses for the kids whose parents didn't deserve benefits. Then what about the parents who would surely turn to crime before starving to death, would you be happy paying 100k a year to keep them in prison, or do you think workhouses could work in the modern world and that other countries would do business with the UK if this was the case?
It is all very well saying no benefits to those who don't contribute but how do you deal with the wave of either crime, starvation or abandoned children which could be the result?

No benefits without contribution is one of the easiest views in the world to have - it's easy. But no government will ever implement as it is still far cheaper and better for society than the alternatives when the state has to step in in far more expensive ways!

No your right we should just keep with the status quo where any one capable of bearing children should be allowed to free load through life and idiots who are daft enough to contribute can keep footing the bill.

Even under the most left wing regimes people were expected to contribute to society.
the reality is people with your point of view have led to the situation where people can have a good life on benefits and if society put a stop to it they will obviously turn to crime to live has it ever occurred to you that if we end their endless handouts they may realize the way forward is actually to earn an honest living,

Your argument is a bit like that of the terrorist give me what I want or you will pay a heavy price.
I understand that no government or civilized society will let children starve but all parents should contribute to society for benefits so if they want benefits they should work for them even if it is menial work to benefit society. then they would be contributing. but responsibility is a two way street.

There is no way that we should allow people who are claiming benefits (so their children don't starve) To have enough money for luxuries that others have to work hard for we can feed children without their parents having an easy life and I would start by paying people on benefits with food stamps and clothing vouchers instead of cash that way the benefits are more likely to get to the starving children instead of the pub or the bookies.
Life on benefits has to be made unpalatable and a short term solution it should be a safety net it certainly isn't that at the moment it is more a lifestyle choice.


Also even you must agree that benefits must be capped and people who find themselves in need of state handouts cannot just keep having children they also have a responsibly to society as society has a responsibility to them.

 

[BlueBearBoots]

"There is no way that we should allow people who are claiming benefits (so their children don't starve) To have enough money for luxuries that others have to work hard for we can feed children without their parents having an easy life and I would start by paying people on benefits with food stamps and clothing vouchers instead of cash that way the benefits are more likely to get to the starving children instead of the pub or the bookies.
Life on benefits has to be made unpalatable and a short term solution it should be a safety net it certainly isn't that at the moment it is more a lifestyle choice."


Agree with this whp.blue but no doubt someone will be along shortly to say it takes away their dignity if they have to pay for things with vouchers

 

[Lucky13]

£13m on suncream prescriptions, the NHS needs saving.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3031124/13million-NHS-bill-suncream-Millions-wasted-prescriptions-toothpaste-Yakult-Calpol.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... alpol.html</a>

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

People need to take a step back and consider the wider purpose of benefits to society.

It's naturally frustrating to think of people who've never worked and have no intention of so doing, but that will always be inevitable when you provide a safety net. I've always worked, but throughout that time I've had work colleagues who are ridiculously lazy, sometimes to the point of utter parody, given the jobs they have carried: quite simply, some people are lazy cunts.

The point is that welfare provides everybody, within an advanced society, with a theoretical minimum standard of living. If some people abuse that it should not deflect from that overriding principle. Some people will always take the piss, but that shouldn't alter the overall purpose of benefits to individual families.

It isn't just about that principle, however, but also the wider benefits to society. If people aren't provided with food and shelter by the state, then they will have to at least try and take those things for themselves. A society without welfare would be a lot unhappier and more dangerous place for all of us to live. Robbery, burglary and opportunistic theft would all increase discernibly. For me, that reason alone is enough for me not to worry about some morbidly obese family from Brinnington stuffing their faces with food from Iceland in front of a 60 inch TV in their front room.

Ultimately, work should be rewarded, and the minimum wage should continue to rise, but the suggestion that benefits should stop at a certain point as a matter of course is short-sighted and irresponsible imo.

 

[Bill]

Red Ed Balls, the man who wants to be Chancellor

"If you abolish the whole status it will end up costing Britain money because some people will leave the country" @edballsmp 3/4

"But I think we can be tougher and we should be and we will" was how Ed ended the interview.
Strange how you ( and the Tories) edited that bit out of the interview.
If you're interested Labour are not abolishing the WHOLE rule, they are modifying them by something known as the temporary residents allowance, but I guess you're not interested in the facts.

The desperation in this post is quite telling.

 

[Citysmith]

I think this time I'll be voting Labour. Not because I agree with a tremendous amount of what they say but my local Conservative MP David Nuttall is bonkers and I don't see his views reflecting my own.

So tatical voting to remove Nuttall the nutter.

 

[whp.blue]

People need to take a step back and consider the wider purpose of benefits to society.

It's naturally frustrating to think of people who've never worked and have no intention of so doing, but that will always be inevitable when you provide a safety net. I've always worked, but throughout that time I've had work colleagues who are ridiculously lazy, sometimes to the point of utter parody, given the jobs they have carried: quite simply, some people are lazy c**ts.

The point is that welfare provides everybody, within an advanced society, with a theoretical minimum standard of living. If some people abuse that it should not deflect from that overriding principle. Some people will always take the piss, but that shouldn't alter the overall purpose of benefits to individual families.

It isn't just about that principle, however, but also the wider benefits to society. If people aren't provided with food and shelter by the state, then they will have to at least try and take those things for themselves. A society without welfare would be a lot unhappier and more dangerous place for all of us to live. Robbery, burglary and opportunistic theft would all increase discernibly. For me, that reason alone is enough for me not to worry about some morbidly obese family from Brinnington stuffing their faces with food from Iceland in front of a 60 inch TV in their front room.

Ultimately, work should be rewarded, and the minimum wage should continue to rise, but the suggestion that benefits should stop at a certain point as a matter of course is short-sighted and irresponsible imo.

So you have removed all responsibility from the individual. People also should have a moral responsibility to the greater society just as Society has a responsibility to the Individual

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

People need to take a step back and consider the wider purpose of benefits to society.

It's naturally frustrating to think of people who've never worked and have no intention of so doing, but that will always be inevitable when you provide a safety net. I've always worked, but throughout that time I've had work colleagues who are ridiculously lazy, sometimes to the point of utter parody, given the jobs they have carried: quite simply, some people are lazy c**ts.

The point is that welfare provides everybody, within an advanced society, with a theoretical minimum standard of living. If some people abuse that it should not deflect from that overriding principle. Some people will always take the piss, but that shouldn't alter the overall purpose of benefits to individual families.

It isn't just about that principle, however, but also the wider benefits to society. If people aren't provided with food and shelter by the state, then they will have to at least try and take those things for themselves. A society without welfare would be a lot unhappier and more dangerous place for all of us to live. Robbery, burglary and opportunistic theft would all increase discernibly. For me, that reason alone is enough for me not to worry about some morbidly obese family from Brinnington stuffing their faces with food from Iceland in front of a 60 inch TV in their front room.

Ultimately, work should be rewarded, and the minimum wage should continue to rise, but the suggestion that benefits should stop at a certain point as a matter of course is short-sighted and irresponsible imo.

So you have removed all responsibility from the individual. People who also should have a moral responsibility to the greater society just as Society has a responsibility to the Individual

How have I removed 'all' responsibility from the individual by suggesting a safety net is positive for wider society? What a ridiculous thing to suggest.

People on benefits are still subject to the laws of the land and have to operate within a framework set down by the state to receive their benefits.

 

[whp.blue]

People need to take a step back and consider the wider purpose of benefits to society.

It's naturally frustrating to think of people who've never worked and have no intention of so doing, but that will always be inevitable when you provide a safety net. I've always worked, but throughout that time I've had work colleagues who are ridiculously lazy, sometimes to the point of utter parody, given the jobs they have carried: quite simply, some people are lazy c**ts.

The point is that welfare provides everybody, within an advanced society, with a theoretical minimum standard of living. If some people abuse that it should not deflect from that overriding principle. Some people will always take the piss, but that shouldn't alter the overall purpose of benefits to individual families.

It isn't just about that principle, however, but also the wider benefits to society. If people aren't provided with food and shelter by the state, then they will have to at least try and take those things for themselves. A society without welfare would be a lot unhappier and more dangerous place for all of us to live. Robbery, burglary and opportunistic theft would all increase discernibly. For me, that reason alone is enough for me not to worry about some morbidly obese family from Brinnington stuffing their faces with food from Iceland in front of a 60 inch TV in their front room.

Ultimately, work should be rewarded, and the minimum wage should continue to rise, but the suggestion that benefits should stop at a certain point as a matter of course is short-sighted and irresponsible imo.

So you have removed all responsibility from the individual. People who also should have a moral responsibility to the greater society just as Society has a responsibility to the Individual

How have I removed 'all' responsibility from the individual by suggesting a safety net is positive for wider society? What a ridiculous thing to suggest.

People on benefits are still subject to the laws of the land and have to operate within a framework set down by the state to receive their benefits.

People have a responsibility to contribute positively to the society in which they want to live ie by not breaking the law and paying into this system that helps people in times of need.
In your post you state that without benefits crime would increase etc this is a threat that if certain people don't get what they want they will ruin society for the rest of us. Well society will be ruined if we continue to subsidize these peoples lives.
Also in your argument you state Minimum wage should continue to rise but that will also push up what you call the theoretical minimum standard of living it is a vicious circle where is all this money going to come from?

I have never advocated the total abolishing of benefits just that people cannot be allowed to live a life on free handouts and if they were made to work for handouts they would help society and also realize it would benefit them to try and move into better paid and more rewarding jobs. Scrounging a living simply can not be an option in this or any other Civilized Society.

 

[Bill]

So you have removed all responsibility from the individual. People who also should have a moral responsibility to the greater society just as Society has a responsibility to the Individual

How have I removed 'all' responsibility from the individual by suggesting a safety net is positive for wider society? What a ridiculous thing to suggest.

People on benefits are still subject to the laws of the land and have to operate within a framework set down by the state to receive their benefits.

People have a responsibility to contribute positively to the society in which they want to live ie by not breaking the law and paying into this system that helps people in times of need.
In your post you state that without benefits crime would increase etc this is a threat that if certain people don't get what they want they will ruin society for the rest of us. Well society will be ruined if we continue to subsidize these peoples lives.
Also in your argument you state Minimum wage should continue to rise but that will also push up what you call the theoretical minimum standard of living it is a vicious circle where is all this money going to come from?

I have never advocated the total abolishing of benefits just that people cannot be allowed to live a life on free handouts and if they were made to work for handouts they would help society and also realize it would benefit them to try and move into better paid and more rewarding jobs. Scrounging a living simply can not be an option in this or any other Civilized Society.

great post.

just a shame that the scroungers will vote in may having watched the tv debates etc on a tv bought by me and you.

 

[Lucky13]

How have I removed 'all' responsibility from the individual by suggesting a safety net is positive for wider society? What a ridiculous thing to suggest.

People on benefits are still subject to the laws of the land and have to operate within a framework set down by the state to receive their benefits.

People have a responsibility to contribute positively to the society in which they want to live ie by not breaking the law and paying into this system that helps people in times of need.
In your post you state that without benefits crime would increase etc this is a threat that if certain people don't get what they want they will ruin society for the rest of us. Well society will be ruined if we continue to subsidize these peoples lives.
Also in your argument you state Minimum wage should continue to rise but that will also push up what you call the theoretical minimum standard of living it is a vicious circle where is all this money going to come from?

I have never advocated the total abolishing of benefits just that people cannot be allowed to live a life on free handouts and if they were made to work for handouts they would help society and also realize it would benefit them to try and move into better paid and more rewarding jobs. Scrounging a living simply can not be an option in this or any other Civilized Society.

great post.

just a shame that the scroungers will vote in may having watched the tv debates etc on a tv bought by me and you.

Bought at Bright House at 65% APR.

 

[Bill]

People have a responsibility to contribute positively to the society in which they want to live ie by not breaking the law and paying into this system that helps people in times of need.
In your post you state that without benefits crime would increase etc this is a threat that if certain people don't get what they want they will ruin society for the rest of us. Well society will be ruined if we continue to subsidize these peoples lives.
Also in your argument you state Minimum wage should continue to rise but that will also push up what you call the theoretical minimum standard of living it is a vicious circle where is all this money going to come from?

I have never advocated the total abolishing of benefits just that people cannot be allowed to live a life on free handouts and if they were made to work for handouts they would help society and also realize it would benefit them to try and move into better paid and more rewarding jobs. Scrounging a living simply can not be an option in this or any other Civilized Society.

great post.

just a shame that the scroungers will vote in may having watched the tv debates etc on a tv bought by me and you.

Bought at Bright House at 65% APR.

ha ha, well they are wooden enough.

 

[EalingBlue2]

Why should he? Why shoudl anyone? He doens't "owe life" anything as his parents like yours and mine all contributed to that system of education and health as have the rest of us when we start going out to work. You seem to be confusing "benefits" with "paying for state services", something few people are against and understand its importance to society. What's your opinion on those people who, after spurning their opportunities in school by voluntarily slacking off, then expect government benefits having never made any contribution to the system you refer to in the first place?
What are they "owed" having never made a single contribution?

Would you let kids of parents who aren't in your words contributing die? I assume not? So if not would you then build modern day workhouses for the kids whose parents didn't deserve benefits. Then what about the parents who would surely turn to crime before starving to death, would you be happy paying 100k a year to keep them in prison, or do you think workhouses could work in the modern world and that other countries would do business with the UK if this was the case?
It is all very well saying no benefits to those who don't contribute but how do you deal with the wave of either crime, starvation or abandoned children which could be the result?

No benefits without contribution is one of the easiest views in the world to have - it's easy. But no government will ever implement as it is still far cheaper and better for society than the alternatives when the state has to step in in far more expensive ways!

No your right we should just keep with the status quo where any one capable of bearing children should be allowed to free load through life and idiots who are daft enough to contribute can keep footing the bill.

Even under the most left wing regimes people were expected to contribute to society.
the reality is people with your point of view have led to the situation where people can have a good life on benefits and if society put a stop to it they will obviously turn to crime to live has it ever occurred to you that if we end their endless handouts they may realize the way forward is actually to earn an honest living,

Your argument is a bit like that of the terrorist give me what I want or you will pay a heavy price.
I understand that no government or civilized society will let children starve but all parents should contribute to society for benefits so if they want benefits they should work for them even if it is menial work to benefit society. then they would be contributing. but responsibility is a two way street.

There is no way that we should allow people who are claiming benefits (so their children don't starve) To have enough money for luxuries that others have to work hard for we can feed children without their parents having an easy life and I would start by paying people on benefits with food stamps and clothing vouchers instead of cash that way the benefits are more likely to get to the starving children instead of the pub or the bookies.
Life on benefits has to be made unpalatable and a short term solution it should be a safety net it certainly isn't that at the moment it is more a lifestyle choice.


Also even you must agree that benefits must be capped and people who find themselves in need of state handouts cannot just keep having children they also have a responsibly to society as society has a responsibility to them.

I will be quite honest with you I find anyone having kids who don't bring them up well, don't give them food, love, security, shelter, help them with their education etc quite offensive . Be that a benefits scrounged or a millionaire banker who outsources bringing up his kids. I think there is nothing more important in life than our kids.

I must admit when I see kids being brought up horribly my emotion is not one of anger at scrounging parents it is one of great sympathy to those kids and I feel that they are being let down by society as Well as their parents. So yes I probably look at the same situation with the same distaste as you but I look at what needs to be done in quite a different way. Also when I see people who live perpetually on benefits, with no skills at work, no self esteem, badly brought up I think that we have all let them down rather than thinking little Scrooge lazy bastards why am I paying tax for them.

As I am Clearly not a mad libertarian I would be happy if the money for benefits was channeled more to the kids, clothing vouchers, decent school meals, after school clubs as I don't think money should be going to the pub it should be going to the kids. But what I would like would actually mean more tax for the rest of us as benefits is the cheapest option and a more constructive fulsome approach would cost more even if it did not see money go on gambling or to the pub.

Whilst I can see where life on benefits should not be palatable to the fully able bodied able to work adult, I do believe that the main victims in any attack on benefits will be the kids and that is plain wrong !