The General Election Thread

[EalingBlue2]

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.

Very good post and since we have moved on from kids living in the street and old people in workhouses it is clear that benefits are the cheapest way of dealing with a social issue.

 

[Metal Biker]

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!

Who are these children and why are they in a position where they would "die"?

Once again you are confusing "benefits scroungers" with "required state services". Former bad, latter good. Are you in favour of forcing people who can afford to help others to do so? Isn't that slightly totalitarian in its approach? You're overexaggerating the plight of people's situations in this country to serve your argument of forcing richer people who have worked hard and put in the time and dedication to earn the merits of their contributions to society to pay for a "lazy lifestyle". If we're just going to tax, tax, tax then I ask you, what is the point of working hard? What is the point of making personal, financial and social sacrifices in order to achieve a better job status? Why don't we all become "volunteers" and live on government handouts?

A ridiculous notion? Precisely the point. Once again in case you missed it; Benefits to give a helping hand to those who require it = good, and achieveable through a the current taxation system. Taxing those who can afford it more simply because they can so as to ensure a benefit lifestyle can be achieved = bad. Oh and because you mentioned it;

 

[Bill]

dont what child benefit runs at these days but you should get it for the first two kids. after that you are on your own. you want a baby factory pay for the fucker yourself. of course there would be no baby factories. non of this 11 kids and one on the way shit.

 

[blueinsa]

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.

One of the best posts of this entire thread mate.

Run for government you will get my vote.

 

[DelToro]

dont what child benefit runs at these days but you should get it for the first two kids. after that you are on your own. you want a baby factory pay for the fucker yourself. of course there would be no baby factories. non of this 11 kids and one on the way shit.

Yeah because in pre-benefits days nobody had large families.

 

[M18CTID]

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.

Not really. He's just pissed off with lazy fuckers milking the benefits system, something pretty much all of us would agree with regardless of our political standpoint, and he would like to see a change in the system where the piss-takers don't get the chance to take advantage of it. It's a great idea in principle but the tricky bit is implementing a system that solely weeds out the wasters and, with GDM's post in mind, doesn't punish some of the worthy claimants. It's probably nigh on impossible to put something as foolproof as that in place but it doesn't negate much of what whp said.

 

[blueinsa]

For the sake of balance, shall we talk about the cunts that cost this country far more by not paying any tax?

 

[Ronnie the Rep]

do you think that maybe we look at this the wrong way. "benefits" used to be called "Welfare" and were designed to provide a safety net for those that fell ill or were out of work to provide the basic necessities. that doesn't appear to be the case now which is why we get the argument on one hand that there are genuine people being penalized by the system and scroungers sitting in front of 60" TV's

one solution would be to provide some benefits via a debit card that could only be used for agreed items such as food and not for alcohol or cigarettes. as most shoppers use cards to pay there would be no stigma attached and the only way anyone would know is if the card was used to buy unauthorised items.

I am sure there are holes in this but it strikes me that everyone should be able to put food on the table and shouldn't be able to piss benefits away. we assume that everyone is responsible, but they aren't.

 

[Lucky13]

dont what child benefit runs at these days but you should get it for the first two kids. after that you are on your own. you want a baby factory pay for the fucker yourself. of course there would be no baby factories. non of this 11 kids and one on the way shit.

Yeah because in pre-benefits days nobody had large families.

Which proves the point we don't need it, I'd scrap it completely.

 

[DelToro]

dont what child benefit runs at these days but you should get it for the first two kids. after that you are on your own. you want a baby factory pay for the fucker yourself. of course there would be no baby factories. non of this 11 kids and one on the way shit.

Yeah because in pre-benefits days nobody had large families.

Which proves the point we don't need it, I'd scrap it completely.

It proves nothing other than de niro's assertion that "you want a baby factory pay for the fucker yourself. of course there would be no baby factories. non of this 11 kids and one on the way shit" is complete bollocks.

 

[blueinsa]

Dave, Gideon and IDS would sit there wanking themselves silly over this thread at times.

 

[TangerineSteve17]

For the sake of balance, shall we talk about the c**ts that cost this country far more by not paying any tax?

Where's the fun in that?

 

[Metal Biker]

I'm starting to wonder if there are people on here who consider paying tax as some sort of hobby they enjoy, the way they go on about it so much. Taxes, taxes, taxes, they put the Sheriff of Nottingham to shame.

"I get to pay tax again?"

 

[blueinsa]

I'm starting to wonder if there are people on here who consider paying tax as some sort of hobby they enjoy, the way they go on about it so much. Taxes, taxes, taxes, they put the Sheriff of Nottingham to shame.

"I get to pay tax again?"

They have convinced themselves that a scrapping of the welfare system to give its correct name would mean more money in their pockets because the government would tax them less.

Dream fucking on boys and girls, dream on!

 

[Metal Biker]

I'm starting to wonder if there are people on here who consider paying tax as some sort of hobby they enjoy, the way they go on about it so much. Taxes, taxes, taxes, they put the Sheriff of Nottingham to shame.

"I get to pay tax again?"

They have convinced themselves that a scrapping of the welfare system to give its correct name would mean more money in their pockets because the government would tax them less.

Dream fucking on boys and girls, dream on!

Take my money, Big Government! Take it, take it, take it!
Use it, abuse it however you wish!

(i'm starting to see the attraction they have towards it!)

 

[Lucky13]

I'm starting to wonder if there are people on here who consider paying tax as some sort of hobby they enjoy, the way they go on about it so much. Taxes, taxes, taxes, they put the Sheriff of Nottingham to shame.

"I get to pay tax again?"

You can donate money to the Government at any time , looking forward to the LWNJ's telling us how much they have.

 

[101toMR]

The more we give to our government the more they can give to their friends.

 

[TangerineSteve17]

You do seem to have a big bee in your bonnet Metal. Not rewarded sufficiently for your labour? How much would you want every month before you'd consider the paying of tax fair?

 

[kas_tippler]

From a personal point of view I'd abolish the NHS completely, survival of the fittest as Herbert Spencer put it. Natural selection has always been the way the human race has evolved until recently thus creating a over reliance on the welfare state.

 

[blueinsa]

From a personal point of view I'd abolish the NHS completely, survival of the fittest as Herbert Spencer put it. Natural selection has always been the way the human race has evolved until recently thus creating a over reliance on the welfare state.

A tin of beans should cost £100 meaning only the rich can eat and the poor die of starvation as well.