Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2015 13:44:33 GMT 1
Bearing in mind you thought the estimates on the Guardian graphic were "hilarious", I'd be interested to hear how you know about the thoughts of this group. Because, unless you live in a very high class area, chances are you'll know several families like this. I don't live in a very high class area or know several families like the one you describe. However, that doesn't mean they don't exist. You seem to have formed your opinion on one (or perhaps a couple) of personal experiences, which proves nothing. Many newspapers, including The Daily Mail (which I presume is pretty much your bible), tried to find examples of these families where no-one in three generations has worked, they couldn't find a single one. Clearly there are people claiming JSA and taking the piss and something should be done to eradicate it, but to make such bold claims about numbers when you have nothing to back it up is ludicrous. Also, whether you believe in how accurate the DWP figures are or not, the amount of tax dodged costs the Government far more than benefit cheats, so your anger is pretty misdirected.
|
|
|
Post by kennyk2 on Mar 30, 2015 13:58:41 GMT 1
Because calling people on benefits lazy and feckless is bigoted. We now live in a world of benefits shaming with nonsensical programmes on channels 4&5. In reality there's always a small percentage who will take advantage of the system and I'd be more concerned with those at the top not paying their taxes. Take the HMRC, letting Vodafone off a potential £8billion despite those concerned saying it's urban myth. That money goes a lot further than a few million here or there from those on benefits. I love this, it's hilarious! How do you "estimate" an accurate figure on benefits fraud? By it's very nature it's undiscovered, much like the "estimated" illegal immigrant guesswork. Mind you, it keeps the graphics guy at the Guardian in a job. Looking at that bubble chart, the graphics guy at the Guardian needs sacking more like! Corrupt portrayal of data like that and he could get a job with the IPCC!
|
|
|
Post by galpharm2400 on Mar 30, 2015 14:09:33 GMT 1
again I like the 'idea' that some people are heavily influenced by the 'daily mail' but the other side are 'free thinkers' and far too educated to be influenced by anything?? at least it makes me smile...
I try not to watch benefit cheating programmes or a lot of the 'in depth investigative' programmes which both attack the subject with a defined goal to see and then report what they 'believed' was the truth of it before they started filming..
I would like us to get much better at recovering tax but should that ever come about, I don't want it then to be lost in the wallowing mess that is our 'benefits system'...
first of we need to look after our working population who are not millionaires, they are not 'well off' and they appear to be very pissed off with the shit from above and the shit from below..
freedom of information is a very useful tool..we use it a lot to provide evidence for our clients..
its probably much more 'honest' than the daily mail or the guardian and even though some of the figures we get are clearly 'massaged' they are still eye openers and sometimes quite staggering...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2015 14:12:22 GMT 1
Because, unless you live in a very high class area, chances are you'll know several families like this. I don't live in a very high class area or know several families like the one you describe. However, that doesn't mean they don't exist. You seem to have formed your opinion on one (or perhaps a couple) of personal experiences, which proves nothing. Many newspapers, including The Daily Mail (which I presume is pretty much your bible), tried to find examples of these families where no-one in three generations has worked, they couldn't find a single one. Clearly there are people claiming JSA and taking the piss and something should be done to eradicate it, but to make such bold claims about numbers when you have nothing to back it up is ludicrous. Also, whether you believe in how accurate the DWP figures are or not, the amount of tax dodged costs the Government far more than benefit cheats, so your anger is pretty misdirected. I don't buy newspapers as I don't like biased news. If we're going to make sweeping assumptions though, I'll have you down as a Guardian reader. I didn't make any bold claims about numbers of families are like this, just that a sizeable amount of long term benefits claimants have no intention of finding work. The blinkered Guardian view that they are few and far between and that third generation spongers don't exist is plain wrong. Lets see how many would suddenly find this non existent work, if they were made to get out of bed at 7AM a few mornings a week to do community work for their free cash hand outs. How do you think the DWP estimate benefits fraud? They can't even give a figure for how much they overpay. It's pure guesswork and I'd be willing to bet, like the guesswork in the illegal immigrant figures, that the guess was low. As for these corporations avoiding tax, this is just an anti Tory propaganda speil louded out by the usual champagne socialists, in reality, there's sod all we can do about it at as things stand. These American companies register in Ireland with it's 12.5% corporation tax rate, not the UK. Our government has no control over the Irish tax laws. Read about the Double Irish here... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangementReading that, clearly some of this avoidance scheme relies on EU membership, with the "Dutch Sandwich" part at least. Maybe our exit from the EU would close this loophole and allow us to tax these US companies?
|
|
|
Post by Doc Halladay 32 on Mar 30, 2015 14:16:48 GMT 1
It appears Marcus can provide what does he eat on, included in the weekly money over the years, have to pay for their cutlery and crockery and cooking utensils and their washing up, buy and launder their clothes and shoes, their personal washing and grooming. AND This is before they have to pay their energy suppliers for cooking and preserving their food and heating their homes, in addition to their bus and train fares for job interviews, etc. Not all people on benefits 'waste' their money on fags, booze and sky. I think he'd find it very tough to survive for a number of weeks on JSA only - food is not the only thing people spend money on every week. So how do the young couple across the road from me, with 2 kids, who have never worked a day in their life, run a car and live in an £800 a month house in a nice area? They have Sky TV on a large flat screen, smoke, drink and are the only house in the cul-de-sac who don't seem worried about utility bills. At night, every other house is in the dark, this one has lights on 24 hours a day. Food is not a major expense in the UK. If anyone is pleading poverty enough on benefits, that they need a food bank, they are not prioritising things properly. Why do food banks need a car park for instance? We have a generation of takers who want everything for free and are not willing to give back to society. Not everyone on benefits, but a sizeable section of long termers think this way. Who knows? Your neighbour could be a professional gambler - I'm sure Oti will tell you he doesn't need to work.
|
|
|
Post by galpharm2400 on Mar 30, 2015 14:47:06 GMT 1
if nobody has the 'right' to avoid tax then presumably nobody has the right to 'state money for nothing' ? both are quite legal within the laws.. both carry a high moral responsibility which in most cases is totally ignored.. I can avoid tax, I can get money for nothing, if I 'use' the system to my benefit.. thing is do you want your employer to be able to do it or your neighbour. One pays your wages and one is in bed when you have to get up for work.. ? one is trying to make a profit and pays large taxes(even after their avoidance schemes) , the other pays nothing in and avoids EVERYTHING... At some point the 'working population' who are regularly and disgracefully ignored will have to stand up and say no to both. just a question of time..
|
|
|
Post by DeepSpace on Mar 30, 2015 15:57:07 GMT 1
Socialism is MASSIVELY more discredited than capitalism! I agree that we live in a kind of hybrid, but for all intents and purposes it is a capitalist society by most peoples definitions of it. And it works. Socialism or in its extreme, communism, has proven time and again to fail, lowering everyones standard of living, and I would imagine most people living under long term socialism would look at the poorest people living under our capitalism and think they had an outstanding standard of living. There area number of reasons why I disagree with you here. Firstly, you are happy to label a collection of economies as Socialist in spite of them not really being that in order to condemn them as failed, but apply different standards to Western economies by admitting they are not pure Capitalist. You can't have it both ways. The problem is, as with most people, your analysis is filtered though the lens of the system you know & its portrayal via our media & political elite (& that applies if you read the Guardian, Sun, Mail, none of them or can't read at all). That gives all of us an inherent cognitive bias that our system is better. Secondly, following on from that you have the issue of China. In pure economic term a hugely successful economy. So are you judging it by a set of character traits (it clearly has Capitalist components) in which case refer to my point above, or by what it calls itself? If the latter, I give you a successful Socialist economy (note I'm only talking Economics here, not wider political concerns). Finally, anyone who ever spends time with political thinkers from Eastern Europe will quickly realise that a simple 'failed' tag is a wild over-simplification. What many people say, & I've had the conversations, is that in effect they swapped increased consumer choice for increased social problems. In the stabler states, Czech Republic, etc., that is broadly seen as a reasonable trade-off but there is a huge lobby in Russia for example that believes they lost out with the demise of the USSR. I'm not offering this as promoting any particular system over any other here (although I won't deny & it's probably obvious my standpoint is on the left of politics), but to try & show again that you can't just take simplistic analyses of or soundbites about what are hugely complex issues & extrapolate them in that way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2015 16:04:57 GMT 1
All this thread has done is show Marcus talks a fair bit of cobblers and hates The Guardian.
The previous Labour government were far too lenient with benefit claimants although they often clamped down on the wrong people. This government had been the polar opposite, IDS has launched a crusade on welfare and has divided society. Many genuine disabled people are struggling, under 25's are being persecuted and public services are bearing the brunt. We have no middle ground, one of a fair system that helps those in need and rewards those who work hard. As for this 'underclass' of people who don't work - depicted by silly TV shows on certain channels - they are dragging down the people who are currently out of work, people who need help but instead face a tirade of abuse from people who chose to shame those on benefits.
So how can we improve this... The JobCentre should try and work as a recruitment centre for businesses finding them suitable employees, they should also provide the right education courses for individuals who don't have skills to make them employable. Incentivise those on JSA - For those unemployed for under 6/9 months, give them more money than those who are unemployed for over 6/9 months. Work with charities and volunteering initiatives to help fill much needed spaces with people who are willing to gain experience and use their time and experiences.
All of the above is much better than forcing the unemployed to do community service which seems to be a common feature amongst people these days but very not thought through. If people work for their benefits they should be paid minimum wage and would be in compliance with employment law. Also restricting what people do with benefits would end up being a minefield - especially as things like the internet and mobile phones are practically necessities.
As for tax avoidance, well it's certainly not 'anti Tory propaganda speil louded out by the usual champagne socialists' as our resident right winger says. More can be done to catch those in the act, it involves stronger attitudes from governments. Things such as making companies and people provide transparent country-by-country accounts, restrict the qualifying criteria for offshore and residency accounts, confronting avoidance promoters by banning banks than participate, require UK companies to automatically disclose all offshore accounts and holdings. I could go on all day but it won't happen until major tax reforms are undertaken and that requires a government that is willing to accept a hit from some sides. As for it being spiel being sounded out by supposed champagne socialists, I always find that people who use that term usually don't have a leg to stand on in reasoned debate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2015 16:36:33 GMT 1
All this thread has done is show Marcus talks a fair bit of cobblers and hates The Guardian. The previous Labour government were far too lenient with benefit claimants although they often clamped down on the wrong people. This government had been the polar opposite, IDS has launched a crusade on welfare and has divided society. Many genuine disabled people are struggling, under 25's are being persecuted and public services are bearing the brunt. We have no middle ground, one of a fair system that helps those in need and rewards those who work hard. As for this 'underclass' of people who don't work - depicted by silly TV shows on certain channels - they are dragging down the people who are currently out of work, people who need help but instead face a tirade of abuse from people who chose to shame those on benefits. So how can we improve this... The JobCentre should try and work as a recruitment centre for businesses finding them suitable employees, they should also provide the right education courses for individuals who don't have skills to make them employable. Incentivise those on JSA - For those unemployed for under 6/9 months, give them more money than those who are unemployed for over 6/9 months. Work with charities and volunteering initiatives to help fill much needed spaces with people who are willing to gain experience and use their time and experiences. All of the above is much better than forcing the unemployed to do community service which seems to be a common feature amongst people these days but very not thought through. If people work for their benefits they should be paid minimum wage and would be in compliance with employment law. Also restricting what people do with benefits would end up being a minefield - especially as things like the internet and mobile phones are practically necessities. As for tax avoidance, well it's certainly not 'anti Tory propaganda speil louded out by the usual champagne socialists' as our resident right winger says. More can be done to catch those in the act, it involves stronger attitudes from governments. Things such as making companies and people provide transparent country-by-country accounts, restrict the qualifying criteria for offshore and residency accounts, confronting avoidance promoters by banning banks than participate, require UK companies to automatically disclose all offshore accounts and holdings. I could go on all day but it won't happen until major tax reforms are undertaken and that requires a government that is willing to accept a hit from some sides. As for it being spiel being sounded out by supposed champagne socialists, I always find that people who use that term usually don't have a leg to stand on in reasoned debate. No, all it shows is that there are some people, shock, horror, who don't toe the line with your left wing views. Get used to it! As for the struggling disabled people, there may be some genuine cases, but there was also a load of fraud going on. In 2008, almost 1 in 5 adults of working age were claiming to be disabled. Do you really think 1 in 5 of working age are genuinely disabled? Why shouldn't the long term unemployed do community work for the free money the rest of us who work for a living, provide for them? I don't think it's too much to ask and would get some back into the habit of getting up in the morning. It make get some of them out of the rut and actually make them employable. It would also improve the local community, which some may actually start respecting for a change. As for the tax avoidance comment, explain to me how the UK government can extract corporation tax on an American (not UK) company incorporated in Ireland? I'm sure HMRC would be interested to hear this too... You do understand how the Double Irish tax avoidance system works I take it?
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Mar 30, 2015 16:49:57 GMT 1
Socialism is MASSIVELY more discredited than capitalism! I agree that we live in a kind of hybrid, but for all intents and purposes it is a capitalist society by most peoples definitions of it. And it works. Socialism or in its extreme, communism, has proven time and again to fail, lowering everyones standard of living, and I would imagine most people living under long term socialism would look at the poorest people living under our capitalism and think they had an outstanding standard of living. There area number of reasons why I disagree with you here. Firstly, you are happy to label a collection of economies as Socialist in spite of them not really being that in order to condemn them as failed, but apply different standards to Western economies by admitting they are not pure Capitalist. You can't have it both ways. The problem is, as with most people, your analysis is filtered though the lens of the system you know & its portrayal via our media & political elite (& that applies if you read the Guardian, Sun, Mail, none of them or can't read at all). That gives all of us an inherent cognitive bias that our system is better. Secondly, following on from that you have the issue of China. In pure economic term a hugely successful economy. So are you judging it by a set of character traits (it clearly has Capitalist components) in which case refer to my point above, or by what it calls itself? If the latter, I give you a successful Socialist economy (note I'm only talking Economics here, not wider political concerns). Finally, anyone who ever spends time with political thinkers from Eastern Europe will quickly realise that a simple 'failed' tag is a wild over-simplification. What many people say, & I've had the conversations, is that in effect they swapped increased consumer choice for increased social problems. In the stabler states, Czech Republic, etc., that is broadly seen as a reasonable trade-off but there is a huge lobby in Russia for example that believes they lost out with the demise of the USSR. I'm not offering this as promoting any particular system over any other here (although I won't deny & it's probably obvious my standpoint is on the left of politics), but to try & show again that you can't just take simplistic analyses of or soundbites about what are hugely complex issues & extrapolate them in that way. I have to admit that I have to take a simplistic view of these sorts of things, not being a student of political theory to any degree. I call our system 'capitalist' because to my mind thats what we have. Similarly I call socialist countries 'socialist' for the same reason. If you need it broken down into more detailed and intricate labels then I can't help you. Its simply based on what i see of our 'capitalist' system and the standard of living we enjoy, compared to what I know of 'socialist' systems and the standard of living they provide. Its a bit convenient as a defence to imply Ive been mislead by our media or to imply our media go out of their way to 'sell' our system to us. Our media seem to jump at any chance to knock or question our system IMO, particularly the media that appose the government of the day. One thing thats for certain is the media in the socialist countries don't have that same freedom!! Blaming the lying media must be top of page 1 in the 'How to be left wing' guide book!! Which countries do you think have the best standard of living for all- 'mainly' socialist ones or 'mainly' capitalist ?? You look at people not working in the UK and compare what they have in life to their counterparts in eastern europe. Or people on low incomes, or middle incomes or the rich. The answers the same for each isn't it? Capitalist wins hands down, and Im not having it that its some kind of media propaganda. Be interesting to see what happens in China now they have such a powerful economy. Its one thing being poor as hell when everyone around you is the same, but its a bit different when the country has a new wealthy elite driving round in Range Rovers. Wages will have to rise, standards of living will have to rise and the people will start to demand more freedoms and more of everything else. The country will have to join the rest of the capitalist world and compete on more of a level playing field, unable to rely on cheap labour like they have been doing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2015 16:50:17 GMT 1
Benefits needed to be tackled and lets be honest it's something the Labour party would never have done, but if they get back in power will they reverse any of the things done by IDS? - don't hold your breath because as usual, the Tory's have to do all the dirty work for them.
IDS has done a good job so far but he needs to do much more, such as limiting child benefits to two children only particularly for the feckless minority who have never worked and still believe the country owes them a living.
This country is still one of the best places to live, hence the reason we still have masses of Asians, Africans & Eastern Europeans desperately trying to get here.
Anyhow, vote for the Tories unless you want to be controlled by the SNP who were losers only a few month's back.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2015 16:54:03 GMT 1
Socialism is MASSIVELY more discredited than capitalism! I agree that we live in a kind of hybrid, but for all intents and purposes it is a capitalist society by most peoples definitions of it. And it works. Socialism or in its extreme, communism, has proven time and again to fail, lowering everyones standard of living, and I would imagine most people living under long term socialism would look at the poorest people living under our capitalism and think they had an outstanding standard of living. There area number of reasons why I disagree with you here. Firstly, you are happy to label a collection of economies as Socialist in spite of them not really being that in order to condemn them as failed, but apply different standards to Western economies by admitting they are not pure Capitalist. You can't have it both ways. The problem is, as with most people, your analysis is filtered though the lens of the system you know & its portrayal via our media & political elite (& that applies if you read the Guardian, Sun, Mail, none of them or can't read at all). That gives all of us an inherent cognitive bias that our system is better. Secondly, following on from that you have the issue of China. In pure economic term a hugely successful economy. So are you judging it by a set of character traits (it clearly has Capitalist components) in which case refer to my point above, or by what it calls itself? If the latter, I give you a successful Socialist economy (note I'm only talking Economics here, not wider political concerns). Finally, anyone who ever spends time with political thinkers from Eastern Europe will quickly realise that a simple 'failed' tag is a wild over-simplification. What many people say, & I've had the conversations, is that in effect they swapped increased consumer choice for increased social problems. In the stabler states, Czech Republic, etc., that is broadly seen as a reasonable trade-off but there is a huge lobby in Russia for example that believes they lost out with the demise of the USSR. I'm not offering this as promoting any particular system over any other here (although I won't deny & it's probably obvious my standpoint is on the left of politics), but to try & show again that you can't just take simplistic analyses of or soundbites about what are hugely complex issues & extrapolate them in that way. Fantastic post DeepSpace. I study Polish and English literature and culture at University. With regard to your penultimate paragraph, many Poles recognise that the dominant economic and social ideology under Soviet occupation was neither Marxist-Leninist, Socialist or Communist. Stalinism, they always reminded me, was a brutal dictatorial system which had very few commonalities with either of the aforementioned systemic ideologies. I'm not going to say that I've read every book on the political Left, but I think I've read enough to make the claim that, in my knowledge of world political systems, there has never been a Marxist-Leninist system. I think that would be at the heart of Socialism, therefore Captainslapper is mistaken in his/her claim that Socialism has failed on more than one occasion. Surely something must be practiced and analysed before it is deemed a failure?
|
|
|
Post by DeepSpace on Mar 30, 2015 17:21:12 GMT 1
Its a bit convenient as a defence to imply Ive been mislead by our media or to imply our media go out of their way to 'sell' our system to us. Our media seem to jump at any chance to knock or question our system IMO, particularly the media that appose the government of the day. One thing thats for certain is the media in the socialist countries don't have that same freedom!! Blaming the lying media must be top of page 1 in the 'How to be left wing' guide book!! To be fair, if you read my post I don't imply that about you or anyone; indeed I went to great lengths to say that applied to anyone regardless of their choice of media. It's a philosophical trap. Humans are sort of pre-programmed to prefer stability, and they will use their immediate surroundings as a point of reference for interpreting the world around them. The media in any country just reflects whatever is in its own interests, which may be supporting the Establishment or making up crap about celebrities.
Which really was the essence of my post. Whether or not a system works or doesn't kind of depends on who you ask. And you can't judge it just on living standards. I used to speak regular to a Muscovite who was working in Riga & his perpective (as a snapshot, not an empirical argument) was that the drug problem that was taking hold in Moscow at that time could be directly linked to the economic changes going on. He also told me that he'd never seen a beggar on the streets of Moscow pre-1990.
|
|
|
Post by delboy12 on Mar 30, 2015 17:38:04 GMT 1
HOPE WE ARE BLUE GOD HELP US IF THEY GET IN AGAIN !!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by DeepSpace on Mar 30, 2015 17:53:08 GMT 1
HOPE WE ARE BLUE GOD HELP US IF THEY GET IN AGAIN !!!!!!! Ah that clinches the argument. I can see the error of my ways now
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Mar 30, 2015 19:29:22 GMT 1
Its a bit convenient as a defence to imply Ive been mislead by our media or to imply our media go out of their way to 'sell' our system to us. Our media seem to jump at any chance to knock or question our system IMO, particularly the media that appose the government of the day. One thing thats for certain is the media in the socialist countries don't have that same freedom!! Blaming the lying media must be top of page 1 in the 'How to be left wing' guide book!! To be fair, if you read my post I don't imply that about you or anyone; indeed I went to great lengths to say that applied to anyone regardless of their choice of media. It's a philosophical trap. Humans are sort of pre-programmed to prefer stability, and they will use their immediate surroundings as a point of reference for interpreting the world around them. The media in any country just reflects whatever is in its own interests, which may be supporting the Establishment or making up crap about celebrities.
Which really was the essence of my post. Whether or not a system works or doesn't kind of depends on who you ask. And you can't judge it just on living standards. I used to speak regular to a Muscovite who was working in Riga & his perpective (as a snapshot, not an empirical argument) was that the drug problem that was taking hold in Moscow at that time could be directly linked to the economic changes going on. He also told me that he'd never seen a beggar on the streets of Moscow pre-1990.
Yes certainly agree other things come into play to get a full picture of quality of life, but suppose my thinking is that 'living standard' is just a phrase that covers everything- wealth ,possessions, choices, health, security, crime, freedoms etc etc. Do you think the UK media don't attack the establishment? Tv tends to try and give a factual 'this is what happened' approach with comments from those involved in either side, but the written press is much more opinionated and will hammer and question the establishment at every turn if they see fit, IMO.
|
|
Tinpot
Mental Health Support Group
I'm really tinpot
Posts: 22,433
|
Post by Tinpot on Mar 30, 2015 20:05:28 GMT 1
I don't think real poverty actually exists in this country. Depends how you define poverty, I suppose. That woman I bought a Big Issue from on Friday didn't seem well off to me.
|
|
|
Post by DeepSpace on Mar 30, 2015 20:11:58 GMT 1
To be fair, if you read my post I don't imply that about you or anyone; indeed I went to great lengths to say that applied to anyone regardless of their choice of media. It's a philosophical trap. Humans are sort of pre-programmed to prefer stability, and they will use their immediate surroundings as a point of reference for interpreting the world around them. The media in any country just reflects whatever is in its own interests, which may be supporting the Establishment or making up crap about celebrities.
Which really was the essence of my post. Whether or not a system works or doesn't kind of depends on who you ask. And you can't judge it just on living standards. I used to speak regular to a Muscovite who was working in Riga & his perpective (as a snapshot, not an empirical argument) was that the drug problem that was taking hold in Moscow at that time could be directly linked to the economic changes going on. He also told me that he'd never seen a beggar on the streets of Moscow pre-1990.
Yes certainly agree other things come into play to get a full picture of quality of life, but suppose my thinking is that 'living standard' is just a phrase that covers everything- wealth ,possessions, choices, health, security, crime, freedoms etc etc. Do you think the UK media don't attack the establishment? Tv tends to try and give a factual 'this is what happened' approach with comments from those involved in either side, but the written press is much more opinionated and will hammer and question the establishment at every turn if they see fit, IMO. My honest answer to that would be that, without starting a complex Sociological debate about who or what the Establishment actually is, that I think they attack individuals who may be seen as Establishment figures & sometimes institutions but rarely the Establishment as a concept. What they do particularly well of course is pretending that they are standing up for their readers by attacking "the system" so to speak. I think though if you look at the figures at the top of the media globally you'd struggle to arrive at any conclusion beyond them being masively powerful figures who have no real interest in anything beyond their own wealth, power and influence.
|
|
Tinpot
Mental Health Support Group
I'm really tinpot
Posts: 22,433
|
Post by Tinpot on Mar 30, 2015 20:42:54 GMT 1
Go on, so all of these people who are using food banks have cut back on all non essentials first then? Fags, booze, satellite TV, broadband, mobile phones.... Food is cheap in this country, a single person can eat healthily on £20 worth of food a week, less if needed. Fresh vegetables are way cheaper than ready meals. How much is the lowest amount you get on benefits again per week? Poverty in this country is measured way differently to third world countries. To be honest Marcus I don't disagree with eating healthy for 20 quid but more often than not its families using food banks as opposed to single people. Although fresh fruit and veg isn't always as cheap as you make out either but if you were single, out of work, easily live off 20 quid a week with a bit of creativity, although if you wanted a bit of meat with your veg, you'd be struggling to cover it with 20 quid a week. If somebody can afford to buy meat* then I would suggest that they probably don't need to use a food bank. Beans, lentils and chickpeas provide protein at a fraction of the cost, own brand marmite gives vitamin b12. Frankly they taste far better than cheap meat too. *Exception - if they trawl the supermarket just before closing, they might find some meat that's been drastically reduced as it's on its date.
|
|
|
Post by gledholt terrier on Mar 30, 2015 21:08:44 GMT 1
To be honest Marcus I don't disagree with eating healthy for 20 quid but more often than not its families using food banks as opposed to single people. Although fresh fruit and veg isn't always as cheap as you make out either but if you were single, out of work, easily live off 20 quid a week with a bit of creativity, although if you wanted a bit of meat with your veg, you'd be struggling to cover it with 20 quid a week. If somebody can afford to buy meat* then I would suggest that they probably don't need to use a food bank. Beans, lentils and chickpeas provide protein at a fraction of the cost, own brand marmite gives vitamin b12. Frankly they taste far better than cheap meat too. *Exception - if they trawl the supermarket just before closing, they might find some meat that's been drastically reduced as it's on its date. Let them eat cake?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2015 21:22:04 GMT 1
If somebody can afford to buy meat* then I would suggest that they probably don't need to use a food bank. Beans, lentils and chickpeas provide protein at a fraction of the cost, own brand marmite gives vitamin b12. Frankly they taste far better than cheap meat too. *Exception - if they trawl the supermarket just before closing, they might find some meat that's been drastically reduced as it's on its date. Let them eat cake? Cake? I thought we were trying to get them off drugs and back to work? (Chris Morris fans may understand)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2015 21:43:26 GMT 1
If anything this thread has highlighted that there are a few extremely right wing people on this forum, no child benefit for more than 2 kids, let them eat cake etc...
The Cap'n and myself don't see eye to eye on many things on this forum but at least he provides a thought out & reasoned debate instead of the seemingly ingrained and narrow minded views of the thankfully minority of people that exist and thrive on a daily diet of the Telegraph, Mail & Express...
I'm sure they'll counter with the usual comments, but remember it doesn't actually take a great deal of circumstance and bad luck to end up in the gutter. I expect those in the far right corner don't give it a minutes thought because of a total lack of empathy...
|
|
|
Post by Christ in Shades (art) on Mar 30, 2015 21:44:20 GMT 1
To be honest Marcus I don't disagree with eating healthy for 20 quid but more often than not its families using food banks as opposed to single people. Although fresh fruit and veg isn't always as cheap as you make out either but if you were single, out of work, easily live off 20 quid a week with a bit of creativity, although if you wanted a bit of meat with your veg, you'd be struggling to cover it with 20 quid a week. If somebody can afford to buy meat* then I would suggest that they probably don't need to use a food bank. Beans, lentils and chickpeas provide protein at a fraction of the cost, own brand marmite gives vitamin b12. Frankly they taste far better than cheap meat too. *Exception - if they trawl the supermarket just before closing, they might find some meat that's been drastically reduced as it's on its date. To be honest mate, I think I'd rather eat my own shit than eat lentils and pulses, they must be the most unappetizing food going.
|
|
|
Post by Christ in Shades (art) on Mar 30, 2015 21:50:22 GMT 1
If anything this thread has highlighted that there are a few extremely right wing people on this forum, no child benefit for more than 2 kids, let them eat cake etc... The Cap'n and myself don't see eye to eye on many things on this forum but at least he provides a thought out & reasoned debate instead of the seemingly ingrained and narrow minded views of the thankfully minority of people that exist and thrive on a daily diet of the Telegraph, Mail & Express... I'm sure they'll counter with the usual comments, but remember it doesn't actually take a great deal of circumstance and bad luck to end up in the gutter. I expect those in the far right corner don't give it a minutes thought because of a total lack of empathy... That's the problem, people don't understand that they're only one job loss away from their lives going to shit!!
|
|
|
Post by gledholt terrier on Mar 30, 2015 21:52:47 GMT 1
If anything this thread has highlighted that there are a few extremely right wing people on this forum, no child benefit for more than 2 kids, let them eat cake etc... The Cap'n and myself don't see eye to eye on many things on this forum but at least he provides a thought out & reasoned debate instead of the seemingly ingrained and narrow minded views of the thankfully minority of people that exist and thrive on a daily diet of the Telegraph, Mail & Express... I'm sure they'll counter with the usual comments, but remember it doesn't actually take a great deal of circumstance and bad luck to end up in the gutter. I expect those in the far right corner don't give it a minutes thought because of a total lack of empathy... Whoa! The "let them eat cake" post was high quality satire!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2015 22:00:57 GMT 1
My apologies Gledholt...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2015 22:16:57 GMT 1
If anything this thread has highlighted that there are a few extremely right wing people on this forum, no child benefit for more than 2 kids, let them eat cake etc... The Cap'n and myself don't see eye to eye on many things on this forum but at least he provides a thought out & reasoned debate instead of the seemingly ingrained and narrow minded views of the thankfully minority of people that exist and thrive on a daily diet of the Telegraph, Mail & Express... I'm sure they'll counter with the usual comments, but remember it doesn't actually take a great deal of circumstance and bad luck to end up in the gutter. I expect those in the far right corner don't give it a minutes thought because of a total lack of empathy... "I'm right and everyone else is wrong".... A typical socialist blinkered opinion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2015 22:20:47 GMT 1
If anything this thread has highlighted that there are a few extremely right wing people on this forum, no child benefit for more than 2 kids, let them eat cake etc... The Cap'n and myself don't see eye to eye on many things on this forum but at least he provides a thought out & reasoned debate instead of the seemingly ingrained and narrow minded views of the thankfully minority of people that exist and thrive on a daily diet of the Telegraph, Mail & Express... I'm sure they'll counter with the usual comments, but remember it doesn't actually take a great deal of circumstance and bad luck to end up in the gutter. I expect those in the far right corner don't give it a minutes thought because of a total lack of empathy... That's the problem, people don't understand that they're only one job loss away from their lives going to shit!! Really? And self employment isn't an option, only employment? If work gets short for me I have a plan B all the time, which would pay my bills. Even "circumstances and bad luck" in this country gives you a house and enough free cash to live on. Poverty is living with little or no food or shelter, not having to cancel Sky Sports, due to evil bankers and posh people.
|
|
Tinpot
Mental Health Support Group
I'm really tinpot
Posts: 22,433
|
Post by Tinpot on Mar 30, 2015 22:24:22 GMT 1
It appears Marcus can provide what does he eat on, included in the weekly money over the years, have to pay for their cutlery and crockery and cooking utensils and their washing up, buy and launder their clothes and shoes, their personal washing and grooming. AND This is before they have to pay their energy suppliers for cooking and preserving their food and heating their homes, in addition to their bus and train fares for job interviews, etc. Not all people on benefits 'waste' their money on fags, booze and sky. I think he'd find it very tough to survive for a number of weeks on JSA only - food is not the only thing people spend money on every week. So how do the young couple across the road from me, with 2 kids, who have never worked a day in their life, run a car and live in an £800 a month house in a nice area? They have Sky TV on a large flat screen, smoke, drink and are the only house in the cul-de-sac who don't seem worried about utility bills. At night, every other house is in the dark, this one has lights on 24 hours a day. Food is not a major expense in the UK. If anyone is pleading poverty enough on benefits, that they need a food bank, they are not prioritising things properly. Why do food banks need a car park for instance?Food banks are generally multiple use buildings so for example it's a food bank on Friday, but on Sunday it's a church, on Tuesday it's the local scout group etc. Even if that's not the case, volunteers might have cars. Or even some of those who rely on food banks will have a car, if they need to get to work and don't have good public transport links, or they need to get the kid to nursery before work. You can feed yourself for £20 per week? I don't doubt it. I've managed on less than half that amount but there are other living costs beside food purchases.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2015 22:26:49 GMT 1
If anything this thread has highlighted that there are a few extremely right wing people on this forum, no child benefit for more than 2 kids, let them eat cake etc... The Cap'n and myself don't see eye to eye on many things on this forum but at least he provides a thought out & reasoned debate instead of the seemingly ingrained and narrow minded views of the thankfully minority of people that exist and thrive on a daily diet of the Telegraph, Mail & Express... I'm sure they'll counter with the usual comments, but remember it doesn't actually take a great deal of circumstance and bad luck to end up in the gutter. I expect those in the far right corner don't give it a minutes thought because of a total lack of empathy... "I'm right and everyone else is wrong".... A typical socialist blinkered opinion.As I said I don't normally get involved with this subject, but Marcus coming from you....Deary me. I mean, have you ever admitted to being wrong? I know I have.
|
|