[Archived] Local Elections

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

I agree too. The upper class have always spawned a huge number of offspring most of whom contribute little to society. The Russians had the right idea in 1917.

A huge number? By definition the upper class consists of the wealthiest 1-2% of society, they don't contribute a huge number to anything.

And wasn't thenodrog's point that the dole-dosser families can't afford to pay for their kids and at no point expect to? My taxes haven't been paying for the Beckham's 3 kids at any point, and wouldn't be if none of them ever got jobs in their lives. But some workshy family with 6 kids who live down the street?

Its not right, and you could go as far as to describe it as sick or evil in cases where working families can't afford to have kids and yet are paying to support kids who's parents are on the dole. Its a very serious issue in my opinion that will become more and more heated as the cost of living continues to rise.

[Mike E]

Can someone explain the difference between "Capitalism and Communism"?

As far as I can see,

With capitalism, the bosses want to get as much out of the workers as cheaply as possible.

With Communism, the bosses want to get out as much of the workers as cheaply as possible.

Am I mistaken......?

As far as I can tell extreme left and right end up amounting to the same result through different means. I think of politics as a circle rather than explicitly left, central or right. It's all murky.

I agree with a notion somebody put up a while back, in that the only way to clear up politics and introduce common sense is to only allow people to be MP's if they have worked for at least 20years or they are at least 40 years old (whichever comes last). People who know the real world instead of the (one for WWE fans this) silverspoon mother@#/?ers of today.

[jim mk2]

A huge number? By definition the upper class consists of the wealthiest 1-2% of society, they don't contribute a huge number to anything.

And wasn't thenodrog's point that the dole-dosser families can't afford to pay for their kids and at no point expect to? My taxes haven't been paying for the Beckham's 3 kids at any point, and wouldn't be if none of them ever got jobs in their lives. But some workshy family with 6 kids who live down the street?

Its not right, and you could go as far as to describe it as sick or evil in cases where working families can't afford to have kids and yet are paying to support kids who's parents are on the dole. Its a very serious issue in my opinion that will become more and more heated as the cost of living continues to rise.

The upper classes have always had large families - look in the history books and some of the current lot. You're right they don't contribute alot - particularly tax which they evade by using offshore havens.

As for the rest you're just perpetuating myths seen on a daily basis in the right wing press.

The organisation Turn2us have produced a report 'Read between the lines: confronting the myths about the benefits system.' It's easily accessible on the internet.

Among the key points is the myth that there is a large number of large families are on out of work benefits when the truth is families with more than 5 children account for just 1% of out of work benefit claims.

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

The upper classes have always had large families - look in the history books and some of the current lot. You're right they don't contribute alot - particularly tax which they evade by using offshore havens.

As for the rest you're just perpetuating myths seen on a daily basis in the right wing press.

The organisation Turn2us have produced a report 'Read between the lines: confronting the myths about the benefits system.' It's easily accessible on the internet.

Among the key points is the myth that there is a large number of large families are on out of work benefits when the truth is families with more than 5 children account for just 1% of out of work benefit claims.

People in general have always had large families, but on the whole have stopped having them since the death rate plummeted. I'm sure the same is true of the upper class, I've seen no evidence to suggest otherwise. They're not myths, each one of these families that features in the media is a real example, they might be examples on the extreme side of things but nobody made them up. 4 to me is a large family, 3 is, heck even 2 is when you're wondering how long you're gonna have to save up for just to afford your first.

The lefties always seem to try and deflect the issue back to how much tax the rich are paying. I totally agree they're not paying anywhere near enough and the government needs to go after them as well. But even if that were totally sorted, the way the benefits system is exploited would still infuriate me.

One group of people who can't afford to have kids should not be paying for another group of people who can't afford to have kids. Taking that as a standalone statement, can you explain your argument against it?

[Steve Moss]

I agree too. The upper class have always spawned a huge number of offspring most of whom contribute little to society. The Russians had the right idea in 1917.

You mean the revolution which crushed the just emerging Russian middle class and spawned record breaking mass murder? For a supposedly moral guy, you spew an awful lot of hate and vitriol.

One group of people who can't afford to have kids should not be paying for another group of people who can't afford to have kids.

Nail on the head.

[Mike E]

I have to say that while I would never try to generalise those on benefits (I may well end up there myself once Uni is over, but hopefully not), I believe that any family with one child (under a certain amount of income) should receive related benefits. A second kid is just a drain on the system and no benefits should be awarded, from a set point onwards.

That is to act as a deterrant; I wouldn't stop people CURRENTLY receiving benefits for 2 children, but would certainly stop it for any new births as of "insert date".

In a nutshell, pretty much agree with SKHT. The taxpayer shouldn't be paying for other people's kids. It's enough of a burden paying for your own.

[LeChuck]

I have to say that while I would never try to generalise those on benefits (I may well end up there myself once Uni is over, but hopefully not), I believe that any family with one child (under a certain amount of income) should receive related benefits. A second kid is just a drain on the system and no benefits should be awarded, from a set point onwards.

That is to act as a deterrant; I wouldn't stop people CURRENTLY receiving benefits for 2 children, but would certainly stop it for any new births as of "insert date".

In a nutshell, pretty much agree with SKHT. The taxpayer shouldn't be paying for other people's kids. It's enough of a burden paying for your own.

So what happens when people break those rules? You'd be happy to let the children suffer? Perhaps going without food?

Whilst I dislike people who are the dole and have loads of kids as much as the next man, I could never see a justification for not protecting the child.

[ABBEY]

anyone watch the scumbag/scrotes/druggies on C4...SKINT

Ive never watched a programme and wanting to kick the telly in as much in my life. And why he had to show his knob after the snip buggers belief.

[Steve Moss]

So what happens when people break those rules? You'd be happy to let the children suffer? Perhaps going without food?

Whilst I dislike people who are the dole and have loads of kids as much as the next man, I could never see a justification for not protecting the child.

To get benefits you have to agree to be long term birth control or sterilized. Quid pro quo.

Hopefully the procedure is reversible, though the cost of reversing the procedure should be borne by the benefit recipient.

[ABBEY]

If you could see the pain and agony my stepdaughter is in after a botched sterilisation you wouldn't be wanting it .

[Guest Norbert]

To get benefits you have to agree to be long term birth control or sterilized. Quid pro quo.

Hopefully the procedure is reversible, though the cost of reversing the procedure should be borne by the benefit recipient.

Good lord Steve, I suppose you'll be wanting to 'solve' the issue of disability too? You do seem to be one of those Tea Baggers or whatever they're called.

So, Norbert, the "bosses" got as much as possible out of the workers? Whilst the workers got.......to live.....

Pretty much yes. In the Soviet Union, and Mao's China production targets were set in '5 year plans' and so on by the state and they were achieved by any means possible since both countries had millions of people to work hard. It also helped that there was extensive paranoia about 'deviationists', foreign spies or capitalists in disguise so if a factory was lagging behind these massive targets, it was sabotage. And if there was sabotage in the eyes of the state, then some people in the factories etc. are trouble makers who should be sent to labour camps in Siberia or wherever. The industrialisation of the Soviet Union was founded on central planning and working so-called enemies of the people to death. Strangely, China's growth has been down to adopting a state-led capitalist system since the 1980's.

I could probably write more, but I'm sure this is not the place for a 5,000 word essay.

[Paul]

To get benefits you have to agree to be long term birth control or sterilized. Quid pro quo.Hopefully the procedure is reversible, though the cost of reversing the procedure should be borne by the benefit recipient.

Millions of your countrymen died so you could write that.

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

So what happens when people break those rules? You'd be happy to let the children suffer? Perhaps going without food?

Whilst I dislike people who are the dole and have loads of kids as much as the next man, I could never see a justification for not protecting the child.

This may sound harsh but if their own parents aren't gonna protect them (by getting off their backsides and getting a job), why should I be forced to do it instead? Most of those parents would get a job if you left them with no other option, and the ones who still refused should have their kids taken off them, as by refusing to find work they are basically saying they don't care if their kids starve. I pretty much agree with darrenermike's idea on it. As I said, it sounds harsh, but so is having to delay having a kid for years because you can't afford it. Its time the benefit scum were made to realise exactly what people who aren't much better off than the minimum wage (which is probably most people in their 20s around here) are having to sacrifice to keep them in their lifestyle. People are angry and getting angrier. Personally I would have booted my tv straight through the wall watching something like Skint, so I deliberately don't.

[jim mk2]

People in general have always had large families, but on the whole have stopped having them since the death rate plummeted. I'm sure the same is true of the upper class, I've seen no evidence to suggest otherwise. They're not myths, each one of these families that features in the media is a real example, they might be examples on the extreme side of things but nobody made them up. 4 to me is a large family, 3 is, heck even 2 is when you're wondering how long you're gonna have to save up for just to afford your first.

The lefties always seem to try and deflect the issue back to how much tax the rich are paying. I totally agree they're not paying anywhere near enough and the government needs to go after them as well. But even if that were totally sorted, the way the benefits system is exploited would still infuriate me.

One group of people who can't afford to have kids should not be paying for another group of people who can't afford to have kids. Taking that as a standalone statement, can you explain your argument against it?

The point is, the "problem" as you see it is so small it's not worth worrying about and is just another myth perpetuated by the right to bash the poor in the name of reducing the public deficit.

There's also the age-old maxim of "one man's tax break is another man's tax burden".

Why should non-company car drivers subside those who drive company cars; why should those in salaried employment subsidise tax breaks for the self-employed; why should those not in pensions schemes subsidise those in pension schemes; who should those who do not have Isa savings subside those who do; why should non-property owners subsidise property owners ?

The list goes on and renders your argument about paying for other people's kids irrelevant.

[LeChuck]

This may sound harsh but if their own parents aren't gonna protect them (by getting off their backsides and getting a job), why should I be forced to do it instead? Most of those parents would get a job if you left them with no other option

And what about the kids from parents who can't get jobs?

You say "why should I be forced to do it". There is plenty of informed discussion about how much money actually gets spent on this kind of thing in relation to other things. If you can't see a couple of quid from your wage go towards keeping children safe then you probably shouldn't go ranting about the morals of others.

It's a difficult issue and something needs to be done, but anything that is done must not put children in any potential danger. If you're worried about where your money is going (and I mean genuinely worried, not just jumping on the 'dole scum' bandwagon) then there are bigger issues to sort out than child welfare payments.

[Guest Norbert]

The £70 billion or so we'll be spending on updating Trident is quite a dent in the treasury coffers, probably more than child tax credits etc. And I don't understand why we need to update the subs that much since the only nuclear powers comparable are Russia, the USA and possibly China. So why not just keep what we have and make do and mend? After all the USA will have used B-52s for 90 years before they're binned.

As for 'dole scum' having families, what about those with families who end up unemployed? Do we eliminate their children? Lock them in a cupboard until their parents get a job? And if an unemployed person gets pregnant accidentally, will we be taking them away in the middle of the night for an abortion?

[thenodrog]

Yeah I couldn't agree more. Pure communism I can defintely buy into, but in practise it allows leads to power and corruption at the top. But then, so does capitalism. It seems people are people, regardless of what system they live under.

That's why I think high tax on the very rich is neccessary. In the absence of a new system it's the only way to reign in the greed of those at the top and attempt to redistribute some of the wealth. Pay capping / pay scales just sounds like a layer of bureaucracy and plenty of bickering / legal bills.

Why is doing well and getting on in life an indicator of 'greed'?

I agree too. The upper class have always spawned a huge number of offspring most of whom contribute little to society. The Russians had the right idea in 1917.

i.e. Extermination. So by definition you are supporting the self same tactics used by the Nazi's, by Stalin and by Pol Pot! The results in your mind justify the means. Nice.

I agree with a notion somebody put up a while back, in that the only way to clear up politics and introduce common sense is to only allow people to be MP's if they have worked for at least 20years or they are at least 40 years old (whichever comes last). People who know the real world instead of the (one for WWE fans this) silverspoon mother@#/?ers of today.

'somebody'? Somebody.... as in yours truly.

[thenodrog]

Millions of your countrymen died so you could write that.

Incorrect Paul. Not to trivialise this but about half a million USA deaths in WW1/2 , Korea and Vietnam in total.

[Mike E]

So what happens when people break those rules? You'd be happy to let the children suffer? Perhaps going without food?

Whilst I dislike people who are the dole and have loads of kids as much as the next man, I could never see a justification for not protecting the child.

I'd have some form of protection in there but you're right it's hard. Going down the route of kid-benefit restriction is only a little jump away from turning into China :/

[thenodrog]

Whilst I dislike people who are the dole and have loads of kids as much as the next man, I could never see a justification for not protecting the child.

I have some empathy with that BUT the emphasis for protecting children MUST ALWAYS fall on the shoulders of the parents.

[Steve Moss]

Stay current. Long term birth control options are available which do not have to equate to sterilization. http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/features/long-term-birth-control-new-implants-patches.

Mirena makes a woman infertile for about 5 years and Implanon for 3 years.

As to long term sterilization, I think it should be an option for those men and women who continue to have children but remain entirely depedendent on the state. I would bet that if a modest lump sum payment was offered (say a $1,000), many would line up and society would save billions.

Millions of your countrymen died so you could write that.

I was a Marine in my younger years, so I think I personally earned the privilege of saying that.

And my direct ancestors have fought for my country in every single major war in this nation's history, so I'm glad they passed on to me the privilege of saying that.

Too bad your ancestors didn't see fit to pass on similar rights to their progeny vis-a-vis the UK's speech and libel laws.

Incorrect Paul. Not to trivialise this but about half a million USA deaths in WW1/2 , Korea and Vietnam in total.

If you add in the Civil War its well north of a million so Paul isn't too far off.

[LeChuck]

Why is doing well and getting on in life an indicator of 'greed'?

It doesn't always. But there is plenty of anecdotal evidence to show many people end up this way. Bankers, MPs expenses...I don't think I need to Google to support this point.

For someone who is probably the most cynically minded on here, you do seem to go suddenly naive when the topic turns to individual wealth!

I have some empathy with that BUT the emphasis for protecting children MUST ALWAYS fall on the shoulders of the parents.

Completely agree. Perhaps we don't have enough emphasis on that over here. But when parents aren't able to (or even don't want to) do the job properly, any developed country should have it as a priority to protect children from harm in those situations.

[jim mk2]

Even with the Tory-led cuts to social services over the past 30 years we have a good record in this country of protecting our most vulnerable although the story in Oxford today showed we must always be vigilant.

I'm surprised the Us has never adopted mass sterilisation in view of the endemic violence in the country. They could start with members of the Tea party.

[Steve Moss]

Like I said before Jim. Hatred and vitriol. It permeates your arguments and undermines everything you stand for, nothing good will come from it.

As I'm a bit of a Star Wars geek I'll quote Yoda, "Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering." Or maybe Qui-Gon Jinn, "Get your opponents to lose their grace, and they will lose their purpose." And I think you could learn something from Mace Windu, "You must open your mind to other opinions."

Don't give in to hate or lose your grace, Jim. Nothing good will come of it.

[thenodrog]

If you add in the Civil War its well north of a million so Paul isn't too far off.

Paul said 'millions' so even if we take that as 2 million he's not half way there PLUS the fact that I had purposely discounted your civil war and I've a feeling Paul would have done too.