[Archived] Local Elections

[thenodrog]

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!

Abandon my natural cynicism? Nope. This might sound a taj parochial but there are plenty of people around this area who have started with nowt and 'got on' through an eclectic mix of sheer hard work, ambition, opportunism, family values, pride, self belief etc etc and who have been nowhere near The Stock Exchange. the City or the Palace of Westminster. Plus there are even more people around here who live eat and breed on state benefits and have absolutely no intention of doing anything else. I see examples of both on a daily basis and it does kind of grate after a while.

[thenodrog]

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

Just thank your lucky stars you aren't an Australian or you'd really get the treatment off him!

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

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.

Except the big difference in those examples is its taxpayers subsidising taxpayers. As you say its unavoidable but as long as everyone is contributing personally I'm fine with it. What I'm not fine with is me contributing, someone else not doing, them benefitting and me not doing.

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.

And how many parents really can't get any type of job if they applied for say a hundred every week? Well I completely object to your comment about a couple of quid coming from my wage. Maybe you're in a position in life where you can afford things, well as you may have already guessed I'm not. I'm 30 and I can't afford a house, I can barely afford a car, I can't afford to have kids and I can't afford to go on holiday. I can't afford these things, and my tax pays for people 10 years younger who can't be bothered to work for a living to have them instead. Maybe your side of the argument needs to examine your own morals if you think its fair to deflect/ignore that.

[jim mk2]

Except the big difference in those examples is its taxpayers subsidising taxpayers. As you say its unavoidable but as long as everyone is contributing personally I'm fine with it. What I'm not fine with is me contributing, someone else not doing, them benefitting and me not doing.

As a taxpayer I object strongly to my taxes being used to subsidise other taxpayers who can clearly need no subsidy, particularly in times of economic restraint. Tax breaks also economic imbalances and distort behaviour - they should be abolished.

The "problem" over child welfare (such as it is) is miniscule and the cost negligible - there were plenty of links earlier in the thread proving the point with research from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. When the wealthy and corporations are defrauding the country through tax evasion to the tune of £40bn (again pointed out earlier) you're directing your anger in the wrong direction I'm afraid.

Lik

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

Excuse me but it was you who said ......"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..."

Now I might be wrong (bur rarely am) but I find that statement disgusting. Like most of the US right, you're vile.

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

The "problem" over child welfare (such as it is) is miniscule and the cost negligible - there were plenty of links earlier in the thread proving the point with research from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. When the wealthy and corporations are defrauding the country through tax evasion to the tune of £40bn (again pointed out earlier) you're directing your anger in the wrong direction I'm afraid.

So you're saying let one group of people in society shaft another group, its fine for that to carry on as long as a third group are shafting them even more? Well as I intimated to Le Chuck, thats a lot easier to do when you're not at the very sharp end of things. If you were a homeless guy on the street and each day 2 people walked up to you, one stole a tenner and another stole 10p, I'm pretty sure you'd want to give them both a bloody good clout, and you probably wouldn't worry too much about what order you did it in.

[jim mk2]

To repeat, the number of people who abuse the welfare system is very small and this right-wing govt is clamping down on them which no doubt makes you extremely happy. i wish they would show the same zeal in closing all the tax loopholes and outlawing the tax havens where their rich friends hide all the billions they owe to society.

Wake up, look beyond the end of your nose and your immediate surroundings and look at the bigger picture.

[thenodrog]

Excuse me but it was you who said ......"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..."

Now I might be wrong (bur rarely am) but I find that statement disgusting. Like most of the US right, you're vile.

Don't bury you head in the sand Jim, you may have a point about tax evasion although post Starbucks I think attention willl be being switched both at HMRC and in certain boardroom, but two wrongs will never make a right.

The discussion of future grave but, with effort now, avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most necessary occupation for the politician. Those who knowingly shirk it deserve, and not infrequently receive, the curses of those who come after.

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

To repeat, the number of people who abuse the welfare system is very small and this right-wing govt is clamping down on them which no doubt makes you extremely happy. i wish they would show the same zeal in closing all the tax loopholes and outlawing the tax havens where their rich friends hide all the billions they owe to society.

Wake up, look beyond the end of your nose and your immediate surroundings and look at the bigger picture.

Don't patronise me, I'm well aware of the bigger picture. But as this particular discussion wasn't about the bigger picture, I don't see the need to continually insert it into the argument. If you want to abandon discussing benefits cheat and discuss wealthy tax cheats, we'll do that and probably agree on 99% of it.

But on this particular issue, yes it does make me happy that the government are cracking down on the dole dossers, and I'm utterly baffled as to why it doesn't make you and everyone else happy. You accuse me of being closed minded and yet you seem determined to avoid directly criticising benefits cheats, presumably because of your political affiliation. Well personally I don't care about the entrenched positions and closed-minded bickering of the left and right. Some views I have are leftist, some rightist. The area of the political spectrum I best try to adhere to is common sense.

Its basic common sense that people with no intention of supporting their own children should not be given money by other people to do it. For me thats all there is to it on this subject. How much tax the rich are avoiding is a different subject.

[LeChuck]

Its basic common sense that people with no intention of supporting their own children should not be given money by other people to do it. For me thats all there is to it on this subject.

You're right in that it's not particularly fair, but it seems like you would be happy to see children suffer if they were born to bad parents. That is what would happen if we simply stopped providing financial support.

Why does it bother you so much given that it's already been established that, in financial terms, the cost of this to me and you as so little that it might as well be nil? You just come across as having a massive chip on your shoulder rather than being genuinely concerned about the financial implications.

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

Its not fair in the slightest. No I wouldn't be happy to see them suffer but you seem to be ignoring the fact that people and families on very low incomes are already suffering. How are their children getting on when both of them have to work full time jobs with maybe overtime and can still barely make ends meet? The minimum living cost is above the minimum wage, and thats before talking about supporting a child.

The cost to me and you hasn't been established, you and jim have said was it is a few times but no offence, that means pretty much nothing to me regarding whether its actually true. Well if having a sense of whats right and wrong translates to you as me having a chip on my shoulder then so be it. This personal problem argument is pretty weak though, just to remind you the vast majority of working class people agree with me. You and jim may hold the majority opinion amongst those with vested interests (i.e. themselves or relatives on benefits) and those too well off to particularly care, but I'd wager thats about it.

[Steve Moss]

Excuse me but it was you who said ......"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..."

Now I might be wrong (bur rarely am) but I find that statement disgusting. Like most of the US right, you're vile.

The issue is whether those dependent on the state should be having other depedendents. I contend that the answer is no. Those young people who are receiving state benefits should be on long term birth control as a quid pro quo in an effort to minimize long term costs. Those who show no inclination to get off state benefits should be offered an incentive to submit to sterilization.

Whether I'm personally "vile" or my country is "vile" is not the issue at hand. Vile or not, I'm at least willing to identify one of many problems and propose solutions before we go over a fiscal cliff. Which will happen if nothing is done, the only question is when. And when it happens it will be those you purport to care most about who will suffer far more horribly than others.

As to you argument that we should enact confiscatory tax rates, I think many of the links above document that it would be counter-productive and result in less tax actually being collected. As to the argument that tax loopholes should be closed, I agree. One flat tax with no deductions which applies to everyone is the way to go and will best avoid manipulation of the tax code.

You're right in that it's not particularly fair, but it seems like you would be happy to see children suffer if they were born to bad parents. That is what would happen if we simply stopped providing financial support.

I don't think SKH has advocated that children suffer. I certainly have not. I have discussed preventing additional children being had and being placed on the dole via recourse to mandatory birth control. Surprisingly enough, if something like that were done it would ensure that more resources are available to those children we do have.

[LeChuck]

The cost to me and you hasn't been established, you and jim have said was it is a few times but no offence, that means pretty much nothing to me regarding whether its actually true. Well if having a sense of whats right and wrong translates to you as me having a chip on my shoulder then so be it. This personal problem argument is pretty weak though, just to remind you the vast majority of working class people agree with me. You and jim may hold the majority opinion amongst those with vested interests (i.e. themselves or relatives on benefits) and those too well off to particularly care, but I'd wager thats about it.

There are plenty of facts about welfare spending. It was discussed on page 7 of this thread, some links and charts and stuff in there if you want it.

I have absolutely no vested interested whatsoever. I am not in benefits, my family aren't on benefits, and none of us are too well off to care. I just believe the absolute priority of any civilised society should be to protect children. Why you would even consider risking that for what is a tiny fraction of your tax payments...well, I can't get my head around it.

I don't think SKH has advocated that children suffer. I certainly have not. I have discussed preventing additional children being had and being placed on the dole via recourse to mandatory birth control. Surprisingly enough, if something like that were done it would ensure that more resources are available to those children we do have.

I guess the best thing I can say about your idea is that it would probably work. But then, so would simply having the long-term unemployed put down. Temporarily at least. I best leave it at that.

I do realise I offer no solutions to the problem here, but that doesn't mean forced sterilisation or removing benefits is the answer.

[Steve Moss]

I do realise I offer no solutions to the problem here, but that doesn't mean forced sterilisation or removing benefits is the answer.

You said forced sterilzation. I never have. I've advocated a financial incentive for those long time benefit reciepients to agree to sterlization. If they don't agree, they don' get the $1,000 or so dollar cash incentive. I think most would take it, however.

I have advocated mandatory long term birth control as the quid pro quo for a benefits check. Birth control, unlike sterlization, is not permenant.

[LeChuck]

You said forced sterilzation. I never have. I've advocated a financial incentive for those long time benefit reciepients to agree to sterlization. If they don't agree, they don' get the $1,000 or so dollar cash incentive. I think most would take it, however.

I have advocated mandatory long term birth control as the quid pro quo for a benefits check. Birth control, unlike sterlization, is not permenant.

Ok, apologies if I misunderstood. I'm not sure how I feel about a financial benefits for sterilisation. It makes me feel uneasy as a first reaction though. I'll ponder it.

I thought your initial point was that people would have benefits cut if they didn't agree to sterilisation. To me, that would have been 'forced'. Again, apologies if I have misunderstood.

[Paul]

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.

Jesus it would make you weep........

It was an expression and comment not an outright statistical reference.

[thenodrog]

Jesus it would make you weep........ It was an expression and comment not an outright statistical reference.

It was wildly inaccurate and helped add emphasis to your point.

[Paul]

It was wildly inaccurate and helped add emphasis to your point.

No Gordon it was simply an expression to make a point. I really couldn't give two hoots as regards its statistical accuracy. It's unlikely any, other than a very small minority, would use the number in an attempt to make a point.

Since you raised the issue I have Googled the statistics and find a wide range of opinions on the numbers.

The point is many, many people have fought and died to preserve our liberties and create a society in which an individual can express virtually any view he / she wishes. Something I would expect an individual of your persuasions to appreciate more than most.

[ABBEY]

hahahaha the irony of the way you have just patronised me on the FF thread for voicing an opinion.

[thenodrog]

No Gordon it was simply an expression to make a point. I really couldn't give two hoots as regards its statistical accuracy. It's unlikely any, other than a very small minority, would use the number in an attempt to make a point. Since you raised the issue I have Googled the statistics and find a wide range of opinions on the numbers. The point is many, many people have fought and died to preserve our liberties and create a society in which an individual can express virtually any view he / she wishes. Something I would expect an individual of your persuasions to appreciate more than most.

Indeed so. Unfortunately if that was the case then their lives have been a waste.

btw That statement MUST be made with your tongue stuck firmly in your cheek given the number of times that you as a member of admin banned me in the past! You have been fully complicit in denying people that right on here. How do you equate all those fallen souls in your mind?

btw 2.... There is a massive mosque covering "millions" of square feet and "millions" of houses built on the site of that old bakey where that insurance scam took place...... as I predicted with complete accuracy just before you gave me 3 months off for suggesting it. Here

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=Leamington+Road,+Blackburn&hl=en&ll=53.750419,-2.501125&spn=0.000717,0.002183&sll=53.861162,-2.56481&sspn=0.732154,2.235718&oq=leamington+road&hnear=Leamington+Rd,+Blackburn,+Blackburn+with+Darwen,+United+Kingdom&t=h&z=19

I'm still awaiting an apology and/or an admission that you were way way wrong but suffice to say I'm not holding my breath. So where were your precious principles then?

[ABBEY]

He deleted my post earlier in the year because HE felt it best not discussed .

[Steve Moss]

He deleted my post earlier in the year because HE felt it best not discussed .

The eternal problem with those who exercise authority, as indicated by our Benghazi, IRS and AP scandals. Who watches the watchmen?

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

The Tory party is tearing itself apart over Europe again and the silence on here is deafening. What they don't realise but the general public obviously do is there are much more important issues to be dealt with first.

[thenodrog]

The Tory party is tearing itself apart over Europe again and the silence on here is deafening. What they don't realise but the general public obviously do is there are much more important issues to be dealt with first.

Surely our European involvement is an important issue! As it stands the govt is doing well with the economy and is making moves to control immigration and benefits. A few head teachers are disgruntled but that hardly rates as priority does it? Lets be honest they nearly always are. So what other issues did you have in mind Tyrone?

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Surely our European involvement is an important issue! As it stands the govt is doing well with the economy and is making moves to control immigration and benefits. A few head teachers are disgruntled but that hardly rates as priority does it? Lets be honest they nearly always are. So what other issues did you have in mind Tyrone?

You think the economy's going well ? You must be living in the South of France ! Or China. I agree Europe is an important issue but that's the two of us so far.

[thenodrog]

Isn't perfect yet but it is on the mend from 4/5 years ago and with far more difficult conditions for business. Why don't you look this stuff up yourself.... or does it not suit your agenda?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10613201