£10b being cut from welfare

[U_W v2.0]

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2012/10/conservative-conference-george-osborne-to-pursue-10-billion-welfare-cuts/

fucking dicktards are going to take £10b funding from the poorest people in the country.

[Chalky.]

Excellent, long may it continue.

[Redoko]

Not this again.
____________________
"Let's face it, this is not the worst thing you've caught me doing."
Sudika Sportsman SK50QT > Gilera DNA50 > Honda CBR125 RW7 > Kawasaki Zephyr750 > Suzuki GSXR600 > Honda Hornet CB600F '51

[U_W v2.0]

right, how much do you earn a year and how much disposable income do you have?

i will freely admit, i am unemployed, and yes, claim job seekers, and yes, to be financially better off i need a job at minimum wage with 30 hours or more per week. there arent many of those around the local areas.

the cuts arent really needed, whats needed is more jobs with longer week hours.

i wont suffer from the cuts, my partner wouldnt suffer from the cuts,

but there are those who will suffer sevearly. large families for example.

mr and mrs have nice jobs that pay well, they have a nice house, they have 3 or 4 kids.

one gets laid off, they find a smaller more suitable home, make the needed cut backs.

other one gets laid off and those cuts will affect them the worst.

have to look at the bigger picture.

people with a LARGE disposable income and have £1000's sitting in a bank doing nothing wouldnt miss a slightly higher tax.

well, off to apply to local KFC's....

frigging hate living in this area lol
____________________
BCF's biggest cunt list: Cansa, Pits, Rob

[Chalky.]

Suppose that every day, ten men went to the pub, and drank exactly £100 worth of ale among them. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, the breakdown would be roughly as follows:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay £1.

The sixth would pay £3.

The seventh would pay £7.

The eighth would pay £12.

The ninth would pay £18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank contentedly together in the saloon bar until the landlord, meaning to be helpful, presented them with a dilemma.

"Gentlemen," he said, "you're my best customers. To show you how much I appreciate your trade, I'd like to give you a discount. From now on, I'll knock £20 of the total bill for your drinks". Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.

The group wanted to carry on splitting their bill in the way that we pay our taxes. So, obviously, the first four men, those least well off, would continue to enjoy free beer. What, though, of the other six? How could they divide the £20 discount in such a way that everyone got his fair share of the windfall?

They realised that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, following the principle of the tax system they had been using. This is how the bill now looked.

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100 per cent saving).

The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33 per cent saving).

The seventh now paid £5 instead of £7 (28 per cent saving).

The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25 per cent saving).

The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22 per cent saving).

The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16 per cent saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to enjoy free booze. But, as they left the pub, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a pound out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man. He jabbed an accusing finger at the tenth man,"Why should he get £10?"

"Too right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a pound too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I got two measly quid? The system is rigged in favour of the toffs!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. It's always the worst off who get neglected by the politicians!"

The nine men dragged the tenth into the carpark and gave him a thorough kicking.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beer without him. But when the bill came, they found that their money didn't even cover half of it.

[pinkyfloyd]

Such is the Tory way. Mr Moneybags rolls in it with his big money wage living in his big money house with his big money car and big money maids while chavy chav in the local council estate without a pot to piss in finds their pot taken away from them.

Hark I hear you cry, why should those with more money pay more? Its simple, because they can afford it.

Yes, they can! Noddy no money gets his £200 a week from his part time job, its all he can get since theres some kind of recession happening and no one works. So he relies on his council tax benifits to keep him and his family afloat finds that having to pay an extra £50 a week to the government is crippling him while across town Mr Moneybags with his detached townhouse and his big bonuses can afford his 50% tax rate with ease without having to sack Florence the maid who fluffs his pillows.

Look at it another way. Just say you were told you've inherited a small sum of money, say £20 and in order to keep it you had to give £5 to the government. You'd be left with only 15 quid and that wouldnt get you a decent meal in todays climate. But say you inherit a large amount, say 2 million smackers and the government wanted to tax you on the high roller rate and takes half of it. You've still got 1 million quid and will never want for anything ever.

But Mr high roller worked for his big wage I hear you shout.

So does noddy on his part time job. Just as hard. He just comes at the bottom of the food chain because of circumstance.

Tax the rich, they can afford it. Taking away from those already struggling only serves to do one thing and thats create a class divide and that is ever widening.
____________________
illuminateTHEmind wrote: I am just more evolved than most of you guys... this allows me to pick of things quickly which would have normally taken the common man years to master
Hockeystorm65:.well there are childish arguments...there are very childish arguments.....there are really stupid childish arguments and now there are......Pinkfloyd arguments!
Teflon-Mike:I think I agree with just about all Pinky has said.

[angryjonny]

Erm... those on higher salaries do pay more tax, both as an amount and as a percentage. That's how the system is set up.

[The Artist]

I just had a call from a mate who just got kicked out of his rented flat because he couldn't afford £55 a week + £20 for food

Housing benefits wouldn't cover his rent so he had to pay out of his JSA.

Shits getting bad.

[UnknownStuntm...]

I don't want to pay for mongs to slurp McDs and pop more sprogs out.

Simple.

I'm actually agreeing with a politician and I feel dirty.

[daemonoid]

[daemonoid]

[The Artist]

[U_W v2.0]

my arguement boils down to tax the fuck out of the rich pricks who can afford it and stop screwing people over who need the help.

sure someone who gets laid off can get work again but why was they laid off? how many people are laid off because of company cut backs and bullshit like that?

the teen mums and people who put themselfs onto benefits because they are lazy asses i have no sympathy for.

but having been unemployed for a time with a good work history and struggling to get back into work i can vouch for how hard it can be.

employers are picky, they prefur people on short shifts/part time work because those workers get fewer/shorter breaks compared to the full time work roles.

the government needs to step in and fix the problems that are preventing people from getting into work.

i dont have 2 dozen qualifications, but im a hard worker. the job center has this "work placement program" called "work trials" but very very few employers will adopt this. its free labour for them so its beyond me why. but put me in a job role and i will prove i can do it. problem is im not able to get that oppertunity because employers are being so damn picky and just dont care.

my point still remains, its those who NEED the welfare's help who are going to suffer the most from these cuts.
____________________
BCF's biggest cunt list: Cansa, Pits, Rob

[U_W v2.0]

[smegballs]

I'm poor* and glad they are cutting benefits. I've had a year without work etc etc and generally found it pretty fun. Didn't claim shit out of the government, ate from bins and hitch-hiked about staying with friends.

While that is still being dependant on others, it relying on their voluntary help; ie they could have kicked me out at any time, and I'd have said thanks for helping me out for so long. Taxing people to redistribute isn't voluntary help, it's forcibly taking from people to give to others. I can't agree with that. I always go out of my way to freely help others, and accept freely given help from people. I don't support forcing people to help others, at the end of the day it's a dog-eat-dog world out there.


*Currently at uni, so 100% not in the real world. Yes I'm aware that being a student is govt teat suckling. Probably up for debate though whether its cheaper to have a person on jobseekers (plus associated benefits) for a year or pay them student loans for a year - I haven't ran the maths.

PS: Yes I know being a student undermines my entire argument... It is limited to 4 years max funding though. As it stands I have not and will not sign on the the whole jobseekers deal.

[The Artist]

[U_W v2.0]

well if he doesnt have any luck my building has at least 2 empty flats and my landlord knows the building owner.

i had some trouble with the tennant above me (noise issues) and she emailed me (got my email from luke) and said "if it happens again, let me know and i'll end his tennancy". decent woman. decent flats too.

theres another empty flat next door, ground floor flat let by cook and co, second floor flat is a private landlord. can probably get his details from cook and co.

the local council around here (thanet county council) runs a "local housing allowance" scheme. which basically determines the total amount payable in the month you apply. but its pretty reasonable and pays like 95% of our rent (or more....)

if he has no luck, put him in touch with me and i can always see what can be arranged. and kent isnt to far from london so he can always fall back on you if 1) he needed to and 2) you'd let him lol
____________________
BCF's biggest cunt list: Cansa, Pits, Rob

[daemonoid]

[matto]

It's about time! This country is heading towards bankruptsy due to only the top 40% earners in the population being net contributors in terms of tax and benefits, also the top 1% of earners pay 24.8% of all income tax while earning 11.2% of the total earnings.

A strong and succesful economy needs people at the top spending money and providing jobs for the people below, the more you tax the rich the less they can choose to spend so the more the government have to give out in benefits to cover the gap. It's a vicious circle and the only way out is for small minded idiots to stop thinking that everyone owes them and to accept that governments have to make unpopular decisions for the greater good.

[daemonoid]

[Redoko]

[bazza]

[pinkyfloyd]

[The Artist]

[GSTEEL32]

10bn off the bill ?. Good. Feck 'em I say.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a big fan of the conservatives at all, but they made a point which really resonated with me.

They said, why should hard working couples have to endure years of financial planning & hardship in order to afford a kid, when dole wallers can just pop them out when they want, and expect the state to pick up the tab?

The welfare state was designed originally to help those that most needed it. It was not designed for pricks with no intention to work or add value, just to take as much as they can in hand outs. Feck 'em. T0ssers.