Benefits for striking low-paid workers to be axed
Discussion
PugwasHDJ80 said:
You didn't say it, but every single one of your posts that i've replied to in the last 48 hours have been in relation to you comenting that people aren't paid enough and can't live, companies are evil and exploit their workforce and the government doesn't help. You main thrust seems to be that more money should be given to those that don't work, and it should be taken from those who have worked hard to be succesful.
Care to offer some quotes of me saying those things?from this thread: http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
"Its no secret that most of the top earners all went to the same schools as each other, most were born into middle class families at least and there is an element of 'its all about who you know' about it"
From this thread: http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
om reference to a commment that there is a substantial number of people who have never worked but live purely on benefits:
"There are certainly a few individuals who fit this bill, but to claim it is a 'substantial element' is unsubstantiated in itself. Again, only on the Daily Mail are these people the majority. One family on the front pages is not a majority."
There's been data posted that over 350,000 households have never had a working adult
there were more instances but its late on a Sunday and I'm lacking in motivation to follow this up.
The problem is that your posts seem to disagree with themselves at times- half the time you are saying one thing, then someone comes along with strong emotion and you then disagree on principle with them. Its as if because you were once unemlpyed and you have a parent who is disabled then your opinion has greater validity. unfortunately (and i mean that in the nicest way- i feel for anyone who was unemployed- from experience, and for anyone with a disabled close relative, again experience) you aren't unique either.
just what are your thoughts on government, the welfare state, the deficit and the hufe amount of debt we carry?
"Its no secret that most of the top earners all went to the same schools as each other, most were born into middle class families at least and there is an element of 'its all about who you know' about it"
From this thread: http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
om reference to a commment that there is a substantial number of people who have never worked but live purely on benefits:
"There are certainly a few individuals who fit this bill, but to claim it is a 'substantial element' is unsubstantiated in itself. Again, only on the Daily Mail are these people the majority. One family on the front pages is not a majority."
There's been data posted that over 350,000 households have never had a working adult
there were more instances but its late on a Sunday and I'm lacking in motivation to follow this up.
The problem is that your posts seem to disagree with themselves at times- half the time you are saying one thing, then someone comes along with strong emotion and you then disagree on principle with them. Its as if because you were once unemlpyed and you have a parent who is disabled then your opinion has greater validity. unfortunately (and i mean that in the nicest way- i feel for anyone who was unemployed- from experience, and for anyone with a disabled close relative, again experience) you aren't unique either.
just what are your thoughts on government, the welfare state, the deficit and the hufe amount of debt we carry?
Yet another attempt at cutting expenditure being poo-poo'd.
If a cut saves (all costs considered) 1p then it should be made. Govt should run as lean as it possibly can. We can all point to a million other things that should be cut too (and in advance of this). But as we're seeing, actually being able to do so without people declaring the "poor" are being driven further into "poverty" is impossible.
And the self same people will be the biggest moaners about how the govt haven't saved any money and how they've made it all so much worse and how it is all their fault.
And then people like the dumb arsed Labour MP on QT on Thursday think we're nothing like the Greeks.
If a cut saves (all costs considered) 1p then it should be made. Govt should run as lean as it possibly can. We can all point to a million other things that should be cut too (and in advance of this). But as we're seeing, actually being able to do so without people declaring the "poor" are being driven further into "poverty" is impossible.
And the self same people will be the biggest moaners about how the govt haven't saved any money and how they've made it all so much worse and how it is all their fault.
And then people like the dumb arsed Labour MP on QT on Thursday think we're nothing like the Greeks.
PugwasHDJ80 said:
from this thread: http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
"Its no secret that most of the top earners all went to the same schools as each other, most were born into middle class families at least and there is an element of 'its all about who you know' about it"
Thats true. I wasn't knocking them for it I was merely saying it how it is. Are you trying to suggest a persons birthplace/family wealth etc has no impact on their future chances?"Its no secret that most of the top earners all went to the same schools as each other, most were born into middle class families at least and there is an element of 'its all about who you know' about it"
PugwasHDJ80 said:
reference to a commment that there is a substantial number of people who have never worked but live purely on benefits:
"There are certainly a few individuals who fit this bill, but to claim it is a 'substantial element' is unsubstantiated in itself. Again, only on the Daily Mail are these people the majority. One family on the front pages is not a majority."
There's been data posted that over 350,000 households have never had a working adult
Aren't some of those student households though? And its under 300,000 if you exclude them? Still, 300,000 is not the majority of the country, so what I said was right."There are certainly a few individuals who fit this bill, but to claim it is a 'substantial element' is unsubstantiated in itself. Again, only on the Daily Mail are these people the majority. One family on the front pages is not a majority."
There's been data posted that over 350,000 households have never had a working adult
PugwasHDJ80 said:
there were more instances but its late on a Sunday and I'm lacking in motivation to follow this up.
You haven't even found instances yet.DSM2 said:
172ff said:
Tories keeping the poor.. Poor.
We're all in this together? Right?
Seems to me it's the unions that keep the strikers poor. We're all in this together? Right?
the TUC unions are a joke simple as.
martin84 said:
PugwasHDJ80 said:
from this thread: http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
"Its no secret that most of the top earners all went to the same schools as each other, most were born into middle class families at least and there is an element of 'its all about who you know' about it"
Thats true. I wasn't knocking them for it I was merely saying it how it is. Are you trying to suggest a persons birthplace/family wealth etc has no impact on their future chances?"Its no secret that most of the top earners all went to the same schools as each other, most were born into middle class families at least and there is an element of 'its all about who you know' about it"
turbobloke said:
Colin Firth, Wayne Rooney and Bob Diamond all came from similar backgrounds and went to similar schools? You're not thinking high earners you're thinking City, and even there it's meritocracy far more than plutocracy.
Listing the odd exceptional example is a one way ticket to a pointless argument. Everybody can list an exception, I'm talking about general trends.martin84 said:
turbobloke said:
Colin Firth, Wayne Rooney and Bob Diamond all came from similar backgrounds and went to similar schools? You're not thinking high earners you're thinking City, and even there it's meritocracy far more than plutocracy.
Listing the odd exceptional example is a one way ticket to a pointless argument. Everybody can list an exception, I'm talking about general trends.Achievement in the UK is largely meritocratic, though the magnitude shifts between professions have to be taken into account. The only people plying the toff line these days are chippy class war relics.
And this move to prevent payment of a 'striking tax credit' remains a reasonable step.
martin84 said:
Listing the odd exceptional example is a one way ticket to a pointless argument. Everybody can list an exception, I'm talking about general trends.
You mean like the trend for parents to raise their children with similar values to their own? Funny how the kids of smart people who value education and have a strong work ethic tend to do well.turbobloke said:
No, the impression you give is of targeting purely City people, hedgies and bankers in particular, not high earners. Firth, Cowell, Dyson, Rooney et al are the high earners - with sport, entertainment and industry in there as well as finance. These are the numbers where high earners are concerned, they have to be low as otherwise the relative earnings wouldn't be so high.
Things like sport are talent based industries where your background can be largely irrelevant. Not totally though, I remember reading Steven Gerrard's book in which he explains how he grew up in a very low income part of Liverpool and his parents worked day and night, 9 days a week to make sure he could do his football and had everything he needed. One could argue that would've been a much easier task for a family with more money and near impossible for one with less. The UK still has a weird attitude to sport, parents still tell their kids to 'get a real job' and the education system hardly recognises sport as a valid career.turbobloke said:
Achievement in the UK is largely meritocratic, though the magnitude shifts between professions have to be taken into account. The only people plying the toff line these days are chippy class war relics.
When I talk about background being directly linked to future income I'm referring more to the middle income earners, not the 1% gang, although the corperate finance world is still mostly run by the same group of people as it always has been.Its interesting you mention class war. How do we really define 'class' these days? You can't do it on income anymore because you wouldn't call Wayne Rooney upper class would you? 40 years ago footballers weren't multi millionaire celebrities. So what is working class, middle class, upper class etc these days?
martin84 said:
Listing the odd exceptional example is a one way ticket to a pointless argument. Everybody can list an exception, I'm talking about general trends.
martin84 said:
Its interesting you mention class war. How do we really define 'class' these days? You can't do it on income anymore because you wouldn't call Wayne Rooney upper class would you? 40 years ago footballers weren't multi millionaire celebrities. So what is working class, middle class, upper class etc these days?
martin84] said:
Things like sport are talent based industries where your background can be largely irrelevant....
So business/industry isn't talent based in the same way? (Frankly that's a far more damaging attitude than schools not telling young Travis he could be the next Rooney).To avoid me listing a set of of exceptions to your rule, do you want to list a bunch of highly paid business/industry stalwarts who only got where they are due to their "background", stating what that background is?
You really come across as having a massive chip on your shoulder. Were you passed up for a CEO position in favour of someone with a peerage? Or do you get all your detail info from the Daily Mail?
Generalisations from rags like that aren't worth the paper they're written on.
It's an idiotic decision full stop. They're prepared to spend a fortune (and it will be a small fortune, don't believe this sh*te being spouted that the new Universal Credit system will magically handle it) to frighten people out of their legal right to withdraw their labour in industrial disputes.
Murph7355 said:
And if someone voluntarily elects not to work, why should they be able to claim any benefits...
Yes parallel rights. The right to strike, fine, if the vote percentage (majority) covers the whole membership not just the political activist troublemakers. The right of the taxpayer not to top up 'earnings' for people not working because they're on strike, fine.Murph7355 said:
Employers should have a legal "right" (that word again) not to pay people who choose not to work.
And if someone voluntarily elects not to work, why should they be able to claim any benefits...
You think strikers get paid? Why not go the full hog, if you're on strike you can't receive NHS treatment, your kids don't get educated etc.. I really think this will help us out of this banker-induced mire we're in. And if someone voluntarily elects not to work, why should they be able to claim any benefits...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff