Another MP in Internet history fail
Discussion
i can understand the sentiment. the issue for me is the unemployment benefit and housing benefit spend appeared to be about the same as child and working tax credits in 2015/16. where is the outrage for the corporate/business subsidy that they are ? that is before i get onto the issue of subsidies for the many privatised utilities/infrastructure companies, particularly those in the public transport sector ,specifically the bus and rail companies.
i have no trouble addressing the issue in the op, but i would like to see all the above adressed.
https://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=https://ful...
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/bus-sub...
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rail-su...
i have no trouble addressing the issue in the op, but i would like to see all the above adressed.
https://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=https://ful...
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/bus-sub...
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rail-su...
BOR said:
I disagree with the bits where his solution is that people on low-incomes should have vasectomies (presumably sterilisation for the women is also on the cards).
I wouldn't be too bothered, its not that easy to get a Vasectomy on the NHS, when I asked my GP, he said he wouldn't refer me as "I may change my mind as I don't have any children" funny my boss at the time trusted my judgement to make decisions on a multi million pound project but the Dr assumed I didn't know my own mind.Thankfully Marie Stopes treated me like an adult, and fixed me.
BlackLabel said:
What he actually said.
I can't find too much to disagree with there.Ben Bradley in 2012 said:
No sector of the government spends more of taxpayers money than the Department of Work and Pensions, and as the House of Lords debates the proposed changes to the Welfare Programme it’s important to make it clear that cuts are necessary and vital to not only our economy but to British Culture; benefits must become ‘a hand up, not a hand out’.
In terms of unemployment benefit the best proposal I’ve heard in a long time is the idea of an ‘allowance cap’ for families, so that total benefits would be limited to around £500 per week for families with children. It’s horrendous that there are families out there that can make vastly more than the average wage, (or in some cases more than a bloody good wage) just because they have 10 kids. Sorry but how many children you have is a choice; if you can’t afford them, stop having them! Vasectomies are free.
There are hundreds of families in the UK who earn over £60,000 in benefits without lifting a finger because they have so many kids (and for the rest of us that’s a wage of over £90,000 before tax!) Take the example of the Smiths (actual name, not a cover story), who earn around £95 grand a year for their 10 kids under 15 years old, live for free in a council house and even have their meals delivered to them. It’s a tough life when, as Mrs Smith put it "we are so hard up that we can only afford one Nintendo Wii between all the kids”. The family receive benefits totaling £44,954 a year. They also have a £950-a-week bed-and-breakfast deal where the council pays for breakfasts delivered to their home. This comes to £49,400, making a grand total of £94,354 a year. All in all around 190 families like this cost the taxpayer over £11 million a year!
People have to take responsibility for their own lives, and if they are struggling but working hard to help themselves then they should get help. But if they choose to have 10 kids they should take responsibility for that choice and look after them, not expect everyone else to foot the bill! Families who have never worked a day in their lives having 4 or 5 kids and the rest of us having 1 or 2 means its not long before we’re drowning in a vast sea of unemployed wasters that we pay to keep! Iain Duncan Smith’s cap proposal is spot on!
In terms of unemployment benefit the best proposal I’ve heard in a long time is the idea of an ‘allowance cap’ for families, so that total benefits would be limited to around £500 per week for families with children. It’s horrendous that there are families out there that can make vastly more than the average wage, (or in some cases more than a bloody good wage) just because they have 10 kids. Sorry but how many children you have is a choice; if you can’t afford them, stop having them! Vasectomies are free.
There are hundreds of families in the UK who earn over £60,000 in benefits without lifting a finger because they have so many kids (and for the rest of us that’s a wage of over £90,000 before tax!) Take the example of the Smiths (actual name, not a cover story), who earn around £95 grand a year for their 10 kids under 15 years old, live for free in a council house and even have their meals delivered to them. It’s a tough life when, as Mrs Smith put it "we are so hard up that we can only afford one Nintendo Wii between all the kids”. The family receive benefits totaling £44,954 a year. They also have a £950-a-week bed-and-breakfast deal where the council pays for breakfasts delivered to their home. This comes to £49,400, making a grand total of £94,354 a year. All in all around 190 families like this cost the taxpayer over £11 million a year!
People have to take responsibility for their own lives, and if they are struggling but working hard to help themselves then they should get help. But if they choose to have 10 kids they should take responsibility for that choice and look after them, not expect everyone else to foot the bill! Families who have never worked a day in their lives having 4 or 5 kids and the rest of us having 1 or 2 means its not long before we’re drowning in a vast sea of unemployed wasters that we pay to keep! Iain Duncan Smith’s cap proposal is spot on!
IMHO, if you are capable of work then you should always be better off working than being on benefits, even if only doing a few hours per week. I don't believe that's the case with the current system?
And having children as a career (ten kids!?) should not be an option either.
Banging on about freak edge cases where a couple 'earns' a lot of benefits is an appeal to simpletons. The 190 families with 10+ kids cost 11 million, the Dept. of Work and Pensions budget is ~170 billion. It basically amounts to a rounding error. Rather than focusing on families in Daily Mail clickbait articles it's probably more sensible to worry about how we pay for all of our old people.
I wonder if we'll reach a peak of these 'public figure said something stupid on the internet a while back' stories? I can't help but think that as we get more and more people who had their teen years in the age of social media then basically everyone will have a questionable public statement attributable to them with enough digging.
I wonder if we'll reach a peak of these 'public figure said something stupid on the internet a while back' stories? I can't help but think that as we get more and more people who had their teen years in the age of social media then basically everyone will have a questionable public statement attributable to them with enough digging.
BOR said:
Cupramax said:
BOR said:
I disagree with the bits where his solution is that people on low-incomes should have vasectomies (presumably sterilisation for the women is also on the cards).
What do you suggest to stop those who don't have any money to fund their shagging habit?It is a difficult topic, as soon as someone suggests that maybe we should not pay for other peoples lifestyle choices, people lose their s
t and the pointscoring begins.zygalski said:
I'd go further,
We should have termination teams going around council estates aborting unborn babies if either parent has been out of work for more than 12 months.
The surviving family members should be made to sleep on the streets.
What about the state pension? If people haven’t planned for their retirement they should stop being a drain on society. They're long past their expiry date and cost this country billions.We should have termination teams going around council estates aborting unborn babies if either parent has been out of work for more than 12 months.
The surviving family members should be made to sleep on the streets.
BOR said:
I disagree with the bits where his solution is that people on low-incomes should have vasectomies (presumably sterilisation for the women is also on the cards).
How about they can opt out of a vasectomy if they stop taking benefits for the children.If I'm having to feed someone unemployed why should I alos have to feed someone produced whilst on benefits.
I have far more sympathy for those on working family tax credits, at least they are earning whilst they are having children. But even that isn't perfect. A couple of my friends took in to account the increase on benefits of having a second child before they decide if it was 'worthwhile'.
GEFAFWISP said:
To echo the sentiments of others, as sad as it is, I agree with him. There is however a big difference between suggesting people who cannot afford to provide for children should not have them and eugenics.
However I would probably not use his language or ultimate sentiment...hairykrishna said:
Banging on about freak edge cases where a couple 'earns' a lot of benefits is an appeal to simpletons. The 190 families with 10+ kids cost 11 million, the Dept. of Work and Pensions budget is ~170 billion. It basically amounts to a rounding error. Rather than focusing on families in Daily Mail clickbait articles it's probably more sensible to worry about how we pay for all of our old people.
Very much The whole 'state pension' (and indeed most workplace defined benefit schemes, ESPECIALLY the public sector ones) have been a pyramid scheme for decades, and it's only going to get worse. In <20 years time we will see a raft of older people (70+) continuing to work because their overall pension provision is pitiful. And probably working until they are too physically infirm to work, or by inference to enjoy their 'retirement'.
THIS is a far bigger issue than some alt-right teenage w
k-fantasy being paraded around the press...voyds9 said:
BOR said:
I disagree with the bits where his solution is that people on low-incomes should have vasectomies (presumably sterilisation for the women is also on the cards).
How about they can opt out of a vasectomy if they stop taking benefits for the children.If I'm having to feed someone unemployed why should I alos have to feed someone produced whilst on benefits.
I have far more sympathy for those on working family tax credits, at least they are earning whilst they are having children. But even that isn't perfect. A couple of my friends took in to account the increase on benefits of having a second child before they decide if it was 'worthwhile'.
How will our in-studio audience of PH'ers vote ?
as has been said the families with 10 plus kids getting £100k in benefits are few an far between. I would argue if a local authortiy has such a family its likely a large part of its labour resource is spent on that an thus while in grand scheme its a rounding error as costs are aportioned locally it proably has a disproportionate impact.
That being said lets not talk about stopping people having kids based on cost as it just causes issues (even if it is selfish to have more an more when you have no means to support them).
simple solution everyone gets a flat benefit outside of any additonal medical need. So me you etc all get x even if we work but its capped an unless we have illness an need more state support then we get no more even if we have more kids....
issue here is we would in effect be abandoning some kids because their parents are fktards
That being said lets not talk about stopping people having kids based on cost as it just causes issues (even if it is selfish to have more an more when you have no means to support them).
simple solution everyone gets a flat benefit outside of any additonal medical need. So me you etc all get x even if we work but its capped an unless we have illness an need more state support then we get no more even if we have more kids....
issue here is we would in effect be abandoning some kids because their parents are f
ktardsHe's obviously not particularly numerate.
To spout all the venom for 0.005% of the total welfare budget. Why isn't his focus on the other 99.995%?
Within that 99.995% spend is heating allowances and bus passes for my parents generation. People who have profited from £500,000+ of tax free gains on their home. People who can afford to take 7 or 8 cruises a year. People who were able to retire at the same age as people 40 years ago, even though they will live 10 years longer.
Is that enough for them? Hell no.
How about we promise that their incomes are guaranteed to go up by inflation?
Not enough.... what if wage growth is higher than inflation?
Oh you can have that too.
And what if wage growth and inflation are very low?
OK, here's 2.5% increase then.
But what about those low interest rates? Please can we have some more......
OK, well since you don't get much for free already - here's some pensioner bonds.
To spout all the venom for 0.005% of the total welfare budget. Why isn't his focus on the other 99.995%?
Within that 99.995% spend is heating allowances and bus passes for my parents generation. People who have profited from £500,000+ of tax free gains on their home. People who can afford to take 7 or 8 cruises a year. People who were able to retire at the same age as people 40 years ago, even though they will live 10 years longer.
Is that enough for them? Hell no.
How about we promise that their incomes are guaranteed to go up by inflation?
Not enough.... what if wage growth is higher than inflation?
Oh you can have that too.
And what if wage growth and inflation are very low?
OK, here's 2.5% increase then.
But what about those low interest rates? Please can we have some more......
OK, well since you don't get much for free already - here's some pensioner bonds.
oyster said:
He's obviously not particularly numerate.
To spout all the venom for 0.005% of the total welfare budget. Why isn't his focus on the other 99.995%?
Within that 99.995% spend is heating allowances and bus passes for my parents generation. People who have profited from £500,000+ of tax free gains on their home. People who can afford to take 7 or 8 cruises a year. People who were able to retire at the same age as people 40 years ago, even though they will live 10 years longer.
Is that enough for them? Hell no.
How about we promise that their incomes are guaranteed to go up by inflation?
Not enough.... what if wage growth is higher than inflation?
Oh you can have that too.
And what if wage growth and inflation are very low?
OK, here's 2.5% increase then.
But what about those low interest rates? Please can we have some more......
OK, well since you don't get much for free already - here's some pensioner bonds.
if your a rich pensioner or a poor one you get the same from the state. You can i assume if your very rich not take your pension which you have contributed towards through your taxes during your working life. Likewise of you have made 500k on your house its a house you have paid for not the state (unless ex council house).To spout all the venom for 0.005% of the total welfare budget. Why isn't his focus on the other 99.995%?
Within that 99.995% spend is heating allowances and bus passes for my parents generation. People who have profited from £500,000+ of tax free gains on their home. People who can afford to take 7 or 8 cruises a year. People who were able to retire at the same age as people 40 years ago, even though they will live 10 years longer.
Is that enough for them? Hell no.
How about we promise that their incomes are guaranteed to go up by inflation?
Not enough.... what if wage growth is higher than inflation?
Oh you can have that too.
And what if wage growth and inflation are very low?
OK, here's 2.5% increase then.
But what about those low interest rates? Please can we have some more......
OK, well since you don't get much for free already - here's some pensioner bonds.
so thoes with more at the end really are not the issue
gooner1 said:
Poor sods can't win.
They try to do their bit for the Country by producing possible
future work forces, hence needing less imported workers.
Then along comes some toff wanting to surgically interfere with
their reproductive organs.
It's enough to put a person right off their stroke, I tell thee.
They try to do their bit for the Country by producing possible
future work forces, hence needing less imported workers.
Then along comes some toff wanting to surgically interfere with
their reproductive organs.
It's enough to put a person right off their stroke, I tell thee.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff