Paul2412 Posted March 30, 2010 Share Posted March 30, 2010 I would like to agree with you, but I could not condone the stopping of benefits even then. What are we supposed to do? Let these people starve? Or worse still - go out and commit crimes and then become another burden in our overcrowded prisons? There seems no easy answer - but I do not believe that forced make believe labour is a way forward. Again, the person in the example lives at home. They aren't going to starve. If you have zero responsibilities and no dependants you shouldn't receive JSA at all. What is it paying for? It's paying for going out on the lash or for the parents fag money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fivetide Posted March 30, 2010 Share Posted March 30, 2010 Nuclear weapons are strategic. Our capability means we have a slightly better chance of screwing other countries and getting away with it (everso slightly but at this level slight equates to billions). Plus it subsidises a massively high tech industry within the UK itself. Plus we always have the possibility of nuking France with Trident before their planes get off the ground for retaliation. Never underestimate the potential enjoyment of kicking froggy bottom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bedders Posted March 30, 2010 Share Posted March 30, 2010 "I don't see why I should be taxed because people don't put the effort into finding work" i don't see why I should be taxed to shoot Iraqis or torture pakistanis or line the pockets of GE Capital or furnish submarines with trident missile systems. If you don't like... vote accordingly to your beliefs.... or go live in Somalia they've no nuclear threat! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonofAna Posted March 30, 2010 Share Posted March 30, 2010 Your taxes pay towards those who don't, so that's why you should have a say. Probably a very small portion of those taxes. You make it sound as if all your taxes are paying for the unemployed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 30, 2010 Share Posted March 30, 2010 So who are our nuclear weapons protecting us from? In our multicultural society which stupid nation would plan anything that would suggest we be mad enough to actually use nuclear weapons? A few billion pounds on a pointless weapon seems like one hell of a waste of money to me. Given that the cold war has ended and the Soviet Union is long dismantled, the obvious answer is China. It has a massive standing army, it's own nuclear weapons and a rather aggressive foreign (and domestic) policies. If the west didn't have nukes then there would be a real threat of invasion or suffering from gunboat diplomacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonofAna Posted March 30, 2010 Share Posted March 30, 2010 Nuclear weapons are strategic. Our capability means we have a slightly better chance of screwing other countries and getting away with it (everso slightly but at this level slight equates to billions). Plus it subsidises a massively high tech industry within the UK itself. Plus we always have the possibility of nuking France with Trident before their planes get off the ground for retaliation. Never underestimate the potential enjoyment of kicking froggy bottom. Excellent point. I withdraw my claim that nukes are pointless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonofAna Posted March 30, 2010 Share Posted March 30, 2010 Given that the cold war has ended and the Soviet Union is long dismantled, the obvious answer is China. It has a massive standing army, it's own nuclear weapons and a rather aggressive foreign (and domestic) policies. If the west didn't have nukes then there would be a real threat of invasion or suffering from gunboat diplomacy. OMG! And when the chinese are no longer counted as a threat I am sure your paranoid mind will find some other scapegoat. The chinese are a real threat aren't they. I've been having serious nightmares about them. Wait on - no I haven't - that was a fib. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 30, 2010 Share Posted March 30, 2010 Probably a very small portion of those taxes. You make it sound as if all your taxes are paying for the unemployed. No I don't, I said nothing nor implied nothing of the sort. You need to stop trying to put words in peoples mouths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonofAna Posted March 30, 2010 Share Posted March 30, 2010 Again, the person in the example lives at home. They aren't going to starve. If you have zero responsibilities and no dependants you shouldn't receive JSA at all. What is it paying for? It's paying for going out on the lash or for the parents fag money. A lot of unemployed people live alone. What are you going to do about them starving to death or turning to crime? What do you class as zero responsibilities? A person needs to eat and needs to clothe themselves. And usually they have to pay gas/electric/water etc. Being on the dole is not always as cushy as you seem to think it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PuressenceUK Posted March 30, 2010 Share Posted March 30, 2010 If people have just been made redundant after years of paying into the system they have my sympathy. The bone idle who have spent years 'looking for work' who enjoy a better standard of living staying on the dole rather than taking a minimum wage job are the people I have contempt for. There's a lot of litter out there - get picking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.