Conrod Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 Or the next generation of low paid workers depending on your viewpointThere are already too many low-skilled people about the place - until we have zero unemployment we don't need more people appearing at the bottom of the social gene pool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 There are already too many low-skilled people about the place - until we have zero unemployment we don't need more people appearing at the bottom of the social gene pool. Off you go then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 Off you go thenAh - that classic adage, if you can't argue the post, attack the poster. I bow to your excellence in debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 Ah - that classic adage, if you can't argue the post, attack the poster. I bow to your excellence in debate. Thanks for the compliment. But you shouldn't be so quick to judge and label people by virtue of their parents. If you don't like being attacked, don't attack others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 There are already too many low-skilled people about the place - until we have zero unemployment we don't need more people appearing at the bottom of the social gene pool. Zero unemployment? Won't happen, would be nice if it did, but sadly it won't, besides, if it did, it would be one less thing for the Mail readers to whine about.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discodown Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 There are already too many low-skilled people about the place - until we have zero unemployment we don't need more people appearing at the bottom of the social gene pool.You can't have zero unemployment and even if you could its not economically desirable. Theres a reason why but its complex and I forget most of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iuchi_Zien Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 Well, I don't intend to spend time on Google proving the costs of motoring one way or the other, but unless you can prove that motoring does cost us more than motorists pay in taxes, you are in no position to make such silly claims. Prove this is a silly claim. You show me how your car tax/fuel tax pays for the cost to the NHS of the number of deaths injuries and disabilitiees caused by vehicle accidents. How your car tax/insurance/fuel tax pays for the REAL cost of the loss of a wage earner in a family. Previous generations had to save until they could afford to have children - why not today? Previous generations starved to death for lack of food are you suggesting we reintroduce that? The answer is that the low-paid expect everything, and don't want to wait for it. So they feel entitled to a car, big tv, dvd, computer, washing machine, dishwasher, holidays and other luxuries - and to have kids whether or not they've saved and prepared to have a family. You base this on what? I don't have a big screen TV or a car or a dishwasher and have been on one holiday in the past fifteen years. I don't expect everything to be handed to me. I scrimp and save and go without to buy the luxuries I have, so am I alone amongst the poor or are you making an enormous and erroneous generalisation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 Prove this is a silly claim. You show me how your car tax/fuel tax pays for the cost to the NHS of the number of deaths injuries and disabilitiees caused by vehicle accidents. No, you show me how it doesn't. Like I said, I'm not the one making these silly claims. How your car tax/insurance/fuel tax pays for the REAL cost of the loss of a wage earner in a family. Ah, and there I was thinking insurance did that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 Thanks for the compliment. But you shouldn't be so quick to judge and label people by virtue of their parents. If you don't like being attacked, don't attack others. I wasn't aware that I had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iuchi_Zien Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 No, you show me how it doesn't. Like I said, I'm not the one making these silly claims. Ah, and there I was thinking insurance did that. What like the insurance of the idiot with the Landrover paid for the Hatfield train accident. I mean not a penny of the cost of that accident was applied to the tax payer? Did the insurance company re-imberse the government for the cost of the grant for burial made for the victims family? Did the insurance company reimberse the NHS for the cost of treatment of the victims? Not a chance! As to the 'silly' claim you prove that it is 'silly' or I will assume that I am correct and that you are just trying to evade the argument by demeaning it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.