mrknish Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 Mate, don't even start. I've been doing voluntarey work for several years... If you do voluntary work, why can't you get a real job???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iuchi_Zien Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 If you do voluntary work, why can't you get a real job???? Asked and answered try reading the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 Sigh! The point I am making is that the government seems very keen to blaim 'benefit cheats' for all the Uk woes, commenting upon 25% of those sent for examination dropping their claim for Incapacity benefits, as an example whilst at the same time wanting to ease the expenses system for MP's so that they can get their grubby little snouts deeper in the trough. You were choosing a pretty obtuse way of making that point, it appeared to be just a defence of benefit cheats. I'm not going to say what I think about Bankers, the moderators would just remove it! I'm not justifying benefit cheats, I have and will continue to report them if I find out about them, unlike some who have posted complaining about benefit cheats it seems. All theft from the government is theft from ME I pay taxes and object to being robbed whether by tax evaders, MP's, benefit thieves or whoever. I do NOT however believe that just because part of your body isn't missing you are not elligable for incapacity benefit. Neither do I believe that disabled people should be humiliated and accused of ALL being scroungers just because a FEW decide to abuse the system. Nobody has suggested that they should be. Not all MP's are corrupt, lying, thieves just because some of them are! Also true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 And what do you call people earning £40K plus complaining about losing their Child Benefit, or are you saying only the poor are greedy and selfish? Perhaps we should introduce a system where you need to buy a licence to have a child? You keep doing it in fact. Criticise someone who's expanding their family despite long term unemployment, and you defend them with a weird segue into how the more well off complained about child benefit being means tested. Perhaps child benefit should be capped at the amount for 2 children. The problem with that is that it punishes the children as well as the feckless parents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 And parents whether on benefits or not still pay taxes. I don't believe for one moment that the taxes paid by motorists cover the cost of motoring, I assume you have some pie ready? You should investigate how much the motorist pays the exchequer, VED alone is something like 5 times the amount spent on the roads every year, and that ignores VAT on fuel and car purchases, income tax and corporation tax from everyone and every company involved in the car industry and so on. if you can prove different I'm quite prepared to eat humbe pie. So if you are a motorist you are being subsidised by the rest of the tax paying population. What makes that any less reprehensible than 'out of work' parents? Or are you saying the poor shouldn't have the right to procreate? How much should you be earning before you are entitled to have children? The average wage in the UK? and who's to say you won't get made redundant after the child was born? I know I was made redundant the DAY my daughter was born, Am I feckless for daring to think my job was secure? Or should my daughter have been taken off me andf put up for adoption because I was unlucky enough to be the last person in the department to be hired (the previous last person had left three weeks earlier to join a different department) You're keen to defend the feckless at every turn. The benefits system is there to help people when they unexpectedly loose their income, not to provide a choice of whether you work for a living or not! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iuchi_Zien Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 Well I've just done some quick stats. Based upon Rospa's figures of accidents and costs of an accident to the NHS by a group of statisticians at a UK university the total cost to the NHS of road accidents is £20 Billion add another £8.4 Billion for road repairs, maintainance etc and we're upto £28.4 Billion. We have yet to include the cost to the environment of the use of roads, in the form of emmisions, or the cost of production and destruction of a vehicle, couldn't find anty relevent stats, and I really have better things to do! Costs of policing the roads, costs to the state of the 2000+ fatal accidents. Based upon fuel + VAT producing £25.8 and Road Excise Duty bringing in £5.63 Total £30.4 Billion it leaves £2 Billion to pay for all the rest, give or take. Not seeing the pie yet! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iuchi_Zien Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 You're keen to defend the feckless at every turn. The benefits system is there to help people when they unexpectedly loose their income, not to provide a choice of whether you work for a living or not! I'm not defending the feckless, I'm saying that we all rely on the state to support us in some way or other. When we spend money on the children of the UK we are investing in the future. The more we spend the larger the reward. How do we expect to produce a workforce capable of operating in a modern environment if we don't support the children who will be that future. Whether the parents are feckless or not is irrelevent? Punishing the children because their parents are poor is wrong in fact and in principle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 Well I've just done some quick stats. Based upon Rospa's figures of accidents and costs of an accident to the NHS by a group of statisticians at a UK university the total cost to the NHS of road accidents is £20 Billion add another £8.4 Billion for road repairs, maintainance etc and we're upto £28.4 Billion. We have yet to include the cost to the environment of the use of roads, in the form of emmisions, or the cost of production and destruction of a vehicle, couldn't find anty relevent stats, and I really have better things to do! Costs of policing the roads, costs to the state of the 2000+ fatal accidents. Based upon fuel + VAT producing £25.8 and Road Excise Duty bringing in £5.63 Total £30.4 Billion it leaves £2 Billion to pay for all the rest, give or take. Not seeing the pie yet! How about if you include the general benefit to the economy that motorisation provided? Do you think we'd have an economy if the internal combustion engine disappeared overnight. How would anyone get to work? How would goods get to market? How would parts get to manufacturers. The benefits of motor vehicles massively outweigh the costs, and motorists are taxed in multiple ways, they are not subsidised out of general taxation, although if they were it would still be to the benefit of all. Using a car is not a comparable lifestyle choice to having a child you can't afford, which was the comparison you tried to draw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 I'm not defending the feckless, I'm saying that we all rely on the state to support us in some way or other. When we spend money on the children of the UK we are investing in the future. The more we spend the larger the reward. How do we expect to produce a workforce capable of operating in a modern environment if we don't support the children who will be that future. Whether the parents are feckless or not is irrelevent? Punishing the children because their parents are poor is wrong in fact and in principle. Providing basic infrastructure is not supporting us, it's something we pay for through taxation. Presumably approx 50% of people pay more in taxation than they ever get back and so aren't supported at all. Spending money on children might be a good investment, but unfortunately it also means supporting (in some cases) their work shy parents, and that's what people object to. I already made the point that unfortunately cutting child benefit punishes the children as well as the irresponsible adults who can't afford to bring them up correctly. It's not a problem with an easy solution, but nor is particularly related to health assessments and whether someone is capable of work or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alien Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 Not sure if this of interest to anyone but it's worth a read if you're on DLA. http://www.pdteam.org.uk/blog/wordpress/?p=135 Some government spokesman argued that we surely can't have so many disabled people in this country. (I'll try find a link for that) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.