chem1st Posted October 3, 2011 Author Share Posted October 3, 2011 The entire problem here is one of outlook. You characterise this as the government "keeping people unemployed", but it's not the governments job to employ people. The economy has made those people unemployed, the government can't just invent jobs and change that. It's not the governments job to house you, employ you or feed you. The government hinders people from housing, employing and feeding themselves! When it does that, then it should provide people housing, employment and food. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Excellent post. Another point the organisers appear to miss is that back in 1936 there was no welfare state so the original marchers were geniuinely fighting for their livelihoods. There is no comparison to today where the average uneployed youth can get free money and a council house and spend his days getting stoned and playing computer games. It's no wonder they don't want to work. And not to mention the housing benefit the ungrateful poor get to keep them in their mansions! Also bear in mind that in 1936 there were plenty of whingers (earning little more than the Jarrow Marchers), complaining that not only did the poor have universal sufferage, soup kitchens and winows in their houses; but that the poor were poor because they were lazy & immoral. Sound familiar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 They just want something for nothing. No different to most people then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 The government hinders people from housing, employing and feeding themselves! When it does that, then it should provide people housing, employment and food. No it doesn't. Not providing social housing is not hindering, it's just not handing it to you on a plate. It's definitely not hindering employment, it wants everyone working, working people pay tax and don't claim benefit, that's just where the government wants you. And of course working people can buy their own food. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted October 3, 2011 Author Share Posted October 3, 2011 Excellent post. Another point the organisers appear to miss is that back in 1936 there was no welfare state so the original marchers were geniuinely fighting for their livelihoods. There is no comparison to today where the average uneployed youth can get free money and a council house and spend his days getting stoned and playing computer games. It's no wonder they don't want to work. Inflation adjusted relative to GDP PPP, unemployment benefit was higher then! Society was more equal then, than it is now! Today the young person is priced out of work by housing benefit which exists only to enrich landlords and prop up our dysfunctional housing market. Young people cannot access council housing, gone are the golden days of the 60s, when the boomers could get a council house, with an affordable rent, get a job within a day of quitting one, and then a few years after, buy their council houses at a massive discount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted October 3, 2011 Author Share Posted October 3, 2011 No it doesn't. Not providing social housing is not hindering, it's just not handing it to you on a plate. It's definitely not hindering employment, it wants everyone working, working people pay tax and don't claim benefit, that's just where the government wants you. And of course working people can buy their own food. There should be common land for people to build their own housing, if they do not have a house. There should be common land for people to create their own employment if they do not have a job. There should be common land for people to grow their own food. The government want's people in low paid work on housing benefit, to pay off the mortgages of the B2L empires of their donors. The government want's people on the dole, to be made scapegoat, the government wants people on the dole to work for free in a system akin to corvee labour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 It wouldn't be common land if anyone could come along and build on it would it! It would then be land that someone had claimed. Land isn't required to create work, a business plan that will make a profit is. Nothing stops anyone from creating such a plan and starting such a business. There is, it's parcelled out to people as allotments. The government doesn't "want" people in low paid work. More highly paid work means higher income for the government in taxation. I'm sure it would also be more than happy to stop housing benefit, except then you'd be marching with some other group demanding that the people who could no longer afford to rent were put up at the governments expense (oh, that would be housing benefit by another name then). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted October 3, 2011 Author Share Posted October 3, 2011 It wouldn't be common land if anyone could come along and build on it would it! It would then be land that someone had claimed. It'd be common land for housing, if it isn't being used, somebody else could use it, in that sense it would be common land. Land isn't required to create work, a business plan that will make a profit is. Nothing stops anyone from creating such a plan and starting such a business. If you can explain to me how to create work without land (or sea), then I'll give you £100. You'll be able to inherit the earth! There is, it's parcelled out to people as allotments. Waiting list of many years... By the time they could access it, they would have starved to death. The government doesn't "want" people in low paid work. More highly paid work means higher income for the government in taxation. I'm sure it would also be more than happy to stop housing benefit, except then you'd be marching with some other group demanding that the people who could no longer afford to rent were put up at the governments expense (oh, that would be housing benefit by another name then). Housing benefit is a subsidy to landlords. Council housing is a subsidy to tenants (people - the common man). One of them subsidies benefits the economy and is cheaper to enact in the long term, the other enriches a minority at the expense of everyone else, and it will do so, for as long as it remains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upinwath Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 These people WANT TO WORK. And they are marching on London. A couple of things spring to mind. I hope the oppressed youth unemployed are available for work while they're marching. I would hate for them to lose their benefits while they're away from home. Where the hell do the moronic unions think the cash will come from to pay wages to the unwanted staff? Jobs appear because business needs people, not because the idiot lefties without a clue think they should have jobs. Support them - Rubbish. Take photos and see how many dole scroungers we can get off benefits while they're scrounging their way to London. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 It'd be common land for housing, if it isn't being used, somebody else could use it, in that sense it would be common land. So 10 minutes after it had been declared it wouldn't be common land anymore. How can you be against the right to buy, but want the government to give away land for free... It's nonsensical. If you can explain to me how to create work without land (or sea), then I'll give you £100. You'll be able to inherit the earth! You have to work somewhere, I'll give you that. But personally I could be working in starbucks at the moment, or the library, or given how sunny it is, the park. I don't require the ownership or even rent of any land in order to work. Of course any profitable business plan will be capable of renting any space required, if the business can't just be started at home (we aren't talking about people living on the street are we?). Do you want to give me cash or a cheque? Waiting list of many years... By the time they could access it, they would have starved to death. Oh, so not only should land be available, there should be enough of it for everyone in the country to actually feed themselves. How exactly will the government magic up this extra land? Housing benefit is a subsidy to landlords. No, it's a subsidy to the people who need somewhere to live. Where do you think they'll live if it's withdrawn? Council housing is a subsidy to tenants (people - the common man). It's the same thing. One of them subsidies benefits the economy and is cheaper to enact in the long term, the other enriches a minority at the expense of everyone else, and it will do so, for as long as it remains. There is no such distinction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.