Bypassblade Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 sorry I have no idea what your post means, are you being rude? Was my OH right when he said never trust to a United fan! I am being polite when I put a smilie, I do it on most posts, as you say not mean to be inflammatory at all, the "rods" is two fingers, I'm not being rude either, (should not assume all know what mean, so I am sorry), which I don't advocate, even I don't trust Unitedites lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xenia Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 No they don't. Burn a landlord upon a crucifix and see what happens to the house. Nothing, the house remains. The landlord DOES NOT PROVIDE houses. The people who provide houses are builders. They build a house, and wallah, a new house has been provided. Landlords make no contribution, they seek only to extract via rent, for personal gain (private profit). They are parasites. well, you know what i mean. PS I think crucifiction might be a bit extreme, are you having a bad day? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubydazzler Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 I think we all should be interested in what happened to the money for security that Mister M mentions in 103. Was it ever collected from the departments concerned and, if so, where is it now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kerrangaroo Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 And so have the unemployed. Via NI, income tax, VAT, DUTY on fags, DUTY on alcohol etc. An alcoholic on the dole who does a days work cash in hand and spends all his dole and cash in hand money on vodka is a NET taxpayer. Whereas a pensioner buying foreign food, going on foreign holidays, that bought a house with MIRAS, is not a net taxpayer. I'm not disputing their contribution in the monetary sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 I think we all should be interested in what happened to the money for security that Mister M mentions in 103. Was it ever collected from the departments concerned and, if so, where is it now? Of course it was. It's in the hands of the rich, the ones whom have exploited the poor. I sincerely hope these doley's were been seen by A4E, ad another private company could extract government subsidy on behalf of the unemployed. All good for our economic growth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 well, you know what i mean. PS I think crucifiction might be a bit extreme, are you having a bad day? No, what do you mean? You said landlords provide accommodation. They do not, if anything they hinder the provision of accommodation. Much like rebel groups in famine zones who seize food rations for themselves to sell on at profit and for private gain, hinder the distribution of food to starving people. The landlords categorically DO NOT PROVIDE ACCOMMODATION. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 You people who don't like scroungers are usually very concerned about taxpayers money being ripped off. Here you are then, here's why you should care if nothing else: Documents posted on the GLA website show that the GLA, Home Office and DCMS contributed £500k each for stewarding and crowd control. Following multi-agency assessment of the scope of River Pageant and the requirement for adequate stewarding and crowd management arrangements along the route on the north and south banks of the Thames, it was proposed that DCMS, Home Office and GLA make an equal contribution of up to £500,000 each towards the costs of such arrangements. The documents say the £1.5m was raised. But where did the money for stewarding go? Did that £1.5m go entirely to the contracted companies, and not the long-term unemployed people they drafted in? paid staff originally pencilled in to steward the Pageant were told they were no longer needed a few days beforehand. It could be you one day. http://liberalconspiracy.org/2012/06/05/where-did-1-5m-for-river-pageant-stewarding-go/ All 30 of them? I doubt 30 less paid security staff would make much impact on the overall budget, given police overtime, ambulance staff overtime etc etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xenia Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 No, what do you mean? You said landlords provide accommodation. They do not, if anything they hinder the provision of accommodation. Much like rebel groups in famine zones who seize food rations for themselves to sell on at profit and for private gain, hinder the distribution of food to starving people. The landlords categorically DO NOT PROVIDE ACCOMMODATION. I rent out a few houses, nice tenants, nice houses nice rents, I provide accomodation whats the problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 I rent out a few houses, nice tenants, nice houses nice rents, I provide accomodation whats the problem? so your a landlord now :hihi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 I rent out a few houses, nice tenants, nice houses nice rents, I provide accomodation whats the problem? You do not provide accommodation. You use it as a means of extracting money from the property-less class. To provide accommodation you must create new accommodation. Under your logic, the UK government provides tobacco, because it levies a tax upon it. You levy a tax upon the property-less for your own private gain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.