Longcol Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 That is exactly the sort of propaganda I am talking about. The idea that £500bn a year is spent on a safety net is laughable. Where do you get the figure of £500bn from Jim - another of your made up facts? http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 The linked graph is very helpful when looking at who has done best and worst in the last 35 years with regards to income. http://www.livingstandards.org/features/pay/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 And your proof is...? You don't want to believe everything you read in the Daily Mail. Look to your own experience. Similar to mine and nearly everyone I've known. It's not that easy getting benefits, or living on them. It's the exceptions that get into the papers, not the rule. And of course it's played up and reported in such a way as to make everyone think it's happening far more than it is. That's the propaganda. Designed to deflect attention from where it should be, and set ordinary people against each other. What the 'bone idle shirkers' need are regular jobs that pay better than benefits - and that doesn't mean benefits are too high, but that wages are too low. How can £60 a week to pay bills, buy food, pay for transport and everything else a person needs, be considered too much? They don't have a choice in this. I could show you several families that have never worked yet afford holidays, cars, booze and fags, I have no idea how they manage to get so much out of the benefits system, when the only time I ever tried to claim benefits, I didn’t qualify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Graham Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 Where do you get the figure of £500bn from Jim - another of your made up facts? http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/ Apologies, that should read £400bn for the welfare state inc NHS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Graham Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 The linked graph is very helpful when looking at who has done best and worst in the last 35 years with regards to income. http://www.livingstandards.org/features/pay/ So the top 1% did best under Blair and the bottom 10% did best under Major/Blair. Interesting. I did best under Thatcher/Major so no surprises there. And no surprise everybody was worse off under Gordon, best man for the job, that conversation never happened, Brown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan Tamudo Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 I could show you several families that have never worked yet afford holidays, cars, booze and fags, I have no idea how they manage to get so much out of the benefits system, when the only time I ever tried to claim benefits, I didn’t qualify. PM me if you please, I'd like you to show me these several families. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 Marxism does not work today, it never really did work, because the rich do not have enough wealth to pay for the ruinously expensive welfare state Marxism as a political ideal on its own never did work, but his critique of capitalism is vastly interesting. Capitalism is always on the edge of crisis - it grows and everyone enjoys the good and it shrinks and everyone can lose the lot. Secondly, the welfare state is not Marxist. If the factory owner pays tax on his earnings and factory staff pay tax on their earnings, then it isn't what Marx argued for either. That's a whole combination of different ideals, about how people should be treated. It isn't right for a man to work and when he finds himself unemployed, to receive nothing in return. I can equally see that it isn't right to live a life in receipt of benefits and to never work. What the Left has won with one hand has been taken away with the other hand. The Left may have won a welfare state but the workers are taxed into poverty and servitude to pay for it. I don't feel taxed into poverty. I think the welfare state is a wonderful thing. I think it's fine that there is a safety net in society that will stop me finding utter poverty if anything bad should happen to me. I've got no problem with unemployed people claiming benefit, or disabled people claiming money to ease their worries. As for high wages, it's hard to compete with India and China. They don't pay for a system that support them, so there are workers who are willing to do jobs for handfulls of rice. Yet they are countries that have vast wealth disparity. It's far from a simple solution, I'll state that clearly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xenia Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 "How ARE the rich getting richer" by the same way they got to be rich in the first place - by fiddling. Angel. Excuse me, I am relatively wealthy and I have never "fiddled". Please do not let your preconceptions or the brainwashing you have been given by the "Socialist Worker" fool you. People are rich because they work hard and invest wisely. Anyone who doesnt stick to the rules is a criminal, you know, like beneits cheats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan Tamudo Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 Anyone who doesnt stick to the rules is a criminal, you know, like beneits cheats. Did you really study for a degree in the 70's? I was a mature student and working my way through a degree. I did weekends at Fiveways and when Mick left to open the Mulberry (November 1976) I went with him as it was near Uni and I lived in town centre. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xenia Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 Did you really study for a degree in the 70's? Why do you ask? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.