WeX Posted May 31, 2013 Author Share Posted May 31, 2013 The evidence is here for all to see and you know it. I never disappear and I always back up my replies it's just that people like you don't like my replies and so refuse to accept them. But you still are incapable of providing any evidance .. says it all really. Oh look a question directed at you, you have failed to answer : Well Mecky? You've been on, you've answered, are you just hoping this will slide off the bottom and go away? Are you man enough to answer? Or is this another of your seagull threads? ---------- Post added 31-05-2013 at 13:38 ---------- WeX/profile/view posts? One example and I will capitulate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 I think support for this proposal is primarily motivated by a dislike of unemployed people and their apparent life of Riley on benefits. After pensioners, the biggest slice of the government's social security budget goes on benefits to top up the income of working people. Does the OP want pensioners and the working poor to be denied the right to gamble? If their stingy bosses paid them a living wage how many doctors and nurses could the savings be used to employ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted May 31, 2013 Author Share Posted May 31, 2013 I think support for this proposal is primarily motivated by a dislike of unemployed people and their apparent life of Riley on benefits. After pensioners, the biggest slice of the government's social security budget goes on benefits to top up the income of working people. Does the OP want pensioners and the working poor to be denied the right to gamble? If their stingy bosses paid them a living wage how many doctors and nurses could the savings be used to employ? The whole, in work benefits is a whole other issue, but I have only talked about those on JSA for this very reason. People able to work but do not. Those who cant work, have no other choice and those in work are at least trying. This isnt about attacking those out of work, its about making sure they get the correct help they require. Making people on JSA far too comfortable means people get stuck and the longer they are there, the less likely they are to be capable of getting out of the dependency. Helping neither the person or the taxpayer. Paying for a stripper to grind up and down your leg is not going to help you get a job. JSA is for the purpose of helping you while you look for work. Its not there as some social blanket to make you feel better about your situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hots on Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 I dunno but your thread is about casinos in the USA. As a Tory I would have thought you'd be into free market economics, the principle that the state shouldn't tell people how and where they should spend their money. You and the idiot governor of Florida are just underlining the hypocrisy of the right in saying people should have more freedom and not be restricted by the state in what they choose to spend their money on while calling for or enforcing restrictions on people in exactly that sphere. I'm embarrassed for you, I really am. ---------- Post added 31-05-2013 at 14:47 ---------- I think support for this proposal is primarily motivated by a dislike of unemployed people and their apparent life of Riley on benefits. Who would think that benefits being spent in casino's/betting shops is a good thing?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buck Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 You simply can't dictate what people do with their benefit money. At the end of the day, everyone needs some luxuries no matter how insignificant or there would be anarchy and revolt in the streets. £5 on the lottery here, a bottle of cider there, £10 on the horses, money for cigs. Let them spend their tiny amount of benefit money on whatever it is that keeps them subdued to drudgery. I don't know about you but I don't want the unemployed breaking down the door of my townhouse. Think about it.I would agree with you on this, except one thing. Where gambling in any form costs a family its own and its children's health and comfort, then it is wrong. I saw it happen to my next door neighbour when I lived in Sheffield, where the man's wife was constantly borrowing food from mine, while her husband spent his days and welfare money in the betting shop. I have also seen it here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arrr Sez I Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 I would agree with you on this, except one thing. Where gambling in any form costs a family its own and its children's health and comfort, then it is wrong. I saw it happen to my next door neighbour when I lived in Sheffield, where the man's wife was constantly borrowing food from mine, while her husband spent his days and welfare money in the betting shop. I have also seen it here. But dictating what people spend their benefit money won't make any difference. If you stop a gambler using his benefit money to gamble, he will just get that money from "somewhere else". I don't want that somewhere else to be MY house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted May 31, 2013 Author Share Posted May 31, 2013 But dictating what people spend their benefit money won't make any difference. If you stop a gambler using his benefit money to gamble, he will just get that money from "somewhere else". I don't want that somewhere else to be MY house. If I want to gamble and I don't have the money, I don't gamble, I don't steal from people. You are assuming that everyone who gambles have a gambling addiction or you have a very poor opinion of those on benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arrr Sez I Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 or you have a very poor opinion of those on benefits. Why wouldn't I have a poor opinion of someone on benefits? Being unemployed means that currently nobody wants your services. Being unemployed means that the person is unable to transfer their "talents and skills" to another job. Being unemployed means that the person is unable to hustle their way into work demonstrating little get up and go and lack of ambition or the creativity to set up their own business with any knowledge or experience. From what I can see, there is absolutely nothing to praise or celebrate someone for being unemployed. So yes, I have a poor opinion of those on benefits. NATURALLY! Common sense when you think about it. I don't hate unemployed people though and I'm happy as a tax payer to fund their lifestyle choices. I don't resent them in the slightest for wanting a little flutter, a little drink or a smoke if that's what they want to spend their benefit money on. It keeps the world going round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 The whole, in work benefits is a whole other issue, but I have only talked about those on JSA for this very reason. People able to work but do not. Those who cant work, have no other choice and those in work are at least trying. This isnt about attacking those out of work, its about making sure they get the correct help they require. Making people on JSA far too comfortable means people get stuck and the longer they are there, the less likely they are to be capable of getting out of the dependency. Helping neither the person or the taxpayer. Paying for a stripper to grind up and down your leg is not going to help you get a job. JSA is for the purpose of helping you while you look for work. Its not there as some social blanket to make you feel better about your situation. What about the dependency on the state of companies that pay poverty wages, why not pick on them? I don't dispute the fact that there are people who are on benefits who have no intention of getting work, but they are in a minority. Why should the majority be punished for a minority? And the state telling citizens on what they can spend their money sets a dangerous precedent. And why end with stopping people on JSA using the money they get to go gambling? Why not stop them buying fatty foods, or going to the pub for a drink? I would be more inclined to believe you when you say this is about helping those on JSA rather than punishing them if it weren't for your contribution on this related thread: http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1162734 Inwhich you argued that those on benefits should be made to take part in pointless psychometric tests even though no matter what answer is given, the results are the same. I agree with wanting to help the jobless - isolating them and punishing them is not the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cgksheff Posted May 31, 2013 Share Posted May 31, 2013 Why wouldn't I have a poor opinion of someone on benefits? ......... There are benefits available for those in-work as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.