Scroungers on the Super-dole need their benefits cutting.

[chem1st]

I'm not on about the unfortunate victims of structural unemployment that is enforced on the populace by the money and land rentiers who struggle to get by on the £3k per year they get to spend on food, whilst landlords claim much more on their behalf.

 

I'm on about the real scroungers. The rentiers.

 

The people who get £100k annual dole and more.

 

When our government says "we must help the farmers", it means "we must help the 0.1%". Most of the land here is owned by exceedingly wealthy people. Some of them are millionaires from elsewhere: sheikhs, oligarchs and mining magnates who own vast estates in this country. Although they might pay no taxes in the UK, they receive millions in farm subsidies. They are the world's most successful benefit tourists. Yet, amid the manufactured terror of immigrants living off British welfare payments, we scarcely hear a word said against them.

 

The minister responsible for cutting income support for the poor, Iain Duncan Smith, lives on an estate owned by his wife's family. During the last 10 years it has received €1.5m in income support from taxpayers. How much more obvious do these double standards have to be before we begin to notice?

 

Thanks in large part to subsidies, the value of farmland in the UK has tripled in 10 years: it has risen faster than almost any other speculative asset. Farmers are exempted from inheritance tax and capital gains tax. They can build, without planning permission, structures which lesser mortals would be forbidden to erect, boosting both their capital and income. And they have a guaranteed income from the state. Yet all we hear from their leaders is one long whinge.

 

I have yet to detect a word of gratitude from the National Farmers' Union to the hard-pressed taxpayers who keep its members in such style. The NFU, dominated by the biggest landowners, has a peculiar genius for bringing out the violins. It pushes forward small, struggling hill farmers. The real beneficiaries of its policies are the arable barons hiding behind them.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/01/farm-subsidies-blatant-transfer-of-cash-to-rich

 

A small minority of people in this county, an aristocratic elite, who own land that was stolen many years ago from common ownership are taking the chuffin urine.

 

These super-dole scroungers need their benefits cutting. They should be forced to pay taxes like everyone else, and work like everyone else, or get by on the poor man's dole.

 

What do you think?

 

Do you think we should be paying millionaires families £150k per year in benefits tax free whilst cutting benefits for the poorest? And at the same time banning the poorest from growing their own food and building their own housing, factories etc.

[samstar999]

Prepare for the backlash on here...

 

I couldn't agree more though!

[andygardener]

I think the CAP needs massive reform and the best way to reform it is to opt out of it (both funding and receiving it) Otherwise it will always be negototiated not on what is right but what will the net national result be. Farming subsidises, what level they are set at etc etc should be a matter for national governments and every nation should fund it's own if it chooses to employ them. There is no cohesive argument that farming is a surpanational issue on a European level.

 

I also think George Monbiot is a hypocritical dick and his article is just a load of digs at the farmers, large and small, that he hates while pretending for a couple of sentences to care about small farmers.

[Longcol]

 

A small minority of people in this county, an aristocratic elite, who own land that was stolen many years ago from common ownership are taking the chuffin urine.

 

.

 

Yeah, I blame 1066.

[megalithic]

Said it before and i'll keep repeating it, we need a revolution.

[whiteowl]

Said it before and i'll keep repeating it, we need a revolution.

 

I'd agree if the NSA and GCHQ weren't reading this

[Anna B]

Said it before and i'll keep repeating it, we need a revolution.

 

 

 

I really do share your frustration. I don't have the answer, but I really don't think a revolution is it.

 

Look at the Middle East and the Arab spring. Do you really think they are better off?

 

Revolutions are awful, bloody, violent affairs which leave a place in a far worse state than when they started. The power vacuum is the perfect chance for an opportunistic uprising of the first bully who can grab power.

 

We need change, yes, but there must be a better way than this.

[megalithic]

I really do share your frustration. I don't have the answer, but I really don't think a revolution is it.

 

Look at the Middle East and the Arab spring. Do you really think they are better off?

 

Revolutions are awful, bloody, violent affairs which leave a place in a far worse state than when they started. The power vacuum is the perfect chance for an opportunistic uprising of the first bully who can grab power.

 

We need change, yes, but there must be a better way than this.

 

I genuinely believe there's no alternative.

The rich grab well beyond their needs and politicking wont change a thing.

Removing Hitler cost a heavy price but ultimately it was the right thing to do, even with hindsight.

[Marx]

We are conditioned to believe that amassing vast personal wealth is a virtue. With a bunch of millionaire muppets running the Country and setting people against each other, the only way forward is through revolution.

[deaf andy]

Revolutions are awful, bloody, violent affairs which leave a place in a far worse state than when they started. The power vacuum is the perfect chance for an opportunistic uprising of the first bully who can grab power.

 

We need change, yes, but there must be a better way than this.

 

i was going to suggest russia 1917 as an example of a revolution that wasn't like you describe, iirc there was one casualty. but then i read the rest of your sentence and remembered the rest of that history class...