Work starts on the eagerly awaited new Foxtons office on Brixton Road

[secateurz]

No. You really know nothing, do you?

 

[ddraig]

Why should the state guarantee such a large income?

I look forward to the Lefties on here justifying it.

if it is such a large income why don't you give up what you do and copy them

 

[secateurz]

What a meaningless statement. You're dependent on the state too, unless you've mastered the art of levitation or something. Idiot.

Aunt Sally

 

[Mrs Magpie]

You clearly have a very short attention span, secateurtz...that's actually stolen from the likes of Supermac.

 

[secateurz]

if it is such a large income why don't you give up what you do and copy them

Nope, you cant justify it.

 

[ddraig]

Nope, you cant justify it.

justify what?
can you back up anything you say?

 

[secateurz]

the very post you quoted. are you a goldfish?

 

[TonyH82]

I'm not convinced. I've read enough research over the decades that I lean more toward accepting that if it hadn't been for the progressive stigmatisation of any sort of direct welfare (as opposed to universal health and education) over the past 30-35 years, that "sense of entitlement" could well have strengthened the welfare state. If people saw it as it was mostly seen between the mid-forties and mid-seventies, as something to invest in, as something to be proud of contributing to, then I'd say that outwith the neoliberal cock-socks that we have governing us (not forgetting those whose ideas they turn into legislation) that we'd see a different picture.
And sure there's a small fragment of the potential workforce that takes the piss - those who the DWP call "the hardcore unemployed", people who've been unemployed for 2 years or more and are labelled as "work avoiders", but they've never been quantified as more than a fragment. something on the order of 120,000 people out of 21 million members of the combined labour force and reserve labour pool. That's all they are though, a small fragment, not the Visigoths at the gate, here to wreck the system. We don't need Visigoths to do that - the neoliberals are doing it themselves.

The long-term unemployed aren't a massive issue.

But given the finite resources that the state has, the welfare state is now too big. Universal benefits were a mistake and it is good they are being gradually rolled back.

 

[Mrs Magpie]

...and I know all this despite having left school and gone straight into work at 16...to think I paid towards secateurz education

 

[Blagsta]

unfortunately self entitlement is everywhere. a poison of the West.

Yeah, the self entitlement of politicians, bankers, bosses.

 

[Blagsta]

I believe passionately in free healthcare.

I believe passionately in support for the disabled.

I think it is entirely correct that the state should pay unemployment benefit & housing benefit when people lose their employment.

But out welfare system is out of control. There are far too many universal benefits and people are addicted to them.

It is disgusting that there was such opposition when the government removed child benefit for the well off. Utter madness.

I consider it outrageous that the left-wing press put up such strong resistance to capping benefits at £500 per week for a family. To achieve that income, you would need a job paying >£30k, which is far more than most people make. Why should the state guarantee such a large income?

I think it is madness that my affluent grandparents get a free TV license and winter fuel payments which they end up funneling to their grandchildren.

Unfortunately, the sense of entitlement many people have in this country will make it difficult to reform this system.

Evidence?

 

[Blagsta]

Aunt Sally

Your mum.

 

[editor]

The long-term unemployed aren't a massive issue.

They're a fucking massive issue if you're one of them, living in a shit town on shit benefits and watching all life's opportunities pass by you by through no fault of your own.

 

[Blagsta]

The long-term unemployed aren't a massive issue.

But given the finite resources that the state has, the welfare state is now too big. Universal benefits were a mistake and it is good they are being gradually rolled back.

Evidence?

 

[secateurz]

...and I know all this despite having left school and gone straight into work at 16...to think I paid towards secateurz education

and look what I have done with it! well you wont ever know, but its not half bad.

 

[MrSki]

The long-term unemployed aren't a massive issue.

But given the finite resources that the state has, the welfare state is now too big. Universal benefits were a mistake and it is good they are being gradually rolled back.

Good for whom?

 

[ViolentPanda]

I believe passionately in free healthcare.

I believe passionately in support for the disabled.

I think it is entirely correct that the state should pay unemployment benefit & housing benefit when people lose their employment.

But out welfare system is out of control. There are far too many universal benefits and people are addicted to them.

Tony, there are hardly any universal benefits. There's Child Benefit and the State Pension, Winter Fuel Allowance for the over 65s/68s, and a couple more. That's it

It is disgusting that there was such opposition when the government removed child benefit for the well off. Utter madness.

Did you ever bother to differentiate between opposition to removal of Child Benefit per se and the deliberate erosion of the principle of universality? People don't appear to realise that the next step may well be to (purely because it's the greatest cost to the Treasury) progressively limit the State Pension until it's only available to a residual number of claimants.

I consider it outrageous that the left-wing press put up such strong resistance to capping benefits at £500 per week for a family. To achieve that income, you would need a job paying >£30k, which is far more than most people make. Why should the state guarantee such a large income?

That £500 per week includes any Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, if claimable. If that family of, lets say 2 adults and 2 kids, is in a 3-bedroom Housing Association dwelling in the south-east, that's 50-60% of their total figure gone in rent. Council tax for a 3-bed (so band C or above) in the southeast is going to run to £1000-1200 a years, so that's another £20-25 a week gone, and what you're left with is just enough to keep the wolf from the door if you don't have any emergencies. If any of your white goods break down, you're donalded.

I think it is madness that my affluent grandparents get a free TV license and winter fuel payments which they end up funneling to their grandchildren.

Unfortunately, the sense of entitlement many people have in this country will make it difficult to reform this system.

Many of us paid in on the premise that NI was, you know, insurance! That if the worst happened, we had something to fall back on. I have a sense of entitlement purely because the state, well into the '90s, took my money and told me I was entitled to certain things because they were taking my money.

 

[TonyH82]

Evidence?

The mainstream press.

The left resist the benefit cap.

Whilst the right resit the removal of child benefit for high earners.

 

[Blagsta]

The mainstream press.

The left resist the benefit cap.

Whilst the right resit the removal of child benefit for high earners.

I asked for evidence. Put up or shut up, that's how it works round here.

 

[secateurz]

They're a fucking massive issue if you're one of them, living in a shit town on shit benefits and watching all life's opportunities pass by you by through no fault of your own.

bring back more grammar schools. another Labour failure.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I've already done that one VP

Hence my edit.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Why should the state guarantee such a large income?

I look forward to the Lefties on here justifying it.

You might have a point if many of us were "lefties". Sadly for you, most of us aren't.

 

[Mrs Magpie]

bring back more grammar schools. another Labour failure.

I worked in a comprehensive that got more kids into university (Russell Group) than my Grammar school ever did.

 

[Mrs Magpie]

In fact my Grammar school failed a lot of bright children, me included.

 

[secateurz]

You might have a point if many of us were "lefties". Sadly for you, most of us aren't.

but some of you are..so your post is redundant. sadly.

 

[secateurz]

In fact my Grammar school failed a lot of bright children, me included.

yes its their fault. never yours.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Benjamin Disraeli 1850s

Apologies. I was thinking more of MacMillan and the rest of the last majority-Etonian Tory upper heirarchy.

 

[Mrs Magpie]

They just coasted along knowing they had the cleverest 10% and the teaching was shit. I didn't realise how shit until I worked in a comprehensive.

 

[secateurz]

Apologies. I was thinking more of MacMillan and the rest of the last majority-Etonian Tory upper heirarchy.

Etonian nonsense like we have now...or nuLabour Bliarite hierachy?

like picking between two turds.

 

[Mrs Magpie]

yes its their fault. never yours.

I don't think sitting in silence copying a textbook was good teaching. 6 kids in my year went to university. That's appallingly low. Out of 90 children who were the brightest 10%