But Mr Osborne told BBC political editor Nick Robinson that those making a "lifestyle choice to just sit on out-of-work benefits" would be affected. He described the welfare budget as "completely out of control". Mr Osborne said: "There are five million people living on permanent out-of-work benefits. That is a tragedy for them and fiscally unsustainable for us as a country - we can't afford it any more. How do you feel about this? I think its about time this kind of welfare abuse is sorted out. Mr Osborne has said; "Of course, people who are disabled, people who are vulnerable, people who need protection will get our protection, and more. "But people who think it's a lifestyle choice to just sit on out-of-work benefits - that lifestyle choice is going to come to an end. The money won't be there."
Quote by Bluefish2009 How do you feel about this? I think its about time this kind of welfare abuse is sorted out.
You taking over my mantle Blue? Of course they should not stop paying them benefits.....what would they do for money without the taxpayer funding their " lifestyle "? I reckon they should give them a 20% increase. It is hard to find work out there now Blue.
Quote by kentswingers777 How do you feel about this? I think its about time this kind of welfare abuse is sorted out.
You taking over my mantle Blue? Of course they should not stop paying them benefits.....what would they do for money without the taxpayer funding their " lifestyle "? I reckon they should give them a 20% increase. It is hard to find work out there now Blue. Thought you may have deserted your post :giggle:
Its all well and good saying that but who decideds if they're 'lifestyle' claimers? What is the criteria? And if the benefits stop then what? What do you do with the homeless families? Just wondering like....
Quote by vampanya Its all well and good saying that but who decideds if they're 'lifestyle' claimers? What is the criteria? And if the benefits stop then what? What do you do with the homeless families? Just wondering like....
I know what you mean, but I object to people who do not do a stroke of work having a better life style than me, at my expense
I think you are being far to right wing Blue. They deserve their money, it is not their fault that life has thrown them a dodgy hand. Imagine having nothing to get up for in the mornings...no money and then being accused of being a scrounger. It really is not on Blue.
Quote by kentswingers777 I think you are being far to right wing Blue. They deserve their money, it is not their fault that life has thrown them a dodgy hand. Imagine having nothing to get up for in the mornings...no money and then being accused of being a scrounger. It really is not on Blue.
Trouble is Kenty I am working my nuts of to keep them, Labour has left the country broke and we need to make some drastic cuts. Your left wing views are very short sighted. Any way Mr Osbourne has said he will ensure they are not left out in the cold. Mr Osborne has said; "Of course, people who are disabled, people who are vulnerable, people who need protection will get our protection, and more.
Quote by foxylady2209 Perhaps the first thing is to establish an effective way of distinguishing those who need the support and those who have made that lifestyle choice.
Quote by foxylady2209 Perhaps the first thing is to establish an effective way of distinguishing those who need the support and those who have made that lifestyle choice.
agreed foxy :thumbup: but i fear such common sense will be meet with vigorous arguments of its their right on here
Quote by flower411 The problem is that whatever system we have, some of the "deserving" are going to miss out and some of the scroungers are going to get away with it. The state system has to start taking the attitude that the possibility that some of the "deserving" are going to miss out is inevitable and if that happens through mistakes made in the allocation of benefits it`s not the end of the world. It may even be possible to rectify the situation after the mistake has been made but I`m sure it is far easier to pay people benefits they have missed out on than it is to claw back overpayments or fraudulently aquired benefits. We need to start having a much more rigorous attitude towards people who have made a lifestyle choice to exist on benefits. Stop namby pambying about with paying people to have children they can`t afford and stop pandering to the whole idea that people who refuse to work have the right to have a better standard of living than people who work. Of course mistakes will be made and people may lose out but we must start taking the initiative and stop erring on the side of caution all the time !!! How do we decide who has made the decision to sponge off the state as a lifestyle choice ?? I don`t know but I do know that criteria could be worked out that would be just as flawed as the idea that we should pay out to anybody who asks. We can`t afford the freeloaders and something really has to done or we`ll all go under.
Quote by flower411 The problem is that whatever system we have, some of the "deserving" are going to miss out and some of the scroungers are going to get away with it. The state system has to start taking the attitude that the possibility that some of the "deserving" are going to miss out is inevitable and if that happens through mistakes made in the allocation of benefits it`s not the end of the world. It may even be possible to rectify the situation after the mistake has been made but I`m sure it is far easier to pay people benefits they have missed out on than it is to claw back overpayments or fraudulently aquired benefits. We need to start having a much more rigorous attitude towards people who have made a lifestyle choice to exist on benefits. Stop namby pambying about with paying people to have children they can`t afford and stop pandering to the whole idea that people who refuse to work have the right to have a better standard of living than people who work. Of course mistakes will be made and people may lose out but we must start taking the initiative and stop erring on the side of caution all the time !!! How do we decide who has made the decision to sponge off the state as a lifestyle choice ?? I don`t know but I do know that criteria could be worked out that would be just as flawed as the idea that we should pay out to anybody who asks. We can`t afford the freeloaders and something really has to done or we`ll all go under.
YOu're right - time to start on the tax evaders, the tax exiles, the scum who live in tax havens like Jersey that only exist because we allow them to - it's time to make them pay their way. let's invade Sark...
Quote by awayman The problem is that whatever system we have, some of the "deserving" are going to miss out and some of the scroungers are going to get away with it. The state system has to start taking the attitude that the possibility that some of the "deserving" are going to miss out is inevitable and if that happens through mistakes made in the allocation of benefits it`s not the end of the world. It may even be possible to rectify the situation after the mistake has been made but I`m sure it is far easier to pay people benefits they have missed out on than it is to claw back overpayments or fraudulently aquired benefits. We need to start having a much more rigorous attitude towards people who have made a lifestyle choice to exist on benefits. Stop namby pambying about with paying people to have children they can`t afford and stop pandering to the whole idea that people who refuse to work have the right to have a better standard of living than people who work. Of course mistakes will be made and people may lose out but we must start taking the initiative and stop erring on the side of caution all the time !!! How do we decide who has made the decision to sponge off the state as a lifestyle choice ?? I don`t know but I do know that criteria could be worked out that would be just as flawed as the idea that we should pay out to anybody who asks. We can`t afford the freeloaders and something really has to done or we`ll all go under.
YOu're right - time to start on the tax evaders, the tax exiles, the scum who live in tax havens like Jersey that only exist because we allow them to - it's time to make them pay their way. let's invade Sark... Your right,and I would agree to a point, but there is much less money to be had there than what is waisted in the welfare system, and if one is over zealous with collecting such funds we will push the very people who employ and invest massive amounts of money here to another country and loose there skills altogether Having said that, lets invade Sark anyway :twisted:
Quote by flower411 YOu're right - time to start on the tax evaders, the tax exiles, the scum who live in tax havens like Jersey that only exist because we allow them to - it's time to make them pay their way. let's invade Sark...
Suits me .... I just thought this thread was about the benefits system but I`m all for going off on tangents Let`s stop the banks from running the country.... We keep hearing that the banks are making a profit again....so when do we all get our money back ? I have never seen a problem with a discussion in a thread expanding, ebbing and flowing, surely its a natural occurrence
Cripes!(I always think that word sounds good when I'm a little drunk as now, and yes I know its early but it's been a really good night! I usually use Blimey). A thread we're all agreeing on! Hooray! Can we really invade Sark? I quite fancy a day out
Quote by Bluefish2009 YOu're right - time to start on the tax evaders, the tax exiles, the scum who live in tax havens like Jersey that only exist because we allow them to - it's time to make them pay their way. let's invade Sark...
Your right,and I would agree to a point, but there is much less money to be had there than what is wasted in the welfare system Sorry Blue, but how do you work that out? Estimates of revenues lost through illegal, fraudulent tax evasion suggest figures somewhere between 30 and 70 billion pounds. Makes the 4 billion allegedly over-claimed by the poor look like small potatoes, doesn't it? Course, the benefit claiming poor are easier to identify and target than the tax evaders, and besides the Tories know which side their bread's buttered on, and wouldn't want to go too hard after their pay masters?
and if one is over zealous with collecting such funds we will push the very people who employ and invest massive amounts of money here to another country and loose there skills altogether
You seem to be suggesting that the Govt should turn a blind eye to tax evaders, cos if they tried to actually collect the tax they're owed, the evaders might bugger off and evade tax somewhere else? That can't be what you meant, can it? N x x x ;)
Quote by neilinleeds 4 billion allegedly over-claimed by the poor look like small potatoes, doesn't it? Course, the benefit claiming poor are easier to identify and target than the tax evaders, and besides the Tories know which side their bread's buttered on, and wouldn't want to go too hard after their pay masters? N x x x ;)
some of these are not so poor neil lots have kids all dressed in designer gear when ever a threads appears regards to the great unwashed (serial dole claimers ) its quickly turned round to tax evasion and big companies as a company i pay over 300k in taxes a year am i happy that some of this money is dished out to layabouts an dole lifers ..no i fucking ain`t if i had my way some deserving disabled person and their family would get a much better quality of life with it . than waste on some scumbag that cant even get out of his fucking dressing gown or some one else that thinks is ok to pop out a kid every nine months till they have a fucking rugby team is it any wonder that big companies find ways of legally avoiding tax when the great unwashed decide to run rampage through london and do thousands of pounds worth of damage to these companies buildings in the name of anti capitalism how intelligent lets bite the hands that feeds us........ says it all really
Quote by Lizaleanrob 4 billion allegedly over-claimed by the poor look like small potatoes, doesn't it? Course, the benefit claiming poor are easier to identify and target than the tax evaders, and besides the Tories know which side their bread's buttered on, and wouldn't want to go too hard after their pay masters? N x x x ;)
some of these are not so poor neil lots have kids all dressed in designer gear when ever a threads appears regards to the great unwashed (serial dole claimers ) its quickly turned round to tax evasion and big companies as a company i pay over 300k in taxes a year am i happy that some of this money is dished out to layabouts an dole lifers ..no i fucking ain`t if i had my way some deserving disabled person and their family would get a much better quality of life with it . than waste on some scumbag that cant even get out of his fucking dressing gown or some one else that thinks is ok to pop out a kid every nine months till they have a fucking rugby team is it any wonder that big companies find ways of legally avoiding tax when the great unwashed decide to run rampage through london and do thousands of pounds worth of damage to these companies buildings in the name of anti capitalism how intelligent lets bite the hands that feeds us........ says it all really Have you considered anger management?
*Mod comment* Awayman, have you read >>>THIS<<<? While you may not agree with Lizaleanrob's opinion,at least he had the good grace to lay it out. The nature and context of the comment leaves little doubt that it's purely a personal remark and you'd be prudent to refrain from making these in the future.
Quote by Lizaleanrob 4 billion allegedly over-claimed by the poor look like small potatoes, doesn't it? Course, the benefit claiming poor are easier to identify and target than the tax evaders, and besides the Tories know which side their bread's buttered on, and wouldn't want to go too hard after their pay masters? N x x x ;)
some of these are not so poor neil lots have kids all dressed in designer gear when ever a threads appears regards to the great unwashed (serial dole claimers ) its quickly turned round to tax evasion and big companies as a company i pay over 300k in taxes a year am i happy that some of this money is dished out to layabouts an dole lifers ..no i fucking ain`t if i had my way some deserving disabled person and their family would get a much better quality of life with it . than waste on some scumbag that cant even get out of his fucking dressing gown or some one else that thinks is ok to pop out a kid every nine months till they have a fucking rugby team is it any wonder that big companies find ways of legally avoiding tax when the great unwashed decide to run rampage through london and do thousands of pounds worth of damage to these companies buildings in the name of anti capitalism how intelligent lets bite the hands that feeds us........ says it all really I agree with both that they are both wrong and need looking at. Neither is worse than the other in the moral stakes. What I can't get my head around is simple buisness sense. If your business had two problems and one leaked 70 billion and one leaked 4 billion...........which one would take the priority? Where would the company resources be poured into to stop the leak. This is what doesn't make sense to me Dave_Notts
Quote by easy *Mod comment* Awayman, have you read >>>THIS<<<? While you may not agree with Lizaleanrob's opinion,at least he had the good grace to lay it out. The nature and context of the comment leaves little doubt that it's purely a personal remark and you'd be prudent to refrain from making these in the future.
Bit of double standards going on here? To another member in another thread you said
Quote by easy I'd recommend a trip to the GPs.
And
Quote by easy As for suggesting that you visit a GP; I'm curious. In what way could that be considered offensive? Are you suggesting that there's something distasteful or shameful about having some form of mental health problem?
Is there one rule for personal remarks posted by Mods and another for members then?
Quote by s3xyl3xy *Mod comment* Awayman, have you read >>>THIS<<<? While you may not agree with Lizaleanrob's opinion,at least he had the good grace to lay it out. The nature and context of the comment leaves little doubt that it's purely a personal remark and you'd be prudent to refrain from making these in the future.
Bit of double standards going on here? To another member in another thread you said
Quote by easy I'd recommend a trip to the GPs.
And
Quote by easy As for suggesting that you visit a GP; I'm curious. In what way could that be considered offensive? Are you suggesting that there's something distasteful or shameful about having some form of mental health problem?
Is there one rule for personal remarks posted by Mods and another for members then? If you look at the posts and the times they were made you will notice that Admin have brought in a new approach. The line has been drawn and it goes from this time on. What has happened in the past stays in the past. Therefore the two posts are not comparable. If a Mod makes a comment that you feel is inappropriate then put in a complaint in the same way. They are just members and they have to abide by the AUP as well. Dave_Notts
Quote by s3xyl3xy *Mod comment* Awayman, have you read >>>THIS<<<? While you may not agree with Lizaleanrob's opinion,at least he had the good grace to lay it out. The nature and context of the comment leaves little doubt that it's purely a personal remark and you'd be prudent to refrain from making these in the future.
Bit of double standards going on here? To another member in another thread you said
Quote by easy I'd recommend a trip to the GPs.
And
Quote by easy As for suggesting that you visit a GP; I'm curious. In what way could that be considered offensive? Are you suggesting that there's something distasteful or shameful about having some form of mental health problem?
Is there one rule for personal remarks posted by Mods and another for members then? Ah you have noticed early on in your postings? There was me thinking I was being singled out. Davey has made a valid point.....time will tell if that is now to be the case.
Quote by Dave__Notts I agree with both that they are both wrong and need looking at. Neither is worse than the other in the moral stakes. What I can't get my head around is simple buisness sense. If your business had two problems and one leaked 70 billion and one leaked 4 billion...........which one would take the priority? Where would the company resources be poured into to stop the leak. This is what doesn't make sense to me Dave_Notts
we are talking two very different ideals Dave one is moneys owed the other is a non return drain on resources 20 billion a year is lost to elaborate criminal vat fraud the other is lost to companies using the law to avoid paying further taxes on top of the corporate tax they pay as well as ,paye,and Ni on employees etc etc imagine if any government came down hard or played hard ball with a lot of companies that use off shore companies to avoid some of their taxes we are now in a position where the UK needs these bigger companies more then they need the UK add to the fact they all ready pay billions of pounds into the UK with employment vat and other taxes I'm not sure playing rough will benefit our economy meanwhile the life style dole claimers amount to 4 billion and return nothing there is an old saying that 50% of something is better than 100% of fuck all its actually good business sense
I have to say, for me, I have a bigger problem with some one who would sit at home and take what others have worked hard for than some one who works hard and adds to the pot of tax but evades paying what he should. I am not saying that is right but its how my brain works
Quote by easy *Mod comment* Awayman, have you read >>>THIS<<<? While you may not agree with Lizaleanrob's opinion,at least he had the good grace to lay it out. The nature and context of the comment leaves little doubt that it's purely a personal remark and you'd be prudent to refrain from making these in the future.
I have, and I have previously PM'd a mod making precisely the point that the new interpretation of the AUP is impossible to understand without practical examples that we can all work from. So, it now appears to be part of the AUP that we can't pass comment on the emotive language used by others. That's fine, we know that now, and that we need to take account of what a mod may or may not construe to be a personal remark, and hope that that definition does not prove to be a movable feast.
Quote by Lizaleanrob 4 billion allegedly over-claimed by the poor look like small potatoes, doesn't it? Course, the benefit claiming poor are easier to identify and target than the tax evaders, and besides the Tories know which side their bread's buttered on, and wouldn't want to go too hard after their pay masters? N x x x ;)
some of these are not so poor neil lots have kids all dressed in designer gear when ever a threads appears regards to the great unwashed (serial dole claimers ) its quickly turned round to tax evasion and big companies as a company i pay over 300k in taxes a year am i happy that some of this money is dished out to layabouts an dole lifers ..no i fucking ain`t if i had my way some deserving disabled person and their family would get a much better quality of life with it . than waste on some scumbag that cant even get out of his fucking dressing gown or some one else that thinks is ok to pop out a kid every nine months till they have a fucking rugby team is it any wonder that big companies find ways of legally avoiding tax when the great unwashed decide to run rampage through london and do thousands of pounds worth of damage to these companies buildings in the name of anti capitalism how intelligent lets bite the hands that feeds us........ says it all really I didn't know that having kids dressed in designer gear was a marker of having more money than you need. Is it OK if the designer gear was bought on tick, or from a charity shop? You might think I'm being flippant but a huge proportion of the work of citizens advice bureaux and debt advice teams is helping benefit dependent families with the burden of consumer debt as they try to provide for their children. The logic of your post appears to imply that benefit recipients should be only allowed some kind of utility clothing; presumably that range of utility clothing would have deodorant capabilities built in to cope with the unwashed nature of the poor that you have identified (but not proven). The idea of associating the poor with anti capitalism demonstrations seems to me to be unproven; in my experience such demos are more likely to be the playground of well heeled malcontents than of the destitute. The idea that the poor are to blame for tax evasion is simply risible. Did the board of directors of Tesco sit down and say 'we hate the poor, let's dodge VAT by selling DVDs from Jersey?' Or did they look at their bonus schemes and their share price, and say to each other 'If we dodge VAT by selling DVDs from Jersey we can make an extra 12% which will boost our share price and therefore our bonuses? Pass the Bolly Mrs Miggins, there's a good wage slave...' Did Phillip Green tell his wife 'We're making you a tax exile because of politics my dear?' Of course not. He did it because he's a greedy, selfish bastard. One of the odd things about the AUP as it has been reinterpreted is that, of course, any benefit recipients who use this site aren't offered any protection from what looks like a potentially offensive set of generalizations. I've no doubt that any fans of Phillip Green out there might make the same point about the fact that I think he's selfish, greedy scum as bad as Fred Goodwin. Thats probably why this forum doesn't work in its current format.
We seem to have 3 separate threads going on here!!! I'm off in my dinghy to join the Sark Freedom Force.......Always up for defending the little buggers!! :twisted: Re the welfare bill We're the victims of constant 'patching' of the system......sometimes for idealogical reasons......most of which 'fix' one problem and create a dozen more which has created a behemoth that no-one understands properly......including the 'experts' employed to administer the system. Having, quite recently, suffered ill heath which prevented me continuing with my, small, self employed business I've had personal experience of some of the chaos within the system. I've witnessed sums in excess of £32,000 being wasted on 'training' for positions that simply didn't exist.......and, when the authorities were made aware of it, simply 'buried it!! On top of that.......there are strange situations where......to qualify for certain help with obtaining work.....you can, effectively, disqualify yourself from considerable ammounts in financial help when you DO obtain work......because of conflicts in the rules.........Hardly surprising that people who discover these things opt to stay on benefits .....is it?? What is REALLY needed is a cross party agreement that the whole system needs to be ripped up and started afresh......which would deal with all the existing 'problems'.......Though I'm far from certain in the present economic climate that adequate safeguards would be built in to the new system. YES!!!.....we all know SOME people abuse the system........but how often are we made aware of people who the system lets down on a regular basis??? The third thread I couldn't agree more with kentswingers and Ned........It's LONG overdue that the politicos showed the balls to deal with the HUGE abuses carried out by business.......unfortunately with the demise of a real Labour party there doesn't seem to be the will to deal with these abuses. Morally there is NO defence......but whoever claimed that busnesses or political parties are governed by morals?????.......POWER makes much more sense from their perspective!!! I admit to being left wing in my views......but don't take that to mean that I'm blind to abuses on either side!!!.....Some of the comments here have me seriously worried about the society we've been left with!!......Blame whichever party you like!! Chris
I know the welfare budget is out of control, but then again so are some of the people who abuse it.
Imagine for a second how much this twat has actually cost the welfare state and will continue to do for years to come....it will run into millions I bet. One guy spreading his seed to all and sundry, and he will probably have even more. Irresponsible toe rag. Even if you look at this case as a one off, the cost will be mind boggling over the years. The pictures of some of the girls put up the duff by this strange looking geezer says it all for me. I know I said in a previous thread that everyone has intelligence,reading this story and seeing pictures of these people, I think my statement could be a load of rubbish, as intelligence in these people has long since slipped out of their bedroom windows,
0 likes
