Where having children is too unaffordable if you work

First topic message reminder :

that's because those at work unable to afford them will be taxed for those who stay at home.

Her is a brief article about the Philpott case a few months ago. Philpott is the anti hero to us Tories and to many on here an icon who should be defended at all cost.

As the article says we are creating a society where the Philpott mentality is passed do to the next generation but those hard working people who can't afford children can be role models to no one.

Be careful what you wish for comrades I so wish I could move all these problem families next to you.

From the Spectator

The Philpott case has already turned into a row about media reporting. You can see why. It is so much easier to argue about a newspaper front-page than to talk about the terrible underclass this country has created.

In a nutshell our problem is this. For hard-working couples, having children in 21st century Britain is unbelievably costly. Having been taxed at every turn of their lives they have to think extremely carefully about whether they can afford to have a child. Many will decide they cannot. Others will decide that they can but will spend endless nights worrying over how they are going to support the child they have brought into the world. If they find they can afford that first child they will still think very hard about whether they can afford a second, let alone a third.

The cosmic joke is that at the same time that such couples are worrying about their bills, they will be paying money to encourage another group of people to have children with few such concerns. Of course most of this latter group do not live like millionaires. And naturally most do not burn their children to death. But there is a substantial class – or underclass – in this country which no longer shares the concerns of what used to be ordinary people.

If you think this is not an issue – like much of the political left – then you have to ask yourself a straightforward question. What is the long-term future for a country where responsible people are discouraged from having children and the irresponsible encouraged? And yes – it is not just irresponsible, but deeply, deeply irreponsible to bring a child into the world if you do not have the means to support that child, let alone no intention of obtaining such means. Of course some peoples’ circumstances change for the worse and the welfare state should be there precisely to support such people. But people who have no job and no prospect of getting one and yet have more children are bad and selfish people.

A simple reversal needs to take place so that people on welfare are dis-incentivised from having children and working couples are incentivised. Exactly how this should be done can be debated. But what should not be debated is that people on welfare should not just worry about having children as much as working couples do – they should worry about it far, far more. And that is not just because the cost of their actions ought to be higher, but because the cost of their actions is higher..

However, as the war against Iain Duncan Smith’s efforts has shown, this country appears unwilling to make such basic judgements. It often seems that we are going to have to hit the bottom and break completely before some people realise it needs fixing at all.

Sassy wrote:The rich, the tax dodging and the old are not asked to make sacrifices, which they won't be, because they are likely to vote Conservative, so why the hell should the poor give up having families.   Most of the young people who are out of work through no choice of their own, will be out of work through their safest childbearing years.   The arguments being used to stop them having children are exactly the same arguments against them having children in Victorian times.   It seems the mindset is going backwards, not forwards.

Firstly if you argue that British young people are unemployed through no fault of their own you must by default demand an end to immigrants entering the country as there cannot be work for them. If you argue that most immigrants entering the country work and earn their living you cannot by default argue that British young people are unemployed through no fault of their own because if there is sufficient work for immigrants to take then British young people could choose to take that work as well.

Secondly in Victorian times there did was not a system that made non working more comfortable than working. Neither was there freely available birth control.

Then there are your constant attempts to group "poor" "unemployed" and "benefit claimants" into one group and assume that statements referring to one of these groups encompasses all of them under the title heading "the poor". At the same time you refuse to countenance that anyone within the "working" group can possibly also be part of the "poor" group. These are classical attempts to use language to frame an argument by restricting the ideas it is possible to work with.

So to summarise:

• We live in a time where it is possible if not common for someone not working to be more comfortable than someone who is
  
• We live in a society with plentiful effective birth control
  
• "Poor" does not automatically mean "unemployed" or "benefit claimant"
  
• "unemployed does not automatically mean "poor" or "benefit claimant"
  
• "benefit claimant" does not automatically mean "poor" or "unemployed"
  
• "working" is not an automatic exclusion from "poor"

Using the above summary we have a situation where people can choose when and how many times to have children. We have a situation where people who are dependant on benefits are paid more money every time they have a child. We have a situation where people who are working and poor do not get more money if they have another child. That arrangement of situations are perverse.

sphinx wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:What you need is more immigrants to drive down the costs of child care, maybe some sort of incentive for those willing to take minimum wage child care jobs?

That's what we have done with retirement homes, child care and several other things. Our Minimum wage is still much higher than the average wage in South East Asia so there have been plenty of takers.

How would cheaper childcare help?

People on minimum wage cannot afford to pay someone else on minimum wage.

Quite besides that I personally am against the "childcare is the panacea for all evils" approach currently taken.  

@sphinx
1 parent can't but 6 on minimum wage can afford to pay 1 to look after the 6 kids.

Here the arguments around child care almost always centre on the cost, apart from the wages there is quite of lot of accreditations and insurances they need to take out, which all cost money.

"childcare is the panacea for all evils"

maybe there are other issues in the UK childcare, never heard anyone say that here. Really it is quite like the hunter gatherers where a few adults would stay with the kids while the rest went out and got food.

veya_victaous wrote:

sphinx wrote:

How would cheaper childcare help?

People on minimum wage cannot afford to pay someone else on minimum wage.

Quite besides that I personally am against the "childcare is the panacea for all evils" approach currently taken.  

@sphinx
1 parent can't but 6 on minimum wage can afford to pay 1 to look after the 6 kids.

Here the arguments around child care almost always centre on the cost, apart from the wages there is quite of lot of accreditations and insurances they need to take out, which all cost money.

"childcare is the panacea for all evils"

maybe there are other issues in the UK childcare, never heard anyone say that here. Really it is quite like the hunter gatherers where a few adults would stay with the kids while the rest went out and got food.

1 person looking after 6 children all for minimum wage. Wow. I cant believe to contemplate the quality of that arrangement.

I am not sure what the case is where you are but over here there is huge amounts of research from many different countries studying the effect of different child rearing practices (under 5s) on the overall development of the child. The conclusion is that involved parent is by far the best, narrowly followed by grandparent (parent in context is main caregiver so a grandparent who has fostered/adopted a grandchild would be parent in this argument) then directly employed specialist individual in own home limited to child(ren) of one family then a larger gap to come into child minders who vary from good to not so good - and multiple children looked after by someone on minimum wage is not good. Then there are nurseries the best match bad childminders and the worst are well you get the idea. Anyway other countries close to us tend to offer parents the choice of funding childcare or taking extra money for a parent (usually the mother but that is parental choice) to stay at home. However the UK provides funding for childcare not covering much about middle of the road childminder with no option for paid parental care.

Hunter gatherer societies have a totally different make-up to modern communities - I am deeply unhappy with the childcare policies currently espoused in the country where I live.

So, when universal credit comes in and no one "know's" who is actually "on benefits" since they all will be effectively...vis Sphinx's argument over on the landlords thread, are you lot saying that ANYONE earning even considerably MORE than minimum wage (i.e getting tax credits) should not be allowed to have children? Here comes the truth...ONLY the well heeled tax dodging elite should be allowed to breed....shades of the stomp of jackboots .......

grumpy old git wrote:So, when universal credit comes in and no one "know's" who is actually "on benefits" since they all will be effectively...vis Sphinx's argument over on the landlords thread, are you lot saying that ANYONE earning even considerably MORE than minimum wage (i.e getting tax credits) should not be allowed to have children? Here comes the truth...ONLY the well heeled tax dodging elite should be allowed to breed....shades of the stomp of jackboots .......

Hoisted by my own petard   

I will stand by the statement that parents who work should receive an increase in their money while those not working should not.

Plenty do fine with 6 to 1, first year of school they are looking 25 to 1   

normally this would be 3 and 4 year olds, I sort of agree it may not be the best but it is the reality in a society that requires both parents to be working to earn enough. it is the double edged sword of women's rights the woman's right to a career is in trade off with a childs right to a mother. Unfortunatly we are not seeing women working instead of men as much as we see both parents working.

veya_victaous wrote:Plenty do fine with 6 to 1, first year of school they are looking 25 to 1    

normally this would be 3 and 4 year olds, I sort of agree it may not be the best but it is the reality in a society that requires both parents to be working to earn enough. it is the double edged sword of women's rights the woman's right to a career is in trade off with a childs right to a mother. Unfortunatly we are not seeing women working instead of men as much as we see both parents working.

I did specify under 5s. My concern is that most countries around us offer parents the choice between subsidised childcare or a payment to the parent staying home at a slightly lesser rate so parents have the financial freedom to choose. The UK does not. My argument is if they are prepared to pay £200 a week childcare for somone who pays £30 a week tax then they should be able to offer than same person £150 a week to stay at home (net cost of childcare £170 versus net cost of homecare £150) so that people can decide to stay at home

However I would have to add some provisions to this that the parents that stayed at home were actually parenting. I know the left likes to believe that the whole concept of giving birth to increase benefits and not giving a shit about the kids is myth unfortunately I can tell you that it does happen because I have seen it and I would not want to encourage that sort of parenting as its outcomes for the kids are even worse than nursery.

we dont have that here either. but you do get money for the first 6 months regardless.

Single mothers get benifits here and yes it does mean that there are some 'professional' Single mothers, with half a dozen kids to half a dozen different fathers.

Lots of grandparents are doing the childcare, during the day, for working parent(s)...These days though, that was my family set up.(gran provided child care for us)...My brother and his wife are both professional workers, and his wife's mother is going to be providing the child care for my nephew...and the new child that is on the way.

veya_victaous wrote:we dont have that here either.  but you do get money for the first 6 months regardless.

Single mothers get benifits here and yes it does mean that there are some 'professional' Single mothers, with half a dozen kids to half a dozen different fathers.

I am not saying single mothers are not good enough - I was one. I will say that women who become single mothers for the benefits and get pregnant multiple times by whoever will shag them at the time are only very rarely good enough.

I also believe that all children need both parents involved to the utmost - to say my ex is not my favourite person is an understatement (and I have no doubt he feels the same about me) and all things equal we would both much rather never have to admit the existence of the other yet alone see each other and speak to each other - however our children are what is important and we remain civil with the most equal child care split and the kids can contact the other parent at any point - if there is an issue affecting the children we all - parents and their new partners - get together to sort it as a unified front. I am proud to say I have 2 sons at college doing well in higher education with the 2 younger ones getting good reports from secondary school and I firmly believe a significant part of that is because me and their father put our personal feelings aside to do what is best for their children.

I dont think you have been so much "hoist by your OWN petard" sphinx, though all credit to you for saying so, more that you have been caught up in the potential mess that happens when you try to tinker with a system that is already broken. Yes I think its broken  and really no longer fit for purpose, but its better left un fiddled with than having changes brought in that have not been thought through.

the following is something that I posted a year or two back on another forum IT IS ONLY PART of that post, so bear that in mind..there were other bits to it but in essence this is whats needed to make a "truely universal credit"
the possibility of doing it rather rests on figures I cant access but........






11…remove ALL state benefits pensions etc

now…stop slavering…..wait….down you dog called the left,

12…replace it with a SINGLE…UNTAXABLE state payment, payable to ALL UK citizens over the age of 16, on a residency basis ONLY…at a level which provides a bare minimum standard of living ( I would guess that’s about at statutory minimum wage level)

13 remove the statutory minimum wage

14 remove all tax allowances

15 All income beyond the state payment to be taxed at 50% up to 150,000

16 over 150,000 taxed at 75%

17 make all tax returns the duty of the EMPLOYER…..with heavy penalties for defaulters




We have, on all sides of the political divide, to realise that for good or bad, and for whatever reason and regardless of who’s “fault it is , the world has changed mightily.
2-3 generations have lived in a system where there has been little hope of a job, such jobs as are available are seen as demeaning and or unpleasant. It has also to be recognised that many jobs which would have sustained most of these folk have gone for good…exported…destroyed. There is a job gulf bigger than ever before…its either cleaning the loos or a degree position…so we have to recognise that there are a lot, an awful lot, of folks who are going to be loo cleaners….NOT.
It must also be recognised that due to years of poor social education, poor parental and teacher leadership, and the sickening creep of socialist sheeping visible in soaps and the brainless useless celebrity magazines….there are a lot of folks who are psychologically incapable of work in any sustained manner, but who would, if given the chance do some part time work here and there In order to better themselves. Those who WANT to work…will…and despite a higher tax band etc would still be much better of even I suspect than at present.

We should get away from the Victorian “christian work ethic”…that is no longer fit for the purpose, and instead focus on creating a society where fairness means a relaxed attitude to working, where working is as much for self improvement as it is for “stuffing the wallet of the industrialist” and at the same time recognising that not everyone is born to be top man….as Einstein said….”Vell….Ve cant all be first violinners in der orchestra, some of us have to push der vindt through der trombone”

Yes there will be those who will just say oki …I’ll take the state wage and put me feet up….but then that’s where they will stay…...some will say well I want a bit more…and do part time ..here and there jobs…easy to do with no dole office idiots to try to negotiate part time work with… others will as they always have…get on with things and get well paid full time jobs..with the state wage making up for the loss due to higher taxes etc…and with some to spare in the middle bracket…which most of us belong to I suspect.

I strongly suspect that such a move would benefit everyone, providing financial security for all, at the penalty of just retargeting costs and payments.

Finally let me ask you to read carefully and think through the implications of this approach…I know there are things implicit in this that I haven’t made obvious…due to time…and the fact I cant think and type at the same time Things like the cost of providing the present benefits costs as much or more as the benfits themselves…get rid of the benefits and you get back double…

Catman wrote:Lots of grandparents are doing the childcare, during the day, for working parent(s)...These days though, that was my family set up.(gran provided child care for us)...My brother and his wife are both professional workers, and his wife's mother is going to be providing the child care for my nephew...and the new child that is on the way.

Like I pointed out grandparent care is only slightly behind parental care - and that is when considered over tens of thousands of families so in any individual case grandparents are likely to be just as good as parents.

sphinx wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:we dont have that here either.  but you do get money for the first 6 months regardless.

Single mothers get benifits here and yes it does mean that there are some 'professional' Single mothers, with half a dozen kids to half a dozen different fathers.

I am not saying single mothers are not good enough - I was one.  I will say that women who become single mothers for the benefits and get pregnant multiple times by whoever will shag them at the time are only very rarely good enough.

I also believe that all children need both parents involved to the utmost - to say my ex is not my favourite person is an understatement (and I have no doubt he feels the same about me) and all things equal we would both much rather never have to admit the existence of the other yet alone see each other and speak to each other - however our children are what is important and we remain civil with the most equal child care split and the kids can contact the other parent at any point - if there is an issue affecting the children we all - parents and their new partners - get together to sort it as a unified front.  I am proud to say I have 2 sons at college doing well in higher education with the 2 younger ones getting good reports from secondary school and I firmly believe a significant part of that is because me and their father put our personal feelings aside to do what is best for their children.

Bravo sphinx, thats how it should be done, BOTH of you, regardless of your feelings for one another can hold your heads up high over this...  

sphinx wrote:

Catman wrote:Lots of grandparents are doing the childcare, during the day, for working parent(s)...These days though, that was my family set up.(gran provided child care for us)...My brother and his wife are both professional workers, and his wife's mother is going to be providing the child care for my nephew...and the new child that is on the way.

Like I pointed out grandparent care is only slightly behind parental care - and that is when considered over tens of thousands of families so in any individual case grandparents are likely to be just as good as parents.

Well, my mum would never have been able to go out to work full-time, if my gran hadn't stepped in to provide the child care....Won't be possible in all cases....But isn't the Asian model like that as well?

grumpy old git wrote:I dont think you have been so much "hoist by your OWN petard" sphinx, though all credit to you for saying so, more that you have been caught up in the potential mess that happens when you try to tinker with a system that is already broken.  Yes I think its broken  and really no longer fit for purpose, but its better left un fiddled with than having changes brought in that have not been thought through.

the following is something that I posted a year or two back on another forum IT IS ONLY PART  of that post, so bear that in mind..there were other bits to it but in essence this is whats needed to make a "truely universal credit"
the possibility of doing it rather rests on figures I cant access but........






11…remove ALL state benefits pensions etc

now…stop slavering…..wait….down you dog called the left,

12…replace it with a SINGLE…UNTAXABLE state payment, payable to ALL UK citizens over the age of 16, on a residency basis ONLY…at a level which provides a bare minimum standard of living ( I would guess that’s about at statutory minimum wage level)

13 remove the statutory minimum wage

14  remove all tax allowances

15 All income beyond the state payment to be taxed at 50% up to 150,000

16 over 150,000 taxed at 75%

17 make all tax returns the duty of the EMPLOYER…..with heavy penalties for defaulters




We have, on all sides of the political divide, to realise that for good or bad, and for whatever reason and regardless of who’s “fault it is , the world has changed mightily.
2-3 generations have lived in a system where there has been little hope of a job, such jobs as are available are seen as demeaning and or unpleasant. It has also to be recognised that many jobs which would have sustained most of these folk have gone for good…exported…destroyed.   There is a job gulf bigger than ever before…its either cleaning the loos or a degree position…so we have to recognise that there are a lot, an awful lot, of folks who are going to be loo cleaners….NOT.
It must also be recognised that due to years of  poor social education, poor parental and teacher leadership, and the sickening creep of socialist sheeping visible in soaps and the brainless useless celebrity magazines….there are a lot of folks who are psychologically incapable of work in any sustained manner, but who would, if given the chance do some part time work here and there In order to better themselves. Those who WANT to work…will…and despite a higher tax band etc would still be much better of even I suspect than at present.

We should get away from the Victorian “christian work ethic”…that is no longer fit for the purpose, and instead focus on creating a society where fairness means a relaxed attitude to working, where working is as much for self improvement as it is for “stuffing the wallet of the industrialist” and at the same time recognising that not everyone is born to be top man….as Einstein said….”Vell….Ve cant all be first violinners in der orchestra, some of us have to push der vindt through der trombone”

Yes there will be those who will just say oki …I’ll take the state wage and put me feet up….but then that’s where they will stay…...some will say well I want a bit more…and do part time ..here and there jobs…easy to do with no dole office idiots to try to negotiate part time work with… others will as they always have…get on with things and get well paid full time jobs..with the state wage making up for the loss due to higher taxes etc…and with some to spare in the middle bracket…which most of us belong to I suspect.

I strongly suspect that such a move would benefit everyone, providing  financial security for all, at the penalty of just retargeting costs and payments.

Finally let me ask you to read carefully and think through the implications of this approach…I know there are things implicit in this that I haven’t made obvious…due to time…and the fact I cant think and type at the same time  Things like the cost of providing the present benefits costs as much or more as the benfits themselves…get rid of the benefits and you get back double…

Actually to be fair part of my reasoning is that I am at base an optimist who believes in human nature being benevolent. I believe that one result of the introduction of Universal Credit will be a change in attitude among those who currently feel work is not worth it or is beneath them. The system at the moment actively discourages part time temporary working because you have to fill out vast amounts of paper work and keep at most £10. The rest is taken from your benefits and because of having different benefits the rates of deductions mean it is possible to lose £1.05 for each £1 earned (I have been there). Universal credits will see people keep the first £56 no matter what - and deductions after £56 mean you only lost 70p in each £1. This means that even taking 4 hours work for a single day will result in more money in peoples pocket without the hassle of interminable paperwork. As people learn that working pays - and pays easy, more people will be willing to do more work. That job of `10 hours a week cleaning toilets that currently results in next to no change in income will slowly start to think hang on that if cleaning toilets equals an extra £60.97 in my pocket then I will clean toilets - and with every person in the country willing and looking to work then the argument of not having children if you are unemployed becomes meaningless.

Like I said I am a confirmed optimist.

grumpy old git wrote:

sphinx wrote:

I am not saying single mothers are not good enough - I was one.  I will say that women who become single mothers for the benefits and get pregnant multiple times by whoever will shag them at the time are only very rarely good enough.

I also believe that all children need both parents involved to the utmost - to say my ex is not my favourite person is an understatement (and I have no doubt he feels the same about me) and all things equal we would both much rather never have to admit the existence of the other yet alone see each other and speak to each other - however our children are what is important and we remain civil with the most equal child care split and the kids can contact the other parent at any point - if there is an issue affecting the children we all - parents and their new partners - get together to sort it as a unified front.  I am proud to say I have 2 sons at college doing well in higher education with the 2 younger ones getting good reports from secondary school and I firmly believe a significant part of that is because me and their father put our personal feelings aside to do what is best for their children.

Bravo sphinx, thats how it should be done, BOTH of you, regardless of your feelings for one another can hold your heads up high over this...  

Thank you Grumpy - I am not going to claim its easy or that we are perfect parents because it isnt and we are not - but it is better for the kids to have 2 imperfect parents to cushion each others cock ups than have one imperfect parent that thinks they know everything.

I know Sphinx...been there...got the tee shirt...and not a few scars from the old witches voodoo doll.......

Being idle is handsomely rewarded in modern Britain.

Face it, the Conservatives have tried, but there is very stiff opposition by the coalition of muslims, foreigners, unions and scroungers (the left).

grumpy old git wrote:I know Sphinx...been there...got the tee shirt...and not a few scars from the old witches voodoo doll.......

Lol - I learned from my parents. They always stayed civil over me and access was kept open whichever parent I was living with while with my half brother his father tried every trick under the sun to deprive my mum of access. I got to witness first hand the difference between parents putting their kids first and parents using their kids as weapons - both me and my brother always used to ask mum why she let his dad do what he did to her without fighting back - as a parent I finally understand the size of the sacrifice she made to put my brother first - and so does he.

BigAndy9 wrote:Being idle is handsomely rewarded in modern Britain.

Face it, the Conservatives have tried, but there is very stiff opposition by the coalition of muslims, foreigners, unions and scroungers (the left).

Idleness is not a choice for most ...YOU CHOOSE to ignore that fact that there at least 8 people for every job.... even IF we filled every vacancy.....what about the other 7...idleness is a choice all right....but one made by the politicians, who have FAILED to protect our people, and, all of em, liberal, conservative and labour, have made themselves and their financial masters rich on the backs of us all.....

grumpy old git wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:Being idle is handsomely rewarded in modern Britain.

Face it, the Conservatives have tried, but there is very stiff opposition by the coalition of muslims, foreigners, unions and scroungers (the left).

Idleness is not a choice for most ...YOU CHOOSE to ignore that fact that there at least 8 people for every job.... even IF we filled every vacancy.....what about the other 7...idleness is a choice all right....but one made by the politicians, who have FAILED to protect our people, and, all of em, liberal, conservative and labour, have made themselves and their financial masters rich on the backs of us all.....

As I pointed out to Sassy in another thread - you cannot claim that people being out of work is their own fault while at the same time insisting immigrants come here to work. That is not an accusation I am aiming at you grumpy but the fact is immigrants come here and most find work here so the allegation there are not enough jobs simply does not stand up.

well it does by the official figures, all I can say to your point is that IF that is the case then the unemployment figures are even worse THAN THEY AT FIRST SIGHT APPEAR,
SO WE INSTEAD HAVE 12 UNEMPLOYED PEOPLE going after 1 job, (because some of the jobs are taken by immigrants)
However you look at it there are insufficient jobs for the number of people who need jobs...and thats NOT going to get any better unless someone (in govt) pull their bloody finger out and actually does something for this country, instead of spongeing off it...and us

Also, the facts and figures are there - a little research will reveal those who are real scroungers (I don't think anybody would deny we have real scroungers out there) - just punish them, and punish them hard.

BigAndy9 wrote:Also, the facts and figures are there - a little research will reveal those who are real scroungers (I don't think anybody would deny we have real scroungers out there) - just punish them, and punish them hard.

Yea....The bwankers, politicians, lawyers that rely on legal aid etc...  

sphinx wrote:

Sassy wrote:The rich, the tax dodging and the old are not asked to make sacrifices, which they won't be, because they are likely to vote Conservative, so why the hell should the poor give up having families.   Most of the young people who are out of work through no choice of their own, will be out of work through their safest childbearing years.   The arguments being used to stop them having children are exactly the same arguments against them having children in Victorian times.   It seems the mindset is going backwards, not forwards.

Firstly if you argue that British young people are unemployed through no fault of their own you must by default demand an end to immigrants entering the country as there cannot be work for them.  If you argue that most immigrants entering the country work and earn their living you cannot by default argue that British young people are unemployed through no fault of their own because if there is sufficient work for immigrants to take then British young people could choose to take that work as well.

Secondly in Victorian times there did was not a system that made non working more comfortable than working.  Neither was there freely available birth control.

Then there are your constant  attempts to group "poor" "unemployed" and "benefit claimants" into one group and assume that statements referring to one of these groups encompasses all of them under the title heading "the poor".  At the same time you refuse to countenance that anyone within the "working" group can possibly also be part of the "poor" group.  These are classical attempts to use language to frame an argument by restricting the ideas it is possible to work with.

So to summarise:

• We live in a time where it is possible if not common for someone not working to be more comfortable than someone who is
  
• We live in a society with plentiful effective birth control
  
• "Poor" does not automatically mean "unemployed" or "benefit claimant"
  
• "unemployed does not automatically mean "poor" or "benefit claimant"
  
• "benefit claimant" does not automatically mean "poor" or "unemployed"
  
• "working" is not an automatic exclusion from "poor"
  

Using the above summary we have a situation where people can choose when and how many times to have children.  We have a situation where people who are dependant on benefits are paid more money every time they have a child.  We have a situation where people who are working and poor do not get more money if they have another child.  That arrangement of situations are perverse.

What I've highlighted above is just plain wrong. Young people can't get work because there are not enough jobs for them. The jobs you are claiming that are taken by immigrants are not taken by young immigrants coming here straight out of school with no working background to speak of they are taken by people who already have the skills to do the work.

You have a very poor opinion of the young people in this country who are looking for work and quite honestly it stinks in the way you speak of them as if they do not want to work. It's nonsense.

Irn Bru wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Firstly if you argue that British young people are unemployed through no fault of their own you must by default demand an end to immigrants entering the country as there cannot be work for them.  If you argue that most immigrants entering the country work and earn their living you cannot by default argue that British young people are unemployed through no fault of their own because if there is sufficient work for immigrants to take then British young people could choose to take that work as well.

Secondly in Victorian times there did was not a system that made non working more comfortable than working.  Neither was there freely available birth control.

Then there are your constant  attempts to group "poor" "unemployed" and "benefit claimants" into one group and assume that statements referring to one of these groups encompasses all of them under the title heading "the poor".  At the same time you refuse to countenance that anyone within the "working" group can possibly also be part of the "poor" group.  These are classical attempts to use language to frame an argument by restricting the ideas it is possible to work with.

So to summarise:

• We live in a time where it is possible if not common for someone not working to be more comfortable than someone who is
  
• We live in a society with plentiful effective birth control
  
• "Poor" does not automatically mean "unemployed" or "benefit claimant"
  
• "unemployed does not automatically mean "poor" or "benefit claimant"
  
• "benefit claimant" does not automatically mean "poor" or "unemployed"
  
• "working" is not an automatic exclusion from "poor"
  

Using the above summary we have a situation where people can choose when and how many times to have children.  We have a situation where people who are dependant on benefits are paid more money every time they have a child.  We have a situation where people who are working and poor do not get more money if they have another child.  That arrangement of situations are perverse.

What I've highlighted above is just plain wrong. Young people can't get work because there are not enough jobs for them. The jobs you are claiming that are taken by immigrants are not taken by young immigrants  coming here straight out of school with no working background to speak of they are taken by people who already have the skills to do the work.

You have a very poor opinion of the young people in this country who are looking for work and quite honestly it stinks in the way you speak of them as if they do not want to work. It's nonsense.

Simply speaking - BOLLOCKS. I have enough experience of young people to know that any young person who wants to work will find work - the politicians poster boy for the Romanian refugees employment was a hand labour car wash and I have teens as children and know exactly what work is available.

I do not have a poor opinion of young people in general - I know too many working their tails off in jobs that are frankly disgusting - I simply do not accept the allegation than most of the unemployed British are unemployed through no fault of their own because I know how many no skills no qualification jobs their are out there - I have children going for them. I have seen too many young British turn their noses up at such things as working in Mcdonalds (yet alone the nasty dirty stuff ) simply because either the bank of Mum and Dad or JSA will cover the top ups on their phone and pay for a few cans of lager a week.

The fact of the matter is if there is work for immigrants - which it is claimed there is, then there is work for UK residents. If they are not taking it then it is due to choice not fault.

sphinx wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

What I've highlighted above is just plain wrong. Young people can't get work because there are not enough jobs for them. The jobs you are claiming that are taken by immigrants are not taken by young immigrants  coming here straight out of school with no working background to speak of they are taken by people who already have the skills to do the work.

You have a very poor opinion of the young people in this country who are looking for work and quite honestly it stinks in the way you speak of them as if they do not want to work. It's nonsense.

Simply speaking - BOLLOCKS.  I have enough experience of young people to know that any young person who wants to work will find work - the politicians poster boy for the Romanian refugees  employment was a hand labour car wash and I have teens as children and know exactly what work is available.

I do not have a poor opinion of young people in general - I know too many working their tails off in jobs that are frankly disgusting - I simply do not accept the allegation than most of the unemployed British are unemployed through no fault of their own because I know how many no skills no qualification jobs their are out there - I have children going for them.  I have seen too many young British turn their noses up at such things as working in Mcdonalds (yet alone  the nasty dirty stuff ) simply because either the bank of Mum and Dad or JSA will cover the top ups on their phone and pay for a few cans of lager a week.

The fact of the matter is if there is work for immigrants - which it is claimed there is, then there is work for UK residents.  If they are not taking it then it is due to choice not fault.

What I've highlighted above is  where the BOLLOCKS starts because you base everything on what you find by talking to people in and around your street. If there are so many young people unemployed then you are by default claiming that there is work for all of them and therefore all of them are just lazy and do not want jobs.

That's the reality of what you are saying which just shows you have a very poor opinion of the young people in this country who want to work but can't find a job because as you said they are all taken by immigrants. You have just put down a whole generation of young people as being nothing more than people living off their parents who pay for their mobile phone top ups and cans of lager. That in itself shows you have absolutely no experience of working with young unemployed people and quite honestly your lecturing attitude just shows you up as a know all who actually knows very little about the young people in this country and it stinks to high heaven..

You can't have it both ways.

Irn Bru wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Simply speaking - BOLLOCKS.  I have enough experience of young people to know that any young person who wants to work will find work - the politicians poster boy for the Romanian refugees  employment was a hand labour car wash and I have teens as children and know exactly what work is available.

I do not have a poor opinion of young people in general - I know too many working their tails off in jobs that are frankly disgusting - I simply do not accept the allegation than most of the unemployed British are unemployed through no fault of their own because I know how many no skills no qualification jobs their are out there - I have children going for them.  I have seen too many young British turn their noses up at such things as working in Mcdonalds (yet alone  the nasty dirty stuff ) simply because either the bank of Mum and Dad or JSA will cover the top ups on their phone and pay for a few cans of lager a week.

The fact of the matter is if there is work for immigrants - which it is claimed there is, then there is work for UK residents.  If they are not taking it then it is due to choice not fault.

What I've highlighted above is  where the BOLLOCKS starts because you base everything on what you find by talking to people in and around your street. If there are so many young people unemployed then you are by default claiming that there is work for all of them and therefore all of them are just lazy and do not want jobs.

That's the reality of what you are saying which just shows you have a very poor opinion of the young people in this country who want to work but can't find a job because as you said they are all taken by immigrants. You have just put down a whole generation of young people as being nothing more than people living off their parents who pay for their mobile phone top ups and cans of lager. That in itself shows you have absolutely no experience of working with young unemployed people and quite honestly your lecturing attitude just shows you up as a know all who actually knows very little about the young people in this country and it stinks to high heaven..

You can't have it both ways.

I am not putting a whole generation down - as I keep saying people keep telling me that the immigrants come here to work not claim benefits so the work must be here or the immigrants wouldnt be coming or wouldnt be able to work. If I dare suggest Britain should close its borders and stop any more immigrants coming in I get accused of racism. If I suggest immigrants are taking our jobs I am shouted down as a little englander and a bigot. Now I am being told I cannot suggest that young people are jobless through their own choices. When I say choices incidentally I am not merely referring to "I aint working there" choices but to things like not doing their best at home, not being on time, sloppy appearance.

I am not the one trying to have it both ways - I am not the one insisting that immigration is a good thing and to want control of our borders is evil. I am the one that wants to put brakes on immigration. I do happen to think immigration is making it harder(but not impossible) for young people to find work but every time I say that I am shouted at for being RW. So if the liberals and the left want to insist that immigration is a good thing they have no choice but to admit British young people are out of work through choice.

sphinx wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

What I've highlighted above is  where the BOLLOCKS starts because you base everything on what you find by talking to people in and around your street. If there are so many young people unemployed then you are by default claiming that there is work for all of them and therefore all of them are just lazy and do not want jobs.

That's the reality of what you are saying which just shows you have a very poor opinion of the young people in this country who want to work but can't find a job because as you said they are all taken by immigrants. You have just put down a whole generation of young people as being nothing more than people living off their parents who pay for their mobile phone top ups and cans of lager. That in itself shows you have absolutely no experience of working with young unemployed people and quite honestly your lecturing attitude just shows you up as a know all who actually knows very little about the young people in this country and it stinks to high heaven..

You can't have it both ways.

I am not putting a whole generation down - as I keep saying people keep telling me that the immigrants come here to work not claim benefits so the work must be here or the immigrants wouldnt be coming or wouldnt be able to work.    If I dare suggest Britain should close its borders and stop any more immigrants coming in I get accused of racism.  If I suggest immigrants are taking our jobs I am shouted down as a little englander and a bigot.  Now I am being told I cannot suggest that young people are jobless through their own choices.  When I say choices incidentally I am not merely referring to "I aint working there" choices but to things like not doing their best at home, not being on time, sloppy appearance.

I am not the one trying to have it both ways - I am not the one insisting that immigration is a good thing and to want control of our borders is evil.  I am the one that wants to put brakes on immigration.  I do happen to think immigration is making it harder(but not impossible) for young people to find work  but every time I say that I am shouted at for being RW.  So if the liberals and the left want to insist that immigration is a good thing they have no choice but to admit British young people are out of work through choice.  

Actually Sphinx you are not grasping the situation at all top be honest. So you think if we stop immigration these people out of work who are already applying for jobs and not getting them is down to the employer giving this to what they see is the best person for the job, which may well be a far more qualified immigrant. The reality is to stop all immigration where we are ourselves also seek to work abroad is a very one way street. Yes immigration needs to be controlled and reduce but lets get to the heart of the matter being as I actually work in an industry that employs many people. The highest turn over of staff happens to be British staff, this might give you a clue to a generation of people who are not interested in work if it is minimum paid. Now granted we should have a living wage, but it does not mean British people should not do these jobs but the reality is many do not want them and the reality is of those who do are unreliable. It is no good stopping immigration if then the problem you have is the British people not wanting to do these jobs is it? The problem you have then is an ethos with some people thinking such jobs are beneath them and that is where we need to work too the root cause of this problem.

So I think all claims to immigration stopping people working is a load of bollocks, all people have the opportunity to apply for work and all get taken on by their abilities.

PhilDidge wrote:

sphinx wrote:

I am not putting a whole generation down - as I keep saying people keep telling me that the immigrants come here to work not claim benefits so the work must be here or the immigrants wouldnt be coming or wouldnt be able to work.    If I dare suggest Britain should close its borders and stop any more immigrants coming in I get accused of racism.  If I suggest immigrants are taking our jobs I am shouted down as a little englander and a bigot.  Now I am being told I cannot suggest that young people are jobless through their own choices.  When I say choices incidentally I am not merely referring to "I aint working there" choices but to things like not doing their best at home, not being on time, sloppy appearance.

I am not the one trying to have it both ways - I am not the one insisting that immigration is a good thing and to want control of our borders is evil.  I am the one that wants to put brakes on immigration.  I do happen to think immigration is making it harder(but not impossible) for young people to find work  but every time I say that I am shouted at for being RW.  So if the liberals and the left want to insist that immigration is a good thing they have no choice but to admit British young people are out of work through choice.  

Actually Sphinx you are not grasping the situation at all top be honest. So you think if we stop immigration these people out of work who are already applying for jobs and not getting them is down to the employer giving this to what they see is the best person for the job, which may well be a far more qualified immigrant. The reality is to stop all immigration where we are ourselves also seek to work abroad is a very one way street. Yes immigration needs to be controlled and reduce but lets get to the heart of the matter being as I actually work in an industry that employs many people. The highest turn over of staff happens to be British staff, this might give you a clue to a generation of people who are not interested in work if it is minimum paid. Now granted we should have a living wage, but it does not mean British people should not do these jobs but the reality is many do not want them and the reality is of those who do are unreliable. It is no good stopping immigration if then the problem you have is the British people not wanting to do these jobs is it? The problem you have then is an ethos with some people thinking such jobs are beneath them and that is where we need to work too the root cause of this problem.

So I think all claims to immigration stopping people working is a load of bollocks, all people have the opportunity to apply for work and all get taken on by their abilities.

No phil you have missed my point.  My point was

IF I say immigrants are stealing all the jobs (which I do not say) then I am called a bigot and racist and all the names under the sun and get accused of scaremongering and being inaccurate and someone will pop up with figures to prove that immigrants do not take all the jobs.
IF I say that immigrants come over here just to get benefits (I dont say they come JUST for the benefits) I will again be called names and someone will produce figures proving immigrants come here and find jobs and work.

In both the above cases you have a certain section of posters (you know which section) providing evidence that there are jobs available and they not all being taken by immigrants.

I was then faced with the same section of posters telling me that the idea people should not have more children than they already had when they were unemployed is cruel because it is not peoples fault they are unemployed.  I took the line that as they were insisting elsewhere that there were jobs available and said jobs were not all taken by immigrants they cannot at the same time claim all or even most people claiming unemployment benefit are unemployed through no fault of their own.

Thus if people being unemployed is not in anyway their fault then it cannot be claimed that immigrants coming here are easily finding work and that jobs are freely available.  If it is stated that immigrants coming here are easily finding work and jobs are freely available  then it cannot be claimed that people being unemployed is not in anyway their fault.

I refuse to attacked on 2 mutually exclusive fronts - there are either jobs and people must take at least partial responsibility for being unemployed or there are not jobs and immigration should be stopped completely.  I will not accept that there are jobs but it is not peoples fault they are out of work.[/u]

Are British workers on low pay unreliable because they know there is a safety net - one of the best in the world?

Stop immigrants, reduce benefits - will people then put more effort in to finding work and staying in work?

BigAndy9 wrote:Are British workers on low pay unreliable because they know there is a safety net - one of the best in the world?

Stop immigrants, reduce benefits - will people then put more effort in to finding work and staying in work?

Again nothing to do with immigrants but an ethos with employers and potential employees, that is the root cause of the issue, stop blaming people who are just wanting to come here to better their lives Andy it is pathetic

Nothing to do with immigrants?

OK if that's your final answer i'll just make sure I ignore you from now on, because that's just ridiculous.

Do as you please because the reality is you are blaming people who are just applying for work and getting that work, that is not their fault they have been given the employment is it, that would be down to the employer.

Why is it also like as stated the highest turn over of staff is with British employee's?

The fact is people like you are so blooming prejudice you use immigrants as scapegoats, of which is utterly pathetic when you have no clue to the actual problem

I would hate to go for a drink with you lefties.

That isn't because I wouldn't enjoy the debate it is because you would be expecting me to pay for every round.

You guys seem to think that those who prefer not to work should enjoy unlimited riches at the expense of those who work hard. I strongly belive family allowances of any sort should not be paid for any family with over two children. Full stop!!


You comrades really don't get it you cannot keep stealing from the enterprising and expect to keep on doing so. I have two children which have been paid for by my wife and myself. I wouldn't have had more partrly because it is an expensiove business and partly because I think two is enough.

I don't want some lefty herberts telling me I must pay for someone like Philpot to spread his seed liberally begetting more Philpots no doubt.

I'm sick of being told we aren't paying that idiot over there will pay.

When will you wise up comrades the countries finances are bust and taxes are at an all time high rather a bad mix. You cannot carry on spending other peoples money.

@bigandy
I don’t think that is the issue
We have stronger benefits here and more immigrants and we are doing significantly better.
Therefore the root cause of your issue is neither benefits or immigrants but some other factor(s)

From what I can see, too much old money not enough innovators and entrepreneurs

veya_victaous wrote:@bigandy
I don’t think that is the issue
We have stronger benefits here and more immigrants and we are doing significantly better.
Therefore the root cause of your issue is neither benefits or immigrants but some other factor(s)

From what I can see, too much old money not enough innovators and entrepreneurs

That is because innovators and entrepreneurs are discouraged in this country. Our schools teach everyone is a winner - and it is considered bad form to do better than others. Average is rewarded failure compensated and achievement is ignored.

Oh yes and there is a myth of old money perpetuated. http://www.therichest.com/rich-list/nation/sunday-times-rich-list/

Irn Bru wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Firstly if you argue that British young people are unemployed through no fault of their own you must by default demand an end to immigrants entering the country as there cannot be work for them.  If you argue that most immigrants entering the country work and earn their living you cannot by default argue that British young people are unemployed through no fault of their own because if there is sufficient work for immigrants to take then British young people could choose to take that work as well.

Secondly in Victorian times there did was not a system that made non working more comfortable than working.  Neither was there freely available birth control.

Then there are your constant  attempts to group "poor" "unemployed" and "benefit claimants" into one group and assume that statements referring to one of these groups encompasses all of them under the title heading "the poor".  At the same time you refuse to countenance that anyone within the "working" group can possibly also be part of the "poor" group.  These are classical attempts to use language to frame an argument by restricting the ideas it is possible to work with.

So to summarise:

• We live in a time where it is possible if not common for someone not working to be more comfortable than someone who is
  
• We live in a society with plentiful effective birth control
  
• "Poor" does not automatically mean "unemployed" or "benefit claimant"
  
• "unemployed does not automatically mean "poor" or "benefit claimant"
  
• "benefit claimant" does not automatically mean "poor" or "unemployed"
  
• "working" is not an automatic exclusion from "poor"
  

Using the above summary we have a situation where people can choose when and how many times to have children.  We have a situation where people who are dependant on benefits are paid more money every time they have a child.  We have a situation where people who are working and poor do not get more money if they have another child.  That arrangement of situations are perverse.

What I've highlighted above is just plain wrong. Young people can't get work because there are not enough jobs for them. The jobs you are claiming that are taken by immigrants are not taken by young immigrants  coming here straight out of school with no working background to speak of they are taken by people who already have the skills to do the work.

You have a very poor opinion of the young people in this country who are looking for work and quite honestly it stinks in the way you speak of them as if they do not want to work. It's nonsense.

...I second everything you say Irn, there simply are not enough jobs to go around, and I also loathe the fact they are labelled as dole scroungers, this country would get on better if people tried to help youngsters looking for work by changing their attitudes , rather than hinder them and make out it's all their fault they can't find work.

@Sphinx
a lot of that list is still old money   
Given some of it is Old Indian Money (not sure about Russians)
the highest Englishman is a Duke and old money
others included a Brewing Heiress, Mining Heirs etc
and Earl Cadogan
"Source of Wealth: Property
This year marks the 300th anniversary of the purchase of the Cadogan estate by Sir Hans Sloane, whose collection of antiquities founded the British Museum"

It doesn't seem to be a myth at all.

sphinx wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

What I've highlighted above is  where the BOLLOCKS starts because you base everything on what you find by talking to people in and around your street. If there are so many young people unemployed then you are by default claiming that there is work for all of them and therefore all of them are just lazy and do not want jobs.

That's the reality of what you are saying which just shows you have a very poor opinion of the young people in this country who want to work but can't find a job because as you said they are all taken by immigrants. You have just put down a whole generation of young people as being nothing more than people living off their parents who pay for their mobile phone top ups and cans of lager. That in itself shows you have absolutely no experience of working with young unemployed people and quite honestly your lecturing attitude just shows you up as a know all who actually knows very little about the young people in this country and it stinks to high heaven..

You can't have it both ways.

I am not putting a whole generation down - as I keep saying people keep telling me that the immigrants come here to work not claim benefits so the work must be here or the immigrants wouldnt be coming or wouldnt be able to work.    If I dare suggest Britain should close its borders and stop any more immigrants coming in I get accused of racism.  If I suggest immigrants are taking our jobs I am shouted down as a little englander and a bigot.  Now I am being told I cannot suggest that young people are jobless through their own choices.  When I say choices incidentally I am not merely referring to "I aint working there" choices but to things like not doing their best at home, not being on time, sloppy appearance.

I am not the one trying to have it both ways - I am not the one insisting that immigration is a good thing and to want control of our borders is evil.  I am the one that wants to put brakes on immigration.  I do happen to think immigration is making it harder(but not impossible) for young people to find work  but every time I say that I am shouted at for being RW.  So if the liberals and the left want to insist that immigration is a good thing they have no choice but to admit British young people are out of work through choice.  

Yes you were. You were putting down a whole generation of young people by claiming that there are jobs available for them but they are being taken by immigrants thus implying that they are not trying to get them or that they don't want them. You also added some quite disgusting comments about them by saying they are living off their parents buying them mobile phone top ups and cans of beer. What a truly awful thing to say about young unemployed people who are struggling to get work but can't and all this comes from your experience of dealing with young people and by talking to people. It's bollocks and a put down of our youngsters.

veya_victaous wrote:@Sphinx
a lot of that list is still old money   
Given some of it is Old Indian Money (not sure about Russians)
the highest Englishman is a Duke and old money
others included a Brewing Heiress, Mining Heirs etc
and Earl Cadogan
"Source of Wealth: Property
This year marks the 300th anniversary of the purchase of the Cadogan estate by Sir Hans Sloane, whose collection of antiquities founded the British Museum"

It doesn't seem to be a myth at all.

So list of 25 and you come up with 5 or 6 lots of old money - but consider that we have an excess of it?

Joy Division wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

What I've highlighted above is just plain wrong. Young people can't get work because there are not enough jobs for them. The jobs you are claiming that are taken by immigrants are not taken by young immigrants  coming here straight out of school with no working background to speak of they are taken by people who already have the skills to do the work.

You have a very poor opinion of the young people in this country who are looking for work and quite honestly it stinks in the way you speak of them as if they do not want to work. It's nonsense.

...I second everything you say Irn, there simply are not enough jobs to go around, and I also loathe the fact they are labelled as dole scroungers, this country would get on better if people tried to help youngsters looking for work by changing their attitudes , rather than hinder them and make out it's all their fault they can't find work.

You are quite right JD. This is what people do. They create the belief that the young unemployed are a social underclass of scroungers who quite happily live off the state and then they go around spreading the word and it gets picked up on by people who are quite happy to keep it going. These people need to be challenged by asking them for some credible evidence to support what they say and as usual they are found wanting and in this case the evidence is 'I talk to people'. It's total bunkum

Joy Division wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

What I've highlighted above is just plain wrong. Young people can't get work because there are not enough jobs for them. The jobs you are claiming that are taken by immigrants are not taken by young immigrants  coming here straight out of school with no working background to speak of they are taken by people who already have the skills to do the work.

You have a very poor opinion of the young people in this country who are looking for work and quite honestly it stinks in the way you speak of them as if they do not want to work. It's nonsense.

...I second everything you say Irn, there simply are not enough jobs to go around, and I also loathe the fact they are labelled as dole scroungers, this country would get on better if people tried to help youngsters looking for work by changing their attitudes , rather than hinder them and make out it's all their fault they can't find work.

If there are not enough jobs then why Labour welcoming more immigrants?

I am not saying Irn is wrong I am saying that it is wrong to claim that there is plenty of work for immigrants but people are unemployed through no fault of their own. You can have one of those arguments but not both because they are mutually exclusive.

Irn Bru wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


...I second everything you say Irn, there simply are not enough jobs to go around, and I also loathe the fact they are labelled as dole scroungers, this country would get on better if people tried to help youngsters looking for work by changing their attitudes , rather than hinder them and make out it's all their fault they can't find work.

You are quite right JD. This is what people do. They create the belief that the young unemployed are a social underclass of scroungers who quite happily live off the state and then they go around spreading the word and it gets picked up on by people who are quite happy to keep it going. These people need to be challenged by asking them for some credible evidence to support what they say and as usual they are found wanting and in this case the evidence is 'I talk to people'. It's total bunkum

No in this case my evidence is being told by others that the Bulgarian and Romanian immigrants are coming here and there are plenty of jobs for them doing things like working in hand car washes.

sphinx wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

You are quite right JD. This is what people do. They create the belief that the young unemployed are a social underclass of scroungers who quite happily live off the state and then they go around spreading the word and it gets picked up on by people who are quite happy to keep it going. These people need to be challenged by asking them for some credible evidence to support what they say and as usual they are found wanting and in this case the evidence is 'I talk to people'. It's total bunkum

No in this case my evidence is being told by others that the Bulgarian and Romanian immigrants are coming here and there are plenty of jobs for them doing things like working in hand car washes.

Good grief!!!! That's the evidence you present for putting down our young unemployed in the way you did.

    

sphinx wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


...I second everything you say Irn, there simply are not enough jobs to go around, and I also loathe the fact they are labelled as dole scroungers, this country would get on better if people tried to help youngsters looking for work by changing their attitudes , rather than hinder them and make out it's all their fault they can't find work.

If there are not enough jobs then why Labour welcoming more immigrants?

I am not saying Irn is wrong I am saying that it is wrong to claim that there is plenty of work for immigrants but people are unemployed through no fault of their own.  You can have one of those arguments but not both because they are mutually exclusive.

A Labour MP turned up at Luton Airport to see the effect of the expected mass arrivals and you call that welcoming immigrants.

Your just really funny.

Like I said guys all I am saying is IF there are jobs for immigrants you cannot say British people are unemployed through no fault of their own and IF British people are unemployed through no fault of their own you cannot say there are jobs for immigrants.

By all means keep skating around trying to make out I am talking about something else so you can avoid actually having to decide which it is - I will simply keep pointing it out.

sphinx wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:@Sphinx
a lot of that list is still old money   
Given some of it is Old Indian Money (not sure about Russians)
the highest Englishman is a Duke and old money
others included a Brewing Heiress, Mining Heirs etc
and Earl Cadogan
"Source of Wealth: Property
This year marks the 300th anniversary of the purchase of the Cadogan estate by Sir Hans Sloane, whose collection of antiquities founded the British Museum"

It doesn't seem to be a myth at all.

So list of 25 and you come up with 5 or 6 lots of old money - but consider that we have an excess of it?

it is only a list of 20?
lets see old money are numbers
1, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16,17 (both), 19 and 20
so 14 out of 20 are straight up old money (or married it)

2, 3, 5, 8 are all 'Russian' billionaires so who knows were that money came from

9 is Norwegian living in Cyprus not sure why he is on UK list?

13 is Hong Kongese and unclear where wealth came from but probably old money.

it is actually worse than my first impressions, everyone I had to look up was child or grandchild of Billionaire/magnate/etc
the UK literally has No new money in the top 20

Oh right sorry did not realise you were counting commonwealth citizens as old money that is so screwing up Britain.

I was always under the impression that old money referred to British families with a family seat and generations of rich ancestors and whose money came significantly from inherited wealth - not commonwealth nationals who choose to live in the UK.

@sphinx
Here we just mean anyone that got most of it from inheritance (lots of old money in India and Japan too, plus the USA). We have a go a Gina Rinehart all the time because her Grandfather and Father did all of the work

"commonwealth nationals" who are you referring to, the Indians clearly say they inherited vast estates in India.
The Russians are all unclear how they got money but they all seem to just have it after the fall of the USSR.

Richard Branson is not too bad, at least he does invest in innovation but he is about the only one on the list, and he still had a mega rich father.

Anyway what does nationality have to do with innovation? Doesn’t change the fact you don't have inventors or innovators on the list. just people using the money they were born with to make more money, which means they are just making money from the poor (increasing the wealth divide)not increasing the value of the total economy which supports increased prosperity for a higher proportion of citizens.