attn you left wing dogs.....(katie price and the disability payment)

YOU LEFTY lot are soon quick to have a go at ME when I want sensible controls and reasonable restrictions

but see....I actually agree with almost every word here...

the reporter is bang on the mark.....

me a "R/Wer"....??

you really cant cope with anyone outside of your frames of reference....


from that wretched news feed that wont let me pull a URL........

The words Katie Price and taxpayers’ money are the sort that can separately invoke outrage-based hernias; put together, they can result in social media collapsing in a pool of self-righteous fury.

This was proved on Tuesday, when Price said that if she paid privately for her disabled son’s government-funded transport to school, it would cost “up to £1,000 a day”. He requires a driver and a nurse capable of giving emergency injections.

Price “admitted” – as if asking her local authority to fulfil its duty of care to a disabled child was a point of shame – that her 12-year-old son, Harvey, who is blind and has a complex range of health problems, has a driver to help him to school, and a nurse provided for him.

“Why should the taxpayer fund Katie Price’s disabled kid?!” asked random members of the public, in language that might be better suited to describing a leech sucking the nutrients out of its host.

Well, quite. She has the money – why should he get benefits? There’s such a thing as personal responsibility, you know. Disabled people are expensive. Why should the taxpayer pay for her child?

Look away from Price’s fame and millions, and the exact same arguments are used against people who have neither. We are kidding ourselves if we think tightening the purse strings is a matter of morality: if a culture of austerity had any, other disabled children in 21st-century Britain would not be sitting in their own urine because their parents can’t afford the heating , and benefit sanctions would not be leaving people with mental illness to go without money for three months.

We decided – somewhere around the time we cut £28bn of support for disabled people and started revelling in propaganda such as Benefits Street – that anyone using state support deserves suspicion and judgment.

Katie Price is the face of a climate that has learned to hate need: a working-class single mother (of a disabled, mixed-race child), whom we can “legitimately” attack.

That’s exactly why universal benefits matter. Defend the right of mothers of disabled children, such as Price, to get help, and it reinforces the rights of everyone else. That’s how society works. Strengthen one pillar and the other gets bolder; weaken one and it won’t be long before they all start to crumble.

The pillars of the welfare state are already shaking. The coalition has seen to that. This is not simply about benefit changes targeting the poorest families. This is about a deeper attack on the principle of social security itself. Benefits have been rebranded as charity bestowed by prudential benefactors, not a dignified right each citizen has from their government.

It misses the point to say means-testing benefits is counterproductive (although, yes, it is generally thought to cost as much as it saves). This is about a wider smoke and mirrors that attempts to set us against each other.

It is the beginning of the decision that says benefits are not an entitlement but something up for debate that can be chipped away at until they completely disappear.

It would be convenient to believe that it is because children such as Harvey are having help that children from poorer families are going without (easy and disingenuous, considering that critics who would make this argument are usually the same ones whose enthusiasm for cuts is undimmed, even though study after study has shown it is the poorest and disabled who have taken the biggest hit). Harvey is a telling target: a fitting symbol of the myth that it is the shirkers and spongers around us who are to blame for our ills.

We already speak as though benefit claimants and taxpayers are separate species – as if 90% of new claims for housing benefit aren’t actually from people in work, or that someone on jobseeker’s allowance isn’t paying tax each time they buy petrol or a sandwich.

George Osborne’s “We’re all this together” is a bastardised version of an important sentiment: individuals, together, make up a society. We each pay in – whether that’s income tax on million-pound earnings or VAT on fags – and we each get something out. That means we are all citizens, of equal status and value.

Some things are worth more than money. As we count the pounds we would save from refusing to pay for a disabled child’s nurse, that might be worth remembering.

I thought her ex was Russell Brand.

dunno...is that relevant?

the benefit money isnt for Katie Price.....its for Harvey and HE doesnt have an income.....simples...nor should it matter if he had....regardless of amount...

@Quill that's Katie Perry


@Dark
Agree...
sort of I'm not sure how rich this Katie Price is. why does it matter? cause the system is too fucked the only solution at this point is a partial reset (to avoid complete collapse and reset)
the point is basically been reached where the divide between Super Rich and everyone else has got so extreme the only solution is to remove and redistribute the wealth from the top.

so put it in actual numbers, in Australia We would just need to remove 2 families and that would support 5 million families. So that is 0.0000004% need to suffer for the benefit of the other 99.9999996%.

counter argument....

the payment is NOT for Katie.....its for Harvey....

also follow that view and you end up in "digeville"

wher YOUR standard of living would be reduced to that of a starving 3rd world muck shover in order to allow the 3rd world muck shovers to breed more 3rd world muck shovers....

(in other words...DONT take the cash of the disabled kid.......increase katies taxes....

sure do that when the system is fixed.
but right now .. you probably only need to remove like 4 families and the UK public purse would be bursting at the seems.

Like the game of Monopoly reaching its end when all the property is in to few hands, it is no fun for anyone... but the few winners, and when the losers number in millions when the winners are literally just a hand full it's time to FLIP THE BOARD. Or we can just stop playing monopoly all together (Capitalism is highly inefficient and prone to corruption) we can make a new game, we never had the ability to make things of value out of nothing previously, the very notion of making infinite copies of something for zero resource expenditure (digital media) was literally MAGIC until recently. the capacity to do that has greatly increased the gap between rich and poor because the rich want to keep all the efficiency gains for themselves rather than allow Humanity to benefit from improving technology and infrastructure.

veya_victaous wrote:sure do that when the system is fixed.
but right now ..  you probably only need to remove like 4 families and the UK public purse would be bursting at the seems.

Like the game of Monopoly reaching its end when all the property is in to few hands, it is no fun for anyone... but the few winners, and when the losers number in millions when the winners are literally just a hand full it's time to FLIP THE BOARD. Or we can just stop playing monopoly all together (Capitalism is highly inefficient and prone to corruption) we can make a new game, we never had the ability to make things of value out of nothing previously, the very notion of making infinite copies of something for zero resource expenditure (digital media) was literally MAGIC until recently. the capacity to do that has greatly increased the gap between rich and poor because the rich want to keep all the efficiency gains for themselves rather than allow Humanity to benefit from improving technology and infrastructure.

But removing them (the 4 you mention) wouldnt do anything......

its not like they are taking benefits DIRECTLY out of the system (as for example harvey is doing) and assuming katie has paid her tax and NI then fair does....

they top money isnt engaged in "benefit fraud" per se and you are making the same mistake as the tories have...that of confusing "benefits" (as cash payments to help) with greater financial issues of the "general finance" of the nation...

also of course you would have to remove them...without removing their money...in effect confiscating their assets....

I beleive there are laws about that...robin hood tried it a while back and it didnt end well.....

but I do see where you are comming from...

however there will ALWAYS be "inequality" it comes back to the dustman v's surgeon argument doesnt it...

the "star trekkian" dream of working for personal satisfaction....rather that personal gain....... is NOT going to happen

at least NOT untill we get replicators etc to reduce the value of "goods" to mere "nominal value" and even then some folks will want six of everything....or a shinier one than Fred up the road...

you're still falling for the bait and switch

benefit fraud is nothing compare to the tax reductions Super Rich get. take me for example now I would be considered high taxed (I pay about twice the benefit payment every week in tax) but since I have started with nothing my Actual wealth is hardly $100K, yet Rinehart that is worth approximately $6billion paid less than me in tax last year?
we know she 'earns' approximately $1 million and hour which is 66666 (over sixty six thousand) times the minimum wage ($15 an hour) I earn about triple the minimum wage so to be fair and pay the same proportion as me, she should pay 22 thousand times more tax than me in real dollars (which would cover benefits for 44,000 people) ... some how she actually paid less in real dollars. tell me that is not fucked up, She took more Real Dollars out of Gov't coffers than 43,998 benefit claimants combined.
And when you consider my income is entirely for my labour while hers is almost entirely from inherited mining rights that are a product of the late colonialism, literally land taken from aborigines in the 1900's.
the real problem is not the 1% it is the 0.000001%

they have Corrupted the system ensuring they control the means of wealth creation if you were to take that and put it back in the Public hands then you can afford to pay the benefits to those that need it and much more.
the problem is Over time Any public resource that actually makes money has been Privatised and it is now more than likely owned one of those few families thus the Public system has all the high expenses still but through lobbyists and media campaigns no longer has any of the wealth generating assets.

which is why I said "tax em"
not "remove em"

darknessss wrote:which is why I said "tax em"
not "remove em"

then they still hold the assets required for wealth generation and nothing changes. No different than the French kings or the

And they wont pay tax we have laws saying hey should pay that and they pay lobbyists to create loop holes in the case of Gina she literally bought an entire media outlet (the one that 'used to' compete with Murdoch) to continually print lies about Julia Gillard and promoting Tony Abbott openly because Julia bought in 'a Mining Tax' (which doubles as a pollution tax as miners are the biggest polluters in the nation by fuckloads)

Sorry, we tried she cheated now the solution is guillotines... Fuck her if she didn't learn a lesson from history.

I like the OP. It points out something that I think completely subverts the RW narrative on benefits, which is that they are for "those people," the ones who, as our Republicans say, sit on their butts all day and demand the government take care of them.

Benefits are for everyone. Price may be rich and all, but people lose fortunes all the time. In a more common scenario, people manage to build up a little savings or property and then the economy sours and they lose it all.

It's insurance. Most people on welfare benefits in the U.S. (80 percent) receive them for less than five years, meaning: They had a job. They lost the job. They lived on benefits for a while as they looked for another job. They got a job and stopped taking benefits.

Far better than losing your job, exhausting your savings, running out of charity and ending up homeless.

RE: Gina Rinehart..

AS WITH the British, Euro', Asian and Middle Eastern "Royal families" ~ and the current generations of the Walton, Mars, Vanderbilt, Rothschild, Murdoch and Packer families ~ Gina had very little to do with accumulating her family fortune..

THE bulk of these family fortunes have been built upon earlier thefts, skullduggery, military takeovers, dictatorships, feudalism, and/or similar corrupt activities.

IN the case of Gina Rinehart (nee Hancock), her $18 billion current 'value' family-owned mining company has been built upon the Iron Ore prospecting and mining ventures of her late father Lang Hancock {clicky} back in 1955.

THE means by which Lang Hancock was able to gain control of mining leases over the largest privately-controlled Iron Ore deposits in the world, have always been surrounded by stories of bullying, cheating, corruption..      
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hancock_Prospecting

BACK with Gina Rinehart ~ she owns just over 76% of a mining conglomerate worth just over $20 billion (with various mining projects in Queensland, Chile, parts of Africa, as well as the afore-mentioned Iron Ore leases..); plus real estate and agricultural holdings; along with 10% of Fairfax newspapers, and somewhere between 10 and 15% of the TEN TV network ~ from which she reputedly earns a couple of $$million$$ a day.

AND like a lot of her ilk, not only does Gina pay less than half the due business/corporate/income tax rate that she should ~ she is also on public record voicing her strong opposition to welfare payments, the minimum wage (Gina reckons $2 an hour would be  good starting wage !), and 'public' ownership of our national TV and radio networks (ABC and SBS).