Things to make you think

Or more likely that the poor child's vile parents place material wealth above her need for food.

This post was made by Brasidas who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.

risingsun wrote:This post was made by Brasidas who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.

Did not take long for Stassi to duck out ha ha ha ha

This post was made by Brasidas who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.

Filth may be around, but you don't have to step in it.

the envy of the well heeled didge..

the truth is they are just as idle...only they made the mistake of working....

the rich can, on average afford 5 times more than they are paying to the state and STILL have 5 times more expendable income than the average person on assistance

the rich lie...they invent "facts" and cherry pick isolated extreme examples as "typical" of their intended target...and the slander ALL of those with the same slur.

the rich think they are superiour and that this entitles them to some sort of "precedence" to state handouts....

the rich think they have a "right " to determine who should and should not recieve state benefits...the internally deny the universality of such benefits


the rich would rather see a genuine claimant starve than one bogus one make a few quid....(in the great scheme of things)

the rich would rather propagate the lie that jobs exist ...where none do....and deliberately frustrate the provison of such jobs.....(bu supporting idiocy like the eu...that forbits the creation of govt backed industry.

the rich consider that state benefits shold be "charity doled out to the "deserving " ie those that will clean their cesspits for nothing....

the rich think owning two and often more homes is just and equitable...whilst ramping up rents to keep out the undesiurable "scum"

the rich hate...with a passion (a lesson learned only too well from their heroine maggie) the sick and disabled

the rich live by the mantra "greed is good"...yet another of maggies lessons and that greed has turned them bitter and twisted and overbearingly arrogant....

thus we get the lie...propagated from the top down that diseases/conditions such as ME and CFS are "all in the mind" and can be "cured" by the psychobabble "witch doctory" known as cognitative behaviour therapy, which is in fact nothing but bullying and intimidation, and uses EXACTLY the same techniques as these banned "cults"
the lie of the rich is that of course these techniques are NOT the same....they give them a different name of course and apply them more subtley but non the less they are the same......

now I know someone who will be along to dispute that.....go for it.....I have been there...and studied it before i went...and was then able to prove it nonsense...since i could "reverse palcebo" myself against their nonsense...
IF it REALLY works...that would NOT have been possible.... It does nothing to actually "cure" the problem nor does it actually , long term help......
what it does is create a situation where the victim "beleives" they are better....so they return to work....
and...like running on a broken leg more damage is then done.......but who the hell cares.....the rich have got "their pound of flesh"...

Utter babble, some people poor are poor most are lazy fucking tossers victor and you know it. They place material wealth over actual needs.
So how is it that I come from a family from poverty that made it through without handouts?
Explain to me how many families on minimum wage also do so?
What you are doing is excusing lazy wankers and people who place their own needs over their families.
Not all but many do and you wish to excuse them, that I find disgusting.
What is worse is you wish to blame the rich for other being lazy.
That is appalling.
Get a grip mate, we all make our lives, yet you wish to excuse people for being nothing more than takers.
So those who work hard have to compensate those who do fuck all?
Really?
I am not suggesting that all poor are not hard working but you expect others to fund those ho have no intention of working?
Wake the fuck up and stop excusing ignorance

Brasidas wrote:Utter babble, some people poor are poor most are lazy fucking tossers victor and you know it. They place material wealth over actual needs.
So how is it that I come from a family from poverty that made it through without handouts?
Explain to me how many families on minimum wage also do so?

BULL SHITE ALERT.......those families on minimum wage get huge hand outs....they can (and do) get housing benefit AND tax credits......

What you are doing is excusing lazy wankers and people who place their own needs over their families.
Not all but many do and you wish to excuse them, that I find disgusting.
What is worse is you wish to blame the rich for other being lazy.
That is appalling.
Get a grip mate, we all make our lives, yet you wish to excuse people for being nothing more than takers.
So those who work hard have to compensate those who do fuck all?
Really?
I am not suggesting that all poor are not hard working but you expect others to fund those few in the great scheme of things...yes ho have no intention of working?
Wake the fuck up and stop excusing ignorance

and there we have it.....didge propagating the view point from my line

"the rich lie...they invent "facts" and cherry pick isolated extreme examples as "typical" of their intended target..

for a start non working benefits (even if you include disability payments) are a drop in the ocean of taxpayers money.....

a tiny amount next to pensions
and tax credits

you really have bought the tory boy propaganda havnt you...hook line and sinker......

I have several time put the figures from OFFICIAL sources on various forums so you MUST have seen them.....

What point did I make on the rich Victor?
Either retract your point or back it up?

erm ...go back and read it ffs.....

Read the first two lines slowly and in conjunction with one another......

if you still have a problem i will add emphasis.....

I have, i which society is murder acceptable?

I will give you a clue if you like?

erm....wrong thread didge....

should have gone to specsavers........

No very much the right thread Victor

so you bring across the argument from that other thread to here ...why would that be.....

defeated already.?

now who's deflecting....THIS one is about the rich's disdain for the "poor" as promugated by tory policy

Eh?
I was once poor, how is it many of those who are poor manage to place their families above material wealth Victor.
Do not get me wrong some out their need help but many are incompetent and you are excusing this.

there are STILL 8 jobs for every job seeker.....

SO...IF we managed to fill all of those (which reasonably could be considered unattainable since the jobs are not evenly spread where the jobless are spread....)

that would remove ONLY 12.5% from the list (and as I say the cost thereof is miniuscule in the scheme of things)
so what do we do with the other 7 (or 87.5%)

and these figures DONT include the disabled, unless they are registered for work

so the problem is too big for "simple solutions"

moreover the VERY few "wasters" that exist are being used by people of your ideology to justify a wholey unfair and unreasonable pogrom against all benefit claimants.....

What a load of shite, how do you explain those who do these jobs Viictor?

what? sorry thats gone right past me and not made sense...

how do I explain those who do what jobs???

maybe i am misunderstanding here??

Do you believe in equality?

Will look in tomorrow.

risingsun wrote:This post was made by Brasidas who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.

What's the point of putting someone on ignore?

Because I refuse to be subjected to his mind games and will not play a part in his constant drama. If a pile of cow dung is in your path yu don't step in it, you walk round it and your life is sweeter as a reult.

perhaps THIS will shut the "bash the benefit recipient" types up...but hey ho since when has a R/W ever allowed FACT to interrupt their hatred of the less fortunate????
Note the well respected contributors listed at the end....

Benefits in Britain: separating the facts from the fiction
How many people are dependent on welfare – and do families where three generations have never worked really exist?




What percentage of the UK's adult population is dependent on the welfare state?

The welfare state is a big part of British family life, with 20.3 million families receiving some kind of benefit (64% of all families), about 8.7 million of them pensioners. For 9.6 million families, benefits make up more than half of their income (30% of all families), around 5.3 million of them pensioners. The number of families receiving benefits will be between 1 and 2 million fewer now because of changes to child tax credits that mean some working families who previously got a small amount now get nothing.

How big is the problem of families on benefits where generations have never worked?
Patterns of work in working-age households

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation published a study in December testing whether there were three generations of the same family that had never worked. Despite dogged searching, researchers were unable to find such families. If they exist, they account for a minuscule fraction of workless people. Under 1% of workless households might have two generations who have never worked – about 15,000 households in the UK. Families with three such generations will therefore be even fewer.

The graphic shows this broken down. Importantly, families experiencing long-term worklessness remained committed to the value of work and preferred to be in jobs rather than on benefits. There was no evidence of "a culture of worklessness" – values, attitudes and behaviours discouraging employment and encouraging welfare dependence – in the families being passed down the generations. The long-term worklessness of parents in these families was a result of complex problems (particularly related to ill-health) associated with living in long-term and deep poverty. In an already tight labour market, multiple problems combined to place people at the back of a long queue for jobs.
Advertisement

For 2011-12 it is estimated that 0.8%, or £1.2bn, of total benefit expenditure was overpaid as a result of fraud. This is far lower than the figures widely believed by the public, as revealed repeatedly in opinion polls. A TUC poll recently revealed that people believe 27% of the welfare budget is claimed fraudulently.

Hard to judge, and hard to generalise. There is a lot of movement in and out of work, so many Job Seekers Allowance claims are very short. More than 80% of claimants never go near the work programme because they aren't on the benefit for long enough. A lot are off it in under six months. For disability benefits, there are a lot more long-term claimants, of course. In 2012, 18% of working-age households were workless; in only 2% had no one ever worked. More than half of adults in households where no one has ever worked were under 25. So although the proportion of households where no one has ever worked has increased recently, it is likely to be a manifestation of high and rising young adult unemployment.

What proportion of the welfare bill goes on benefits to the unemployed? And how has this changed?
GU 2

It's rising – but we've seen such movements before. At 13% between 2009-10 and 2011-12, the proportion of gross domestic product devoted to benefits is at an all-time high, but this is not the result of a long-term upward trend. Levels in the 1990s to 2008-09 fluctuated between 10% and 12%. The recession resulted in a substantial increase and the overall level has not fallen since. This mirrors the recession in the early 1990s, when the proportion of GDP spent on benefits increased by slightly more at around 3 percentage points.

Between 2001/02 and 2011/12, spending on "social protection" benefits – help given to those in need or at risk of hardship – increased from £156bn to £210bn. This £54bn growth was after inflation, a rate of 34%. At an increase of £24bn, pensioner incomes made up the largest share of the change, around nine-tenths of the growth, reflecting their size within the budget. Housing benefits spending grew at the fastest rate, 62%, because of increases in the number of claimants and the average cost of the benefit. Claimant numbers rose from 3.8 million in 2002 to 5 million in 2012, while average weekly benefit increased from £52 to £87.

If unemployment benefits are reduced, do more claimants find work?

They may stop claiming – but not necessarily go to work. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has carried out a systematic review of international research on the impact of benefit sanctions. This finds, mainly from US research, that sanctions are successful in getting people off benefits, but this may be because they are dropping out of the system altogether, rather than going into decent work. European studies show that the use of sanctions is likely to lead to worse employment outcomes (lower pay and more likely to be back on benefits) than if sanctions are not used. This is because the threat or use of sanctions makes people take lower-quality jobs than if they had been allowed to wait for a better opportunity.

How many families last year received more in benefits than the proposed government cap of £26,000?

Around 58,000 households will have their benefits reduced by the policy in 2014-15. Greater numbers are affected by other welfare changes.

What proportion of people affected by the welfare reforms are in households where someone works?
Welfare graphic three

It's not just the workless who will have to cut back. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies pointed out in January, because the proposed uprating changes apply to almost all benefits and tax credits both in-work and out-of-work households are affected.

Out of 2.8 million workless households of working age, 2.5 million will see their entitlements reduced by an average of about £215 a year in 2015-16.

Of 14.1 million working-age households with someone in work, 7 million will see their entitlements reduced, by an average of about £165 a year. Note that this figure includes 3 million families who lose only from the cuts to child benefit, at an average of about £75 a year. They also point out that other elements of the "consolidation package" have different effects, particularly for those on higher incomes (chart C)

The impacts of other changes will also be very significant for working as well as out-of-work households. Joseph Rowntree Foundation research on the council tax benefit showed that 2.4 million low-income families will pay on average £138 more in council tax in 2013-14. About 78% of the 2.4 million affected live in non-working households and pay no council tax. The average additional payment will be £132 for in-work recipients and £140 for those not working.

What is the correlation between a country's economic performance and the size of its welfare bill?

Richer countries spend much more (as a proportion of income) on welfare than poor ones – compare Sweden and Somalia. But of course that doesn't mean spending more on welfare makes a country richer: it mostly reflects the natural tendency of societies, as they become more prosperous, to increase social spending. Some economists argue that large welfare states, which need to be financed by equally large tax revenues, over time inhibit private-sector growth. However, the experience of the Nordic countries does show clearly that there is no necessary inconsistency between economic dynamism and a large and relatively generous welfare state.
Expenditure on benefits and tax credits

Perhaps a better way to think about it is this: it seems likely that having no welfare state would not only make a country a very unpleasant place to live in but would inhibit economic growth, as a consequence of the inevitable social breakdown; equally a country where the state taxed away everyone's income and redistributed it would have no incentives for economic activity. So there's unlikely to be one "right answer". In practice, what matters to growth is not so much the size of the welfare bill but how it is spent – what sort of incentives does it give to people to work, become trained or educated, and so on.

What does this tell us about the UK's welfare state and its impact on growth? In fact, the overall size of the welfare bill as a proportion of GDP has been fairly stable over the past quarter century, as the chart shows.

To the extent there has been an upward trend, it's been driven by increasing numbers of pensioners, rather than more generous benefits. Meanwhile, spending on those below pension age – working age and children – has been flat overall, rising in recessions and falling outside them. And it's false to suggest that "benefit dependency" has been steadily increasing; the number on out-of-work benefits (unemployment benefit, incapacity benefits, and lone parents) peaked in the early 1990s and is now fully a million below that level.
Welfare graphic 5

This certainly doesn't tell us that spending is at the "right" level. Indeed, most economists would agree that over time reforms – especially increasing state pension ages to reflect increasing life expectancy – are required to ensure long-term sustainability. But it does tell us that anyone who says that spending too much on welfare or benefits is the cause of the country's economic problems, or that spending less on them is the cure, is not paying much attention to the facts.

How many large families are heavily dependent on benefits?
Families by number of dependent children receiving any type of out-of-work benefit

To quote the Economist: "Though most of them seem to end up in newspapers, in 2011 there were just 130 families in the country with 10 children claiming at least one out-of-work benefit. Only 8% of benefit claimants have three or more children. What evidence there is suggests that, on average, unemployed people have similar numbers of children to employed people ... it is not clear at all that benefits are a significant incentive to have children."

How generous are our benefits in comparison to other EU countries?

Figures from Eurostat suggest the UK spends about the same as the EU average on unemployment and disability-related benefits, although it is behind the larger economies. The UK spends 12% less a head than France and 19% less than Germany, but almost twice as much as the Czech Republic.

How many have come off disability benefits since the reforms?

Since 2008, 878,000 new employment and support allowance claims have been closed before the claimant was able to be assessed and 729,000 have been found "fit for work" by tests. Since May 2010, 527,000 employment and support allowance claims have been closed and 414,000 found "fit for work".

Do any families get more than £100,000 a year in benefits, as George Osborne has claimed?

A freedom of information request by Full Fact showed that in August 2010, there were fewer than five housing benefit claimants receiving the equivalent of £100,000 a year.

• Compiled with help from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation; Full Fact; New Policy Institute; and Jonathan Portes, director, National Institute of Economic and Social Research

Evening all. First of all, forgive me if I come across as hard and unsympatheic but in answer to the first couple of comments in this topic I cannot help but think a lot of people don't make an effort to help themselves. Briefly I'll explain: We get many adverts on TV asking for donations for food and water, we see little babiies or children who are hungry or diseased etc, and yet the mothers always look chunky and well fed. We are asked for money for clean water. Up to recent years people used to dig wells and got fresh water, why don't they do that now? Oh no, sit back and ask for aid, let someone else get it for us. No long back there was an advert for aid to buy and supply tools for them so they could farm. Oh come on, mankind has been farming for about 10,000 years! They didn't have tractors and combine harvesters.

I'll help anyone whom I think deserves help, but the way I see it those people we are asked to help with donations don't appear to be helping themselves. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Sit back and wait for the guns to fire!!!

Good evening Stardesk.  I give to Water Aid, the people do dig wells where then can.  However in most cases the water table is hundreds of feet down, beyond the capabilites of the tools they have.  The water then can get to is polluted with organisms that kill them.

Big business is the main cause of the starvation because the governments sell to them what the people make in order to have money to pay back loans that the world will not forgive to let them start again.

The mothers look slightly less malnoured than the children because children and babies loose weight very quickly.   It will take an adult months to lose enough weight to look emaciated, it will take and child or a baby weeks because their body is trying to grow at the same time.

They are not asking for tractors, when given rakes, hoes and seed, if rain comes at the end of the harvest they can feed themselves.  Unfortunately by the time the harvest comes the children will be dead.

stardesk wrote:Evening all. First of all, forgive me if I come across as hard and unsympatheic but in answer to the first couple of comments in this topic I cannot help but think a lot of people don't make an effort to help themselves. Briefly I'll explain: We get many adverts on TV asking for donations for food and water, we see little babiies or children who are hungry or diseased etc, and yet the mothers always look chunky and well fed. We are asked for money for clean water. Up to recent years people used to dig wells and got fresh water, why don't they do that now? Oh no, sit back and ask for aid, let someone else get it for us. No long back there was an advert for aid to buy and supply tools for them so they could farm. Oh come on, mankind has been farming for about 10,000 years! They didn't have tractors and combine harvesters.

I'll help anyone whom I think deserves help, but the way I see it those people we are asked to help with donations don't appear to be helping themselves. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Sit back and wait for the guns to fire!!!

In large parts of Africa the well water has been contaminated by the International mining companies. Rather than Forcing the Perpetrators to clean up their mess our gov;t allows them to offset responsibility with these charities a lot of which allows tax right offs for cleaning up their mess (which they profited from making) and gets further subsidies by donations..

your donations are really towards cleaning up the mess of international mining companies so they don't have to making Billionaire Mining tyrant and promoter of retuning to slavery Gina Rhinehart (the Closest living thing to a Jabba the Hutt) Ever Richer.

To Rising Suns point on Big Business causing starvation that is sadly very true

While I don't think we have done it since the 90's when we got the trade deals with China and Japan
there was a point where Australian Wheat producers would burn millions of tons of wheat instead of put in on the market because it would cause the price to crash.

darknessss wrote:perhaps THIS will shut the "bash the benefit recipient" types up...but hey ho since when has a R/W ever allowed FACT to interrupt their hatred of the less fortunate????
Note the well respected contributors listed at the end....

Thanks for Putting the facts up... I was gonna say Pretty sure the ratio of wage/benefits aren't that different than here and there is NO WAY you are better off on benefits. Even on minimum wage if you are getting 40 hours a week you're better off, there is an awkward point at about 20-30 hours at minimum wage were it makes you better off on benefits (the main ones it effects here is students).

Most of those benefit bashing cards are laughable in their naivety.