If you read through the replies the you will realise that at least three of the five mods have already commented and the thread remains
Let's not be revisionist ourselves when reflecting upon Thatcher. As much as we can point to the ill-effects of her philosophies and actions we also have to give thought to the failure of the Left both before and during her time.
Here's one of my favourites from a couple of weeks ago I think he got confused and thought he was talking on a thread about Mickey Mouse not the 'Mouser' thread, seriously juvenile
Of course some people have paid into the system and deserve it. Of course people looking after sick, disable, etc deserve it too along with many others. However, what about the people that have never done a days work in their life, have no intention of doing and purposely have kids so they get a house and additional income meaning they don't have to lift a finger until the youngest child turns seven (the age may have just changed) years old? What about the Polish, Turkish, etc that are coming over and claiming benefits from the system? What about when these people are claiming benefits and working on the side? etc, etc, etc... I realise these are a small proportion of benefit claimants but it is what people see and what people get pissed off about! How to manage this is the big question! Anyway, this is going off topic too
I've read that Reading have already planned to hold a minutes silence for Hillsborough (rightly and commendably so), given Madejski's comments I really hope for everyone's sake nothing gets messed with. It would be the ultimate slap in the face to have Thatcher associated with it
Not really off topic mate. Whilst you won't find many who'll disagree with you about feckless workshy ****ers being a big thing that should be dealt with my issue with this argument is simple: is it these people who've brought the countries economy to its knees? Is it because of immigration? On both counts the answer is quite simply no.and yet 90% of our media would have you believe they are. Why is that? Simple really....it's easy to use a tiny minority of people at the bottom end of the scale and much more uncomfortable and more difficult to go after the real culprits because they have all the money, power and friends in high places. Ask yourself why we had only a couple of weeks of headlines about the men at the top of the banking system? Ask yourself why they are allowed to scurry off into their multi-million pound mansions while the papers move on to blaming some family with 8 kids for all the ills of the world.
People who are accolites of Thatcher will tell you how she rescued this country.I would beg to differ.Inflation & unemployment were both higher when she was stabbed in the back by her own party than when she came to power.You also have to take into account unemployment figures were fiddled 28 times.People have posted on here about benefit scroungers but fail to mention how people were encouraged to go on sickness benefits and doctors were encouraged to put people on the sick as when you are sick you are not counted as unemployed.Some journalists and Tory MP's are now rewriting history to tell us how Thatcher saved football.It's funny how they conveniently forget her role in the disgraceful Hillsborough cover up.Thatcher wanted all football fans to have to carry ID cards.I will not celebrate this woman's death but i certainly wont be shedding a tear for the evil witch either.
It is going off topic because the thread is about Thatcher, not current politics I often get into arguments regarding the people I have highlighted. People moan about them and have a dig at them because they see these individuals as the problem within society. I don't blame these people though, they are making best use of a ****ed up system. As long as they don't rub it in my face (happened a couple of times and neither of them have said a word about it to me again ) then good look to them. For the record, when I finished school, I couldn't get work and was on benefits for two years without having contributed to the system. There are two ways of looking at this: I have since more than paid it back or that my parents paid enough in over the years to cover the claims I made. As I said above though, how do you manage between the people that need support and the people taking the piss?
This is the problem I have. My issue isn't necessarily the system itself - it's the attitudes of certain individuals who abuse the system. The benefit scroungers and big companies who avoid taxes - they do it because they can get away with it. However, the leaders of these banks and other big companies employ a lot of people in this country. Therefore, the money goes back into the economy. They are contributing to society in some way. Unfortunately, if we choose to chase up these tax liabilities, the companies will simply move out of the UK thus increasing unemployment and less disposable income to people to spend and pump back into the company. How are these illegal immigrants, and benefit scroungers helping society? Simply put - they're not so I rather tackle them first. Not ideal, and I don't agree with it at all as I feel everyone should be paying taxes.
For every poor person who abuses the benefit system so they can afford to eat the public lose about £10 a week. For every rich person who abuses the tax system so they can afford another luxury (or now more commonly, just hoarding the money in a bank account) the public loses about £100 a week. I have no problem with people wanting to tighten up the benefits system, but how about first of all we address that fact that multi-billion pound companies like Amazon and Starbucks aren't paying any tax at all?
Easy, you go back to the basic principles of why the Social Security system was created in the first place i.e. it was a safety net for those of us who needed help, due to being unable to work for a period of time. The emphasis being on short term help rather than long term 'right' Ironically, the view of the welfare system changed under Thatcher. Up until that point it was used as it had been created to do i.e to assist those who needed short term help. Once Thatcher destroyed great swaths of localised employment by over seeing the demise of British manufacturing & closing mines, thus affecting whole communities etc. We ended up with massive pockets of unemployment & there was little prospect of gaining any work, as there was simply nothing being created in these areas at the time. That was the start of the 'under class', people who lived their lives on benefits & the culture is still with us today. Not one of the legacies that the fawning Tories will add to her list of accomplishments though..... So Society needs to challenge that 'culture' by removing the 'right' to sit on your arse for as long as you choose to. However, any just society would tackle tax evasion by both individuals & corporations at the opposite end of the spectrum, at the same time as trying to challenge those at the other. However, true to form, whilst launching the bedroom tax etc, they reduced the high rate tax band by 5%.........they ALWAYS look after their own.
But if you have the option of staying on benefits that is providing for your family and giving you a home or going to work for 40+ hours a week to earn slightly less, equal or slightly more money, which one would you choose? The problem is how much is paid to non-working families IMO. You wouldn't go to work for forty hours a week to earn less than £100 yet this, in more circumstances than not, is the absolute best these people can hope for if they find work. Again, this is not a biased approach since, despite working for what I would consider a decent wage (below average mind), I claim child tax credits to top up our household income because my partner doesn't bring a lot home.
Not true. You can give money small local companies who pay taxes and put their money in the UK economy, but multi-national companies such as Amazon pay zero tax and move all their money to foreign tax havens while employing the minimum number of UK workers possible due to their economy of scale. "Illegal immigrants" work doing the jobs that many UK people are unwilling to do. Even if you taxed every single "scrounger" and "immigrant" 100% you would recoup 1000 times less money than by just making companies pay the tax they would be legally required to do so if not for loopholes which the government does nothing about.
