And global warming. in 10 years time inverness will be the principle red wine producing region in europe.
See here http://www.not606.com/showthread.ph...first-victim?p=4732378&viewfull=1#post4732378 I am not just arguing about unemployment benefit or DLA (there are 67,000 households in Britain on more than £26,000 of benefits btw), I am arguing against a state that gives almost everyone something for nothing, including middle class and rich people, while at the same time having its hand in everyone's pocket. Middle Class people get Working Family Tax credits - you won't argue against them if you are getting them of course, they prop your wage up and pay your childcare costs - only you are actually paying for them out of your own tax bill and you are paying an army of Civil Servants to administer them to you - for people to inspect details of your life to make sure you are not on the fiddle. In terms of rich people, In Duncan Bannatyne's book 'Anyone Can Do It' his biggest piece of advice was to chase after government contracts, they always pay and they are less sensitive about extra costs - it is a good piece of advice if you want to make money. I have a very good friend who is seriously looking into buying a bit of forested land in England - he has worked out that the governments land subsidies offered a bigger annual return than any bond he can get on the market - buy a piece of land, do **** all with it and receive better than market returns. The same friend bought a load of properties which he rents out exclusively to Social Tenants, sure they are slightly more likely to wreck the place but the government pays directly into your bank account and also you can charge the maximum rent allowable - the tenant doesn't care because they are not paying (and this is why the system has just been reformed to pay the money directly to the tenant). The whole thing is a monster, every class looks to the government to see what they can get out of it and the government goes into everyone's pocket to pay for it. Why don't we just cut out the middle man?
I like you're thinking on this subject, Michael, as it tends to mirror my own views. I've long argued on here and various other social platforms that a small state, less tax etc is the way forward. Fancy a felch?
The £26k of benefits will solely be down to the council having to pay high rent to accomodate them, this is because we have a lack of cheap housing. Gives everyone something for nothing? But takes something out of their pocket? What the **** are you on about? So you're pissed off we have civil servants too? How the **** do you expect anyone in this country to work? There aren't infinite jobs around, but you seem to think that moving a few hundred miles guarantees everyone a job. On the government contract thing, you're bigging up that **** Bannantyne's approach, basically ripping off the state. The government needs to build stuff, how else would we get hospitals, schools and roads? They pay because we need them. What is your alternative suggestion, us all chipping in some money together to build them? It's called tax Cut out the middle man? I have no clue what you're suggesting? Having some **** with a bucket walk around town centres to collect cash from everyone? You're complaining about the current system with absolutely no credible alternative to offer. When you're trying to deal with the millions of people like this country's government, of course there will be waste and people will get away easily. It happens in China ffs. It'll never be perfect, especially if it is built on even stronger right wing principles. It's all because of a few poor ****s not working though, isn't it
It's all because of a few poor ****s not working though, isn't it Yes, basically. Workshy ****s at that.
1. The lack of cheap housing is one of the reasons I won't take a job in London despite some very decent jobs being available - this is what happens in the private sector. 2. If you don't know what I am talking about I can't be annoyed simplifying it. 3. Instead of having a Civil Service which manages the taking of taxes from you and then giving them back to you in benefits (after invading your privacy and then paying themselves) why don't we just not take them off you - and the civil servant can do something useful with their existence? 4. I'm not bigging up Bannantyne's approach - I am saying the government is inefficient and everyone is soaking the system. 5. See point 3. 6. My credible alternative is smaller government. The Isle of Man has a maximum tax rate of 20%, free health care, a big dole office right beside my office, various expenses such as mortgage costs etc which are tax deductible - and it had a budget surplus last year. It doesn't have a centralised £3.5b Department of Regional Development, or a £2.5b Business Growth Fund, or a £9.2b Olympic games. It is of course offering these benefits because it is trying to steal business from its biggest neighbour - which is what happens when states are in competition with each other - the state finds a way to improve the services that people care about, cancel the services that are not efficient, and the customers of the state get a better deal. Whoever has the last word doesn't win by the way - 'what the **** are you on about?' and two 's every post doesn't make a good counter argument.
1. I don't get what you mean by 'this is what happens in the private sector'? The council don't have enough houses to fit everyone in, so have to go private, which explains the massive bills. You either build more housing to fit them in or leave them to fend for themselves. If you build more housing you will need to spend taxpayer money. If you leave them to fend for themselves you're fine with letting people starve/go homeless. 2. No, your sentence makes no sense: You're saying the state gives something to nearly everyone for nothing, whilst taking away things they have? Then surely it's not for nothing? .... At work here, haven't got the time to go through all of that. I see your point, you think that if state expenditures were carried out on a smaller scale, there would be less waste. You're still advocating taxation, just making sure it's spent properly. Your idea ****s up when it comes to building big projects (roads/hospitals/schools/...). How would you manage that without a central tax system? If you're suggesting privatisation you can **** right off, and that's basically the only solution. You need civil servants because there's a lot of **** that needs to be organised. You need government. You can moan about how inefficient they are, maybe, but the amount of money their ****ups costs you is so minor. You probably barely pay for yourself with your taxes. Your utopian society is just like the system we have now, but with some unworkable ideas thrown into the mix. Have you considered being an MP for Ukip? And my smilies were well placed.
