Off Topic Great Britain General Election May 7th 2015.

it's the media, that's what causes these stereotypes. People can be obsessed with benefit fraud, because that's on their level of understanding, whereas Barclasys and HSBC fraud is not within their realm of understanding. The latter runs into millions of times more money than benefit fraud but is not really worthy of gossip and stereotype, the long term unemployed types are easy targets and the majority get painted with te same brush, cos humans are like that. Media demonisation of the poor has had a significant effect on the outlook of people.

in all of that everyone seems to have forgotten that long term unemployment doubled after 2008 as did benefit claimants.

There are millions of unskilled horrible jobs that people were working to earn a crust and those jobs vanished. Not one thought has been given to those that lost their jobs and are forced to live on the meagre existence the dole gives you because lets face it, being on benefits sucks ass and you can't afford ****.

 

Simple they are both fraud...because they are financial crimes.Barclasys and HSBC fraud are more sophisticated

 

Non Doms and all the tax free assets in havens and crown possessions abroad.

£4.7 trillion in British tax havens. A 3rd of the global total in tax havens! Meaning the UK provides the biggest tax dodging scheme in the world.

As for the US, corporations and wealthy are fleeing by the thousand, in recent years over 10.000 US companies have left the US for better tax deals elsewhere, ironically it was said corporations that lobbied for the 35% corp tax rate there in the first place to stifle competition

 

The bedroom tax is a perfect example of the way Tory policy making has worked for the last 40 years.

In principle it sounds alright doesn't it? If you need social housing, the state will provide a property that meets your needs, but if your circumstances change i.e. you need less bedrooms then you should move into something smaller and free up the larger property for someone else.

All fine and dandy, until you actually look at how that works in reality, which is were Tory policy always fails, as they've not got a ****ing clue how it affects peoples actual lives!

A mother who's raised her family in the same house for 30 years shouldn't be forced out of it due to having a bedroom too many ffs. It's her HOME, it's not merely housing stock to her, it's where she's raised her kids, and lived for her adult life.

There's also a lack of smaller properties, so people who are prepared to move can't, as there's nowhere for them to go, therefore they can't escape the bedroom tax.

It's picking on the poorest and most vulnerable in our society to appease the Daily Mail reading blue rinse set, whilst at at the same time dropping 5% from the tax burden of millionaires (because they run away you know) typical and cynical, that's the Tories in a nutshell.

p.s. I get why Gerrez is frustrated btw, given his circumstances it's completely understandable. I was in the same boat 20 years ago mate if it's of any consolation, keep going you'll get it sorted

 

Yes but not the typpe of discussion the average ninny will engage in as banking is above teir understanding but benefit claimants, slating the guy who can't get a job, that's much more the type of scapegoat the average joe can get down with

 

Well put.

 

Totally agree with you, Tobes.

 

Sorry but I think as a person living in a modern democracy I have a right to an opinion (and to express that opinion) on how my tax money will be used. You seem to think it's wrong for a lot of issues to be discussed based on the notion that rich people are doing bad stuff so they should be the 100% focus and other short comings in the country should be ignored.

Whereas my opinion is all problems should be addressed, whether it's the benefit fiddler or the tax avoider, or the dodgy politician or ineffective use of public funds. Small or large, all issues should be dealt with and one issue shouldn't be a way to ignore another.

 

UK military spending 2014
£61.8 BILLION

Does one really believe that is justified given there is not and has never been a threat to the UK since WWII

You are not getting my point, having an opinion is one thing, but the blame game and scapegoating by the media is another matter entirely. That's where the majority of negative opinions on this subject comes from.

The problem has been blown up to massive proportions by the media. It's a fallacy. The real theft of your money goes unreported.

Its like this, you've a bucket of water, it's got two holes in it and your water is pissing away, one hole is 1cm in diameter, the other is 9 inches in diameter.
The media have everyone talking about the 1cm hole and who is to blame and no one is saying **** about the big gaping hole leaking the water or who causes it

 

I did also say the currently setup for it isn't right. There needs to be a introductory type period. This would mean you wouldn't incur a charge for things like not having a smaller property available to move in to. However, they would incur the charge if offered a property and they refuse it. There are other circumstances that need to be considered too of course, I know that. The people I was talking about are people that flat out refuse to move for no genuine reason other than "it's my home", its not your home, its the states home that the state are paying for!

Nor is it forcing people out of their home. They can choose to pay the extra amount if they wish. Like all luxuries in life, they have to be paid for. If someone chooses to stay in a house with more bedrooms than they need, fine, pay for it. If you can't afford it then there is a problem. I'd love to have a Porsche but I'm pretty sure if I went into the Porsche garage and gave them the money for a Ford C-Max they wouldn't let me drive the Porsche away!

I know I'm in a minority here too

I also pointed out that this is not a major issue too. there are much bigger things to deal with than bedroom tax such as billion pound companies not paying taxes!!!

 

A kid growing up and leaving home meaning one less income in the home is not a luxury you mad man A spare room is not a luxury, it's a result of circumstance, but it has been turned into a "luxury" for purposes of "another" tax and to appear to be doing something and to make daily mail readers happy

 

Spare bedrooms is a luxury that the vast majority of people would like.

 

To you it may seem so because you got a full house but when you spend 18 years raising your kids and they leave, you wont ****ing see the empty rooms as a luxury you dumbass

wtf to you think people do with these rooms in social housing, turn them into Roman baths?

 

People receiving benefits range from redundant teachers, nurses and skilled tradesmen to people needing benefits to top up their poor wages with tax credits, the person you need to ask your question to would be the coalition leaders that put those above mentioned people on benefits due to government policies.: biggrin:

 

Gerrez has hit the nail on the head with this one folks!

Tobes makes a great point about the Tories though, they often seem to come up with what seem like good ideas and then prove they are totally out of touch with reality in the way they try to implement those ideas. Though that is a common theme with both major parties I think.

 

This, people don't have a right to ask **** about who gets benefits, they can have an opinion on it but otherwise it's none of their ****ing business.

if they are unhappy with government policies, take it up with their MPs

it's funny, no one has an interest in politics but they have avid interest in who claims benefits.
yet werent all the politicians caught ripping off benefits?

 

When your kids leave, you no longer need the room. If you do need the room then they are a luxury you wish to have. If you want to keep the room so that your kids can come and stay every now and again, that is still a luxury!

When you apply for social housing, you can given an appropriately sized property. Why should a long term tenant be treated any different to a new tenant? They can choose to pay for the luxury if they wish or move to something more appropriate. You have to pay your way in life (or not as it seems)

 

****, now i'm doubting myself

 

Firstly it was huge mistakes from Labour that helped create the current situation in our country and it's totally ridiculous to try and pin it all on a coalition who have been in for five years (not that I'm a supporter of either party in the coalition either). And secondly I stand by my comment, it's our right as tax payers to question how our money will be used.

 

None of this is stipulated when they are given the house. So, you raise your kids for a couple of decades and then they grow up and move out, often not a happy experience for parents. Less household income too, then kids need support financially they always to.

But **** em, here's another tax.

Ask them to as Tobes says, to get out of their family home.. which you see as OK because they are in social housing ergo lesser than you who could afford to buy a home. So they should accept that and move on yeah?

No bollocks mate, if this was part of their original agreement and they always knew this was the deal then they are prepared. Otherwise it's not on.