The EU debate - Part III

#PatronisingForExtremists

 

Yes quite right, the lazy must work, if you cant work for legitimate reasons thats fine.

 

Capitalism usually results in people being unemployed to create competition for jobs. So how do you expect the Govt to make them work? There are bound to be people in society who want to shirk work. Isn't it better that these people remain unemployed on minimal benefits rather than disrupting work forces? Since this is a sports forum, I'll use a football analogy. Adebayor was a very lazy player in his last year at Spurs. Should the management have put him on the sidelines and paid him for doing nothing or picked him above hard working players?

 

some of it is down to low wages, as its supply and demand, flood the market with immigrants and its a race to the bottom.

 

I kinda see your point.
What other option is there? Cut his benefits off completely, then he has two choices, get off his arse and work or turn to crime, get nicked , and end up in prison at the "Tax payers" expense anyway.

 

I get you. But all that happens is bloke refuses to work, so his kids do the same and it just snowballs, Then need to be put into a working mind set

 

if they dont get benefits for being unemployed then they wouldn't be disruptive at work
you can't compare to a top footballer, it's a totally different scenario, these are the best footballers in the world - I'm not talking about world beaters but I am talking about one in 100,000s
capitalism doesn't result in people being unemployed - a minimum wage and long term benefits result in unemployment

 

Do you even understand what the EU single market is?

Every time you post on the issue it appears that you've not got the faintest idea.

 

I've never understood why so much is spent on prisoners - TVs, radios, quality of food, exercise equipment, books

 

The key to that issue is, amongst people who can work, but refuse to, what percentage, if their benefits were stopped dead, do you think would concede and go and find work, and what percentage would turn to crime or begging?

NOTE: My Closeted Trump supporter staff member just said, when I posed this question to him, "Kill them, thats the most pragmatic solution", whilst it certainly would be the most pragmatic, its also batshit crazy, and completely unethical

 

There is more to it than this. Areas of highest unemployment are the places with fewest available jobs and the places of most available jobs have the highest living costs. So we are really arguing for an 'on your bike' policy to move to poor living conditions in order to do low paid work that the state will have to top up to cover the extra cost.

My view is that the priority should be how much the unemployed cost the taxpayer.
That means more social housing so my taxes don't line the pockets of private landlords, it means those capable of work being offered jobs for public good if no local jobs are available. It also means cutting civil service/ nationalised industry and supporting manufacturing jobs should be costed on the basis of how much those people will cost me (the taxpayer) if those jobs are removed and so reduce the tax they pay, the money they spend in the local area and the increase in support they will require from the state.

 

This post sums this ****ing idiot up.

Labelling refugees as knife wielding rapists. He's like a Daily Mail headline spambot, the bigoted, frightened, fat Tory ****er

 

No need to kill them but the cheap jail option makes sense
we have to protect the public from them

 

Confirmation that he runs a HMO slum

 

It is true.

There is an ingrained culture of take for some sections of our society who believe that getting paid and not working is a viable form of occupation.

I don't know many but I do know one in his mid thirties who never, ever works. He has money through other means and the doll.

A lot of young woman subscribe to this too. Having a child and being given everything to many seems normal yet they fail to understand how miserable this could be.

Its totally unfair that others have to work exceptionally hard to get to a point where they can even think about buying a house and starting a family.

The doll and allowances are there, imo, for people who cannot physically work - they need help to survive and maintain a reasonable standard of living and also for those who for example have been made redundant and legitimately cannot find work but have to tie over the bills and are looking.

I don't like the negative stigma attached to the doll. It is there for people who need it - not piss takers!

 

Corpses EXPLODING in Venezuela’s morgues as cash-strapped Socialist country cannot afford to provide air conditioning
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-country-afford-provide-air-conditioning.html

 

I agree. The problem has always been effectively sorting the truly needy from the scroungers and outright crooks.

In my working life, I paid hundreds of thousands of pounds of tax. No right minded person objects to some of that money going to somebody who needs temporary help to get back on their feet.

But, it should be a handup, not a handout!....

 

I could turn that around easily enough and say that they're filling those positions which British people won't lower themselves to take.

If immigrants are the only ones who'll do this 'menial' work!.....

 

http://paullewismoney.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/benefit-rise-less-than-price-of-stamp.html?m=1

 

Anyone see the documentary on BBC 2 last night about the housing crisis in London?

No place to call home it was called, and well worth catching on iplayer if you get chance.

It was an extremely well balanced non sensationalised look at the housing crisis. It focused on the Barking and Dagenham district and showed the reality of what both the council housing dept had to deal with and some of the stories of individuals currently caught in the midst of it.

It was heartbreaking at times. Ordinary people who'd become homeless primarily because they couldn't afford private rents in the capital, due to job losses etc. In order for the council to help them they had to meet 5 criteria, and this meant they had to be considered extremely vulnerable. Most simply didn't, so the council couldn't help them, all they did was give them a list of hostels. Not all were single and one girl even had a 3 year old, but they were all deemed to be outside of the criteria for assistance.

From the council perspective, they had to be extremely harsh in how they dealt with the hoards of people arriving at their offices, because they simply didn't have the resources to assist.

Why? As their housing stock has reduced by over 50% since 'right to buy' was introduced by Thatcher that's why. They simply couldn't help.

What's this got to do with Brexit? As many of those interviewed were shooting the wrong horse, they blamed the foreigners and their perception was that they were taking second place to them. The reality explained by the council was that everyone had to meet the same criteria and the perception was completely wrong, they were turning away people due to lack of stock and resource to house them in temporary accommodation, but Nige and the right wing media have convinced them it's due to migrants.

It showed just how bad things have got in the capital due to the cost of private rented accommodation. People earning £8 an hour simply can't afford to rent there, so what does the long term hold as this continues to get worse? There's little or no new social housing stock going to be built, in fact they're still selling it off. So social housing will continue to diminish, forcing people onto the streets or out of the capital. So over time who's going to fill the menial low paid jobs down there? Are they all going to have to bunk up in Pete's HMO slums? Who's prepared to do that, UK citizens? I ****ing doubt it.

A sad indictment of our times, and you can trace the root cause back to the Witch. I can see this problem slowly fanning out from the capital as well, and our major conurbations having the same issues as the years roll on, unless our Govt make a huge investment in social housing in the coming years.