Castration for criminals and the state deciding who can have a child sounds a bit Iran or North Korea but they’d probably think it’s a bit archaic.
Nothing to do with Nazism and never looked in to their economics so don't worry, not even sure how you make that jump but it's insanely wild! No it's not about wanting to work picking fruit or cleaning streets man, - not sure where you get this **** from - it's about allowing people to earn an income if they have no other alternative to support them until they are back on their feet and if they don't want to work then they don't get paid - it's that simple. if you don't get paid,, you can't pay rent, can't pay bills, can't pay **** so guess what - you get **** Again I literally highlighted it for you previously but lets try again - IF YOU ARE ABLE TO WORK you have to - if not don't expect someone else to pay your way. Why should you not work if you are able??? "What if one day G4rd, you or your missus have a problem and can't work ...?" - Then, as I've said... disability payments are not an issue, in fact I'm all for it, if you have a genuine issue there needs to be support but I've already said that and you are choosing to ignore it... Furthermore if it was work I was able to do regardless of ailment - I'd ****ing do it because I'm not a scrounger - I'll do what I need to to make my way. Say I'd lost both my arm's in a shark attack visiting Oz with my Mrs I'd peddle on a bike to create electricity if that's all they had for me no questions asked. If you can't be arsed to graft, then don't expect anything. Taxation is a totally separate matter and much much more complicated - personally - just to simplify it - I'd have a flat rate across the board from minimum wage to global leading companies - every one pays the same % on money earnt in this country regardless of where your from or you are based.
You literally said in your previous post that you wanted to introduce forced labour I wasn't calling you a Nazi, but I think a stark realisation that that was a Nazi policy was in order. If you find that connection shocking, revise your previous opinion on the matter. You said that they either work like you want them too, or go be homeless, you have no fool proof way of defining who is or isnt one of your dreaded "scroungers". The issue, my friend was pointed out to you, but your slithering away from it. Who is it that decides who is able to work - is it you the leader, the state, the person sitting in the benefits office? You ignored my point entirely because you cannot expand your own situation to someone else. You know for a fact the government or the individual in an office deciding on cases will result in poor decisions. You sitting there in fine health saying YOU would do some random **** even if you had two arms missing is entirely irrelevant. I've never been on benefits, I've worked my entire life since the day I left school, I will continue to work until I die probably, but I have the sense of being to understand that not everyone is in my situation. The majority of benefits in the UK are disability benefits then single mums allowance. These things are already too low, if you think that the people who sit at home playing video games or getting tattoos amounts of to hundreds of billions of missed tax payers money then I dunno what to tell you, you're living in a fantasy. It is by far missing money at the top that contributes to our budget deficit far more than "false benefits." A flat rate of tax for every single person in the land? Alright Margaret, I thought you died in 2013? Turns out she's a London based Newcastle fan with 2 missing arms. Everyone with some knowledge knows that flat tax rates always benefit higher income earners and are tougher on the poor. The solution to poverty and people on benefits isn't 1960s clamping down rules that target nobodies. It's increased investment in the economy, education, health and social services to uplift society. Let's just put more money into the NHS and clamp down on people won't solve a thing. It will just make everyone more ****ing miserable.
Who says you are fit to work? A doctor. asked and Answered. I mean you shouldn't really need that answering but there you go. Those Who Are Able To Work should work.... answer as to why your against it please? You've insinuated I'm a Right Wing, Nazi, Thatcherite thus far. Looking forwards to the next bit of comedy gold to back your non existent argument. There is over £200 BILLION paid out in benefits every year. Some of it very much justified - disability, pensions, child allowances etc, some of it is a scam - Billions of it. I'll re-iterate it one last time - if you genuinely need help you should have access to it, if you don't you shouldn't get it because you fancy it - but you should be helped while you find your way back to employment, not for nothing though. Why would flat tax benefit anyone - it's the same for everyone??
There are not many people who just sit and take benefits just because they fancy it. Benefit fraud is approximately £2b Tax fraud and non dom and loop holes and not collecting proper corporation tax - that’s the one where hundreds of billions goes missing.
"your non existent argument" Do yourself a favour G4rd. A doctor is likely to give someone a diagnosis and write them off work. It happens in Norway all the time, because doctors don't consider "state taxes and scroungers" when they give someone a diagnosis. So, now you go to the job centre and they refer you to a doctor. Good thing there aren't long queues then, oh. "Some of it very much justified" Just "some" of it, G4rd? Not like the mass majority of it? Why would a flat tax rate affect the poorest more so than the richest? If you earn £10,000 and I come along and take 20% of it, you will have less money to pay for your rent, car, food and your massive amount of tattoos and alcohol you scrounging scum. But, if someone is earning £1m and I come along and take 20% of it. That person, I am going to hazard a guess, isn't going to be feeling that pinch so much. I think they will be able to afford their bread and water. For that rich person to contribute his fair share, you will need to raise the flat tax rate ... but now the poor person is paying way, way too much. He cannot possibly afford 30% tax. So, that is why a flat rate of tax just never ever works.
I’m all for increasing NI back up I’m all for reducing VAT back to 17.5% - think we’ve bailed the bankers out enough out (I’m certain that was the excuse at the time for raising it)
theres a person over there with cerebial palsey that i think could get a job on an electric bike. she could help the banks
Let's keep it short this time...Still not answered it have you - last chance before I just ignore you - if you are able to work why should you not?
Ignore me uh oh. People who are able to work and need to work should be working. However, people who reject government enforced labour shouldn't be made homeless We have too many homeless as is.
Perfect but I'll ignore the "and need to work" part as I'm not sure who doesn't need to work. Ok. So what would you do with people who are able to work but don't? Feed, clothe and house them, provide all their living necessities? Edit: Let's stop calling it "forced Labour" as well, let's call it a "temporary voluntary national working contribution".
The daft twat got Brexit through on the immigration story, he's now trying to convince everyone that Brexit is still right but the implementation was all wrong. I don't know how some of these people aren't put in jail, aside from the fact prisons are full.
People with wealth might not need to work, I wouldn't pester them about that. It's their life. I don't know why you didn't understand that and then chose to ignore something you don't get. If they ignore all opportunities for education, job interviews (for real employment not government sponsored make believe employment), etc ... To the extent that they would happily accept homelessness, then Norways response is the best. To provide grouped temporary housing, which allows them to eat, sleep and be clothed and avoid rampant homelessness. That is the only response. For someone to be in such a state they would rather accept homelessness than go to get a job at Aldi, you know that this person will never, ever perform at a ""voluntary"" government job. Allowing mass squalor on the streets like they do in the USA is one of the most blatantly bad policy proposals I have heard. Women on single mothers allowance with 5000 children should never, ever be threatened with homelessness. Sorry, that's just being a modern country. It only damages ultimately the kids. Economically, we pay people real wage to do the jobs unemployed people would be forced to do. Which will decimate the wages in that field.
Tbh I don't think it's to dissimilar to asking who would decide if someone is fit to work or not, not a doctor but Kim Jong Il or the bloke at the desk in the job centre obviously? With your previous views I'd have assumed you could have meant any number of people who just simply can't be bothered but fair enough that's a totally reasonable point. If you got the money to support yourself - do whatever you like - no dispute here. No ones threatening anyone with homelessness - all I'm saying is if you are fit and able to work you can't just pick up free money for nothing - it's up to the individual to decide if they want to work. If you don't want to earn your money via voluntary work you better find it elsewhere, set up an OnlyFans page farting in jars (big money in that apparently), get out and busk on the street - what ever you need to do for yourself, I don't care - but I'm not interested in paying for others to do nothing. We've already agreed though - if you can work you should work, right? What I would say is if there were lovely people like yourself and others who want to set up a charity, give up your time and efforts to raise money to help those who cant be arsed to even try - crack on, you're a better man than me
It is dissimilar, you proposed policy and I asked the logistics, you don't like scrutiny. My previous views In your world, it is absolutely staggering that you would genuinely have a society that gaslights people into "voluntary" work or just says they have no access to public money. Anyone who would hand the government these types of powers is an imbecile, I'm sorry, but you've demonstrated this time and again in your responses. Pretending we agree when we don't to weasel out, trying to find gotcha questions, equating two points as similar when they're just blatantly not. You've time and again tried to avoid my point entirely tbh, I reckon cos you just did not like that I originally said you're nuts. Your idea, is genuinely, insane. Because it ignores how useless it would be economically, how logistically impossible it is, how much more it would actually cost, how easily abused it would be. It essentially takes a problem that, in the grand scheme, is minor and inflates it to this complicated, frustrating thing that doesn't even solve it. Just makes different problems. They do already give people some work experience jobs through the job centre, but it's the logistics of finding out who is genuine and isn't through medical checks and reviews that could lead people to being struck out of the system which is just barmy. What, we should set up charities? Same logic as if the cost of living gets too high, people should set up food shops while the government does ... **** all? No, I will just vote for anyone other than the Reform Party and its 80 year old members who think this nonsense, and then donate my tax money to a decent society. Anyway how's everyone's day?
