LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksAll good arguments in favour of a communist solution i say!
All good arguments in favour of a communist solution i say!
Yeah !!!! The government should decide what computer you 'need'!Originally Posted by xodianbarr
Etonian Inbreeding
oddly enough... ( sic )Private schools exist to hoard power among those who already have it. In 1954, 65 percent of those earning £1,000 or more had been to private school, and of those earning £1,000 or more with sons of school age, 95 percent were sending them to private schools.10 In 1991 John Scott estimated that around 35 of the 200 richest families in England were headed by Old Etonians.11 In March 2009 the Sutton Trust estimated that 70 percent of the top judges in Britain had been educated at private schools, along with 62 percent of the House of Lords, 55 percent of the senior solicitors, 54 percent of company chief executives and 54 percent of the best-paid journalists.12
mOne of the reasons why the school is able to afford lavish expenditure on its pupils is that the school benefits from a public subsidy of £39 million per year. Parents who send their children to Eton as to any private school with “charitable status” may claim back the fees from their personal taxes.16 This was an abuse repeatedly acknowledged but uncorrected by Labour.17 Oddly enough, for all the talk of austerity and common sacrifice, the coalition government has no plans to remove the subsidy of private education in the present round of cuts
Last edited by melon; 19-03-2013 at 07:47 PM.
So all private schools are free? No wonder they are so popular.
I'd quibble with that on the grounds that the disabled are fighting while also battling their condition, which makes the nuts & bolts of every little trivial bit of daily living harder, let alone fighting for benefits. However I don't detract at all from the obstacles facing their employed fellows in finding & hanging onto their jobs, and all that entails upon that. Don't misunderstand me, everything I say in defence of benefit claimants is not to underestimate the obstacles faced by others - even if they aren't the same obstacles. The difference is I have every sympathy for them, whereas there is not a lot to go round for the sick who are frequently made to feel like pariahs on top of already having a pretty rough end of the stick. Doesn't seem a lot to ask to work with people rather than treat them as a problem, just a bunch of inconvenient costly whiney sick people.
On the issue of NI, I'm not suggesting that's a key issue here, merely saying you would probably object to being lumped in with the label of 'takers' if you are among those who have contributed.
And if its any help to you, I'll personally be conveniently off the end of the pier somewhere long before dependent old age kicks in.
Not sure about that.
Meanwhile on the other side of the pond..
same ol story being played out with favors being bought up by already rich companies while the poor get hammered more and more..
Its almost like we have the same government everywhere now , almost like a new world order..
M
All part of the 'class' problem. On one hand you a benefits-dependant class at the bottom, while private schools, schools ties and playing tennis establish a posh lot at the top. Those in the middle are too busy busting their asses to pay for the lifestyles of these other two groups to realise how much they're being stiffed.
If you can get rid of " God " and legalize Euthanasia then you can have my benefits , and I'll take my chances with whatever.I'd quibble with that on the grounds that the disabled are fighting while also battling their condition, which makes the nuts & bolts of every little trivial bit of daily living harder, let alone fighting for benefits. However I don't detract at all from the obstacles facing their employed fellows in finding & hanging onto their jobs, and all that entails upon that. Don't misunderstand me, everything I say in defence of benefit claimants is not to underestimate the obstacles faced by others - even if they aren't the same obstacles. The difference is I have every sympathy for them, whereas there is not a lot to go round for the sick who are frequently made to feel like pariahs on top of already having a pretty rough end of the stick. Doesn't seem a lot to ask to work with people rather than treat them as a problem, just a bunch of inconvenient costly whiney sick people.
On the issue of NI, I'm not suggesting that's a key issue here, merely saying you would probably object to being lumped in with the label of 'takers' if you are among those who have contributed.
And if its any help to you, I'll personally be conveniently off the end of the pier somewhere long before dependent old age kicks in.
Ive lost so much quality of life I cant even begin to start , and not just one issue but a collection of them ( like many disabled ) that cut and kill you so many different ways.
Do you have any idea what its like to live with no sense or smell and very little taste ?
To some that isnt regarded as a disability , but trust me its one of the most challanging things i've faced, not because it stops me or causes physical pain but because it destroys who you are , and those very emotions and memories you probably dont even notice , yet affect your mood / life.
Thats just one niggling thing, one sense I can never get back that haunts me day in and day out .
Its not like i a job i can drop or leave its with me forever , do you understand ?
Have you ever lost anything permanently ?
Well until you do , until you lose a sense youve had your whole life or a limb or something you cant get back you would do well to reflect on your ideas of suffering, because trust me losing wealth or material possessions is nothing compared to losing yourself. ( with exception of 3rd world countries at least )
If you dont believe me your welcome to try.
m
I read today that if you are unemployed that this next year you will have to pay at least some council tax. I think it said it was 20%. If you are disabled then you don't pay anything still.
So for the unemployed even with a family you will have less money next year.
Quite right too. Otherwise the unemployed vote for endless local services increases, pushing up council tax with no adverse effects on their own pocket.
Are they the only people eligible to vote then?
It seems from what I understand that the NHS and welfare system has taken this country to the point of bankruptcy. The country owes 5 x more than it is worth. Each household is effectively 40000 in debt and we are still borrowing!
Interest rates are at an all time low but they will rise, that is inevitable and when they do this country will not be able to service the debt mountain it has created. When that happens the NHS will be privatised and the welfare system will be scrapped and replaced with something cheaper. Taxes will have to rise and we will all be poorer. IMHO it is inevitable Our national debt is more than twice that of greece and they are a country in ruin where people have had wage cuts overnight and austerity measures continue to affect every member of their population.
I pray someone cleverer than me will tell me how wrong I am it will all be ok, but all I ask is that you look at the facts before shooting me down.i believe This country in 5 years will look very different and as I said I hope I'm wrong but I don't see a way out of this mess.
And I am not anti benefits or a hater of the poor or any other such like. I am just an interested reader of the news and the way I see things the chickens are going to come home to roost at some point and as always the poor will suffer the most.
You might have to watch out for my concrete shoes! (Seriously thou, I'd kill myself with nitrogen narcosis).And if its any help to you, I'll personally be conveniently off the end of the pier somewhere long before dependent old age kicks in.
But seriously thou, as I've said time and time again, its a case of Apples and Oranges to compare long term disabled, with the stresses these times bring to someone who is working.
All I am complaining about is the melodrama over it. The inherient racisim and entitled attitude, particularly of one poster here, makes me question the effect of our whole benefit system.
On one hand he is happy to condem 'chavs', I use the phrase underserving poor, I find my mind going to Orwells other books (not 1984 or animal farm, can't recall the titles) were he talks about the effect of money and poverty on the differen't lower classes, from lower-middle to lower-lower. It is interesting how this person feels one group should be treated with contempt, whilst another not. Yet that group is entirely fuzzy in their mind, its basically I should get more, at the expense of them.
To me it is simply a case of respect, what they have for the system. If they are un-greatful for it, thinking that its simply should constantly give them more, I feel it easy to label them as undeserving, because afterall they are not doing any work, anything that is helping the economy which they are taking from. It is a harsh distinction to make, I grant you, and in a way no better than the older ideas of labelling people barstards, but the reason I feel is self forfilling.
The problem is ultimately any benefit comes at the expense of others, not even taking in to account how in-effective benefits are; I forget the stats, but all the governements have had terrible failure with people who have been on JSA for 2+ years, when it comes to the conversion rate.
As it stands we are having to help an increasing proportion of our population, that cost has to come from somewhere, at the same time our GDP hasn't grown inline with this. Something has to be done.
Attempting to make the benefits system more granular will enable us to still help those who are the most in need. If we fail to reform the care system, in the same vain as if we fail to tackle the defecit, the outcome would be much worse.
This is all I am complaining about, the sense of entitlement, the melodrama of which is it been compared to slavery. Just today figures show another 7,000 people are out of work. Some of those will need the safety net of JSA, some might even need housing benefit and support for their family. If the system which provides these benefits is contracting, that means those who are reliant on them have to understand an adjustment is coming.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
Actually this is a very common moral hazard of democracy.
It happens all the damned time, the heard attacking the weak. It is only due to polititions playing a dangerous balancing act that we don't just increase tax constantly on a minority of people. The 50p tax was one such example, some estimates suggest it reduced the total taxed income, but its incredibly hard to say for certain. All we do know is a large number of people who before the introduction of it, would have been subjected to it, were not there. As many as 2/3rds for some very high income group. They are in a way 'lucky', they have the economic strength to avoid such tactics. It is a very human nature to attack people outside of ones group.
My personal favourite example of this thou, is housing people vote to prevent new development of it "I like the green views" etc. All very well, but next time you see someone is homeless remember you helped make them so, due to the supply and demand problems we have, espesually so in London.
Sometimes it goes the other way thou, the way democratic cells are structured, a classic example is pretty much any industry subsidy. This is where a bunch of people, for whom this industry is very important on their micro level, vote to penalise everyone else. I can't help but feel all subsidies are inheriently evil in consiquences, regardless of what they where trying to achive (regeneration, national security), because I've yet to ever see one re-pay everyone that it harmed. See the CAP, the strange protectionisim, espesually on wine for the one I loath the most.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
Your words not mine , never once said I was entitled or should get more ( though you comparison of work and disability as apple n oranges betrays your own lack of understanding or "experience" )
My argument is the same as sammys which apparently you choose to ignore , namely the added stress of having a system that punishes by having to appeal all the time , or worry about having to to extra activities when you cant even cope with normal ones .
Sammy gave numerous examples , but you just cant relate to it ( understandably ) because youve never been in that position or gone through the "grind " so you have Zero idea of the emotional / physical / social / mental impact- unless its through money.
You cycle and workout ( i know because you told me ) tell me how would like to lose all that , in exchange for your job and some benefits a month , and knowing youd never do it again ?
Does that sound fair ?
And what if you couldnt drive and had to tolerate public transport / bad tempered bus drivers and passengers being awkward with you and refusing to help all the time , or kids and any one else ?
What you going do , if you depend on them - or some god dam carer whose borderline rude and cant stand you , that you have to put up with ?
Or if you want love .. but soon find out nobody goes for disabled folk unless its part of their job description ?
Hell , what happens if you ended with locked-in syndrome ? ( all things that could happen once compromised )
Would you really trade your current life / health unconditionally for all that , just to spend yours days with no health or job security and continually having to babysit your every movement forever for fear of getting worse ?
If you would your more Etonian than your letting on. ( Is that why your pro Tory I wonder ? .. )
Chavs are lot more than poverty , they are group or subculture of anti social troublemakers and cheats who knock up your single mothers , so yes I'll discriminate them and use derogatory term because I have no respect for them.
m
Last edited by melon; 20-03-2013 at 01:03 PM.
Why is YOUR individual happiness MY problem?
Take the whole group dynamic out of it - there is no such thing as the government's money - it is MY money you're taking. Which I have to work for, hard.
Your argument is you have an unconditional right to take large chunks of my money, which involves hard graft and time on my part and not some theoretical entity, because you are ill?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote