Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

sharpe

Members
  • Posts

    1,101
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by sharpe

  1. they need breakfast delivered...and even have to heat it up themselves?

    surely they need 11's, lunch, tea, and supper delivered too.

    Im sure the needy Jesus spoke about were grateful, and didnt trash the place they were given and complained about the new one.

    as you said we do not know the details of the situation. what are her disabilities; I can only imagine how difficult it is to raise 10 children with just 2 people, with 10 pounds a day for each person after housing costs.

    how many landlords have lied about their tenants - again we do not know their side of this story.

    Cutting their benefits by 70% would leave them in a hovel with 2 quid a day each - reducing any chance those children have of contributing in future.

    Taking away their right to have as many children as they like to a totalitarian concept - an the last century showed well where this ends.

  2. Have a look at the accounts of Philip Green's companies and tell me how much tax they have paid.

    If I don't want Philip Green to have any of my money then I can choose not to spend anything in his shops. I can't choose which "needy" families my taxes go to.

    What about bringing the pop stars who avoid paying taxes, including Bono and Bob Geldof, into your rant.

    I just pointed you to the article showing how tax is avoided massively in Philip Green's affairs.

  3. Are you on benefits? Please answer the question

    i benefit from the health service, the police, infrastructure, the safety from the army and many other things. also child benefit until 2013.

    i had education for many years also and university tuition fees paid.

    i pay more tax than likely anyone you know

  4. In sharpe I think we have an interesting example of a mindset common on the left, that of a staggeringly self-righteous individual or group coming, quite uninvited, to the shrill defence of some supposedly oppressed 'other'.

    Of course, he would probably be a bit disappointed and confused at the actual attitudes expressed by this family, which probably are not quite as politically correct as he would be comfortable with.

    An amusing example of this is the left's defence of Islamic groups which, left to their own devices, would happily stone to death various other protected species - LGBTs, unmarried single mothers et al.

    Ken Livingstone is a perfect example of this torn philosophy at the moment.

    in tahoma we find a classic example of right wing plebian non thinking. using all sorts of government services, likely uninsured against all sorts of catastrophes that he rants against other for accepting state benefit for once they are unlucky enough to have fallen victim to.

    the hypocrite in classic form

  5. A parasite is a parasite is a parasite.

    If it is wrong to be stolen from to pay for the bankers it is wrong to be stolen from to pay for these people. Not needy, not disabled just living off the back of people who work for a living. If you want to be angry about bankers you have to angry about the many thousands of people like these. Logic chap, logic.

    His having been in the army makes no difference. So he wanted to kill people for a living. Woop de do, you think that buys a life a leisure?

    All this schoolboy level rhetoric about people starving in the street is just such utter utter balls I'm surprised that a member of this site which generaly attracts the smarter end of the internet would lower themselves to it.

    the difference is as old as Acts 4 32:35

    they need - that is why i mind less than paying people who do not need.

  6. I dont think a family pulling 95K tax free is needy....do you?

    And what has this to do with banker bailouts, which, IIRC, is just about 100% condemned as wrong too.

    was it 46k between 12 after housing. that is about 10 quid a day each for food, heating, cloths etc... so yes, that is needy.

  7. Missed the point haven't you.

    I do contribute to the fruits of society.

    The intention behind the welfare state was to provide a safety net in case you fell on hard times. Hard times didn't include demanding benefits to bring up more and more children whilst you were suffering those hard times. If you can't provide for your family then contraception is cheap and readily available. Why have more and more children if you can't provide for them?

    And by the way go and have a look at the accounts of Phillips Green's companies. Then tell me he doesn't pay tax. But then lets not let the facts get in the way of a good ol' rant.

    this is a ranting thread - a pack of plebs attacking an army veteran and his disabled wife and children.

    Philip Green: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2006/06/19/sir-philip-green-the-rewards-of-tax-avoidance/

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4763984.stm

    Not one word against a man who avoids hundreds of millions in tax. A rant about two poor people trying to raise a large family.

  8. You are very funny if a little tragic.

    1) Having been in the army does not buy you a life without work.

    2) Disability encompases a range of conditions no all of which mean you are unable to work.

    3) She is clearly not that disabled if she can procreate quite so voraciously.

    4) I have never bought the Daily Mail. not that this has any bearing on the vailidity or not of my arguments.

    I know quite a lot of disabled people (I won't say how for the purposes of anonimity) I know of people who are both deaf and blind (at the same time) who manage to go to work. Having a wonky back, but not so severe that you can sprog out a ton of kids, and expecting the world to owe you a living is a p1ss-take in the face of what genuinely disabled people go through in order to work.

    You are not arguing from any position of logic. You are clinging to preconceptions and offering no counter arguments except that anyone who doesnt want to pay for this family is "scum".

    Could we raise the level of debate above that of the playground?

    The tone of the debate has been set by the title - those joining in kicking an ex-army veteran and a disabled woman can expect like treatment.

    My point is that transfer payments to the needy are very small relative to payments to the non-needy. I am less unhappy about paying money to people who need it rather than those who do not. Although I would naturally rather pay as little as possible.

    - The bankers do not need 7 billion in tax payers money in bonuses this year.

    - The Royal family do not need the billions of pounds in assets they have; which if passed to the treasury would solve a large part of the deficit.

    After WW2 this country was flattened, utterly bankrupt, hundreds of thousands of its best men dead. Yet it managed to build the NHS and make payments to those most in need. This was done by taxing the idle rich. The parasites who need nothing and take enormous resources whilst doing no work and contributing nothing.

    I do not want to see people starving in the streets in my local town - that is what would happen if you stop payments to disabled people or those suffering mentally.

    It is really sad to hear otherwise intelligent people spouting stuff they read in the trash MSM.

  9. The point is these people are not "needy" they have a lifestyle many people have to work very hard to achieve and many never will. Anyone that can spawn and raise that many kids is not so disabled they cannot work, they've just have never had too.

    Explain to me why it is a good thing that my money should be taken from me so I cannot raise children so that these unproductive scammers can?

    Shouting a logical fallacy into the wind that its ok for these folks to rip us off because other people are also ripping us of is...well just a bit thick.

    you may become disabled one day. perhaps you would rather live in a society where disabled people do not live in the gutter, and have a basic level of dignity. Or perhaps you buy the daily mail...

    the man was in the army for christ sake, probably getting some army pension. have you daily mail reading scum no shame?

  10. AbsoluteZero, is that you? :lol: I know I shouldn't feed the troll, but put your Socialist Worker down, and read this. I mean it.

    This country is going to end up like the Congo if the likes of you continue to have an influence on public policy.

    It is people with the same mental attributes as yourself that end up directing the death squads in that corrupt, tribal hell-hole.

    stop trolling with your daily mail and get on your bike

  11. 1. So there are 2 problems, thank you but i think we knew about the bankers from other threads.

    2. It is not just this family, there are thousands of them and a culture of shameless stealing from the tax pot.

    one so called problem is insignificant compared to the other. the banking issue is the elephant in the room will bigots rant about some ants below the floor boards.

    that money they receive will be spent on child rearing. in the worst case it gets spent on local services. the government gives banks billions to do this through "keynesian" economics. or subsidies and guarantees for private companies - the wealth goes straight to people in massive mansions. yet because these people are needy or disabled people despise them

  12. Umm, they are enjoying the fruits of society, and contributing less than eff all. How about they f*ck off?

    I will happily f*ck off to a place where the government - and breathless, hapless supporters of it such as yourself - have absolutely no influence over my life. I am most definitely not enjoying the 'fruit' of this society. It is rotten.

    put the daily mail down. you no doubt use all sorts of things like health, education, infrastructure, rubbish collection, enjoy safety thanks to the police service and army. you are a leech on society. Seriously **** off to Congo for a month or two - you will gladly come back and pay your 0.000000001p a year to these people

  13. forget the bankers, they arent paying £2000 a week for this family.

    no-one hates the needy....we hate the system that pays them a bankers salary for doing nothing.

    Carrying on your argument, then every person should receive £9000 per annum from the government just for having kids.

    And lets not forget, this family are not raising their children, they are relying on others to cook breakfast and deliver it, pizza deliveries, and all the rest just because this woman is so terribly disabled, she cant do anything.....

    course, the article wont tell anything like the real story, its designed to get the heckles up.

    its probably very rare for people to have 10 kids, even if they could afford it.....so why did they?

    The bankers are RECEIVING billions, this family receive and absolute pittance relatively. The work this family do has some social use - unlike that of bankers or the Royal family

    i agree that it will not tell the royal story also that it is designed to turn attention away from the real crooks who pay no tax and have massive state handouts in the banks and other hangers on like Philip Green or the Royal Family

  14. in nature, they would all die.

    we are in nature, and they are doing pretty well. I would rather 95k go to people bringing up 10 kids - than bankers getting 7 billion this year of tax payers money - to be spent on coke and hookers. Prince Charles gets millions a year from the Duchy of Cornwall. Philip Green pays no tax. These are the real scum and social delinquents who need to be exposed.

    we are looking in the wrong direction hating the needy.

    Raising children is noble work; we pay for teachers and child care and social workers to do the same. It reflects how low this society has fallen that child care is not even seen as work.

  15. http://www.tenantdocs.co.uk/RlaAst2004Free.pdf

    I have had a quick look at this document. I would grade it as "just about adequate and not entirely satisfactory."

    I have read the contract. The deposit is held in a fund on which interest is then paid to us at the end; which is an improvement on anything I have had before. It seemed reasonable, so will probably take it.

    As you say it might not be worth a lawyers review for a one year contract. Thanks for the pointers.

  16. Excuse me for being stupid, but I'm struggling to see where the claim that the deficit is entirely the banks fault comes from....

    If the banks caused it, the argument must be that they caused the inbalance between government expenditure and tax receipts.... one assumes through a collapse in tax reciepts as a result of the economic woes.

    The problem I have is that I cannot see any evidence that the credit crunch is the direct cause of the 160bn deficit the country is currently running at....

    Here's the tax receipts for the last 50 yrs....

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/apr/25/tax-receipts-1963

    Here's a graph of private and government debt.... which suggests that the rate of increase of debt hardly changed during the crisis.

    http://lightwater.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/mckinsey-international-debt-chart.

    UK Gov spending.... where's the big jump due to the "bankers"?

    http://flipchartfairytales.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/uk-public-spending-total.png

    Now, I accept there's been money thrown into the economy to boost public sector spending to ease the effects of the global slowdown, but none of these graphs show much rate of change between what we were spending before the crisis and after...

    Am I missing something?

    didn't Brown have a golden rule about the ratio of debt to GDP, something like 40%

    that went out the window in 2008 to bail out the banks.

    not sure what it is now - 100% or something?

  17. Our son and daughter-in-law went to their friends last night to see the new house while we did some baby-sitting for them. As we were leaving the conversation went like this:

    DIL "They have got a lovely semi"

    Me "How much was it?"

    DIL "For a semi it was very expensive at £337k but they made £60k on their other house"

    Me "They didn't make anything they are worse off because prices rose so much"

    DIL "NO! They made £60k because they bought it for £120k and sold it for £180k"

    Me "But if it went up about a third so did the one they have just bought. That would have been £225k without HPI"

    DIL Is speechless and looks confused.

    Son "Dad means the gap has grown wider"

    Me "They now have a £157k gap to fund where without HPI it would only be about £105k. HPI has cost them £52k plus interest on it"

    DIL "Well I've never thought of it like that - anyway - they have a nice house and are very happy"

    Me "Without HPI they could have had the same house but not had as much debt - they might be happier because they would have a £52k less mortgage. It's the bankers who are really happy about it."

    She meant that she made £60k relative to where she would have been if they had never owned a house...

  18. I am expecting a rental contract for a new place in the next week. A bit more nervous now as it is for a year and we have a little one so I do not want to get kicked out at short notice

    I will read the contract, but was thinking of getting it read by a lawyer. Can anyone recommend someone decent and reasonably priced?

    Thanks

  19. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11473352

    So it's ok so long as some of them actually pay tax on it. :D

    We're all in this together :lol:

    Same old gravy train of skimming, scamming and backhanders (now financed by the taxpayer support) continues..........

    What is fascinating is how impotent the british public are. Anger furiously typed out on a keyboard - then barely a whimper in public.

    Pathetic - the lot of you

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.