Insane
-
Posts
6,442 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Insane
-
-
8 minutes ago, msi said:
A perfect example of the failed braincells that you are.
By your logic. You are a mor*nic muppet that likes to make sh*t up then cries like a spanked ar*se when called out. If I made it up, prove it
You crawled out from under your rock. Had not had a message from you this year which has been a massive bonus pity you could not have kept it that way.
You often talk about spanking is it a fetish of yours are you top or bottom?
-
4 hours ago, nome said:
You're properly embarrassing yourself now digging yourself deeper into this hole.
I've never understood why people feel the need to go on the Internet and just make stuff up.
If I made it up prove it.
-
1 hour ago, nome said:
Which is the exact scenario I was referring to when I suggested how these degenerate wasters can time their breeding programmes to keep suckling at the taxpayer teat for decades. @Insane doesn't seem to understand this not very difficult to grasp concept.
And I'm pretty sure even under UC the 2 Child rule is disregarded if (when) you get one or more of them diagnosed with some ******** "SEN" or "Neurodiverse" or "behavioral" or "spectrum disorder"
Nope you are the one who cannot grasp the concept. You can only claim for two children during the whole of your life not two at a time.
-
16 minutes ago, nome said:
Oh bless, you are getting yourself all confused now aren't you.
Please try and read people's posts properly first, but I'll help you out because I'm nice like that.
I said I'd never heard of this supposed "lifetime limit" you alluded to of only 2 children for the feckless degenerate benefits abusing breeders, NOT the supposed limit of 2 CURRENT children, which as I said can be easily worked around anyway by getting one or more of your neglected, badly behaved, ill socialised offspring diagnosed with this weeks latest made up "SEN" or behavioral disorder.
BTW I've still not found any confirmation of this supposed two child lifetime limit.
It is not current it is lifetime.
Well look harder.
-
16 minutes ago, shlomo said:
Did you bang your head after 10 pints of Guinness, you are the forum Racist not the Forum WOKE
Oh thats a nice dig. lol. You need to look up what the word Racist means as people like you have destroyed it using it inappropriately.
-
15 minutes ago, nome said:
Well there's been a 2 current child limit in place in theory for a long time, but we all know how easily that can be worked around by getting one or more of your Golden Geese diagnosed with some spurious behavioural disorder or learning difficulty.
Yet a post back you had never heard about it.
How do we all know how easily that can be worked around?
17 minutes ago, nome said:Go look it up if you're not familiar with how it works
Don't need to already seen it debated and seen examples of people trying but not getting it. Go and look it up.
-
1 minute ago, nome said:
Really?
Yes
1 minute ago, nome said:Can you provide a link to that?
No I can't but if you want to know google it. There are also plenty of people on here who will confirm it.
2 minutes ago, nome said:I've not seen anything that says you've got a lifetime limit of 2 kids as far as bennies are concerned.
Well I have it is common knowledge. I think it came in in 2017. As I said go and look it up.
3 minutes ago, nome said:And even if there is I'm sure there's all manner of loopholes in place to negate it.
Can you provide a link for that?
-
1 minute ago, nome said:
Not mention that Shazza from the estate with her semi-feral offspring will be pulling in the equivalent of that in benefits, and if she times her breeding programme correctly she can remain doing that for 30 years or more.
Nope she can't do that anymore you can only claim for 2 children now. If she has one later in life as the first ones age to adulthood she won't get any more money.
-
20 minutes ago, Frugal Git said:
Who should wr 'blame' for the system? The government and policy makers or the people on it who were acting rationally? As you said - the jobs themselves being advertised were like that. The companies themselves realised they could pay minimum wage, and the state topped it up, so no incentive for them to do more - especially as that obviously leads to larger profits. If they also worked out that they had to advertise 16 hour jobs to make that happen, then of course it's their 'fiduciary responsibility to maximise shareholder value' to do that too.
The Government who implemented the system and the current Government who carry it on. The companies are going to take advantage the people who it fits for are going to take advantage you cannot blame them.
-
4 minutes ago, Frugal Git said:
You know tax credits HAVE been scrapped yeah? And anyone who is still on it will be taken off it in 2024. Most have been migrated to UC by now.
UC is no cakewalk in terms of hours etc - unless you can qualify for LCWRA, recipients will be hassled mercilessly. It is however still an active disincentive to work more and better yourself if you're on it. It's *worse* than tax credits in some very meaningful ways in terms of being a trap.
Well they both hinder people who need full time work that don't qualify for them. I was made redundant at 49 and told by the job centre that I was too expensive to employ even though I was willing to work for minimum wage. They explained that low paying jobs only wanted part time workers who had their money made up by tax credits. That is why I have always said what would the job market look like without them.
-
3 minutes ago, VancouverGuy said:
Q4 last year the UK unemployment rate was 4.2% - anything less than 5% is what economists refer to as "full employment".
Anyone who wants a job can get one currently.
I wonder how those figures would alter if we did not have people working 16 hours a week and having their pay made up with Tax Credits? We currently have armies of people job sharing. If Tax Credits were scrapped and one job sharer was forced to do the job full time it would free up the second person sharing the job , they would then need to find a full time job. The figures would change.
There are also many on the sick who are not counted as unemployed, huge amounts of people who have private pensions who have not reached state pension age but given up working or looking for work.
The employment rate is not as rosy as it looks.
-
9 minutes ago, Debt Slaves said:
From the video with Liz Truss posted above. 2019.
Liz Truss:"..I'm also in favor of Right to Buy, I'm in favor of people who are council tenants, being able to buy their own homes. Labour are pledging to end the Right to Buy in their manifesto."
The line against Labour at the end was intended as a negative shot!
Irrelevant, whether they stay as council houses or are bought by the tenants the house remains one house that someone lives in. Stopping Right to Buy will not produce any more houses or ease the housing crisis.
-
1 hour ago, debtlessmanc said:
Trouble in Ireland again too
housing shortages are repeatedly raised, no one seems to be listening.
Either build more or stop demand
Edited 1 hour ago by debtlessmanc
Looks like the Irish MSM are as bent as our own. I have seen the vids of this protest on youtube there were far more than 1,000 people attending.
-
Don't forget he introduced tax credits destroying many full time jobs and creating armies of people working 16 hours a week who relied on the tax payer to make up their wages.
8 minutes ago, burk said:Who destroyed private pensions?
This was just being discussed on GBNews when they were talking about people might have to wait until they are 71 for the state pension. Commentator stated that since private pensions were destroyed more and more people are relying more on the state pension.
-
8 minutes ago, kzb said:
Yes, but this lot on here want to cut the state pension
I know people like JJ and others I have told them on a number of occasions be careful what you wish for. They should be calling for it to be improved not cut , life is short and it will be their turn soon.
-
2 hours ago, Si1 said:
My boomer mother in law has literally responded to this by saying it's current working generations' own fault for not fighting their corner sufficiently....
Well she is right isn't she.
After the second World War the working classes demanded more and got it. The NHS, Council Houses, Social Security Safety Net, Better Sick Pay , Better Holiday Pay and Pensions.
The first people to really achieve decent financial security in later life were those retiring about 20 years before the first Boomers retired.
The powers that be saw too many working class people getting far to comfortable so they started to change the rules and benefits of pensions. They have also destroyed council housing, reduced the safety net for many and rolled back many workers rights.
Many boomers have not started to draw the state pension yet, the final ones have another 9 years to wait and will be 67.
Yet many people following the boomers who have been shafted instead of fighting their corner have sat back and blamed the people (boomers) who have also been shafted instead of blaming successive governments who took it from them and doing something about it. Those in power must be pissing their pants laughing.
-
I left the workforce at 58 the thought of going back makes me feel sick. I listen to people still working and think thank fk I don't have to put up with all the shit that they do.
I was fortunate to have decent pensions and I inherited recently. I know many over 60's that still have no choice but to carry on working due to divorce later in life so still having big mortgages. I know others who have very little in pensions they have no choice.
-
Just now, MarkG said:
My aunt might well have been better off doing that, because then the council would have got the care bill.
Though they would probably have put her in a lower-quality care home.
Yes it would have been much lower quality.
I have heard many people say spend all the money and let the state pick up the bill if you become old and infirm. It sounds good but the reality is very different. When my Dad needed care we looked at homes costing £900 a week ( I would not have put a dog in one of them) we also looked at and put him in a home costing £1,500 the difference in the homes was huge. If the state had been picking up the bill he would have ended up in a £900 a week place.
Also we did not have to interact with Social Services or the local authority we just paid for what he needed when he needed it. Let's be honest the money to pay for care belongs to the person needing the care and not those waiting on an inheritance.
-
23 minutes ago, Mandalorian said:
You know how they are putting the dinghy paddlers in hotels....?
Yes it would not surprise me nothing surprises me any more.
I can see many of the developers selling out to the councils but the government would have to give the councils a lot of money for them to be able to do this.
-
8 minutes ago, clarkey said:
It a massive disincentive to work. I had a conversation with a recruiter the other day and was aghast when I said I’d need about a 20k pay rise to make it worth moving jobs as 40% of the rise is eaten by the taxman so a 5k rise is pointless
What was their reply?
I remember being made redundant in the late 80's and going to interviews I was astounded at how low some firms were paying. I got to the point of being in interviews and flatly telling the person doing the interview where to stick the job the look on one guys face in one interview was priceless.
-
26 minutes ago, winkie said:
Who are the crucial people, good or bad?...
Where did I say they were good or bad ? I said they were neither. I said they were crucial not good or bad.
26 minutes ago, winkie said:If so London's loss is another places gain......people now can work one place and live in another place....what is keeping those living in a place they can no longer set down roots.......to grow?
For FK sake that is what we are talking about London is going to lose out as people it needs cannot live there.
The whole point is people can no longer live there. The people London needs like NHS staff, Cleaners, Post Men, Teachers, Shop workers, Restaurant Staff and others are not people who can work in one place and live in another. Do you expect them to commute from Wales every day ?
-
13 minutes ago, Far Canal said:
The silent generation and baby boomers, who didn't buy houses, are currently housed and paid out of the Taxpayer. A whole working life and nothing to show for it. There are hundreds of thousands of them across the country. They cost around £22K each to keep.
No different to the working age generations today where there are hundreds of thousands of people living off the Taxpayer full time. Well it is different actually the silent and boomer generations you speak about who didn't buy houses didn't live off the state during their working years , instead they paid in. But now for many it is a lifestyle choice not to work a choice that was not there in the past.
-
1 minute ago, winkie said:
Why you saying London in trouble?.......they are no more in trouble than anywhere else......London has many good people living there, amongst the rotten apples....
London is in some trouble as it has eaten itself up. Nothing to do with good or bad people living there, it is to do with crucial people needed to keep London running are now unable to afford to live there.
-
3 minutes ago, Orb said:
Sounds like the sort of thing a struggling estate agent would say.
It was not a struggling estate agent it was someone I know who works there as admin support. She had no axe to grind either way and was just stating how things were.
The job market is collapsing before our very eyes!
in House prices and the economy
Posted
Wow that is below the belt and you know it you are not worth replying to sicko I will not reply again.
SICK SICK SICK.