Mrs Bear Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 (edited) When did the benefits 'rot' start, anyway? When did it stop being just a safety net and turn into a possible choice as well? Back in the hot summer of 76 Mr B and I went to visit an old friend of his. Mid 20s, highly, expensively educated, maths/physics degree, physically fit, admittedly just a mite weird. By choice he was spending the whole summer on the dole, in a rented rural cottage in Sussex, amusing himself by doing maths problems and reading music scores. I was naively shocked at the time that he could just choose to do this (he wasn't from Sussex, had an alternative family home in London) and nobody apparently said, 'No,you're perfectly capable of working, get off your a*se and find a job.' His attitude was a shruggy, 'If they're happy to give it to me, why shouldn't I take it?' Edited June 13, 2011 by Mrs Bear Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkins Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 When did the benefits 'rot' start, anyway? When did it stop being just a safety net and turn into a possible choice as well? Back in the hot summer of 76 Mr B and I went to visit an old friend of his. Mid 20s, highly, expensively educated, maths/physics degree, physically fit, admittedly just a mite weird. By choice he was spending the whole summer on the dole, in a rural cottage in Sussex, amusing himself by doing maths problems and reading music scores. I was naively shocked at the time that he could just choose to do this, and nobody apparently said, 'No,you're perfectly capable of working, get off your a*se and find a job.' His attitude was a shruggy, 'If they're happy to give it to me, why shouldn't I take it?' Dmitri Orlov has a good line that goes something like, 'What's the problem with free money? Is it that it's free, or that it's money?' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkins Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 (edited) You'll never solve the dependency culture unless you're prepared to let people starve to death. Personally I'd happily say to working-age able-bodied people, "Work or starve," provided there was work they could do. You big jessie, be a man and follow your crazy logic through to its natural conclusion: Landless proles must be allowed to starve during periods of high unemployment caused by the speculative bubbles of owners of capital. Edit: Btw, what would you do to the ones who started stealing food? Edited June 13, 2011 by Dorkins Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverland Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 You'll never solve the dependency culture unless you're prepared to let people starve to death. Cheer up, I suspect George Osborne, Call-me-Dave, IDS and Liam Fox all agree with you, but they have to pretend not to in order to get elected Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cartimandua51 Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 (edited) When did the benefits 'rot' start, anyway? When did it stop being just a safety net and turn into a possible choice as well? Back in the hot summer of 76 Mr B and I went to visit an old friend of his. Mid 20s, highly, expensively educated, maths/physics degree, physically fit, admittedly just a mite weird. By choice he was spending the whole summer on the dole, in a rented rural cottage in Sussex, amusing himself by doing maths problems and reading music scores. I was naively shocked at the time that he could just choose to do this (he wasn't from Sussex, had an alternative family home in London) and nobody apparently said, 'No,you're perfectly capable of working, get off your a*se and find a job.' His attitude was a shruggy, 'If they're happy to give it to me, why shouldn't I take it?' I think the difference was that back then ( I remember that summer well!) it tended to be a temporary thing. The guy was educated and single and had chosen to "turn on, tune in and drop out" as was fashionable. I would suspect that 5 years later he might well have been a City Analyst! (Do you happen to know?) That's a bit different from the 3-generation workless that we have now. Also, the pernicious effects of Housing benefit didn't exist untill the late 70s/80s; until then, IIRC, you got National Assistance which was a set amount which had to cover everything - so you chose whether to live in the cheapest rat-infested hovel you could find so as to have more money for other things, or to be better housed but poorer. Edited June 13, 2011 by cartimandua51 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lepista Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 People didn't flock to town slums and factories in the Industrial Revolution because they were forced to (generally; there are obvious exceptions like the Highland Clearances) it was because subsistence farming is so damned hard. Or was it because subisstence farming didn't give you any FIAT, so you had to go somewhere that did in order to be able to pay your TAX? i.e. not forced movement, but if you don't start earning income we'll take it off you legally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverland Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 What gets me is the attitude of "I'm entitled to a GOOD job, with GOOD prospects that I ENJOY". This has only been a possibility for 95% of the population in the last 50 years or so; and not just because of evil BTL / Banksters / Government /NWO or whatever. if you owned a 3- 5 acre smallholding in victorian times you (and all your family) would would be working all hours of the day to keep body and soul together. People didn't flock to town slums and factories in the Industrial Revolution because they were forced to (generally; there are obvious exceptions like the Highland Clearances) it was because subsistence farming is so damned hard. Not just in England; consider all the deserted villages in rural France (until bought up by rosy-spectacled Brits -personally, I can think of nothing more bleak than winter in Northern France or the Auvergne). The reality is for around 1/2 to 2/3 of the population there is no/little chance of a what traditionally seen as a "good" job, because they simply aren't educated/intelligent enough and the number of these 40 year careers is significantly diminished Much as I despise the Tories on a personal and policy basis on so many levels, they have got a point about needing to force people into work and reduce marginal tax rates as people lose benefits Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PopGun Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 You'll never solve the dependency culture unless you're prepared to let people starve to death. Fancy your chances do you?! You're the owner of the Zombie Proof house, and I claim my five biscuits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cartimandua51 Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Or was it because subisstence farming didn't give you any FIAT, so you had to go somewhere that did in order to be able to pay your TAX? i.e. not forced movement, but if you don't start earning income we'll take it off you legally. My understanding is that until about 1840 tithes HAD to be paid in kind, not cash, so rather the reverse of what you are suggesting. References / links to your sources? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lepista Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 My understanding is that until about 1840 tithes HAD to be paid in kind, not cash, so rather the reverse of what you are suggesting. References / links to your sources? No link - hence why my comment was a question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
athom Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 What about non cash benefits, they are often forgotten about, and add up to a large sum too. A nice subsidised council house is the big one of course, but not forgetting free school meals. The cap should take into account these benefits too. And this should be just a stop gap until we change to a citizens income, with no child related benefits. free school trips, free laptop because they're "poor" etc etc etc while the average income working family gets nothing but more and more taxes to pay for it all. What a bunch of shit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
athom Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 It'll cover all families including HB and benefits ... Making it make sense to downgrade housing to get more cash for the fags and booze maybe. BUT I think there are exemptions for kids with "disabilities". They count tartrazine induced behaviour as a disability so ms average scummer and her brood of seven kids will still screw you well over as there will be at least one kid needing extra benefits and one needing disability freebie car. and the dad will have to stay home to be the full time carer to the mum with the lard induced bad back and 7 behaviourally challenged asboers. Gawd bless em. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beccles Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 free school trips, free laptop because they're "poor" etc etc etc while the average income working family gets nothing but more and more taxes to pay for it all. What a bunch of shit Is the Laptop one still running? I nearly put my fist through the one I'd just bought when I first heard that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
athom Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Is the Laptop one still running? I nearly put my fist through the one I'd just bought when I first heard that. I think so, only heard about it maybe a month ago on radio 4, for the "under-privileged". I think it was related to Bill Gates somehow. Receptionist where i work both her and husband work full time and struggle for everything always a bill or 2 away from the edge, can't always afford her kids school trips while scummers down the road get it paid for because they don't work for it. Her kids struggle without a laptop each doing homework which all requires it these days apparently, no problem for the scummers, they get them because they don't work for it. And when this injustice is reversed they'll probably expect us to pay the bus fair for them to go and riot over it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beccles Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 (edited) and the dad will have to stay home to be the full time carer to the mum with the lard induced bad back and 7 behaviourally challenged asboers. Gawd bless em. Change the 7 to a 3 and you've pretty much nailed on the head one of my old school friends life. They've just got back from a holiday in Cornwall that a charity bought for them, neither of them have ever worked. Only 33yo as well, rent a house from her aunt (On HB of course). Edited June 13, 2011 by beccles Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superted187 Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Everyone calm down - this proposal has already been watered down http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jun/13/benefits-curb-plan-exceptions "Scheme to prevent benefit claimants getting more than £26,000 will be waived for 'exceptional circumstances'" So the scummer family on page one have slightly less to worry about now. Just keep churning out more offspring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nationalist Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 You big jessie, be a man and follow your crazy logic through to its natural conclusion: Landless proles must be allowed to starve during periods of high unemployment caused by the speculative bubbles of owners of capital. Edit: Btw, what would you do to the ones who started stealing food? Flog them! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Democorruptcy Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 FTSE pay rose another 32% on average last year. How could they keep those rises going if the government didn't hand out such generous benefits, so that the unemployed can buy their luxuries? Lots of working people cannot afford any luxuries needing two incomes to buy their slave boxes and pay for their own children. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neverland Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Flog them! Bullied at school perhaps? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicestersq Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 FTSE pay rose another 32% on average last year. How could they keep those rises going if the government didn't hand out such generous benefits, so that the unemployed can buy their luxuries? Lots of working people cannot afford any luxuries needing two incomes to buy their slave boxes and pay for their own children. I think we are all angry at FTSE execs pay too. As I have said before, this is because the shareholders votes are stolen. The real beneficial shareholders dont get to vote, instead those who manage the various funds, not the true owners, get to vote, and they dont vote in the interests of the shareholders. We desperately need a law to ensure that only individuals who own the shares are permitted to vote on them. Just because one group of people are taking more than they are contributing, it doesnt make it legitimate for another group to do the same. They are both wrong and need to be sorted out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Democorruptcy Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 I think we are all angry at FTSE execs pay too. As I have said before, this is because the shareholders votes are stolen. The real beneficial shareholders dont get to vote, instead those who manage the various funds, not the true owners, get to vote, and they dont vote in the interests of the shareholders. We desperately need a law to ensure that only individuals who own the shares are permitted to vote on them. Just because one group of people are taking more than they are contributing, it doesnt make it legitimate for another group to do the same. They are both wrong and need to be sorted out. That was something Vince Cable was suggesting - pre-election of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicestersq Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 That was something Vince Cable was suggesting - pre-election of course. Its a reasonable idea. Biggest flaw as I see it is you only need a few individuals with a large enough equity holding to win the vote, as most shares will become unvoteable as they are held in funds. I think Sainsbury's has a few individuals that control large numbers of votes. So if you could grap enough shares, or your friends can, you can still get a big pay packet without the majority of shareholders really supporting it. It would be interesting to see the outcome, as in lots of cases, the small shareholders are bound to be able to effect change. If the small guys could win, then it might encourage others to own shares too, something that has to be good for the way things are run. If it doesnt work, then something else would have to be tried. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Democorruptcy Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Its a reasonable idea. Biggest flaw as I see it is you only need a few individuals with a large enough equity holding to win the vote, as most shares will become unvoteable as they are held in funds. I think Sainsbury's has a few individuals that control large numbers of votes. So if you could grap enough shares, or your friends can, you can still get a big pay packet without the majority of shareholders really supporting it. It would be interesting to see the outcome, as in lots of cases, the small shareholders are bound to be able to effect change. If the small guys could win, then it might encourage others to own shares too, something that has to be good for the way things are run. If it doesnt work, then something else would have to be tried. Aren't the people with the largest shareholdings the executives via their share options, voting for their own remuneration excesses? Look at a firm like Barclays the share price was 790 in 2007 and now it's 267 so shareholders are 67% down on their investment. Now the amount allocated to dividends is a fraction of what it was before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goat Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Aren't the people with the largest shareholdings the executives via their share options, voting for their own remuneration excesses? No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erranta Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 <br />I think the difference was that back then ( I remember that summer well!) it tended to be a temporary thing. The guy was educated and single and had chosen to "turn on, tune in and drop out" as was fashionable. I would suspect that 5 years later he might well have been a City Analyst! (Do you happen to know?)<br />That's a bit different from the 3-generation workless that we have now.<br />Also, the pernicious effects of Housing benefit didn't exist untill the late 70s/80s; until then, IIRC, you got National Assistance which was a set amount which had to cover everything - so you chose whether to live in the cheapest rat-infested hovel you could find so as to have more money for other things, or to be better housed but poorer.<br /> Thatcher onwards - wiped out millions of manufacturing jobs they traditionally did offering Apprentice semi-skilled skilled work they stuck at all their lives. Gordon Brown "We are a 'Service' economy" You can see how they are brainwashing loads by all the garden and chef programmes training people up for when the fascist IP class get the guts to reveal themselves fully and re-enter the 'Stately' Mansions (prob after privatising the NHS) High rents and house prices also an 'X' factor - when you cannot perform a minimum wage job without Govt housing subsidy to help pay for a bedsit. The deliberate sell-off, then minimal building of new public housing to create huge shortages (whilst letting in millions of immigrants (note the 'MM' factor Master Mason symbol) ) is done just to get the poors' backs up by the elites and by putting pumters into the private housing sector ensures Billions of pounds of taxpayer money is diverted to the City by mortgage interest when people are thrown out of their jobs = exponential Bonuses for the few elites/City boys and their shareholders Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.