Georgia O'Keeffe Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 (edited) ...successful people get to where they want to be by working with humility and integrity, working in an honest and fair way, looking out for those that are below them as well as those above them, not walking over those who they know to be vulnerable wishing to take advantage of them, to take what they have got. behave if that was the case the economy wouldnt be fcked, the path of least resistance to success today is reached by coercing the state (as it is the majority of GDP it is a no brainer) at least when it comes to financial success and freedom that that brings As for the piffle above about the Indian caste system, (quite a few successful Indians running companies today that have started in the slums), the UK has had a caste system since Norman Times, youve got a Royal family FFS Edited January 21, 2012 by Tamara De Lempicka Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gf3 Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 ...successful people get to where they want to be by working with humility and integrity, working in an honest and fair way, looking out for those that are below them as well as those above them, not walking over those who they know to be vulnerable wishing to take advantage of them, to take what they have got. So what you are saying is the rich should all move to Merthyr Tydfil so the poor can live in the nice areas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 behave if that was the case the economy wouldnt be fcked, the path of least resistance to success today is reached by coercing the state (as it is the majority of GDP it is a no brainer) As for the piffle above about the Indian caste system, the UK has had a caste system since Norman Times, youve got a queen FFS I never mentioned the caste system ...look, all I say is let others do their worst, they can bath in champagne for all I care just don't want to be part of their dirty underhand dealings...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgia O'Keeffe Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 (edited) I never mentioned the caste system ...look, all I say is let others do their worst, they can bath in champagne for all I care just don't want to be part of their dirty underhand dealings...... only the first paragraph was directed at yourself, contrary to your assertation that fairness, ability, integrity etc is best rewarded under the current financial (and the freedom attached to that) system it is clear that that isnt the case or this site wouldnt exist and the UKs social glue/strength wouldnt be rapidly disappearing down a plughole Edited January 21, 2012 by Tamara De Lempicka Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 only the first paragraph was directed at yourself, contrary to your assertation that fairness, ability and innovation is best rewarded under the current system it is clear that that isnt the case or this site wouldnt exist I would argue with that......it depends what your aspirations are and where you want to see yourself in this short life of ours....I agree that the fixed cost of living is very high, although having access to money may pay the bills it will not take you necessarily where you would like to be.....only your ability, character and the other people you meet who can see your potential, want to help will do that for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Debbie568 Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 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). And we should aspire to this particular, years gone past thank goodness, lifestyle why exactly? Actually, I wouldn't mind owning 3 to 5 acres, provided the land hadn't been polluted by industry. I don't fancy subsistence farming it though. For starters it would probably be up on the Pennines or the Scottish Highlands. One would freeze to death before the sheep had grown enough to make them worthwhile to eat. And what exactly is wrong with wanting a good, enjoyable job, with good prospects? Does it occur to you that those on job seekers allowance don't get employed because there are better candidates than them out there for the jobs on offer? Personally I would like to see benefits capped at 30 hours a week at the minimum wage, per household. Plus severe penalties for employers and workers who work under the table, cash in hand. And housing benefit paid only up to the current rate for a one bedroom council flat, and a minimum contribution to the council tax of £10 per week. So the first payment is an acknowledgement that someone in a household wants a job but the government can't fulfil that wish. The second payment is an acknowledgement that we should at least be prepared to provide minimal accommodation and haven't built sufficient social housing to do so. If a B&B is good enough to house homeless families, all squashed into one room, then the rate for a one bedroom council house should do the trick. So the private sector would still have to step in to provide housing. They would now only get about £65 a week per housing unit. Not worth their while? They'll all go bankrupt because that isn't enough to pay for their BTL mortgages? Too bad. The state can buy up their flats at knockdown rates, and help solve the social housing crisis. The poor live in London where £65 a week or thereabouts doesn't even rent a garage? The government should then have the right to relocate them. Glasgow, for instance has plenty of social housing units that are unoccupied or under occupied. How did we ever get to the stage where "no work, no money, (pretending to be) poor as a church mouse, breeding like a rabbit" has become a lifestyle choice, where benefits are so bloody generous that its possible to have a better lifestyle not working than working? Before you all say this couldn't possibly be enough to live on etc, let's see, for Edinburgh: 30 hours a week at £6.08 an hour, is £182 per week so, for a family of four (sorry if the formatting doesn't quite work): Lothian ridacard adult 1 £10.00 Lothian ridacard adult 2 £10.00 Lothian ridacard child 1 £6.00 Lothian ridacard child 2 £6.00 Food and toiletries per week £70.00 utilities and TV licence £25.00 clothes £10.00 telephone, landline only £3.00 broadband (plusnet) £2.00 council tax (minimum contribution) £10.00 Total £152/week Will £280 a month rent something in Edinburgh? Probably not. But after all, you now have a surplus of £30 a week and £95 a week will certainly rent something here. For example, one bedroom flats in Granton, West Pilton or East Calder (all currently on offer on Rightmove.) This is only enough to fund two children? Why should the taxpayer fund any more than two children? Not enough for Sky TV? Or cigarettes? or alcohol? And the taxpayer should pay for these why exactly? Living in a one bedroom flat for a family of four wouldn't be very nice? Yes, also true. but on the other hand they can choose to relocate to somewhere like Motherwell or Airdrie, where £65 a week is more than enough to rent a 2 bedroom flat and you can keep your surplus £30 a week. The bus card will cost a bit more, £10 a week for students and £12.80 a week for adults (First Buses, Lanarkshire/Glasgow), but on the other hand you would now have a bigger living space, and I would think there's a lot more opportunity for work in Lanarkshire/Strathclyde than there is in the Lothians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgia O'Keeffe Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 I would argue with that......it depends what your aspirations are and where you want to see yourself in this short life of ours....I agree that the fixed cost of living is very high, although having access to money may pay the bills it will not take you necessarily where you would like to be.....only your ability, character and the other people you meet who can see your potential, want to help will do that for you. i made a very specific point of highlighting financial success and the freedom that brings, id wholeheartedly agree that social satisfaction has absolutely nothing to do with that, but society over time has regressed to the point where both are externally measured through the first Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 i made a very specific point of highlighting financial success and the freedom that brings, id wholeheartedly agree that social satisfaction has absolutely nothing to do with that, but society over time has regressed to the point where both are externally measured through the first It depends on the circles you mix with, where you live.......sometimes you require a certain financial standing to keep pace with the crowd you mix with......mix with a totally different set of people (some may have money) but they don't flash it or advertise the fact....they are happy with the simple life, therefore simple people can mix with them, and are accepted by them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgia O'Keeffe Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 (edited) It depends on the circles you mix with, where you live.......sometimes you require a certain financial standing to keep pace with the crowd you mix with......mix with a totally different set of people (some may have money) but they don't flash it or advertise the fact....they are happy with the simple life, therefore simple people can mix with them, and are accepted by them. but this choice which few are strong enough to make (particularly when the state rewards opposite behaviour) has nothing to do with modern society as a whole, if it were such that the majority held this view we wouldnt be where we are with the level of dystopia and dissatisfaction, everybody has a choice of friends but you cant live outside of society and its influence to some extent and society is fundamentally influenced by the state, Media and propoganda or they wouldnt exist without the return they bring. Edited January 21, 2012 by Tamara De Lempicka Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 (edited) but this choice which few are strong enough to make (particularly when the state rewards opposite behaviour) has nothing to do with modern society as a whole, if it were such that the majority held this view we wouldnt be where we are with the level of dystopia and dissatisfaction, everybody has a choice of friends but you cant live outside of society and its influence to some extent and society is fundamentally influenced by the state, Media and propoganda or they wouldnt exist without the return they bring. Ha! media and propaganda will influence you if you let it...that is what it is there for, to indoctrinate the gullible...this state rewarding behaviour that keeps people passive and compliant is giving people the tools to dig their own hole, the deeper they dig the harder it is to climb out of....so the state in some cases are not doing people any favours....like I said having to feed out of the hands of those who have control over you, your quality of life must be very unnerving and dissatisfying....the best thing anyone can do for themselves if they can is get out of the paymasters grasp....no one will ever be completely free though. Edited January 21, 2012 by winkie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thod Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 (edited) 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). It's not that bleak, better weather than the UK and lovely countryside. Work is sparse but then you do not need to earn much when you have no outgoings. 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. You can grow enough veg to keep yourself with almost no effort. I do. No need to pay for gym membership, just go dig the garden. Just today I took the dog for an hour and a half walk along the lanes. I have plenty of time to read the net, I have English and French TV. What do you do in England? I bet you would not miss the opera or ballet because you do not go to them anyhow. There are plenty of English people around here and you can learn French as you go. You do not need to speak it to operate. Actually, I wouldn't mind owning 3 to 5 acres, provided the land hadn't been polluted by industry. I don't fancy subsistence farming it though. For starters it would probably be up on the Pennines or the Scottish Highlands. One would freeze to death before the sheep had grown enough to make them worthwhile to eat. I am just the other side of the channel ports. I can pay Ryanair £5 and be back in Luton in an hour or take the overnight ferry. I looked at my situation and made the move. I bought a modern 4 bed detached set in own 3 acre field, no work to do on it. Good flat fertile land. Want to do that near London, pay a million. Over here I got all that for £85k. I don't need much money because I have few outgoings now. I have food and lodgings. Everything is better, schools, healthcare, roads, crime. Work is the only thing is short supply, but so what, it's getting scarcer in London. You have the choice, a slave living in crime ridden slavebox or a dream lifestyle. I own the house and land, nobody can take it from me, it cost me next to nothing. I can make do on 10 hours a week of minimum wage because I have no outgoings. I have a cellar full of spuds, onions and carrots. I have other veg in the chest freezer. I have my own fu**ing orchard and I have lots of cider I made myself. I even grew some youknowwhat. Chickens give me eggs. I will get some sheep and some bees next. The roads are quite, there is no pollution, I can see the stars at night. All for next to no outlay. A sucker?, I have been here 2 years now and it doesn't seem that way to me. You can keep your London life, I made a little cash and got the heck out. Edited January 21, 2012 by thod Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EUBanana Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Believe me some of the council estates and the like are not places most would want to live....they may be near a good area, close to the centre of London but most would not wish to bring a family up in them or send their children to the school near them....the rents have been disproportionately enlarged not because what they are but because of where they are....it's all been the landlords money gathering illusion subsidised by you and I. Only because of the people who live there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EUBanana Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 No one is stopping you deciding for yourself. Yeah, tax evasion is quite tempting I must admit, given where so much of it goes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Debbie568 Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Ha! media and propaganda will influence you if you let it...that is what it is there for, to indoctrinate the gullible...this state rewarding behaviour that keeps people passive and compliant is giving people the tools to dig their own hole, the deeper they dig the harder it is to climb out of....so the state in some cases are not doing people any favours....like I said having to feed out of the hands of those who have control over you, your quality of life must be very unnerving and dissatisfying....the best thing anyone can do for themselves if they can is get out of the paymasters grasp....no one will ever be completely free though. I agree with you that the state aren't doing people any favours. But at the same time I can understand their reluctance to do what they should do and start restricting the benefits to a necessity livestyle only, so enough food plus tools to enable you to find work, ( broadband, a phone, a pass for public transport). I wouldn't underestimate the rage people feel about being part of the thrown away society, the people on the scrapheap for whom society has no use. It's not just the A&Es that are dangerous places to work in Britain. So are job centres. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 I agree with you that the state aren't doing people any favours. But at the same time I can understand their reluctance to do what they should do and start restricting the benefits to a necessity livestyle only, so enough food plus tools to enable you to find work, ( broadband, a phone, a pass for public transport). I wouldn't underestimate the rage people feel about being part of the thrown away society, the people on the scrapheap for whom society has no use. It's not just the A&Es that are dangerous places to work in Britain. So are job centres. I understand your concerns...as mentioned plenty of times on this site, people are happy to receive extra but are not exactly elated when the extra is taken away.....I would like to think that we can all sort of see 'that we are all in this together' from the bottom to the top...benefits falling, child benefit tax credits being taken away, pensions being eroded, pay cuts and freezes, less overtime, more redundancies, higher unemployment, small businesses going under etc etc.....what people will not take imo is when they suspect the continuation of blatant greed and theft at the top, the people who are not taking their share of the strain like the rest will have to...don't believe anything you are told about what will happen or is happening....only believe what you know is to be happening, when it comes from the horses mouth, you see it with your own eyes....everything else is hearsay.....the imbalances are clear for all to see.....some of the people you see on the scrapheap will unfortunately stay there without the willing help of others...others will be in a better position and are stronger to overcome the problems they encounter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest spp Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Talk about moral hazard! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gf3 Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 I understand your concerns...as mentioned plenty of times on this site, people are happy to receive extra but are not exactly elated when the extra is taken away..... So when was it I received extra? Maybe it's because I've got to go to work tomorrow at 5.45 am but it seems to me that the benefit system has just over done it. I would love to have £26,000 in benefits rather than work. OK just £10,000 and I will give some one else my job any takes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frederico Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 So when was it I received extra? Maybe it's because I've got to go to work tomorrow at 5.45 am but it seems to me that the benefit system has just over done it. I would love to have £26,000 in benefits rather than work. OK just £10,000 and I will give some one else my job any takes exactly, this situation is unbelievable, the sense of entitlement in this country has got out of control. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sleepwello'nights Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Not as simple as that.....lets extradite the poor, the weak, the unemployable from their homes and put them into an area where they know nobody, a place where nobody wants to live.......if some people want to push others out they either have got to give them a chance to work so help pay their way, to make up the shortfall, or move them locally to other accommodation or move them out of the area to better accommodation that they are in agreement with.......landlords will lose out, because they will no longer have a regular,steady and guaranteed income, they will have to spend money updating and upgrading their accommodation to fit in with what paying workers expect as a minimum, the income may well become erratic and not so forthcoming and service expectations so much higher....all at a time when incomes and bonuses are falling.....happy days. Sounds a bit like "to each according to their needs, from each according to their ability". It got distorted to this in our socialist new labour society, but it didn't work the right way round in communist societies either. A very naive and wishy washy viewpoint that totally ignores the reality of human nature. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cells Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 The only way to reduce the welfare bill is for the government to build council houses. It could build them for £70k each and it has the land and rubber stamps. It can issue 10 year bonds for sub 1.9% If it then rents those houses for £650 PCM it will own them fully outright within 10 years. That is to say it would have paid back the bond it issued to raise the money to build the house and it would own outright a house. After that it could charge £20 quid a week just to cover maintinance Instead they pay a private owner £400 per week to let back a council house they built and fully paid off some 50 years ago! They could even sell half of them into the private sector if they want to have a mix of social and private in an estate. Not to mention the millions of jobs this would create in the short and medium term. Instead we have an increasing population of 400,000 per year and we build about 70,000 new homes per year (the other 50-70k quoted is largely converting big houses into small flats which doesnt really add anything) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gf3 Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 The only way to reduce the welfare bill is for the government to build council houses. It could build them for £70k each and it has the land and rubber stamps. It can issue 10 year bonds for sub 1.9% If it then rents those houses for £650 PCM it will own them fully outright within 10 years. That is to say it would have paid back the bond it issued to raise the money to build the house and it would own outright a house. After that it could charge £20 quid a week just to cover maintinance Instead they pay a private owner £400 per week to let back a council house they built and fully paid off some 50 years ago! They could even sell half of them into the private sector if they want to have a mix of social and private in an estate. Not to mention the millions of jobs this would create in the short and medium term. Instead we have an increasing population of 400,000 per year and we build about 70,000 new homes per year (the other 50-70k quoted is largely converting big houses into small flats which doesnt really add anything) sounds good to me. can't we improve on the prefabs that were built after the war? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarahBell Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 There needs to be a rule perhaps that allows you 6 months where you are living when you lose your job before you have to downgrade you rented home for one more affordable. Give you a chance of finding another job to pay the rent. If people have never worked and are living in the most expensive housing benefit properties in the UK then what are the chances even if they found work that they could afford to live there? I have no issue with decanting the long term unemployed out of expensive properties. Someone in the 104k properties claimed they would have to move away from their family. Well if their family can afford to live in the rich places then good for them - but the tax payer can not be expected to find insane housing benefit forever. Rent capping would solve the problem a lot easier though and perhaps mean that some people felt work was a sensible option to them at last. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkins Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 Someone in the 104k properties claimed they would have to move away from their family. Agreed, I find it amazing that people who pay their own living costs have to make decisions like this as a matter of course, but those dependent on the taxpayer for housing expect to be able to live wherever they want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Bear Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 There needs to be a rule perhaps that allows you 6 months where you are living when you lose your job before you have to downgrade you rented home for one more affordable. Give you a chance of finding another job to pay the rent. If people have never worked and are living in the most expensive housing benefit properties in the UK then what are the chances even if they found work that they could afford to live there? I have no issue with decanting the long term unemployed out of expensive properties. Someone in the 104k properties claimed they would have to move away from their family. Well if their family can afford to live in the rich places then good for them - but the tax payer can not be expected to find insane housing benefit forever. Rent capping would solve the problem a lot easier though and perhaps mean that some people felt work was a sensible option to them at last. There's a nice little piece in today's Sunday Times about Sayida Khaliif and family, who live in a 6 bed £2m house in fashionable West Hampstead, 'cheek by jowl with neighbours such as Stephen Fry'. Mr Khaliif has not worked since arriving in Britain 3 years ago. Rent is 'estimated at £4,800 a month'. I am going to cut this little piece out and send it to my sister in the States. I don't want to give her an apoplexy but I know she doesn't believe me when I tell her just how ludicrous our benefits system can be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHERWICK Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 Heard on Radio 4 today much wailing and gnashing of teeth about the cruel tories' £26k limit and the need to exempt child benefit payments... 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.