Minimum Wage Increases To £6.31 Across The Uk

[Damik]

You are both missing my point. I am not making a racist comment. When fossil fuels run out there will be no lorry's tractors ect.

unless we find an alternative which at the moment unknown. Bio fuel may be the answer but that is going to take a lot of land out of food production.

Your best hope is that you will be dead by the time TSHTF

when this happens (and for now it seems we are OK for at least 50 years) we will use cheap night nuclear fission or fusion electricity to make artificial hydro carbon fuels or just charge new generation of batteries for the vehicles

[byron78]

therefore we have something called "benefits"

but the current political discussion is that perhaps the tax payers are forced to spend too much on the benefits and instead of being a helping net it becomes a life style

also just an idea that we will somehow subsidise more than half of the society seems a bit unsustainable, aka Greece ...

Every tax payer in Britain pays more to the landowning elite (IDS included) than they do the unemployed.

That's not misplaced socialism, it's sadly happening.

The EU farm subsidies sucked up by Ian Duncan Smith and Co in this country cost 55 billion (not all from the UK, but it's the bulk of what we give Europe) in total and each of us at least £300 a year.

The unemployment benefit bill is less than 5 billion and cost us each personally less than the EU farm subsidies cost us. Yes I know there are other benefits on top, but until the likes of Ian Duncan Myth hand back the £3000 they've been getting A WEEK for the past 15 or so years for being farmers (when they're not) I cannot take their assault on the poorest in society seriously.

It's frankly sick being as so many of the people attacking benefit culture at the moment are gobbling up taxpayer bought benefits (that are far FAR larger) via the EU proxy themselves.

That to me is the epitome of something for nothing culture in this country.

Until we fix the roof in our trickle down society the basement is frankly going to remain flooded. Tory policy at the moment amounts to "so what. Just board it up and let people drown".

If my money is going to be redistributed I want it to go to the poor, old, or sick not the rich.

If my money isn't going to be redistributed I'd quite like the rich to stop taking it first before they decide I should stop giving it to anyone else.

Doesn't seem too much to ask does it?

Edited October 2, 2013 by byron78

[Traktion]

Why? There are other countries who will exchange whatever the UK has to offer? for oil, coal and gas as other countries have a surplus of these goods.

The UK has one specific problem that it doesn't produce much that it can exchange for fuel, thus the trade deficit.

I often hear people say that the UK should not have a bigger population than can be supported by the land, they complain about Polish and Romanian immigrants.

What this cohort fail to grasp is that when these people relocate from else ware in Europe they leave behind a surplus of energy and food that is then imported into the UK - it balances out.

There is a bit of a WW2 mentality that the borders will be shutdown and everyone will starve because we cant import beef from Ireland, oil from Saudi and apples from France.

+1

It is a statist mindset, likely created by generations of propaganda (from both 'sides') about other 'evil' countries (themselves, legal fictions) and 'we' (people in this tax farm) need to protect ourselves from them.

This whole concept of heavy border is an entirely new concept. British passports came about during WW1, to try to stop 'them' pretending to be 'us' and spying/sabotaging things during the war. Before then, there was little reason to bother with such restrictions.

Ofc, now we have various theft/redistribution systems which make borders mandatory for them to function. As such, it's a 'problem' of the state's own making. When you have systems which rely on voluntary association, borders become largely irrelevant.

[PopGun]

Every tax payer in Britain pays more to the landowning elite (IDS included) than they do the unemployed.

That's not misplaced socialism, it's sadly happening.

The EU farm subsidies sucked up by Ian Duncan Smith and Co in this country cost 55 billion (not all from the UK, but it's the bulk of what we give Europe) in total and each of us at least £300 a year.

The unemployment benefit bill is less than 5 billion and cost us each personally less than the EU farm subsidies cost us. Yes I know there are other benefits on top, but until the likes of Ian Duncan Myth hand back the £3000 they've been getting A WEEK for the past 15 or so years for being farmers (when they're not) I cannot take their assault on the poorest in society seriously.

It's frankly sick being as so many of the people attacking benefit culture at the moment are gobbling up taxpayer bought benefits (that are far FAR larger) via the EU proxy themselves.

That to me is the epitome of something for nothing culture in this country.

Until we fix the roof in our trickle down society the basement is frankly going to remain flooded. Tory policy at the moment amounts to "so what. Just board it up and let people drown".

If my money is going to be redistributed I want it to go to the poor, old, or sick not the rich.

If my money isn't going to be redistributed I'd quite like the rich to stop taking it first before they decide I should stop giving it to anyone else.

Doesn't seem too much to ask does it?

+100

[wonderpup]

therefore we have something called "benefits"

but the current political discussion is that perhaps the tax payers are forced to spend too much on the benefits and instead of being a helping net it becomes a life style

also just an idea that we will somehow subsidise more than half of the society seems a bit unsustainable, aka Greece ...

So should we start by cutting the benefits given to the poor, or with the benefits given to the wealthy? I see a lot of talk about the former, but virtually nothing is said about the latter.

When it comes to subsidised lifestyles it would appear that Ian Duncan Smith does a lot better than the people whose spare bedrooms he seems so indecently obsessed with.

When people like IDS start talking about the subsidies provided to the welfare queens of the home counties it might be possible to regard his stance on welfare as something other than a sanctimonious hypocrisy- but I will not be holding my breath for that day to arrive.