Single Mother Of 4 Admits On Dragons Den She Needs £60k

[cells]

Well no clearly, because we had such wonderful 'Poor Laws' and institutions such as these:

A marvellous idea to be sure!

Ignorance.

[The Conveyancer]

Look at coal mining in this country for a good example, some 2 million miners replaced mostly by machines. But do we have 2m less jobs today? As a society are we better off or worse now that machines do that job?

The areas where the coal mines were are massively worse off than when the pits were open. They replace miners with machines and rip the heart out of communities. Mines employed whole towns of people who thrived. They shut the mines, the whole town is now on the social, there are no jobs for the kids, the locals start moving out and those left end up living in a dive of an area with boarded up houses and shops all over the place. Hmmm, sounds like progress to me!

[stonethecrows]

Why?

If his mother/father paid tax then that was stolen and should be given back to them which would far outweigh the child tax credits.

As an example, if I mugged you on the street and stole your wallet with £100 in it, then I bought you an ice-cream for £1. your saying you should refund the mugger £1 as he bought you an ice-cream.

If you stole my wallet on the street cells THE last thing on your mind would be buying an ice-cream sunshine since you'd be too busy running for your life

[stonethecrows]

The areas where the coal mines were are massively worse off than when the pits were open. They replace miners with machines and rip the heart out of communities. Mines employed whole towns of people who thrived. They shut the mines, the whole town is now on the social, there are no jobs for the kids, the locals start moving out and those left end up living in a dive of an area with boarded up houses and shops all over the place. Hmmm, sounds like progress to me!

The mines were shut because of cheap imported coal NOT because of mechanisation as I understood it. Reviled as she was at the time Maggie wasn't as mad as she was cabbage looking-why deplete our own reserves if we could use those of other countries.

[Britney's Piers]

In Africa there is a nomadic tribe that crosses a certain point in a river every year. Each year those too old or sick to cross the river are left on the bank while the rest of the tribe crosses. This is for the good of the tribe and each member accepts it. This is really the natural way of life.

[Optimuswolf]

no it doesn't.

it didn't appear to be that difficult before 1914....

hmmm, before 1914 the illiteracy rate was sky-high, as were diseases such as TB and influenza (the real one). We were heading into a war that decimated a generation, and technological developments such as steam and electricity had taken 50+ years to translate into the improvement of the lives of the populace.

So it depends what you mean by 'difficult'. I call being packed off into a trench in France pretty difficult, or running the risk of malnutrition and disease in your family.

There are some nonsensical capitalist zealots on here to be sure. If you want to follow in the footsteps of great thinkers, try to to explain the world around you work from there. That is what Smith, Marx etc did in different forms.

Explaining the change in the world (for the better) since 1914 would undoubtedly include a big section on the growth of the state, and only marginal contributors such as the few on here would have major disagreements with that section's existence.

[cells]

The areas where the coal mines were are massively worse off than when the pits were open. They replace miners with machines and rip the heart out of communities. Mines employed whole towns of people who thrived. They shut the mines, the whole town is now on the social, there are no jobs for the kids, the locals start moving out and those left end up living in a dive of an area with boarded up houses and shops all over the place. Hmmm, sounds like progress to me!

look at the bigger picture.

are we better off with automation and machines replacing man or not?

how about farming? up until 200 years ago or so (and perhaps only 50 years ago in many nations) most people where farmers. they grew what they ate and that was their jobs. now only 2% of the population produce all the food for themselves and the rest of the nation thanks to machines!

now, has this been a good thing? a bad thing? should we ban machines in farming so we can recreate the lost 40mil jobs? would we be better off as a nation of farmers?

it surprised me how many people can argue with a straight face that "closing the pits" was a bad thing. it was for some for a short period of time but as a whole it was a massive benefit.

Surely you must agree?

Here is another thought for you, what if tomorrow someone invented AI and robots that could replace every single job overnight. We are all unemployed but everything is near enough free. Is this a positive or a negative?

[cells]

If you stole my wallet on the street cells THE last thing on your mind would be buying an ice-cream sunshine since you'd be too busy running for your life

so your saying the ice-cream doest make up for the mugging?

why do you accept it with taxation then?

[Britney's Piers]

Here is another thought for you, what if tomorrow someone invented AI and robots that could replace every single job overnight. We are all unemployed but everything is near enough free. Is this a positive or a negative?

On the long term negative since the robots would take over and plug us all into the matrix.

Even with AI and robots scarcity would still exist.

Edited August 27, 2008 by Britney's Piers

[Optimuswolf]

Stupid comment as none of those things where caused by capitalism or free markets.

Its like pointing to earth quakes in America and saying look capitalism sucks 10m died in this capitalistic country. Or perhaps pointing to a bad winter in Russia and blaming the 10m dead on socialism.

And yet strangely you don't mind blaming the welfare state for crime, antisocial behaviour, workshyness to name a few. Separating exogeneity from endogeneity is the job of scientists - I see very little scienctific evidence on here (social science I refer to for the most part), so at the moment he is free to postulate this as are you to postulate the above.

[cells]

Erm no they didn't. The question was about welfare - if 70% of your population is dying of cholera, you have a productivity issue.

Granted, if 20% of your population are sat on their fat chavvy arses watching Sky you also have a productivity issue.

That was my point again - welfare acts as a safety net and keeps people in the system. The problem is the ease with which it can be abused, not welfare itself.

Read the answer trail and don't be such a contrarian ****.

Welfare provided by whom and how?

[Optimuswolf]

Wrong. In all transactions there is profit else the transaction is not done.

If I swap 10 chickens for a goat then in my eyes the goat is worth more than 10 chickens and in the eyes of the goat seller 10 chickens is worth more than 1 goat.

Another example might be, your great at making tennis rackets and i'm great at making cricket bats. You trade one of your tennis rackets for one of my bats. We both profit as we suck at making the thing we traded for but can quickly and easily make the things we make.

With work, you profit in ways else you would not work. The employer profits as the work you do is worth more to him than the wages he pays.

All trade is profit, both parties gain. Profit is not theft!

Seriously, do some reading about a) market failure and public choice. There are reasons why humans form groups and impose rules - that is a state.

[stonethecrows]

Ignorance.

WTF are you talking about cells you complete idiot-do you even know the FIRST thing about workhouses, the legislation that brought them into existence or the conditions endured by the inmates? Nopey, didn't think so-here have a look: http://www.workhouses.org.uk/ by and large you wouldn't wish it on your worst enemy.

so your saying the ice-cream doest make up for the mugging?

why do you accept it with taxation then?

You assume to much young padawan

[cells]

And yet strangely you don't mind blaming the welfare state for crime, antisocial behaviour, workshyness to name a few. Separating exogeneity from endogeneity is the job of scientists - I see very little scienctific evidence on here (social science I refer to for the most part), so at the moment he is free to postulate this as are you to postulate the above.

I haven't blamed any of those things on the welfare state. I have said taxing to redistribute wealth is immoral and hence it is evil.

I don't mind a welfare state so long as its not provided through theft. In many countries today and in this country many years ago the “welfare state” was family/friends/charity/ as it should be.

We can also argue about the NHS, another evil part of the welfare state. Is it morally correct to keep 80 year olds in great pain and zero quality of life alive whom want to die? Then take into account that to fund this medication and care there is theft to provide for it?

A welfare state is evil on the whole to everyone. There are winners and losers but on the whole we are all losers in a welfare state.

[cells]

Seriously, do some reading about a) market failure and public choice. There are reasons why humans form groups and impose rules - that is a state.

The easiest way to become rich is to steal.

[t350t]

I haven't blamed any of those things on the welfare state. I have said taxing to redistribute wealth is immoral and hence it is evil.

I don't mind a welfare state so long as its not provided through theft. In many countries today and in this country many years ago the “welfare state” was family/friends/charity/ as it should be.

We can also argue about the NHS, another evil part of the welfare state. Is it morally correct to keep 80 year olds in great pain and zero quality of life alive whom want to die? Then take into account that to fund this medication and care there is theft to provide for it?

A welfare state is evil on the whole to everyone. There are winners and losers but on the whole we are all losers in a welfare state.

any thoughts on the idea of making welfware dependant on sterlization. humane compromise?

[cells]

WTF are you talking about cells you complete idiot-do you even know the FIRST thing about workhouses, the legislation that brought them into existence or the conditions endured by the inmates? Nopey, didn't think so-here have a look: http://www.workhouses.org.uk/ by and large you wouldn't wish it on your worst enemy.

You digress, I am talking specifically about taxation to pay for “welfare”

[stonethecrows]

I think all benefits should be dependant on STERILIZATION.

no problem looking after life once created,(safety net - life involves risks, so much so i don't think anyone would reproduce if they required 100% confidence) but the incentive should be toward self-sufficiency.

i.e. you want kids, make sure you dont need benefits. You want grand-kids, make sure your kids dont need benefits.

i dont mean this to sound harsh/agressive - responsibility is with the parents, you didn't choose to be born

You know, I actually agree with this bit certainly with the long-termers who just choose not to bother doing anything else than breeding as an occupation from well before leaving school in a lot of cases like their mothers before them, knowing full well there is no means other than state hand-outs to support them. I have long thought there is a good argument for a national sterilization programme-when I had last baby whenever at the maternity unit self and partner used to nudge one another and say something along lines of 'yep there's another candidate'. As a parent who would die for my kids I find it disgusting the rate at which some of these 'breeding machines' churn out meal tickets they then go on to neglect hopelessly in many instances-however, this isn't the case for everybody who claims benefits and there is such a thing as being a victim of circumstance, so sweeping generalisations aren't that constructive really.

[The Conveyancer]

it surprised me how many people can argue with a straight face that "closing the pits" was a bad thing. it was for some for a short period of time but as a whole it was a massive benefit.

Short period of time, the communities are still there living in poverty! There are many towns that have been in steady economic decline since their pits closed in the 1980s destroying a way of life that had existed for generations. Nothing has replaced these jobs, no one in the town has any money. To whose "massive benefit" was it, certainly not the miners. Certainly not the British people by the looks of it. How much extra do we have to pay for gas and electric because we have to ship our energy in from other countries.

What is better for the country as a whole

1. Mines are not competitive with other countries. Subsidise British coal, keep the mines open, miners working and the towns thriving.

2. Mines are not competitive with other countries. Buy coal from other countries creating jobs abroad, shut the British mines, force thousands of men out of work, destroy their towns, take away all hope for the kids of the town ever getting a decent job, pay the miners benefits, their children and further generations. Create a further underclass of people who are never going to be anything other than a drain on this country.

It is all very well for us in the South to say that this has benefited the country as a whole, not so easy when you are living in a Lancashire ex-pit town.

[ad9898]

Why?

If his mother/father paid tax then that was stolen and should be given back to them which would far outweigh the child tax credits.

As an example, if I mugged you on the street and stole your wallet with £100 in it, then I bought you an ice-cream for £1. your saying you should refund the mugger £1 as he bought you an ice-cream.

A classic , do you fancy a job as PM, I'd vote for ya.

I dread what Gordon's "economic recovery plan" is................needless to say, as a man with 2 jobs working 6 six days a week the "recovery plan" is going to be at my expense......where as if your £20000+ benefit, 4 kids, 4 different dads scrubber..... get ready to rejoice.

Edited August 27, 2008 by ad9898

[cells]

any thoughts on the idea of making welfware dependant on sterlization. humane compromise?

I think its the most ignorant thing I have ever heard.

One of the fundamental rights of man is to have children. You can not buy that right away just like you can not pay someone to kill them.

Welfare should not be given via theft. It has only been this way for perhaps the last 100 years in this country. Before that and currently in most other countries welfare is provided by family/friends/charity as it should be.

Humans are on the whole naturally kind, if someone cried out for help if their house was burning naturally humans go in aid of this person. Charities exist on the kindness of people which shows that we are kind.

We don't need to tax for welfare and the notion that without a welfare state we would all be poor or homeless or dieing or starving is stupid propaganda.

[Austin Allegro]

You know, I actually agree with this bit certainly with the long-termers who just choose not to bother doing anything else than breeding as an occupation from well before leaving school in a lot of cases like their mothers before them, knowing full well there is no means other than state hand-outs to support them. I have long thought there is a good argument for a national sterilization programme-when I had last baby whenever at the maternity unit self and partner used to nudge one another and say something along lines of 'yep there's another candidate'. As a parent who would die for my kids I find it disgusting the rate at which some of these 'breeding machines' churn out meal tickets they then go on to neglect hopelessly in many instances-however, this isn't the case for everybody who claims benefits and there is such a thing as being a victim of circumstance, so sweeping generalisations aren't that constructive really.

Yes. I've said this before, but all women of childbearing age should have the option to be paid benefits to remain childless, through long-term contraception administered under state supervision.

The longer they remained childless, the more they would be paid, and the amount paid would always be higher than any benefits they could get for having children. Whilst expensive at first, it would breed out much of the welfare dependency problem within a generation, without depriving anybody of their 'rights' or benefits.

[stonethecrows]

I think its the most ignorant thing I have ever heard.

One of the fundamental rights of man is to have children. You can not buy that right away just like you can not pay someone to kill them.

Welfare should not be given via theft. It has only been this way for perhaps the last 100 years in this country. Before that and currently in most other countries welfare is provided by family/friends/charity as it should be.

Humans are on the whole naturally kind, if someone cried out for help if their house was burning naturally humans go in aid of this person. Charities exist on the kindness of people which shows that we are kind.

We don't need to tax for welfare and the notion that without a welfare state we would all be poor or homeless or dieing or starving is stupid propaganda.

Trust me cells if you'd seen some of the things I have you wouldn't be saying that. Oh to be so utterly naive

[Optimuswolf]

You digress, I am talking specifically about taxation to pay for “welfare”

It is all about preferences - not morality, a flimsy construct at best.

We (collectively) prefer to have a welfare state - are we as a people immoral? You choose, supposedly to live in this society, so you are complicit in this 'immorality'. You could live the life of a Romany gypsy, this is close to a capitalist system with no organised state, private property etc.

I get that you think your preferences are morally right, but unfortunately you're in a small minority. It is annoying disagreeing with the majority I will freely admit from experience.

[cells]

A classic , do you fancy a job as PM, I'd vote for ya.

I dread what Gordon's "economic recovery plan" is................needless to say, as a man with 2 jobs working 6 six days a week the "recovery plan" is going to be at my expense......where as if your £20000+ benefit, 4 kids, 4 different dads scrubber..... get ready to rejoice.

If I where in charge there would be almost no government.

Government is akin to giving a sick person a blood transfusion, taking blood from the right arm and feeding it into the left arm in the hope that it helps the person. Add to this that the doctor doing this transfusion is clumsy and spills some blood on the floor and that is government.