Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WharfedaleTiger)
    Because lower class, chavs and scum are interchangable terms... :rolleyes:
    Apologies, in my case I meant / as or. Lower class or chavs or scum
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Derfel)
    No one said it's only, but the vast majority of people on benefits are lower class/chav/scum. Before you start throwing around the term ignorant, make sure you know all the points of the other side of the argument and don't assume things just because they were not mentioned.

    I expected better.
    Just not true at all.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emaemmaemily)
    Just not true at all.
    You're right, Lord Mandelbrot and his wife the Duchess of Bovingdon support their glamorous lifestyle by popping into JobCentre Plus every fortnight.

    You're an idiot.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Derfel)
    You're right, Lord Mandelbrot and his wife the Duchess of Bovingdon support their glamorous lifestyle by popping into JobCentre Plus every fortnight.

    You're an idiot.
    Why do you feel the need to be sarcastic and then insult me, instead of engage in any kind of intelligent debate?

    Most of the people on benefits genuinely need it, and aren't "scum" at all. The assumption that they are just proves what is wrong with our country, and that the class devide is still massive.
    Firstly, a large proportion of benefits is actually child benefits. This goes to EVERY mother, regardless of theirs or their partner's income or social status. I'm pretty sure every mother isn't "scum", most of them are loving hard working people.
    Other than that, there is a lot of people receiving things like disability benefits that simply can't live without it. Many of them try to do part-time simple work as well, because they don't like relying on the system, but at the end of the day if you have a severe disability the chances are that you can't work. Why should they be allowed to starve, become homeless or go cold because of a disability? This is the 21st century.
    Most of the people I know on job seekers allowance are actually working very hard to get a job, and don't stay on it for very long. It is a small minority of people who actually try to abuse the system and LIVE off this, and making the assumption that everyone who is on benefits fits in this category is simply ignorant.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emaemmaemily)
    Why do you feel the need to be sarcastic and then insult me, instead of engage in any kind of intelligent debate?

    Most of the people on benefits genuinely need it, and aren't "scum" at all. The assumption that they are just proves what is wrong with our country, and that the class devide is still massive.
    Firstly, a large proportion of benefits is actually child benefits. This goes to EVERY mother, regardless of theirs or their partner's income or social status. I'm pretty sure every mother isn't "scum", most of them are loving hard working people.
    Other than that, there is a lot of people receiving things like disability benefits that simply can't live without it. Many of them try to do part-time simple work as well, because they don't like relying on the system, but at the end of the day if you have a severe disability the chances are that you can't work. Why should they be allowed to starve, become homeless or go cold because of a disability? This is the 21st century.
    Most of the people I know on job seekers allowance are actually working very hard to get a job, and don't stay on it for very long. It is a small minority of people who actually try to abuse the system and LIVE off this, and making the assumption that everyone who is on benefits fits in this category is simply ignorant.
    Sarcasm is a form of wit that I prefer to use and add to a statement rather than keep it as a simple "You're an idiot", if you actually feel insulted by someone calling you an idiot over the internet then either you are an idiot, of you take life far too seriously.

    Neither of us have any numbers to base whether people are abusing the benefit system or not, no one does. I'm basing my statement over the fact I worked at JobCentre Plus for a few months and am basing what I've said off my own experience with the majority of applicants and what I was told and shown by other members of the team. We even had two group sessions with 5 other JobCentres where we were helping each other work out whether there was an easier way to identify people abusing the system.

    It has nothing to do with class divide, or the media or left/right/centre/top/bottom views, it's my personal view on the matter. The upper class aren't on benefits, the middle class are busy earning money through their middle class jobs which leaves the lower class on benefits. I'm not saying EVERYONE who is lower class are on benefits, but the majority of people who are on benefits are lower class.

    You're confusing things a lot here by making assumptions to back up a somewhat crumbly argument. Yes, anyone who is bringing up a child CAN claim benefits, however this doesn't mean EVERY parent is claiming child benefits. By twisting my argument to show that I'm saying that every mother is scum, you're showing that you don't actually have an argument but you're just clutching at straws to save face here, you're no better than an American arguing "Well if you don't agree with me it means you hate America and you're a commie loving terrorist."

    As far as I'm concerned people shouldn't be having children unless they can support them financially, we've reached a stage where not only are we facing a global financial problem but we're also facing over-population. I'd be happy with any sort of child benefits being cut, and before you say it, no I'm not being a hippo crit, I came from a wealthy family and we never claimed benefits, I didn't even have a NI number until I hit 18.

    I have nothing against disability benefits, I'm even happy with benefits being given to close family members of someone who is disabled, however in my experience the system is abused A LOT and is not as closely monitored as it should be. Whilst you can say that the people you know on JSA are all hard workers, I can retort that the people I know on JSA do the bare minimum to stay on JSA whilst also working under the table to earn extra cash.

    I wouldn't go throwing around the term "ignorant" as I can throw it right back at you and say that if you are being ignorant by assuming that it's only a minority of people that are abusing the system.

    In short, the system needs to be drastically changed not only to save the financial state of the country, but to stop us following in America's footsteps and having an economic disaster. I'm sick and tired of seeing 20% of my monthly pay disappearing with part of it going to people who don't want to work and just want to sit back and allow the state to pay for them.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jb9191)
    I just do not get this.

    Why is it allowed.

    When equality is in full flow, which should be the focus of our intentions as a democracy, why are Labour allowed to get away with feeding the public propaganda that puts forward the notion of inequality towards the well off.

    High earner = 50% tax

    Low earner = 20% tax

    How is that fair in a world of equality?

    The person who earns more and has most likely got to earn more through hard work and taking advantage of opportunities presented to him/her, has more taken from them.

    Seriously, this just makes me think, why should I bother earning £100,000 per year when a lot of it is going to be taken from me anyway? Its completely stupid.

    Labour have some stupid policies in fairness, this one aside but this is hilarious lol.

    I understand the fundamental concepts of their propositions but they don't half come out with some retarded methods of putting them into action.

    what is your view on this inequality?
    I think the basic point about the Labour Party is that it's there primarily to defend the interests of the working classes and the lower-middle classes. Since less well-off people depend on public services to a greater extent than those with the financial means to 'go private', it makes sense that those on very high incomes make a greater contribution to the funding of public services. (This is the Left's historic argument on the matter, at any rate.)

    This has a certain logic about it, to be sure, but as a Conservative Party member I don't personally believe that penalising wealth creators with higher rates of tax is necessarily the answer that the UK should employ. Rather, why not cut tax rates for everyone, slash the "red tape" surrounding job creation and small business expansion. (These ideas have been the typical Tory mantra for decades.) I would, however, seek to go further: I would emulate Mr. Cain's (the one and only African-American candidate for the Republican Party Presidential Candidate for 2012) plan for a so-called "9 9 9" scheme, whereby corporation tax and personal income tax levels are slashed to 9 percent. That's what will really allow people to feel better about the economic quagmire we're in at present; having more money in their pockets and feeling like businesses really can hire more employees and expand.

    I would, however, be tempted to appease certain elements of the Left. I'd introduce more generous public sector pension schemes (though David Cameron seems certain that the country can't afford it at the present time) and delay the introduction of the raising of the retirement age. The Conservatives argued for the last year or so that these measures were "unaffordable" and that they would somehow jeopardise the recovery and the UK's future global competitiveness, but I disagree. If David Cameron really wants to project an image of himself as a "compassionate Conservative", as he suggested he was on The Andrew Marr Show last Sunday, he should do more to help "the little guy".
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    you cud also ask why do the middle/upper-class parties discriminate against us workin/lower-class people?

    its just the party's policies
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WharfedaleTiger)
    Because lower class, chavs and scum are interchangable terms... :rolleyes:
    an lets not forget that upper class, toffs an posh ***** are interchangable terms as well!

    im proud to be a workin-class lad! i wa' born workin-class an ill die workin-class!
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    I live in the US where we pay less than 40% top tax rate. Here's the catch, a middle class earner earning say 70 thousand dollars, I argue, is paying "more" than a top earner paying even double the rate.

    For the middle-class earner, the tax money is coming not from long-term savings, but from daily expenses or short-term investments, like a much needed new car or a home. The top earners enjoy ski vacations in the Alps, parties in Ibiza, etc. For top earners who earn in the range of 250-300 thousand dollars, life probably isn't free of trouble as it is for those earning more. My parents who earn in this range are still concerned about paying for eight straight years of college at over 50k a year. But the point is the money isn't coming from books, needed investments, and food on the table.

    More importantly, if I too one day earn in this range it is because and not despite society. It is a public school teacher, who is woefully underpaid, that inspired me. It is the public security that has kept my home safe. It is the sacrifice society made to create a government.

    I laugh when someone says they earned their money, a "self-made" man. There really is no such thing. My dad came from a very lower-middle class family in India, saved for months to get what I took for granted, and so forth. Yet he is by no means a "self-made" man. The Indian taxpayer afforded him his education and the American taxpayer his fellowship. The top tax rate paid today is but repayment to that which society has given us.

    I don't believe in mindlessly increasing tax rates, and I don't believe in having government for that sake. But I do believe in providing equal opportunity, at whatever cost, so that the world truly may be competitive. For each set of students America fails each year because Goldman Sachs runs the government, imagine the loss of talent and competition. Maybe one of those kids is the next Einstein, the next Roosevelt, or the next Yeats.

    This is social responsibility. In fact chances are those paying a top rate of 20% really are paying "more" than those paying a top rate of 50%.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I thought the whole point of taxing by percentage was that you paid the same in relevance to your income. It's not like they're saying, 'tax £10,000 off everyone, the rich will be fine and that's all that matters'. The agenda of having differing percentages seems to be to make the higher earners earn the same as the 'lower earners' (not really 'low', you'd think it would be called 'standard' if the majority is on 'low income').
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    Also, many people here argued something alone the lines of "it's a shame that the working class have such a loud voice". While this is fair to an extent, that it's much easier for a populist (in this case liberal) movement to ignite than an elitist one, there are several reasons for which this is not really applicable for our systems.

    Firstly, not all populist movements are even liberal in nature. In fact, a large majority are not. The one that has swept across the US is the Tea Party, that has really ignited a spirit amongst America's working and middle classes. This is interesting for several reasons, many Tea Partiers support radical tax-cuts, conservative policies, and "capitalism". Their unfortunate lack of understanding with regard to the welfare state has resulted in a vast majority of such populists to vote against their own interest. All said and done, there is no way an American earning 40k a year is going to benefit from conservative policies that favor not even the top 2%, but the top 1%.

    As Jesse Jackson said, the greatest success of the Republican party comes from its ability to convince its electorate to vote against their best interest. To be fair, the death of the Dixiecrat is partially to blame. With fiscal conservatism being the only viable option for a lion-hearted social conservative, especially in the Bible Belt, red states are the way to go. More importantly, however, is the brilliant manner in which the Republican has used rhetorical devises to really persuade the electorate. Populist movements really are not populist.

    This leads into my second point. What the people have in absolute numbers, the rich have in dollars. With 1% of American's owning an incredible amount of its capital, a large portion of which is concentrated in the top half of that percentile, its no surprise that Republicans have been able to mold the media and government to their every wish.

    I thought the whole point of taxing by percentage was that you paid the same in relevance to your income. It's not like they're saying, 'tax £10,000 off everyone, the rich will be fine and that's all that matters'. The agenda of having differing percentages seems to be to make the higher earners earn the same as the 'lower earners' (not really 'low', you'd think it would be called 'standard' if the majority is on 'low income').
    Yes, but no. You're talking about a "flat-tax" similar to one Steve Forbes suggested. I don't want to make a joke of budgeting but lets look at how a flat-tax would work for a family earning 50k a year and one earning 200k a year -- let's assume the tax rate is set at 20%.

    First of all, revenues would be slashed.

    Second of all:
    AGI 50k ---> 40k // Taxed: 10k
    AGI 200k --> 160k // Taxed: 40k

    As I mentioned in my previous post, what the latter 40k in taxes represents and what the former 10k in taxes represents are completely different. One is short to long term investments, extra books, a 3 day vacation to Chicago, funerals, family expenses, etc. The 40k is vacations in the alps, Versace apparel, expensive wine, etc. It's insanity calling that one and the same. Also, don't forget that a progressive system is a flat tax rate in a convoluted way. It's a step-function more than it is truly progressive, and it takes into account the fact that the first 20k a family earns goes to a completely different place than the last or second to last 20k -- assuming you even have a last or second to last 20k. It correctly deems that you need that money towards the end less…and accounts for it.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Derfel)
    Sarcasm is a form of wit that I prefer to use and add to a statement rather than keep it as a simple "You're an idiot", if you actually feel insulted by someone calling you an idiot over the internet then either you are an idiot, of you take life far too seriously.

    Neither of us have any numbers to base whether people are abusing the benefit system or not, no one does. I'm basing my statement over the fact I worked at JobCentre Plus for a few months and am basing what I've said off my own experience with the majority of applicants and what I was told and shown by other members of the team. We even had two group sessions with 5 other JobCentres where we were helping each other work out whether there was an easier way to identify people abusing the system.

    It has nothing to do with class divide, or the media or left/right/centre/top/bottom views, it's my personal view on the matter. The upper class aren't on benefits, the middle class are busy earning money through their middle class jobs which leaves the lower class on benefits. I'm not saying EVERYONE who is lower class are on benefits, but the majority of people who are on benefits are lower class.

    You're confusing things a lot here by making assumptions to back up a somewhat crumbly argument. Yes, anyone who is bringing up a child CAN claim benefits, however this doesn't mean EVERY parent is claiming child benefits. By twisting my argument to show that I'm saying that every mother is scum, you're showing that you don't actually have an argument but you're just clutching at straws to save face here, you're no better than an American arguing "Well if you don't agree with me it means you hate America and you're a commie loving terrorist."

    As far as I'm concerned people shouldn't be having children unless they can support them financially, we've reached a stage where not only are we facing a global financial problem but we're also facing over-population. I'd be happy with any sort of child benefits being cut, and before you say it, no I'm not being a hippo crit, I came from a wealthy family and we never claimed benefits, I didn't even have a NI number until I hit 18.

    I have nothing against disability benefits, I'm even happy with benefits being given to close family members of someone who is disabled, however in my experience the system is abused A LOT and is not as closely monitored as it should be. Whilst you can say that the people you know on JSA are all hard workers, I can retort that the people I know on JSA do the bare minimum to stay on JSA whilst also working under the table to earn extra cash.

    I wouldn't go throwing around the term "ignorant" as I can throw it right back at you and say that if you are being ignorant by assuming that it's only a minority of people that are abusing the system.

    In short, the system needs to be drastically changed not only to save the financial state of the country, but to stop us following in America's footsteps and having an economic disaster. I'm sick and tired of seeing 20% of my monthly pay disappearing with part of it going to people who don't want to work and just want to sit back and allow the state to pay for them.
    Well seeing as you agree with me that we are simply discussing our personal opinions with no proof, then you calling me an idiot simply because I disagree with you is rude and offensive for no reason. If you wish to engage in an intellectual debate then please refer from being so rude, it only proves that you have no argument at all.

    I'm basing this on my personal experience also.

    I didn't say that you said all mothers are scum... At all.

    No one gets a national insurance number until they are eligible to work, and we all get a card sent in the post automatically.
    Most people who are working class work all their lives for their money too... The only difference is that they will work several jobs and NOT get the benefits of being wealthy because they are on minimum wage. They struggle through life doing all they can to provide for their children. It's not fair to judge them.

    To be honest half of what you've said has nothing to do with my point at all.
    Yes, the system needs to be changed, and we need to monitor it better to stop people abusing the system. But assuming that anyone on benefits are scum is just stupid. There are many of them who are honest people, and any kind of generalising is just wrong.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Poor you with your 100k a year, you must really suffer
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    I think the number of people who don't work because they enjoy government benefits is really small. They'd get a lot more from just enjoying the benefits of being poor as well as having a low-paying job. Logic fails.
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.