Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Welfare change opponents chat a pile of **** Watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mclean)
    The government gives me money in the form of a student loan. They don't give me enough money to have my own house or one with a spare bedroom, so I share a house with some other students.

    It's not that complicated. People needing only one or two bedrooms should be encouraged to share.

    I don't see what the problem is, you're still getting free accommodation, paid for by somebody else's hard work
    You talk as if none of the people receiving this benefit have ever worked! The second people hear the word benefits they start thinking 'scroungers!'. The majority of people on benefits now are there as a result of redundancies. They have paid into the system, most of them have done so for many years, and if they need help now due to circumstances out of their control then the system they PAID for should be available!
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mclean)
    The government gives me money in the form of a student loan. They don't give me enough money to have my own house or one with a spare bedroom, so I share a house with some other students.

    It's not that complicated. People needing only one or two bedrooms should be encouraged to share.

    I don't see what the problem is, you're still getting free accommodation, paid for by somebody else's hard work
    because many of these people have lived all their lives in these homes, how would you like me to show up on your doorstep in 20 years and force a lodger who you have never met into your family home who you share cooking living and bathing spaces with?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Because what's going on is a concerted attack on the poor? Punishing them for the crisis created by a small coterie of very overpaid bankers and city traders, most of whom have suffered no loss?

    If what's happening right now is not class war by the rich against the poor, organised by the traditional instrument of that war, the Tory Party, it's hard to know what is.
    It is not punishing them for anyone's failure. It is correcting the heinous situation of taxpayers funding them sitting on their idle arses.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    There are stupid people on both sides of the table.

    People talking about 'attacks' and 'class warfare' are morons, and those that assume there is no issue with the policy are very short-sighted too. Why can we not have discourse on political matters without ridicuous hyperbole and meaningless soundbites?
    This. Whether it's the childish jeering in the Commons, or the petty egomania of the newspaper columnists (left and right wing), the whole way this country 'does' politics is a farce.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Because what's going on is a concerted attack on the poor? Punishing them for the crisis created by a small coterie of very overpaid bankers and city traders, most of whom have suffered no loss?

    If what's happening right now is not class war by the rich against the poor, organised by the traditional instrument of that war, the Tory Party, it's hard to know what is.
    Clearly that is what it is. Not reform of an inflated an inefficient welfare system. It's an ideological attack on the poor. :faceplam:
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    Clearly that is what it is. Not reform of an inflated an inefficient welfare system. It's an ideological attack on the poor. :faceplam:
    You feel that driving people into destitution because they have a spare room in their council flat, when there is no alternative possible living choice, is "reform", do you?

    Check out today's Private Eye for more graphic evidence of the government's total indifference to massive and probably legally invalid or even illegal tax avoidance by the biggest corporations.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    You feel that driving people into destitution because they have a spare room in their council flat, when there is no alternative possible living choice, is "reform", do you?

    Check out today's Private Eye for more graphic evidence of the government's total indifference to massive and probably legally invalid or even illegal tax avoidance by the biggest corporations.
    You mean, tightening the purse strings of those who live on the charity of the State? Forgive me if I have a hard time wailing about it as you do. Of course, in the ideal world reform would be perfect, there would be no kinks, everyone would be fine, this isn't an ideal world.

    And tax avoidance and benefits are two seperate topics in my opinion.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I don't agree with the bedroom tax, yes the council should put people in houses that fit them but on the news they had some woman who had a wheelchair lift in one of her bedrooms and they would rather convert the room back and give it to someone else than let her have her lift.
    I do however agree with some parts of universal credit and the fact that on the news the argument against it was "These people don't know how to budget, they will spend the money meant for their rent" which is completely ridiculous, these people are meant to be looking for jobs but yet are unable to budget?
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)

    And tax avoidance and benefits are two seperate topics in my opinion.
    They are completely related. The alleged justification for the harassment of poor people underway is the deficit. The amounts owed in tax avoidance and evasion schemes approved of by inaction by the HMRC and successive governments vastly exceed any savings, by an order of magnitude at least.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by breakeven)
    You talk as if none of the people receiving this benefit have ever worked! The second people hear the word benefits they start thinking 'scroungers!'. The majority of people on benefits now are there as a result of redundancies. They have paid into the system, most of them have done so for many years, and if they need help now due to circumstances out of their control then the system they PAID for should be available!
    1 in 8 claiming housing benefit are in work too. And then there's working tax credit, which you can only claim if you work.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Oh god dont make me laugh! This isn't even a tax- its a REDUCTION in their benefits!

    If they don't like the idea how about they leave the benefit system and sort out their own mess?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    They are completely related. The alleged justification for the harassment of poor people underway is the deficit. The amounts owed in tax avoidance and evasion schemes approved of by inaction by the HMRC and successive governments vastly exceed any savings, by an order of magnitude at least.
    Related only in that there of interest to HM's Treasury.

    One is talking about handouts, the other is talking about taxation. One is giving, one is taking. The worst tax avoider is still better than even minor benefit cheats. Obviously that's not the issue at hand, but I thought I should make my viewpoint clear, as I imagine we're in rather different camps on the issue.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    Related only in that there of interest to HM's Treasury.

    One is talking about handouts, the other is talking about taxation. One is giving, one is taking. The worst tax avoider is still better than even minor benefit cheats. Obviously that's not the issue at hand, but I thought I should make my viewpoint clear, as I imagine we're in rather different camps on the issue.
    You appear to be trying to personalise both issues - treating them as moral stories. You perceive (or the right wing press perceive, more to the point) those on benefits as 'unworthy' and the undeserving poor. This is Victorian rhetoric modernised by the Tories. The majority of those affected by these changes are WORKING. They are people who live in council accommodation and claim working tax credit.

    The moral imperative on ensuring that corporations pay the correct amount of tax is a basic issue of fairness. Why should rich and powerful organisations be able to buy themselves out of their responsibilities to the societies they trade in and profit from?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    You appear to be trying to personalise both issues - treating them as moral stories. You perceive (or the right wing press perceive, more to the point) those on benefits as 'unworthy' and the undeserving poor. This is Victorian rhetoric modernised by the Tories. The majority of those affected by these changes are WORKING. They are people who live in council accommodation and claim working tax credit.

    The moral imperative on ensuring that corporations pay the correct amount of tax is a basic issue of fairness. Why should rich and powerful organisations be able to buy themselves out of their responsibilities to the societies they trade in and profit from?
    I do believe I said my persepective was besides the point, just that I wanted to clarify my stance on such issues. And a company avoiding paying into the system is wrong on a level, though perfectly understandable. What is far worse is expecting to be paid for doing nothing, expecting society at large to pay for you. Now of course, some people need help, but they should be gracious with it, not demand ever more and create obscene spectacles when told that in a time of austerity the government simply cannot afford to finance their incompetence so well.

    Add to that, I often find that those with the most fury toward the rich are the same that expect most from them. Which is rather morally dubious in my book.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    I do believe I said my persepective was besides the point, just that I wanted to clarify my stance on such issues. And a company avoiding paying into the system is wrong on a level, though perfectly understandable. What is far worse is expecting to be paid for doing nothing, expecting society at large to pay for you. Now of course, some people need help, but they should be gracious with it, not demand ever more and create obscene spectacles when told that in a time of austerity the government simply cannot afford to finance their incompetence so well.

    Add to that, I often find that those with the most fury toward the rich are the same that expect most from them. Which is rather morally dubious in my book.
    You are simply finding a different way to repeat the same lie, that the current attacks are attacks on undeserving scroungers. In the main, they are not. The majority of those targeted are the working poor.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    You are simply finding a different way to repeat the same lie, that the current attacks are attacks on undeserving scroungers. In the main, they are not. The majority of those targeted are the working poor.
    No I am not, I am merely pointing out that they are recieving handouts. Equally, what they have done to 'deserve' such handouts is very varied. And a taking a handout is rather different to refusing to give one.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tory88)
    To a certain extent I do agree. The welfare system in this country is completely unsustainable and over-generous in general, but branding everyone on benefit as a scrounger is completely unrealistic, and a lot of government policies and speeches at the moment seem to be attempting to do just that.
    To a certain extent I do agree. The TAX system in this country is completely unsustainable and over-generous in general, but branding everyone NOT on benefit as a STRIVER is completely unrealistic, and a lot of government policies and speeches at the moment seem to be attempting to do just that.

    PS. Plenty of spare rooms in those mansions, palaces why not start and put the homeless (or overcrowded) in them, especially if they are emtpy. Also...
    "710,000 empty homes are currently empty in England according to the 2012 Empty Homes Stats!" [EmptyHomes]- yes why!
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    I do believe I said my persepective was besides the point, just that I wanted to clarify my stance on such issues. And a company avoiding paying into the system is wrong on a level, though perfectly understandable. What is far worse is expecting to be paid for doing nothing, expecting society at large to pay for you. Now of course, some people need help, but they should be gracious with it, not demand ever more and create obscene spectacles when told that in a time of austerity the government simply cannot afford to finance their incompetence so well.

    Add to that, I often find that those with the most fury toward the rich are the same that expect most from them. Which is rather morally dubious in my book.
    Don yer cap and thankyou ever so graciously (sir) for paying out benefits to what -in law- people are entitled to, have already paid contributions and taxes towards.. and on subject of generosity (this budget), such large tax breaks to companies and individuals in a time of austerity, egh! what's this all about - must think citizens of this country are zombie brained to believe all this propaganda.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CurtainrailMan)
    https://www.gov.uk/housing-benefit/what-youll-get

    Scroll about 3/5 of the way down.

    Does that or does that not say that someone who lives on their own one bedroom property is only entitled to £250 per month? Absolute maximum. For private rent, which is considerably higher than social rent...
    I see 250GBP per week, not per month.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomctutor)
    Don yer cap and thankyou ever so graciously (sir) for paying out benefits to what -in law- people are entitled to, have already paid contributions and taxes towards.. and on subject of generosity (this budget), such large tax breaks to companies and individuals in a time of austerity, egh! what's this all about - must think citizens of this country are zombie brained to believe all this propaganda.
    You should thank those that pay for you. Bearing in mind the average working class person costs the State more than they'll ever provide to it. Of course, you don't have to be Victorian about it, I understand the role the working class play in an economy. What I mean rather is that there should be a bit of grace about them, rather than demanding more, villifying those that actually put into the system and so forth. But of course, you wouldn't understand that, because you see the succesful as the enemy, the rich as a cash cow and companies as oweing every worker some kind of debt.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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.