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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    The UK hasn't seen real cuts in government spending since 1921! Welfare spending went up by 1/3 under Maggie!
    Assuming you are trying to defend Thatcher, surely that can't be a good thing if you advocate lower public spending?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomctutor)
    How does anyone know what these people got in benefits unless some civil servant leaked it to the press- so there should be an urgent investigation by DWP into whom is leaking confidential claimants data?
    The Daily Mail today published a "benefits breakdown" claiming that the household earned £68k.

    Apparently the two women combined received "up to" £38k per year each for the children as well as an "estimated" income of £14k for cleaning jobs. The rest was made up through housing benefit and other out-of-work benefits for Mick himself.

    I imagine they have taken a high-end, full-time cleaner's salary (untaxed) as well as extrapolating a benefit entitlement for one, two or three children and multiplying it. Note the weasel words "up to" and "estimated".

    Of course, they then trumpeted the fact that £68k is the take-home pay of someone earning £100k.

    I suspect the true level of benefits was no higher than £20k with £8k from the part-time, occasional cleaning jobs. Which may sound like a lot but with 11 kids to feed and clothe, and 3 adults in the house, it really isn't. Of course, a major part of the scandal is that the children were rarely fed or cared for.

    I actually believe in the restriction of child benefit to replacement rates, i.e. the first two children.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by biggie)
    Assuming you are trying to defend Thatcher, surely that can't be a good thing if you advocate lower public spending?

    I'm not necessarily defending Thatcher-she made some mistakes

    I was just pointing out that public spending hasn't been truly cut for over 90 years!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    You have to pay to be in a union. A union fir the unemployed would be by default tax payer funded. If you can afford the subs to join a union whilst unemployed then you're receiving too much benefits.
    Unite Community branch charge 50p/week. IWW charge £1/month.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    Unite have a branch for unemployed people as do the IWW. You think unemployed people don't deserve representation? Why is that?
    They have the ballot box and we can all write letters to our MP

    Anyhow what can the unemployed really do with a union?- they can't strike after all!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    They have the ballot box and we can all write letters to our MP

    Anyhow what can the unemployed really do with a union?- they can't strike after all!
    Are you for real? Sometimes I think you're just a charicature of a thick right winger.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    Unite Community branch charge 50p/week. IWW charge £1/month.
    Surely the money could be better spent- after all every penny counts especially when inflation is high

    So what use is union membership for the unemployed- after all they can't strike!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    Are you for real? Sometimes I think you're just a charicature of a thick right winger.
    So you refuse to answer my question but choose to insult me instead- you're the one who is intellectually challenged not me!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Sad how overly aggressive both sides seem to be
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    So you refuse to answer my question but choose to insult me instead- you're the one who is intellectually challenged not me!
    You think the only function of a union is to strike. This is your intellectual limitation, not mine.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    Because they are one of the few organs of working class power.

    This is class war. Its not rich people any of this is aimed at.
    Oh please

    The tube drivers who have striked until they will be on 52k by 2015 are not really working class anymore
    Offline

    0
    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.
    Spot on.

    FOP for Chancellar of the exchecar
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a729)
    Oh please

    The tube drivers who have striked until they will be on 52k by 2015 are not really working class anymore
    What makes them not working class?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    You think the only function of a union is to strike. This is your intellectual limitation, not mine.
    So what is the union doing for the unemployed that their local MP couldn't do for free?

    There's no threat of redundancy for the unemployed lol!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    What makes them not working class?
    There salary- you could class them as middle class as they pay the higher rate for of tax-40p

    Though you class warriors have very differing definitions of class
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cloud1)
    Sad how overly aggressive both sides seem to be
    Hmm well I think I was aggressive- some left-wingers are really aggressive and insulting

    Look for Alex4555 lol!
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chadya)
    There are PLENTY of smaller houses if one were to look hard enough.
    Really? In the same way there are PLENTY of jobs if one were to look hard enough?

    There clearly isn't, stop being such a right wing tool.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think that people who have a council house should share homes, for example if there was a two single women, one had a kid and the house had 3 bed rooms then why doesn't the single woman just have the spare room? It really annoys me when I see people my own age with a house funded by the council just because they can when 2 years ago we couldn't get a council house when my house was burnt down by an arsonist. I think this is somewhat unfair, you should put in for what you have.
    Offline

    16
    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.
    This is delightful. Excellent post.

    The Bedroom Tax is the first cut this government has done that I'm staunchly opposed to. It's essentially the government kicking people out of their own homes. It would only be fair if it was for new people moving in after the tax.

    We agree that cuts need to be made on the welfare state as it is unsustainable. But we also need to avoid the 'Daily Mail' attitude of 'everyone unemployed is a useless scrounger and we should cut all/most of their benefits'. You look after the poorest in society and cut sensibly. Judge a society on how you treat the poorest.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    Haha, removing their profits does not leave our nation in debt... :
    Well its only £700 billion so I suppose it doesn't matter, different if its a few million in wrong payments in benefits!

    (Original post by Steevee)
    Bonuses being paid within a company are nothing to do with you or the public beyond acknowledgement of them, and people are not 'owed' a job.
    Bonuses being paid to publicly owed bank, or any bank in receipt of QE money, in my books must account for every penny it spends on salary and remuneration- surely you don't seem to agree with this point!

    If we don't have a job, through no fault of our own, we are entitled to a descent subsistence level support without all of this sanction and welfare penalty rubbish. I mean what's the point of the welfare in the first place may as well just stop it all and every man for himself eh!
 
 
 
  • 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
    Brussels sprouts
    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

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