Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

UKIP don't want benefit claimants driving. watch

Announcements
  • View Poll Results: Is it fair that ppl who depend on a car for mobility give it up to appease UKIPvoters
    Yes
    17
    26.98%
    No
    46
    73.02%

    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I don't want to pay the ridiculous rates of income tax in place for layabouts to drive, just as I don't want to pay for layabouts to have spare bedrooms.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Simes)
    This thread is why you shouldn't get the vote until you're 21.
    (Original post by Cadherin)
    I don't want to pay the ridiculous rates of income tax in place for layabouts to drive
    Make that 25. Just in case.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Simes)
    Make that 25. Just in case.
    Is it really fair that people who have worked all their lives should have to prop others up? This is a mere one of the fundamental flaws of socialism.

    Sorry I don't correspond to the typical lefty Guardianista on TSR, but I believe in personal economic liberties, not a welfare state.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billydisco)
    Then why should I "give" money to somebody who doesn't work so they can buy a car?
    Because we in this country have a welfare state that is designed to protect the vulnerable. And most people over the course of their lifetime will pay far more into the system than they ever claim in benefits - not every unemployed person is someone who has never worked, and those that are will usually find work some day.

    Who said anything about buying a car? We're mostly talking about the running costs for a car they often already had when they became unemployed. And you can get small used cars fairly cheap if needed. Failing that you can get something like a scooter if you need new transport when a car breaks or something.

    (Original post by Cadherin)
    I don't want to pay the ridiculous rates of income tax in place for layabouts to drive, just as I don't want to pay for layabouts to have spare bedrooms.
    Layabouts? You think people are on benefits because they want to be?

    http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co...efinition.html

    http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co...ing-works.html

    This idea that people on benefits are in that situation because of laziness and refusal to work is an absolutely disgusting form of victim blaming that should not exist in the 21st century.

    I notice your other post says you don't like the idea of a welfare state. What is supposed to happen if someone becomes unemployed? Are they supposed to just starve to death? Our welfare state was introduced for a reason.


    I also notice pretty much no one has properly addressed the central point made at least several times - unemployed people, depending on where they are, can find it much harder to get back into work if they don't have a car. Taking away their cars can make it harder for them to find work, therefore leaving them on benefits for longer than would otherwise be the case.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RFowler)
    Because we in this country have a welfare state that is designed to protect the vulnerable. And most people over the course of their lifetime will pay far more into the system than they ever claim in benefits - not every unemployed person is someone who has never worked, and those that are will usually find work some day.

    Who said anything about buying a car? We're mostly talking about the running costs for a car they often already had when they became unemployed. And you can get small used cars fairly cheap if needed. Failing that you can get something like a scooter if you need new transport when a car breaks or something.



    Layabouts? You think people are on benefits because they want to be?

    http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co...efinition.html

    http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co...ing-works.html

    This idea that people on benefits are in that situation because of laziness and refusal to work is an absolutely disgusting form of victim blaming that should not exist in the 21st century.

    I notice your other post says you don't like the idea of a welfare state. What is supposed to happen if someone becomes unemployed? Are they supposed to just starve to death? Our welfare state was introduced for a reason.


    I also notice pretty much no one has properly addressed the central point made at least several times - unemployed people, depending on where they are, can find it much harder to get back into work if they don't have a car. Taking away their cars can make it harder for them to find work, therefore leaving them on benefits for longer than would otherwise be the case.
    "This idea that people on benefits are in that situation because of laziness and refusal to work is an absolutely disgusting form of victim blaming that should not exist in the 21st century."

    The right are constantly modelled to be draconian and selfish - socialism is an ideology founded by jealousy and envy of the successful and do not actually have the ambition to make the poor less poor, but the rich less rich.

    "I also notice pretty much no one has properly addressed the central point made at least several times - unemployed people, depending on where they are, can find it much harder to get back into work if they don't have a car. Taking away their cars can make it harder for them to find work, therefore leaving them on benefits for longer than would otherwise be the case."

    There is such a thing as a bus, is there not?

    "I notice your other post says you don't like the idea of a welfare state. What is supposed to happen if someone becomes unemployed? Are they supposed to just starve to death? Our welfare state was introduced for a reason."

    Our welfare state was introduced originally for these purposes, yes; however, this sum now stands in excess of £55bn p/a, mainly from people on lower incomes, who can actually be bothered to work.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cadherin)
    "This idea that people on benefits are in that situation because of laziness and refusal to work is an absolutely disgusting form of victim blaming that should not exist in the 21st century."

    The right are constantly modelled to be draconian and selfish - socialism is an ideology founded by jealousy and envy of the successful and do not actually have the ambition to make the poor less poor, but the rich less rich.

    "I also notice pretty much no one has properly addressed the central point made at least several times - unemployed people, depending on where they are, can find it much harder to get back into work if they don't have a car. Taking away their cars can make it harder for them to find work, therefore leaving them on benefits for longer than would otherwise be the case."

    There is such a thing as a bus, is there not?

    "I notice your other post says you don't like the idea of a welfare state. What is supposed to happen if someone becomes unemployed? Are they supposed to just starve to death? Our welfare state was introduced for a reason."

    Our welfare state was introduced originally for these purposes, yes; however, this sum now stands in excess of £55bn p/a, mainly from people on lower incomes, who can actually be bothered to work.
    There is such a thing as a bus. That doesn't mean public transport is reliable enough. There are lots of places where buses may not run on time very often, and/or only run a small number of times in a day. If you need to catch several buses this can exacerbate those problems. If you get an interview, not all places will have a bus route nearby. The reliability of public transport varies a lot from place to place.

    And judging by the stupid nature of sanctions regimes, if you missed a job interview because of unreliable public transport you could well be sanctioned by mistake and lose all your benefits for a bit because of it. Sounds stupid, but there have been far worse incidents. People have been sanctioned for being 5 minutes late to jobcentre appointments.

    Most people on benefits can be bothered to work. The work just isn't always there for them, through no fault of their own.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billydisco)
    But what if they never get a job? I am just paying for them to have a car.....
    The vast majority of people on unemployment benefit do get jobs. That's kind of the point. Job SEEKERS allowance:rolleyes:

    an absolutely tiny minority won't find work.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cadherin)
    "This idea that people on benefits are in that situation because of laziness and refusal to work is an absolutely disgusting form of victim blaming that should not exist in the 21st century."

    The right are constantly modelled to be draconian and selfish - socialism is an ideology founded by jealousy and envy of the successful and do not actually have the ambition to make the poor less poor, but the rich less rich.

    "I also notice pretty much no one has properly addressed the central point made at least several times - unemployed people, depending on where they are, can find it much harder to get back into work if they don't have a car. Taking away their cars can make it harder for them to find work, therefore leaving them on benefits for longer than would otherwise be the case."

    There is such a thing as a bus, is there not?

    "I notice your other post says you don't like the idea of a welfare state. What is supposed to happen if someone becomes unemployed? Are they supposed to just starve to death? Our welfare state was introduced for a reason."

    Our welfare state was introduced originally for these purposes, yes; however, this sum now stands in excess of £55bn p/a, mainly from people on lower incomes, who can actually be bothered to work.
    The vast majority of the benefit bill comes from pensioners actually.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billydisco)
    If I give you my paypal account email address, will you send me some money?

    No?

    Then why should I "give" money to somebody who doesn't work so they can buy a car?
    I take it you're against all taxes then?

    I don't want to hand millions of my taxes over to companies like Atos to deny the poor and disabled subsistence, bully them to suicide, and force them into slave labour for corporations.

    But I don't expect to be able to use the wah wah I don't want to pay for it argument. This whole democracy thing is about us all deciding between us what our money gets spent on - and that includes people who aren't you, even the poor and disabled, which I'm sure is much to your chagrin.

    Stop whining, it's pathetic. If you want to offset the minuscule amount you pay for the social security system why don't you demand redress from those richer than you?

    After all, they are the ones with all the money.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alapa)
    The vast majority of the benefit bill comes from pensioners actually.
    No, the £55bn does not include state pensions; state pensions comprise another £145bn.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    When I work, I pay national insurance. If I lose my job, I can claim JSA from the pot that's been paid in to. Why should I lose the right to enjoy my possessions, and have the state dictate to me how I spend my money?! Unemployed people can't afford to drive much anyway - those who occasionally do either have good reason for it, or find it cheaper for their journey than public transport (which is in itself a disgrace).
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cadherin)
    I don't want to pay the ridiculous rates of income tax in place for layabouts to drive, just as I don't want to pay for layabouts to have spare bedrooms.
    Thankfully, you don't. You and your employer pay national insurance, that means once you stop working (whether due to unemployment, old age, disability or illness) you will be able to get a small amount of income. Why should people who have paid money into this pot be told how they have to spend it when they take it out again?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    I take it you're against all taxes then?

    I don't want to hand millions of my taxes over to companies like Atos to deny the poor and disabled subsistence, bully them to suicide, and force them into slave labour for corporations.

    But I don't expect to be able to use the wah wah I don't want to pay for it argument. This whole democracy thing is about us all deciding between us what our money gets spent on - and that includes people who aren't you, even the poor and disabled, which I'm sure is much to your chagrin.

    Stop whining, it's pathetic. If you want to offset the minuscule amount you pay for the social security system why don't you demand redress from those richer than you?

    After all, they are the ones with all the money.
    That is a ridiculous assumption to make. I am in favour of non-progressive and low taxes. I think that it is a fundamental invasion of economic liberty to be taxed proportionally to what your income is.

    Most disabled people actually want the opportunity to work. The fact that you refer to it as 'slave labour' is erroneous. Atos is designed to try to integrate the disabled into society by encouraging them to work and encouraging businesses to hire them. Wake up and see the facts - a vast proportion of £55bn of our money is being wasted each year and is not actually improving the quality of life of most people.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billydisco)
    If I give you my paypal account email address, will you send me some money?

    No?

    Then why should I "give" money to somebody who doesn't work so they can buy a car?
    Because people currently out of work have contributed too, and you will no doubt expect to receive support if you ever dare to be old, ill or redundant.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Contrary to popular belief, these places do have towns and cities and buses (well most of them).
    Lol - my bus to my local dole office is around a 2 and a half hour journey, 5 days a week and only goes twice a day.

    Ridiculously outrageous viewpoint for someone I considered somewhat moderate.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cadherin)
    That is a ridiculous assumption to make. I am in favour of non-progressive and low taxes. I think that it is a fundamental invasion of economic liberty to be taxed proportionally to what your income is.
    So do I if assets are taxed instead, particularly land, but as that disadvantages the rich I'm sure you don't agree.

    Btw our tax system is pretty much flat as it is.

    Most disabled people actually want the opportunity to work. The fact that you refer to it as 'slave labour' is erroneous. Atos is designed to try to integrate the disabled into society by encouraging them to work and encouraging businesses to hire them. Wake up and see the facts - a vast proportion of £55bn of our money is being wasted each year and is not actually improving the quality of life of most people.
    Hahahahaha. You seriously believe that *******s?
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cadherin)
    That is a ridiculous assumption to make. I am in favour of non-progressive and low taxes. I think that it is a fundamental invasion of economic liberty to be taxed proportionally to what your income is.

    Most disabled people actually want the opportunity to work. The fact that you refer to it as 'slave labour' is erroneous. Atos is designed to try to integrate the disabled into society by encouraging them to work and encouraging businesses to hire them. Wake up and see the facts - a vast proportion of £55bn of our money is being wasted each year and is not actually improving the quality of life of most people.
    So the best way to run your car is to take the fuel away from it?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cadherin)
    Is it really fair that people who have worked all their lives should have to prop others up? This is a mere one of the fundamental flaws of socialism.

    Sorry I don't correspond to the typical lefty Guardianista on TSR, but I believe in personal economic liberties, not a welfare state.
    What would personal economic liberties amount to if unemployment was close to zero?

    What impact does that 55bn have compared to contraction of available labour?

    Given petroleum tax earns in excess of 55bn (or nearabout anyway) would it not be a nobrainer to encourage those on welfare to drive, as they'd be giving 60% of the welfare spent back to the state. In fact, if you ran a petrol ponzi scheme, you'd be able to more than half the welfare budget.


    (Original post by Cadherin)
    That is a ridiculous assumption to make. I am in favour of non-progressive and low taxes. I think that it is a fundamental invasion of economic liberty to be taxed proportionally to what your income is.

    Most disabled people actually want the opportunity to work. The fact that you refer to it as 'slave labour' is erroneous. Atos is designed to try to integrate the disabled into society by encouraging them to work and encouraging businesses to hire them. Wake up and see the facts - a vast proportion of £55bn of our money is being wasted each year and is not actually improving the quality of life of most people.
    Do you actually live on earth?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    Lol - my bus to my local dole office is around a 2 and a half hour journey, 5 days a week and only goes twice a day.

    Ridiculously outrageous viewpoint for someone I considered somewhat moderate.
    You can't moderate stupidity.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    So do I if assets are taxed instead, particularly land, but as that disadvantages the rich I'm sure you don't agree.

    Btw our tax system is pretty much flat as it is.
    No, I agree with flat taxing of assets as you just said, just as I agree with flat taxing of income.

    Our tax system is not "pretty much flat as it is" - there is a vast difference between 45% and 20%.

    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    Hahahahaha. You seriously believe that *******s?
    Yes, whereas I bet you believe all the lefty, tree-hugging *******s you read in the Sun/Mirror/"Independent"/Guardian/Observer, don't you?

    Most disabled people want to work, including one of my relatives, they just aren't given the opportunity or are dismissed and mollycoddled by society.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
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.