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

Those people in council houses with their 40" plasma tvs... Watch

    • CV Helper
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    CV Helper
    We live in a council house and don't have a 40" plasma tv. It's not like we could afford to buy one, even on credit.

    (Original post by Mijdge)
    Not everyone who lives in a council house can afford a 40' plasma TV. Please don't tar us all with the same brush. My family aren't the 'chavs' everyone thinks live in a council house. At least say 'most' people, it really offends me when people class us all under the same label.
    I agree with you.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    No they shouldn't. It's not right that somebody could work half the time they actually work. I certainly wouldn't be happy working until wednesday night before I actually get to see any rewards for my hard work. It doesn't take into account that my dad does 80 hour weeks or anything. Everybody should pay the same but those with more get less from the system.
    I dont care what you (the high earner) would be happy doing! Jeez, the politics of the right is so narcissistic.

    I agree that living off the state is not a fully dignified situation but I think if you asked these people whether they would prefer poverty and no health care then it would be a no-brainer (we should encourage adult education and dignified work).
    If you are lucky enough to be in a job that pays really well then it seems just that you should contribute back into society. The market puts a valuation on people's jobs but I do not think the market should put a valuation on people's lives as it is inherently ammoral.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by numb3rb0y)
    In all frankness if you have surplus "money to buy stuff" then you should not be allocated a council house with an artificially low mortgage. People in council housing should have enough money left over at the end of the month for necessities and little else. If the mortgage has to be further artificially altered to cause that then so be it.
    :ditto:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by All at once)
    How is living off handouts from the state more dignified than paid employment?
    Not everyone living in council hoses is unemployed and on benefits.

    And some people work the best job that they can get with their qualifications which may not be the best paid job in the world. They may also be entitled to benefits even though they are actually working
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cognito)
    I dont care what you (the high earner) would be happy doing! Jeez, the politics of the right is so narcissistic.

    I agree that living off the state is not a fully dignified situation but I think if you asked these people whether they would prefer poverty and no health care then it would be a no-brainer (we should encourage adult education and dignified work).
    If you are lucky enough to be in a job that pays really well then it seems just that you should contribute back into society. The market puts a valuation on people's jobs but I do not think the market should put a valuation on people's lives as it is inherently ammoral.
    In some senses i'm lucky to be looking at high earning jobs, in others i've come from the same situation as hundreds who have ended up on the dole. It's not just luck, i've worked hard and the idea that I should have my wealth given to those who had identical opportunities and didn't take them is a smack in the face. I don't care what you (the pinky lefty lazy loving fool) think either. I don't want to work half my week for other people who won't work for themselves, sorry about that. I'm not saying take anything like health care or any of the core welfare state away from people who need it, i'm saying they should contribute equally to the system, then they might have some respect for it.
    Offline

    1
    (Original post by woofums)
    Not everyone living in council hoses is unemployed and on benefits.

    And some people work the best job that they can get with their qualifications which may not be the best paid job in the world. They may also be entitled to benefits even though they are actually working
    Yes, but that's not what I was saying. He was implying that to work for £2 an hour = an undignified existence, whereas living off state handouts somehow = dignified. Surely being in employment is the more 'dignified' option? If someone wants to live off hanouts from a parent or friend then fine, but where's the dignity in living off the back of coercion?

    As for the second point, most people work the best job they can get with their qualifications, yes; but some people are denied work due to discriminatory legislation which makes it illegal to employ someone with skills 'worth' less than the state-enforced minimum labour price.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    In some senses i'm lucky to be looking at high earning jobs, in others i've come from the same situation as hundreds who have ended up on the dole. It's not just luck, i've worked hard and the idea that I should have my wealth given to those who had identical opportunities and didn't take them is a smack in the face. I don't care what you (the pinky lefty lazy loving fool) think either. I don't want to work half my week for other people who won't work for themselves, sorry about that. I'm not saying take anything like health care or any of the core welfare state away from people who need it, i'm saying they should contribute equally to the system, then they might have some respect for it.
    You are contradicting yourself.
    You cannot lower taxes and keep the state as it is; that is flagrantly obvious.
    You cannot pay people £2 an hour and expect them to live dignified lives in our society.
    You cannot admit that you were lucky enough to avoid unemployment (unlike hundreds of others) and then say that it was about YOU taking opportunities, YOU working hard. For you there are hundreds of others who work equally hard but cannot take the same opportunities, or do not have the same opportunities, or for whom the opportunities do not amount to the same outcomes.

    Just read the latest report on social mobility and you will see that individual autonomy is almost irrelevant to earnings; it's almost all a case of background and/or luck. Think about Wayne Rooney. He is incredibly lucky to be living in a society which puts such a high value on his skill, you can hardly say that it is his own merit or hard work that means he is paid 100k a week. If football was not such a high paid enterprise he would be (most likely) on a low wage or benefits. Is such luck fair, or is it entirely random? I would say the latter as no one can have influence over the situation that they are born into. The arbitrariness of markets is no basis for the morality of a just society.

    Also, don't tarnish all those who live on benefits as lazy. That is plainly false.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yeah credit is a joke my mum got an index card 12 years ago and has spent about £350 on it and is still
    owing like £200 as her monthly payment is like £7 and her interest like £6 so its going down by like £1 a month, all those greedy companies taking advantage of the poor yet at the first sign of non payment want to take all the possessions of the poor person and charge even more interest.

    So if the person couldnt afford to pay before it went to court how can they then afford to pay plus court costs, plus extras.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    About time!

    The one thing I hate about this country is that the lazy people who don't work don't have to work because everyone else pays for their benefits...
    Offline

    1
    (Original post by Cognito)
    Just read the latest report on social mobility and you will see that individual autonomy is almost irrelevant to earnings; it's almost all a case of background and/or luck. Think about Wayne Rooney. He is incredibly lucky to be living in a society which puts such a high value on his skill, you can hardly say that it is his own merit or hard work that means he is paid 100k a week. If football was not such a high paid enterprise he would be (most likely) on a low wage or benefits. Is such luck fair, or is it entirely random? I would say the latter as no one can have influence over the situation that they are born into. The arbitrariness of markets is no basis for the morality of a just society.
    Is such luck that some people are better looking than others fair? They can then use this to their advantage, whether it be in gaining employment or in getting laid.

    Would a just society therefore make attractive people wear masks?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by All at once)
    Is such luck that some people are better looking than others fair? They can then use this to their advantage, whether it be in gaining employment or in getting laid.

    Would a just society therefore make attractive people wear masks?
    Slightly cynical of you to suggest that employers are out to hire the fitties but there might be something to that, no idea.

    But you are missing the point. If someone's looks secure them more money then, yes, I'm saying that that is arbitrary and brute luck and so they should pay more towards society (this is Rawls' difference principle). I'm not suggesting we level down for the sake of non-instrumental equality (especially with regard to something superficial like appearance) because I do not believe in non-instrumental equality. I believe we should work as hard as we can to help the poorest in society.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blissy)
    Not quite.

    What I object to is the usurpation of social housing - taking it out of the 'social housing pool' altogether.
    Okay if it is wrong to buy your Council house, why is it acceptable to own two or more houses while people are homeless?

    Why is it acceptable to have thousands of new and old homes standing empty while people are homeless?

    Why is it acceptable to refuse to rent privately owned houses to people on benefits?

    Why is it acceptable for Landlords to charge over-inflated rents, which bear no resembalance to Council rents for a similar house?

    Why not deal with those issues before whining about the people who are already living at the bottom of the heap?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cognito)
    You are contradicting yourself.
    You cannot lower taxes and keep the state as it is; that is flagrantly obvious.
    You cannot pay people £2 an hour and expect them to live dignified lives in our society.
    You cannot admit that you were lucky enough to avoid unemployment (unlike hundreds of others) and then say that it was about YOU taking opportunities, YOU working hard. For you there are hundreds of others who work equally hard but cannot take the same opportunities, or do not have the same opportunities, or for whom the opportunities do not amount to the same outcomes.

    Just read the latest report on social mobility and you will see that individual autonomy is almost irrelevant to earnings; it's almost all a case of background and/or luck. Think about Wayne Rooney. He is incredibly lucky to be living in a society which puts such a high value on his skill, you can hardly say that it is his own merit or hard work that means he is paid 100k a week. If football was not such a high paid enterprise he would be (most likely) on a low wage or benefits. Is such luck fair, or is it entirely random? I would say the latter as no one can have influence over the situation that they are born into. The arbitrariness of markets is no basis for the morality of a just society.

    Also, don't tarnish all those who live on benefits as lazy. That is plainly false.

    I never said take away minimum wage, you're getting posters mixed up. I would like a reduction in the benefit state for those undeserving of help. Wayne Rooney wasn't simply lucky, he worked damn hard to get where he is. Social mobility is at an all time low because we're now at a position where people have landed where they belong. Those who are on minimum wage are there because they didn't take the opportunities afforded to them at school, it's not my problem. If you can't afford kids don't have them. I'm sick of consistently funding useless people to have useless children who then go onto have yet more useless children. We are taking money from the people who should be having children and passing on their genes and giving it to people who don't raise their children right and who have very little if nothing to offer their offspring.

    I went to a bad school and did fine, as did all my friends who worked hard. The people who are now on benefits/minimum wage are there because they messed around at school and didn't pay attention. They were consistently warned what would become of them but they continued on their detrimental path. I'm not going to stand in the way of them getting what they deserve for their laziness. Around 10 girls from my old class now have children, and not a husband between them.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jinglepupskye)
    Okay if it is wrong to buy your Council house, why is it acceptable to own two or more houses while people are homeless?

    Why is it acceptable to have thousands of new homes standing empty while people are homeless?

    Why is it acceptable to refuse to rent privately owned houses to people on benefits?

    Why is it acceptable for Landlords to charge over-inflated rents, which bear no resembalance to Council rents for a similar house?

    Why not deal with those issues before whining about the people who are already living at the bottom of the heap?
    I don't agree with any of that either, but they weren't the issue at hand. I suppose it's a strong principle I have because I am staunchly for supporting people 'at the bottom of the heap' which includes not depriving them of housing by removing it from the pool.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    I never said take away minimum wage, you're getting posters mixed up. I would like a reduction in the benefit state for those undeserving of help. Wayne Rooney wasn't simply lucky, he worked damn hard to get where he is. Social mobility is at an all time low because we're now at a position where people have landed where they belong. Those who are on minimum wage are there because they didn't take the opportunities afforded to them at school, it's not my problem. If you can't afford kids don't have them. I'm sick of consistently funding useless people to have useless children who then go onto have yet more useless children. We are taking money from the people who should be having children and passing on their genes and giving it to people who don't raise their children right and who have very little if nothing to offer their offspring.

    I went to a bad school and did fine, as did all my friends who worked hard. The people who are now on benefits/minimum wage are there because they messed around at school and didn't pay attention. They were consistently warned what would become of them but they continued on their detrimental path. I'm not going to stand in the way of them getting what they deserve for their laziness. Around 10 girls from my old class now have children, and not a husband between them.
    1. I'm glad you don't oppose the minimum wage, apologies for targetting the wrong person.
    2. Yes Rooney worked hard but my point is in a parallel world without football he would not be a multi-millionaire. I have a great talent for playing snake on my phone, a rare talent that is quite exceptional. Society does not value my talent however, whereas it does value the talent of Mr Rooney. That is arbitrary because neither of us had any influence over our talents or the values of society before we were born. Therefore, there is nothing 'deserved' about Mr Rooney's good fortune.
    I am suggesting that the balance of talents and societal values are roughly equivalent to a natural lottery.
    3. You are plain wrong about social mobility. The latest report (last week) showed it to have increased under Labour whilst it stayed flatlining under the tories.
    4. You have massively oversimplified two important problems. First, kids at school can do badly for a number of reasons i.e unintelligent (arbitrary), from an un-academic background (arbitrary), from a difficult background (arbitrary) etc etc
    Second, saying 'if you can't afford kids don't have them' is all very well, but why punish children for the mistakes of their parents? If you take away child benefits then the innocent children will suffer for the irresponsibilty of their parents. This is grossly unfair.
    5. 'Taking money from the people who SHOULD be having children', this sounds awfully close to eugenics to me. Why prejudice the poor?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cognito)
    1. I'm glad you don't oppose the minimum wage, apologies for targetting the wrong person.
    2. Yes Rooney worked hard but my point is in a parallel world without football he would not be a multi-millionaire. I have a great talent for playing snake on my phone, a rare talent that is quite exceptional. Society does not value my talent however, whereas it does value the talent of Mr Rooney. That is arbitrary because neither of us had any influence over our talents or the values of society before we were born. Therefore, there is nothing 'deserved' about Mr Rooney's good fortune.
    I am suggesting that the balance of talents and societal values are roughly equivalent to a natural lottery.
    3. You are plain wrong about social mobility. The latest report (last week) showed it to have increased under Labour whilst it stayed flatlining under the tories.
    4. You have massively oversimplified two important problems. First, kids at school can do badly for a number of reasons i.e unintelligent (arbitrary), from an un-academic background (arbitrary), from a difficult background (arbitrary) etc etc
    Second, saying 'if you can't afford kids don't have them' is all very well, but why punish children for the mistakes of their parents? If you take away child benefits then the innocent children will suffer for the irresponsibilty of their parents. This is grossly unfair.
    5. 'Taking money from the people who SHOULD be having children', this sounds awfully close to eugenics to me. Why prejudice the poor?
    1. -

    2. Society may not value your abilities to play snake, no. But everyone knows what society values in terms of sports or other achievements. If you work hard at any 'real' sport then you're going to be financially well off. Even if Rooney wasn't a gifted player and had just worked really hard at football he would have ended up in the lower leagues or could have even ended up coaching which pays rather well. It's far from arbitary, society is pretty clear about what it values and the reward for meeting these targets.

    3. Social mobility is ridiculous. There is strong evidence to suggest that those with high IQ's rise to the top like cream and those with low IQs go to the bottom. Those who work hard end up in the middle. Nobody is born to be a cleaner, you have to make mistake after mistake and reject every chance you're offered in life to end up in such a position.

    4. I'm not saying take away all benefits for having children. It just needs tweaking so that people aren't encouraged to have 20 children. Things should get harder as you have more children, not easier. The 'dont let the child suffer' ideal is a pretty foolish one. They are born to suffer and they are born because the bad parents are given financial insentives. Many women choose poor fathers for their children because there is no incentive to have children in a marriage anymore. Many have children to get into a council housing etc. We can't keep throwing money at a burgeoning group of people where unemployment is perpetual and a way of life. The circle will just continue until people have had enough and many many more will suffer.

    5. Taking money from those who have something valuable to pass on, yes. It's not prejudicing the poor, if anything it's making it fairer if they have to work hard and pay for the child in the same way that richer families have to. There is currently prejudice in that only the poor get incentives to breed like crazy. What we are currently doing and what you are advocating is eugenics in reverse, where nobody benefits and things only get worse. Why would you encourage the worst parents to have the worst offspring? It's all well and good to throw eugenics around because it adds weight to your argument to make me look like a nazi, but what I am favouring is letting nature, the natural eugenic device, take over. Don't blame me, blame nature. Stop messing with nature to the point where you are actively going against it and the problem will sort itself out, instead of consistently growing as it currently is. Darwin to the rescue:five:.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm sorry, but I'm sick and tired of this kind of attitude. My Mum has never been out of work, she may only have CSE's but we've never wanted for anything. According to the Labour government, I am below the poverty line. We're on benefits, because if we weren't, we wouldn't be able to survive as a family. We are the only family down our street who doesn't have Sky. We had to save for three years for our computer, which I didn't have until I was 17 (only last year). So please don't tar us all with the same brush. We NEED these benefits to survive.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    3. Social mobility is ridiculous. There is strong evidence to suggest that those with high IQ's rise to the top like cream and those with low IQs go to the bottom. Those who work hard end up in the middle. Nobody is born to be a cleaner, you have to make mistake after mistake and reject every chance you're offered in life to end up in such a position.

    4. I'm not saying take away all benefits for having children. It just needs tweaking so that people aren't encouraged to have 20 children. Things should get harder as you have more children, not easier. The 'dont let the child suffer' ideal is a pretty foolish one. They are born to suffer and they are born because the bad parents are given financial insentives. Many women choose poor fathers for their children because there is no incentive to have children in a marriage anymore. Many have children to get into a council housing etc. We can't keep throwing money at a burgeoning group of people where unemployment is perpetual and a way of life. The circle will just continue until people have had enough and many many more will suffer.

    5. Taking money from those who have something valuable to pass on, yes. It's not prejudicing the poor, if anything it's making it fairer if they have to work hard and pay for the child in the same way that richer families have to. There is currently prejudice in that only the poor get incentives to breed like crazy. What we are currently doing and what you are advocating is eugenics in reverse, where nobody benefits and things only get worse. Why would you encourage the worst parents to have the worst offspring? It's all well and good to throw eugenics around because it adds weight to your argument to make me look like a nazi, but what I am favouring is letting nature, the natural eugenic device, take over. Don't blame me, blame nature. Stop messing with nature to the point where you are actively going against it and the problem will sort itself out, instead of consistently growing as it currently is. Darwin to the rescue:five:.
    i know this isnt my convo, but well i have some opinions on what you have said :o:

    Regarding 3. Some people dont have endless oppourtunities. If you are born into a family were your parents dont have excellent jobs and there is lack of money, then from the off there isnt a positive role model to infuse a healthy work ethic. Plus money brings about oppourtunities. If youre poor there isnt oppourtunity to do things like sports clubs, learn instruments, buy things to help you academically. Also, if you come from poor families when you reach 16 (Pre EMA) It was more beneficial to enter low paid work in order to have more money, therefore with no further education, people who are cleaners arent cleaners because they have turned down endless oppourtunities, just they havent had oppourtunities.

    Regarding 4. What happens if someone gets pregnant but they are having multiple babies? under your idea of making less benefits the more children you have, how would that work? Also, you cant withdraw things like council houses and benefits from poor families, teen mums etc. This would just cause endless problems such as higher rates of children in care, Higher rates of homelessness and all other problems that go with this. Also its not going to make things any better if you are poor and arent even given the basics in the form of minimal money and housing.

    Regarding 5. How can you say the worst parents have the worst offspring. This is absurd. Just because you are poor and maybe have children while you are young does not mean that your children are the 'worst offspring'. Thats like saying that children born into poor families are inferior to other children in wealthier families. You cant choose your parents and to brandish children born in these families as the worst is the biggest ******** ive ever heard.

    Ok, sorry to interupt your convo :o:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    5. Taking money from those who have something valuable to pass on, yes. It's not prejudicing the poor, if anything it's making it fairer if they have to work hard and pay for the child in the same way that richer families have to. There is currently prejudice in that only the poor get incentives to breed like crazy. What we are currently doing and what you are advocating is eugenics in reverse, where nobody benefits and things only get worse. Why would you encourage the worst parents to have the worst offspring? It's all well and good to throw eugenics around because it adds weight to your argument to make me look like a nazi, but what I am favouring is letting nature, the natural eugenic device, take over. Don't blame me, blame nature. Stop messing with nature to the point where you are actively going against it and the problem will sort itself out, instead of consistently growing as it currently is. Darwin to the rescue:five:.
    The poor are not the only ones to get incentives to breed. ALL families can claim Child Benefit regardless of income and regardless of how many children they have. So the financial incentive applies equally to everyone.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It reminds me of how (in the North) families spend loads of money they haven't got on making their daughters look nice. Girls in my year at school would be living in council houses yet being bought designer bags and clothes and having laser hair removal and teeth whitening.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: November 12, 2008
  • 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
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
  • 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.