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

Why doesn't Labour use money from people on benefits to fund the armed forces? Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phugoid)
    Plenty of times, but all without a shred of evidence to support it. Without that, I am not inclined to believe you.

    Even if you could produce evidence to that effect, I'm sure it would mainly highlight their 'tourism' as their reimbursement of the treasury, something which I propose to be independent of the monarchy actually existing, and more dependent on their history and architectural association.
    Take your tirade against the monarchy elsewhere, this isn't the thread for it.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cpj1987)
    there are many different types of benefit, including pensions.
    Especially pensions, they are the vast bulk of it. Which is why I thought it was a bit mean to get rid of them for the army...
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    We are set next year to give our more benefits than we receive on income tax, is this favourable situation?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cpj1987)
    What you showed, however, was a chart indicating ALL social support. MOST people on benefits are not scroungers - there are many different types of benefit, including pensions.
    Indeed. The amount of money that would need to be spent to determine who is a scrounger and who isn't would be enough to defeat the point of the whole process.

    So while the proposal that we take benefits from scroungers and put it back into the treasury is great in theory, it is not feasible in practice without incurring more costs than you are attempting to save.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shaniqua)
    No, I don't scrounge.

    Even if I was, at least students are forced to pay back what the government provides them with. I can't imagine that ever happening with benefits.
    Oh ok, international student.

    Errrrr no they aren't.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cpj1987)
    What you showed, however, was a chart indicating ALL social support. MOST people on benefits are not scroungers - there are many different types of benefit, including pensions.
    Yet, you fail to recognise the context of the post and how it was clearly referring to those who can be indentified as 'scroungers', which I can assure you - there are many.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renner)
    We are set next year to give our more benefits than we receive on income tax, is this favourable situation?
    It depends if you think income tax should form more or less of the tax pot. I'm out on that one, too complex.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phugoid)
    Plenty of times, but all without a shred of evidence to support it. Without that, I am not inclined to believe you.

    Even if you could produce evidence to that effect, I'm sure it would mainly highlight their 'tourism' as their reimbursement of the treasury, something which I propose to be independent of the monarchy actually existing, and more dependent on their history and architectural association.
    I, and many others, have provided evidence time and time again. First of all the Civil List was granted to George III's on the condition that he surrendered the income from the Crown lands to parliament. Every succeeding sovereign has renewed the arrangement made between George III and parliament and the practice has, since the nineteenth century, been recognized as "an integral part of the Constitution which could not be abandoned". Now last year the annual profit from the Crown Estate was £211 million which goes directly to the government, this far outshines the reported cost of £41.5m.

    Secondly the Windsor’s are an incredibly wealthy family and have rather large private incomes, private incomes they pay tax on just like the rest of us. I do not have the figures to hand for the entire family however we know Prince Charles pays £3,093,000 in tax and he receives £3,033,000 from the public purse, making the taxpayer a profit.

    I don’t care about tourism, that whole argument is a crock of *****.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shaniqua)
    Take your tirade against the monarchy elsewhere, this isn't the thread for it.
    I did not intend a tirade against the monarchy. I was simply offering alternative sources of expenditure cuts that would cure the current shortfalls without leaving any real damage to our society whatsoever.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Simplistic view of politics much?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shaniqua)
    If you engaged your brain and read my post correctly, I was clearly referring to those who have been on benefits for years and are spending the money on worthless luxuries. You're frankly delusional if you believe benefits money isn't wasted on luxuries, alcohol or even drugs.
    Then you must agree that benefits should be set at a level that allows for unemployed people to stay alive, but not have money for "luxuries" etc. If not at £60/week (the current level?), where should this be?

    How much do you need to stay alive with a realistic chance of finding employment?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shaniqua)
    No, I don't scrounge.

    Even if I did, at least students are forced to pay back what the government provides them with. I can't imagine that ever happening with benefits.
    Don't be daft, tuition fees are heavily subidised by the government. If not you'd be paying the same as an international student.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Especially pensions, they are the vast bulk of it. Which is why I thought it was a bit mean to get rid of them for the army...
    Where did I advocate that we should scrap benefits altogether? I was clearly referring to this group of people:

    "I'm referring to those people who have been on benefits for years, even pre-recession and spend the money on crap."
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cpj1987)
    I'd rather my taxes went on benefits than war, personally.

    You sleep in your bed peacefully because men are willing and dieing to keep this country save, which they have done for hundreds of years.

    You think like a child, if you think, defense spending is not important..
    without a strong defense force, UK would not hold position and respect, it will pushed over by other nations.

    Having a strong defense means people think twice before they mess with the UK, other wise they just walk all over you.

    Child you have a lot to learn.

    And I do know more about life then you, I once lived in a war zone and I am a mature student as well.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Revolution is my Name)
    Simplistic view of politics much?
    That's rich, coming from a person who is incapable of stringing a credible political argument together.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Its a disgrace the amount spent on defence and health compared to social security. A pension is required - although most people do doubt by the time we retire a state pension as such will exist- but many of the other benefits arnt required.

    The war (s) they are currently engaged in have cost- between them- over 350 young men, at a time when there are only 8 working chinooks in Afghanistan, and the "immediate response medicare" teams can take up to an hour to reach a casulty due to a lack of transport. Whatever you think about the war, isnt it terrible for a nation as proud as ours that we are using rented foreign helicopters to ship troops around, when there are 12 brand new ones costing £60million sat in a warehouse here in the UK.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shaniqua)
    Where did I advocate that we should scrap benefits altogether? I was clearly referring to this group of people:

    "I'm referring to those people who have been on benefits for years, even pre-recession and spend the money on crap."
    So that includes my 74 year old dad who's been on benefits for the past 9 years?

    oh and he bought a ford a few years ago so does spend it on crap!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renner)
    I, and many others, have provided evidence time and time again. First of all the Civil List was granted to George III's on the condition that he surrendered the income from the Crown lands to parliament. Every succeeding sovereign has renewed the arrangement made between George III and parliament and the practice has, since the nineteenth century, been recognized as "an integral part of the Constitution which could not be abandoned". Now last year the annual profit from the Crown Estate was £211 million which goes directly to the government, this far outshines the reported cost of £41.5m.
    This does not prove that the £211mil could not be sourced from elsewhere if we replaced the monarchy with an ELECTED head of state.

    Secondly the Windsor’s are an incredibly wealthy family and have rather large private incomes, private incomes they pay tax on just like the rest of us. I do not have the figures to hand for the entire family however we know Prince Charles pays £3,093,000 in tax and he receives £3,033,000 from the public purse, making the taxpayer a profit.
    If their wealth is independent of their monarchism, then they would pay this amount in taxes regardless of whether we kept them as monarchs or not.

    I don’t care about tourism, that whole argument is a crock of *****.
    Glad you agree.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by markwaza)
    Don't be daft, tuition fees are heavily subidised by the government. If not you'd be paying the same as an international student.
    people with degree tend to pay higher taxes in the future, so they are not living off tax payers...get your facts right
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cpj1987)
    Yes, I would; but then I also don't classify everyone on benefits as a 'scrounger buying a wide-screen TV'.
    Maybe then you ought to open your self-proclaimed "middle class" eyes and see the people who are living from benefits. Good, honest people sweep the streets rather than sit on their arses "scrounging".

    Meanwhile we're (and I mean we're) getting getting **** on, with poor equpiment (having to buy our own so we can actually keep our feet in any fit state). It's no wonder Afghan has been going so long, because we can't have **** all because we've got too many people self-absorbed in this country to appreciate what our troops are "getting on with."

    I hope the Fire Brigade never decide to have a strike, again, when your house decides to set itself on fire.

    :top:
 
 
 
  • 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.