The Politics Thread

[thebish]

But without wealth creators, there are no jobs

It isn't the responsibility of an entrepeneur to feather anybody elses nest

If you don't want the money the WC is offering, don't do the job, and create your own wealth

Simples

who has advocated the axing of wealth-creators? (i just don't want that to be the chief motivation in my politicians)
nobody said it is the job of an entrepreneur to feather anybody else's nest.
not sure what WC money anbyone has advocated turning down

yeah - does sound a bit SIMPLE to me...

[CAPSLOCK]

I've moved it on

Sorry, I forgot that you make the rules

I'll think on

[Lord Kangana]

I can only asme CAPS is four-square behind Hoon etc. Its not their responsibility to feather anyone else's nest, they're too busy feathering their own.

[CAPSLOCK]

I can only asme CAPS is four-square behind Hoon etc. Its not their responsibility to feather anyone else's nest, they're too busy feathering their own.

You asme wrong

Theres nobody out there that comes close to what i would want to vote for

[thebish]

I've moved it on

Sorry, I forgot that you make the rules

I'll think on

OK - well done - don't do it again!

[BWFC_Insane]

Why should somebody previously earning good money not qualify for JobSeekers?

Seeing as theyve been contributing more while they've been earning, it seems a tad unfair

Are they supposed to stash enough to keep em going in case they lose their job?

So you can fcuking means test it to decide they don't need it - means testing, aye...let's prepare for retirement by putting a bit aside, or better still piss it all away and let the state keep me

And by higher earners, where would you draw this line?

Equally why should the taxes of the lowest earners go to paying job seekers, winter fuel allowance etc etc for people who have hundreds of thousands in their bank accounts?

Its about trying to redress the gap in wealth between the richest and the poorest by some small degree.

[Worthy4England]

Why should somebody previously earning good money not qualify for JobSeekers?

Seeing as theyve been contributing more while they've been earning, it seems a tad unfair

Are they supposed to stash enough to keep em going in case they lose their job?

So you can fcuking means test it to decide they don't need it - means testing, aye...let's prepare for retirement by putting a bit aside, or better still piss it all away and let the state keep me

And by higher earners, where would you draw this line?

Equally why should the taxes of the lowest earners go to paying job seekers, winter fuel allowance etc etc for people who have hundreds of thousands in their bank accounts?
Its about trying to redress the gap in wealth between the richest and the poorest by some small degree.

They're not though are they - the high earners are probably taking back a small proportion of what they've put in, at a point of need.

[BWFC_Insane]

Why should somebody previously earning good money not qualify for JobSeekers?

Seeing as theyve been contributing more while they've been earning, it seems a tad unfair

Are they supposed to stash enough to keep em going in case they lose their job?

So you can fcuking means test it to decide they don't need it - means testing, aye...let's prepare for retirement by putting a bit aside, or better still piss it all away and let the state keep me

And by higher earners, where would you draw this line?

Equally why should the taxes of the lowest earners go to paying job seekers, winter fuel allowance etc etc for people who have hundreds of thousands in their bank accounts?
Its about trying to redress the gap in wealth between the richest and the poorest by some small degree.

They're not though are they - the high earners are probably taking back a small proportion of what they've put in, at a point of need.

But thats the point ANYONE who NEEDS it should get it. But considering the position we're in giving winter fuel allowance to folk who don't actually need it, seems a bit absurd when we could give more to those who do need it.

I know my views will be unpopular on here and I really can see the other side of the argument. But tis just how I feel about it.

[Lord Kangana]

I think you're both kind of making the same point. I agree with a welfare state, particularly pensions, health and education. Politicians skirted round this theme a while ago with the old "rights/responsibilities" soundbites. They seem to have dropped this mantra, probably because a gallop poll that week indicated no surge in support, but to me its a key issue. We need to teach people from a young age that this country is and can be great precisely because its a Western Euroepan Social Democracy, and they should take care to not take the piss with what it has to offer. We pay in to NI and tax not because its an endless tap that we retain a constant entitlement to, but because when we will most be in need of it, it'll be there.

[Worthy4England]

Why should somebody previously earning good money not qualify for JobSeekers?

Seeing as theyve been contributing more while they've been earning, it seems a tad unfair

Are they supposed to stash enough to keep em going in case they lose their job?

So you can fcuking means test it to decide they don't need it - means testing, aye...let's prepare for retirement by putting a bit aside, or better still piss it all away and let the state keep me

And by higher earners, where would you draw this line?

Equally why should the taxes of the lowest earners go to paying job seekers, winter fuel allowance etc etc for people who have hundreds of thousands in their bank accounts?
Its about trying to redress the gap in wealth between the richest and the poorest by some small degree.

They're not though are they - the high earners are probably taking back a small proportion of what they've put in, at a point of need.

But thats the point ANYONE who NEEDS it should get it. But considering the position we're in giving winter fuel allowance to folk who don't actually need it, seems a bit absurd when we could give more to those who do need it.

I know my views will be unpopular on here and I really can see the other side of the argument. But tis just how I feel about it.

I'm sort of in agreement with the broad point, but the lowest earners aren't financing payments to the higher earners - the higher earners are financing themselves whilst they are working. It's just that the higher earners need to help finance every one else too. Which they effectively do through the taxation scheme.

[BWFC_Insane]

Why should somebody previously earning good money not qualify for JobSeekers?

Seeing as theyve been contributing more while they've been earning, it seems a tad unfair

Are they supposed to stash enough to keep em going in case they lose their job?

So you can fcuking means test it to decide they don't need it - means testing, aye...let's prepare for retirement by putting a bit aside, or better still piss it all away and let the state keep me

And by higher earners, where would you draw this line?

Equally why should the taxes of the lowest earners go to paying job seekers, winter fuel allowance etc etc for people who have hundreds of thousands in their bank accounts?
Its about trying to redress the gap in wealth between the richest and the poorest by some small degree.

They're not though are they - the high earners are probably taking back a small proportion of what they've put in, at a point of need.

But thats the point ANYONE who NEEDS it should get it. But considering the position we're in giving winter fuel allowance to folk who don't actually need it, seems a bit absurd when we could give more to those who do need it.

I know my views will be unpopular on here and I really can see the other side of the argument. But tis just how I feel about it.

I'm sort of in agreement with the broad point, but the lowest earners aren't financing payments to the higher earners - the higher earners are financing themselves whilst they are working. It's just that the higher earners need to help finance every one else too. Which they effectively do through the taxation scheme.

But they are at the time. It depends how you see it. In my eyes everyone who pays tax contributes to a big pool. You don't pay tax in order to have your own little "pot" that you draw on where necessary. Society pays their taxes to provide services and welfare for EVERYONE who needs those as and when. But in my eyes there are areas where very easily we could scale down the numbers who really "need it" and as a result provide extra for the most needy!

[superjohnmcginlay]

Equally why should the taxes of the lowest earners go to paying job seekers, winter fuel allowance etc etc for people who have hundreds of thousands in their bank accounts?
Its about trying to redress the gap in wealth between the richest and the poorest by some small degree.

They're not though are they - the high earners are probably taking back a small proportion of what they've put in, at a point of need.

But thats the point ANYONE who NEEDS it should get it. But considering the position we're in giving winter fuel allowance to folk who don't actually need it, seems a bit absurd when we could give more to those who do need it.

I know my views will be unpopular on here and I really can see the other side of the argument. But tis just how I feel about it.

I'm sort of in agreement with the broad point, but the lowest earners aren't financing payments to the higher earners - the higher earners are financing themselves whilst they are working. It's just that the higher earners need to help finance every one else too. Which they effectively do through the taxation scheme.

But they are at the time. It depends how you see it. In my eyes everyone who pays tax contributes to a big pool. You don't pay tax in order to have your own little "pot" that you draw on where necessary. Society pays their taxes to provide services and welfare for EVERYONE who needs those as and when. But in my eyes there are areas where very easily we could scale down the numbers who really "need it" and as a result provide extra for the most needy!

Tell that to DWP. I know a few who've received a letter saying they haven't paid enough NI and need to make it up to receive the full state pension.

[BWFC_Insane]

They're not though are they - the high earners are probably taking back a small proportion of what they've put in, at a point of need.

But thats the point ANYONE who NEEDS it should get it. But considering the position we're in giving winter fuel allowance to folk who don't actually need it, seems a bit absurd when we could give more to those who do need it.

I know my views will be unpopular on here and I really can see the other side of the argument. But tis just how I feel about it.

I'm sort of in agreement with the broad point, but the lowest earners aren't financing payments to the higher earners - the higher earners are financing themselves whilst they are working. It's just that the higher earners need to help finance every one else too. Which they effectively do through the taxation scheme.

But they are at the time. It depends how you see it. In my eyes everyone who pays tax contributes to a big pool. You don't pay tax in order to have your own little "pot" that you draw on where necessary. Society pays their taxes to provide services and welfare for EVERYONE who needs those as and when. But in my eyes there are areas where very easily we could scale down the numbers who really "need it" and as a result provide extra for the most needy!

Tell that to DWP. I know a few who've received a letter saying they haven't paid enough NI and need to make it up to receive the full state pension.

Well thats NI which is slightly different.....

But thats just a mechanism for making sure you have sufficiently contributed in order to get your full state pension. You're still paying into a pool that serves society as a whole.

[CAPSLOCK]

I'm uncomfortable supporting society as a whole, if thats the same as the whole of society

[Hoboh]

Too many people forget their responsibilities these days and think others have to pick up their tab because of some "right" they imagine to be real.

Caps is right if you pay in and fall on hard times you do have a "right" to draw out without any means test in the case of dole money.
But you should expect it only for a short period not as a life long entitlement that some see it as.
Hospitals should be clean tidyand you should get free treatment but they are not 5 star hotels nor should you expect them to be.
You can only educate people if they want to be educated thus wasting vast sums on every single school or pupil and training is wastefull of resources, there has to be a fundamental shift in a hell of a lot of peoples out look to life to make this happen.
Family allowence is what really needs targeting or on some eststes "fag n booze allowance" this should be targeted by vouchers for kids things as intended not cash for unscrupulous parents.

[BWFC_Insane]

Too many people forget their responsibilities these days and think others have to pick up their tab because of some "right" they imagine to be real.

Caps is right if you pay in and fall on hard times you do have a "right" to draw out without any means test in the case of dole money.
But you should expect it only for a short period not as a life long entitlement that some see it as.
Hospitals should be clean tidyand you should get free treatment but they are not 5 star hotels nor should you expect them to be.
You can only educate people if they want to be educated thus wasting vast sums on every single school or pupil and training is wastefull of resources, there has to be a fundamental shift in a hell of a lot of peoples out look to life to make this happen.Family allowence is what really needs targeting or on some eststes "fag n booze allowance" this should be targeted by vouchers for kids things as intended not cash for unscrupulous parents.

But if you are a kid born into a family who are intelligent, articulate and wealthy and thus are given every chance in life to get a good education and succeed you are statistically far more likely to do so than one who is born through no fault of their own into a family who don't read, can't be arsed working and have no money.

What we get wrong in this country time and time and time again is that when we talk education we focus on the "academic" elite rather than looking at the middle and the bottom end and focusing resource and effort there. Those that are destined for university etc don't need the help as much as those who are not placed in as fortuneate position.

[Hoboh]

Too many people forget their responsibilities these days and think others have to pick up their tab because of some "right" they imagine to be real.

Caps is right if you pay in and fall on hard times you do have a "right" to draw out without any means test in the case of dole money.
But you should expect it only for a short period not as a life long entitlement that some see it as.
Hospitals should be clean tidyand you should get free treatment but they are not 5 star hotels nor should you expect them to be.
You can only educate people if they want to be educated thus wasting vast sums on every single school or pupil and training is wastefull of resources, there has to be a fundamental shift in a hell of a lot of peoples out look to life to make this happen.Family allowence is what really needs targeting or on some eststes "fag n booze allowance" this should be targeted by vouchers for kids things as intended not cash for unscrupulous parents.

But if you are a kid born into a family who are intelligent, articulate and wealthy and thus are given every chance in life to get a good education and succeed you are statistically far more likely to do so than one who is born through no fault of their own into a family who don't read, can't be arsed working and have no money.

What we get wrong in this country time and time and time again is that when we talk education we focus on the "academic" elite rather than looking at the middle and the bottom end and focusing resource and effort there. Those that are destined for university etc don't need the help as much as those who are not placed in as fortuneate position.

But you still need adults to influence their off spring into realising an education is important thus the change of thinking.
Or do we leave it all up to Harriet to decide for us? Urgh!!!

Do you know the more I read these boards I note there is hope for us humans and some pretty noble ideals and stances taken, views I welcome and are quite quite endearing but there are too many nasty beggers out there that need dealing with for the ideals to work!
Start with Brown and his henchmen in May and all will come right

[Worthy4England]

Too many people forget their responsibilities these days and think others have to pick up their tab because of some "right" they imagine to be real.

Caps is right if you pay in and fall on hard times you do have a "right" to draw out without any means test in the case of dole money.
But you should expect it only for a short period not as a life long entitlement that some see it as.
Hospitals should be clean tidyand you should get free treatment but they are not 5 star hotels nor should you expect them to be.
You can only educate people if they want to be educated thus wasting vast sums on every single school or pupil and training is wastefull of resources, there has to be a fundamental shift in a hell of a lot of peoples out look to life to make this happen.Family allowence is what really needs targeting or on some eststes "fag n booze allowance" this should be targeted by vouchers for kids things as intended not cash for unscrupulous parents.

But if you are a kid born into a family who are intelligent, articulate and wealthy and thus are given every chance in life to get a good education and succeed you are statistically far more likely to do so than one who is born through no fault of their own into a family who don't read, can't be arsed working and have no money.

What we get wrong in this country time and time and time again is that when we talk education we focus on the "academic" elite rather than looking at the middle and the bottom end and focusing resource and effort there. Those that are destined for university etc don't need the help as much as those who are not placed in as fortuneate position.

So appealing to the Hobohista popular vote, you are suggesting that a decent approach should be that we provide certificates to those who are fit people to breed and can raise kids appropriately, rather than continue to burden society with them? Gets my vote. Should save a shedload of money.

[Prufrock]

Some folk have a warped view on taxes in my view. It's not a fecking savings account. What you put in should never affect what you take out. In that case we might as well scrap it all together and balls to the welfare state. You put in what you can, and you take out what you need. Problem at the moment is too many aren't putting in what they can, and too many are taking out more than they need. LK has it bang on for me, it's something to be damn well proud of. We are a society, not a collection of individuals, and we contribute so that whether or not we actually use it ourselves, when people need it, it is there.

[superjohnmcginlay]

Some folk have a warped view on taxes in my view. It's not a fecking savings account. What you put in should never affect what you take out. In that case we might as well scrap it all together and balls to the welfare state. You put in what you can, and you take out what you need. Problem at the moment is too many aren't putting in what they can, and too many are taking out more than they need. LK has it bang on for me, it's something to be damn well proud of. We are a society, not a collection of individuals, and we contribute so that whether or not we actually use it ourselves, when people need it, it is there.

You're right. But it does, as I've already pointed out.