egafd.com

[quote]Why not have a system whereby you are allowed to take out a percentage of what you put in?[/quote]

So if you're born with superior intelligence, or drive, become rich and successful, you have a larger safety net if things go wrong compared to someone who has no real athletic prowess or intelligence and has worked as a shelf stacker on and off for years?

So this creates a bigger safety net for the richest (people who need it least) and the people who need it most (those living day to day) get the smallest safety net.

Widen the gap between the haves and the have-nots?

This still isn't a rebuttal to David's point regarding the children. It's not their fault their mum and dad hasn't paid enough in to get them through the periods their parents have to claim benefit.

"Wrong, David. Totally wrong. No, flat screen, no Sky, no iphone. I worked every hour possible at Blockbuster. I was made redundant. I had no choice. I'm always out looking for work so please don't lump me in with the real benefit scroungers. And. no, I don't have kids"

I think you have missed the irony in my post. The above is not my view of the unemployed. It is the view posted on this forum by many including Argie. That is why I give Argie short shrift. He has the view that people on benefits have the life of riley and are largely scroungers buying flat screen teles etc etc. on those benefits.

I have a great deal of sympathy for anyone who is unemployed particularly now when as I stated in a post on your unemployment thread that you have 1700 people applying for 8 Costa Coffee jobs. I know from the experiences of a member of my own family how soul destroying it can be to be unemployed after working for a lengthy period.

As for your apology, it takes a man to apologise. Thank you.

I genuinely wish you every success in your hunt for work and I know it is a trite and easy thing to say but please try not to let unemployment get to you.

Sam Slater wrote:

> [quote]Why not have a system whereby you are allowed to take
> out a percentage of what you put in?[/quote]
>
> So if you're born with superior intelligence, or drive, become
> rich and successful, you have a larger safety net if things go
> wrong compared to someone who has no real athletic prowess or
> intelligence and has worked as a shelf stacker on and off for
> years?
>
> So this creates a bigger safety net for the richest (people who
> need it least) and the people who need it most (those living
> day to day) get the smallest safety net.
>
> Widen the gap between the haves and the have-nots?
>
> This still isn't a rebuttal to David's point regarding the
> children. It's not their fault their mum and dad hasn't paid
> enough in to get them through the periods their parents have to
> claim benefit.
>
You are missing my point. I did not specify that you had to pay in a certain amount. I said those who pay in ? whether it's from their earnings at Safeway or at ICI ? should be able to get more than those who have never paid in at all. That seems perfectly logical. In any case, if you are rich you wouldn't be entitled to sign on in the first place.

David Johnson wrote:

> "It's Iain not Ian, for a start."
>
> Excellent, crucial point, well made.
>
> "Why not have a system whereby you are allowed to take out a
> percentage of what you put in? If you have paid in for decades
> you are allowed more generous benefits than someone who has
> never contributed?"
>
> I think you should consider this more carefully. No-one has a
> crystal ball. They can think they are in a job for life or
> been given the spiel to that effect and then lose the job after
> a few years. Even with contraception, accidents can happen.
> Some people as I am sure you have noticed are not very bright,
> self-aware, careful, in control etc. etc. Why should children
> be made to suffer in these situations?

Yes but they will have still paid in for a few years so they should get more benefits than someone who has never worked. Of course accidents can happen but too many people make a lifestyle choice to live off the state with all the incumbent benefits that this entails. This has to stop.

>
> "No one is starving to death in this country and parents are
> not strangling their female offspring. You don't half talk some
> bollocks at times. Visit areas of high unemployment and more
> often than not all the people there are overweight not
> starving."
>
> As usual, you need to pay more attention to the detail of an
> argument. Where did I state that people are "starving to death
> in this country"?
>
> Both my statements end in question marks. I am not saying this
> will happen.

Because of course it won't.

What I am saying is that reductions in child
> benefits to say two children could have very significant
> impacts on the well being of children.

They could have but then again they might not. People seemed to cope rather well before the advent of child benefit.

"Of course accidents can happen but too many people make a lifestyle choice to live off the state with all the incumbent benefits that this entails. This has to stop"

1 How many people make a lifestyle choice to live off the state? Please provide figures.

2. Please provide details about the sort of lifestyle that someone on a jobseekers allowance of about ?56 a week can get when they are under 25 years. Please explain why that lifestyle would be preferable to getting a reasonably well paid job where they are treated with a modicum of respect.

"People seemed to cope rather well before the advent of child benefit."

Your understanding of "child benefit" is woeful. Child tax allowances were introduced in 1909. Family allowances were introduced in 1946 paid directly from general taxation. Child benefit has continued in one form or other ever since.

Perhaps you are referring to the good old days of Victorian England? Is that the model you advocate a return to? There must be plenty of coal fire chimneys needing a clean!

David Johnson wrote:

> "Of course accidents can happen but too many people make a
> lifestyle choice to live off the state with all the incumbent
> benefits that this entails. This has to stop"
>
> 1 How many people make a lifestyle choice to live off the
> state? Please provide figures.
>
One is too many. You think Mick Philpott is the only one with the same attitude of never working for a living. Look at the majority of guests on the Jeremy Kyle Show for a start. Why should any taxpayer have to subsidise someone too bone idle to work? The Welfare State was set up as a last resort not a first choice. There was a recent report that Jaywick in Essex is the most deprived town in England. The majority of people there especially the young are out of work. One newspaper helpfully provided photos to show the deprivation. Funnily enough, for a deprived town where apparently few people work most of the houses had satellite dishes. If being deprived means that you can afford Sky, then I must be one of the genuinely poor you bang on about cos I cannot afford it.


> 2. Please provide details about the sort of lifestyle that
> someone on a jobseekers allowance of about ?56 a week can get
> when they are under 25 years. Please explain why that
> lifestyle would be preferable to getting a reasonably well paid
> job where they are treated with a modicum of respect.
>
I would imagine if they still live at home with mum and dad and have no bills to pay, then ?56 a week for doing nothing would be a reasonable lifestyle.


> "People seemed to cope rather well before the advent of child
> benefit."
>
> Your understanding of "child benefit" is woeful. Child tax
> allowances were introduced in 1909. Family allowances were
> introduced in 1946 paid directly from general taxation. Child
> benefit has continued in one form or other ever since.
>
No, it hasn't. I distinctly remember going to the Post Office with my mum to collect "my" child benefit for the first time and that was in the early to mid-70s.

1 How many people make a lifestyle choice to live off the
> state? Please provide figures.
>
"One is too many".

Fail. A pathetic reply that does not answer the question at all.

" would imagine if they still live at home with mum and dad and have no bills to pay, then ?56 a week for doing nothing would be a reasonable lifestyle".

"If they still live at home" Fail Pathetic reply again. ?56 a week - ?8 a day or so. You are clearly assuming their parents feed and clothe young adults under 25. As you know ?8 is nothing.

Your understanding of "child benefit" is woeful. Child tax
> allowances were introduced in 1909. Family allowances were
> introduced in 1946 paid directly from general taxation. Child
> benefit has continued in one form or other ever since.
>
No, it hasn't. I distinctly remember going to the Post Office with my mum to collect "my" child benefit for the first time and that was in the early to mid-70s.

Fail. Pathetic reply again.



Stop wasting my time and try to make some effort before replying. If you have connection with what appears in tabloid print, no wonder they are totally shite.