Swanny17 Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 Shouldn't be allowed to gamble IMO. Why the hell should my taxes go towards paying benefits for someone who could win the lottery with a ticket paid for by the state. Hard to police to be fair, but still, my point stands. I'm going to step back from the inevitable implosion now..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aussieh Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 People on here must pay some amount of tax, they dont have pay for alot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2NaFish Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 People on benefits should be wearing armbands so that they can be easily recognised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franco Fascione Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 Shouldn't be allowed to drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes or take drugs. Eating is optional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 All studies suggest there are there are very few of them, a lot less than you would think by tv, papers. Also freedom is the basis of our society. Say no people who want to restrict your ability to choose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martoon Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 An employer might feel the same if one of his/her employees hits the jackpot with what was their money. Bizarre point, I know, but in keeping with the topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Masonic Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 People on benefits should be wearing armbands so that they can be easily recognised. totally agree same thing with burds who have 30k in student loans to pay back Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 An employer might feel the same if one of his/her employees hits the jackpot with what was their money. Bizarre point, I know, but in keeping with the topic. Eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve444 Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 Shouldn't be allowed to gamble IMO. Why the hell should my taxes go towards paying benefits for someone who could win the lottery with a ticket paid for by the state. Hard to police to be fair, but still, my point stands. I'm going to step back from the inevitable implosion now..... In Holland if you have been working for years and lose your job you get 80% of your wages for 18 months after, then it goes down to 60% etc In the UK if you can have been working for 20 years and if you lose your job you get same money as someone who has never worked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
...a bit disco Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 People on benefits should be wearing armbands so that they can be easily recognised. So what do you suggest? Green triangle, red triangle, Star of David? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martoon Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 Eh? What? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 What? Indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dc-jambo Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 Shouldn't be allowed to gamble IMO. Why the hell should my taxes go towards paying benefits for someone who could win the lottery with a ticket paid for by the state. Hard to police to be fair, but still, my point stands. I'm going to step back from the inevitable implosion now..... Ian Murray -- you're supposed to be working as shadow-thing-of-state now, not posting idly on JKB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RudiHMFC Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 Eh? This. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martoon Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 This. Merely suggesting that a ?2 coin which belonged to one person then ends up in the pocket of another, no matter the route, doesn't link the former with a lotto win if the ?2 coin is invested in a winning ticket. I said it was a bizarre comparison but it was in reply to what, imo, is a bizarre original post and viewpoint. You can't tell people how to spend their money, no matter how it was, legally, obtained. Replying with "Eh?" and "This" is just as daft as the original post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RudiHMFC Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 An employer might feel the same if one of his/her employees hits the jackpot with what was their money. Bizarre point, I know, but in keeping with the topic. I was saying "This" to the "Eh" in response to this post, I'm not sure what you mean here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey J J Jr Shabadoo Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 Merely suggesting that a ?2 coin which belonged to one person then ends up in the pocket of another, no matter the route, doesn't link the former with a lotto win if the ?2 coin is invested in a winning ticket. I said it was a bizarre comparison but it was in reply to what, imo, is a bizarre original post and viewpoint. You can't tell people how to spend their money, no matter how it was, legally, obtained. Replying with "Eh?" and "This" is just as daft as the original post. Eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingantti1874 Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 Controversial - but I find it hard not to disagree with the sentiment.. Maybe a food and power vouchers system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 Merely suggesting that a ?2 coin which belonged to one person then ends up in the pocket of another, no matter the route, doesn't link the former with a lotto win if the ?2 coin is invested in a winning ticket. I said it was a bizarre comparison but it was in reply to what, imo, is a bizarre original post and viewpoint. You can't tell people how to spend their money, no matter how it was, legally, obtained. Replying with "Eh?" and "This" is just as daft as the original post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown user Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 Benefits = scroungers. Is that how it is back home now? You learn a lot about people by how they treat those less fortunate than themselves, and on that note, I'm out of this thread before I start reacting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2NaFish Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 I have to wonder at the mentality that says "This is a bad situation, how can i punish the powerless?" Dehumanizing poor people isn't going to get them back in to the system. It's just another thing which creates an underclass. The concept that putting poor people on ration books or similar is somehow going to make the situation better is as absurd as it is insulting to the sensibility of a modern democracy. I'm broadly utilitarian, so i'd have to ask what people who propose this think it will achieve. Will poor folk be shamed in to getting a job? Nah, they'll make do with slightly less as they have no reason to strive for something better - nor is the situation present for them to be able to - or they'll literally steal what they want because they're being treated as sub-human. Why should they respect a society that treats them like animals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RudiHMFC Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 Benefits = scroungers. Is that how it is back home now? You learn a lot about people by how they treat those less fortunate than themselves, and on that note, I'm out of this thread before I start reacting. A lot of them are scroungers though, not all of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davemclaren Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 People getting family allowance, tax credits, tax relief on their pension contributions etc... should be banned from the lottery as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martoon Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 Eh? ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stupid Sexy Flanders Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 totally agree same thing with burds who have 30k in student loans to pay back Just burds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daydream Believer Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 I have to wonder at the mentality that says "This is a bad situation, how can i punish the powerless?" Dehumanizing poor people isn't going to get them back in to the system. It's just another thing which creates an underclass. The concept that putting poor people on ration books or similar is somehow going to make the situation better is as absurd as it is insulting to the sensibility of a modern democracy. I'm broadly utilitarian, so i'd have to ask what people who propose this think it will achieve. Will poor folk be shamed in to getting a job? Nah, they'll make do with slightly less as they have no reason to strive for something better - nor is the situation present for them to be able to - or they'll literally steal what they want because they're being treated as sub-human. Why should they respect a society that treats them like animals? I think what the OP hopes to achieve is that he retains the 0.0001p that he paid in tax for the lotto ticket. I think that broadly, he's saying that if people on benefits do anything other than eat gruel and look for jobs that may or may not exist, then they are receiving too much in benefits. In his defence, it's a view that has been pushed very hard recently and is doing a very good job of distracting UK citizens from the very real problems that they may otherwise be looking at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydug Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 I have to wonder at the mentality that says "This is a bad situation, how can i punish the powerless?" Dehumanizing poor people isn't going to get them back in to the system. It's just another thing which creates an underclass. The concept that putting poor people on ration books or similar is somehow going to make the situation better is as absurd as it is insulting to the sensibility of a modern democracy. I'm broadly utilitarian, so i'd have to ask what people who propose this think it will achieve. Will poor folk be shamed in to getting a job? Nah, they'll make do with slightly less as they have no reason to strive for something better - nor is the situation present for them to be able to - or they'll literally steal what they want because they're being treated as sub-human. Why should they respect a society that treats them like animals? Thats a cracking post 2na. Everything that i wanted to say only i could never put it so eloquently. Its been quite depressing reading some of the posts on this thread and the other threads on the same theme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydug Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 People getting family allowance, tax credits, tax relief on their pension contributions etc... should be banned from the lottery as well. Good point. I bet a lot of the hole in the head gang who are bumping their gums about benefit scroungers dont even realize that they are on benefits themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jake Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 I have to wonder at the mentality that says "This is a bad situation, how can i punish the powerless?" Dehumanizing poor people isn't going to get them back in to the system. It's just another thing which creates an underclass. The concept that putting poor people on ration books or similar is somehow going to make the situation better is as absurd as it is insulting to the sensibility of a modern democracy. I'm broadly utilitarian, so i'd have to ask what people who propose this think it will achieve. Will poor folk be shamed in to getting a job? Nah, they'll make do with slightly less as they have no reason to strive for something better - nor is the situation present for them to be able to - or they'll literally steal what they want because they're being treated as sub-human. Why should they respect a society that treats them like animals? Well said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugsy Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 Google - copy and paste Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown user Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 Show me where I said they were? Not all people on benefits are scroungers, but a good percentage are. That's why I said "Scroungers on benefits" and not "Everyone on benefits"... "Why the hell should my taxes go towards paying benefits for someone who could win the lottery with a ticket paid for by the state." According to your OP you have a problem with "someone" on benefits winning the lottery- I don't see you making any differentiation between someone on benefits and someone you deem a scrounger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydug Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 Show me where I said they were? Not all people on benefits are scroungers, but a good percentage are. That's why I said "Scroungers on benefits" and not "Everyone on benefits"... How do you tell who are scroungers ? What I mean is if someone is getting a benefit they must be entitled to it. If by scrounger you mean they are getting a benefit that they are not entitled to then that is fraud and should be dealt with accordingly. The tone of your OP indicated that you felt all benefit claimants were scroungers imo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingantti1874 Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 How do you tell who are scroungers ? What I mean is if someone is getting a benefit they must be entitled to it. If by scrounger you mean they are getting a benefit that they are not entitled to then that is fraud and should be dealt with accordingly. The tone of your OP indicated that you felt all benefit claimants were scroungers imo Not scroungers = Those who would like to work but are genuinely unable to, those who are working but require a top up to achieve a minimum acceptable standard of life, or those out of work through no fault of their own making best efforts to find new employment. Etc Scroungers = those with no intention of ever finding work, disability liars, those that feel the state "owes" them a livingEtc Now hard to identify the 2 groups, how on earth you develop criteria to assign people into one category or another - that's the hard bit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tams bird Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 I get bugger all except what I work for. I'm going to spend it all in the bookies and lottery... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jake Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 The real scroungers are the rich who scrounge of everyone and hoard their wealth without earning it. 10% own80 % of the worlds wealth. I will not kick the poor regardless of individuals making bad choices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jake Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 Im a hard working taxpayer. Give all my taxes to large familys on the dole who gamble and drink. Better than bailing out corporations who have no concept of real life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown user Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 Well said Jake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydug Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 Not scroungers = Those who would like to work but are genuinely unable to, those who are working but require a top up to achieve a minimum acceptable standard of life, or those out of work through no fault of their own making best efforts to find new employment. Etc Scroungers = those with no intention of ever finding work, disability liars, those that feel the state "owes" them a livingEtc Now hard to identify the 2 groups, how on earth you develop criteria to assign people into one category or another - that's the hard bit The first group should be dealt with by JCP or at least they would be if the Government hadn't paid off half of their staff. The second group are criminals so job for the Police when caught. The DWP has compliance officers who are supposed to weed out fraudulent claims but I guess that they like most government departments are stretched to the limit. The state does owe some people a living. Some people have worked all their days then taken ill and unable to find work . Having paid in all their lives are you really saying the state has no responsibility to them ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deevers Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 Heard on the 25 bus from the Calders to town last week - "the food bank is great - all the more dosh for me to spend down at the "Wing". "we use two of them". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jake Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 Heard on the 25 bus from the Calders to town last week - "the food bank is great - all the more dosh for me to spend down at the "Wing". "we use two of them". Liar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Brown Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 What the 'wing'? The Silver Wing pub. Absolutely terrible when its cheaper to drink in the Dodger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydug Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 Heard on the 25 bus from the Calders to town last week - "the food bank is great - all the more dosh for me to spend down at the "Wing". "we use two of them". Not calling you a liar but its unlikely. Probably idiots just being wums People have to be referred to the food bank by creditable sources ie JCP ,Social Work etc Even then there is a limit on the frequency of use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingantti1874 Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 The first group should be dealt with by JCP or at least they would be if the Government hadn't paid off half of their staff. The second group are criminals so job for the Police when caught. The DWP has compliance officers who are supposed to weed out fraudulent claims but I guess that they like most government departments are stretched to the limit. The state does owe some people a living. Some people have worked all their days then taken ill and unable to find work . Having paid in all their lives are you really saying the state has no responsibility to them ? I refer you to my very first sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daydream Believer Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 The real scroungers are the rich who scrounge of everyone and hoard their wealth without earning it. 10% own80 % of the worlds wealth. I will not kick the poor regardless of individuals making bad choices. Spot on. Billionaire non-doms who are UK resident paying zero tax. Corporations with box office addresses in Switzerland, companies with 1 employee, paying less than 1% tax on profits made in the UK, billions and billions of pounds (semi) legally going straight into the pockets of people who are already ludicrously wealthy, and somehow the government and the media have convinced the masses to concentrate on the poorest people in society buying a ****ing lottery ticket. They must be laughing their asses off at us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Of The Cat Cafe Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 So what do you suggest? Green triangle, red triangle, Star of David? In Edinburgh, every other Saturday of the football season, you can tell the scroungers easily: they all wear green shirts with the words Marathon Bet on the chest.* * This post intended to be satirically offensive to underscore the pathetic absurdity of those posts on here that are just gratuitously offensive. Not you, disco: your post was spot on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cade Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 Businesses in the UK were given NINETY-FIVE BILLION POUNDS of taxpayers money in tax breaks and other incentives in the last year alone. They then don't pay anywhere near the full amount of tax as they are due and all this taxpayer's money disappears offshore, never to be seen again. But that family down the road are right schemies eh but. Must concentrate on them and their scratchcard purchasing habits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hairysackofbaws Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 In Holland if you have been working for years and lose your job you get 80% of your wages for 18 months after, then it goes down to 60% etc In the UK if you can have been working for 20 years and if you lose your job you get same money as someone who has never worked. Move to holland then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tazio Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 Shit. I got a ?1000 bike on a cycle to work scheme and totally forgot it was a tax dodge and bought a lottery ticket this week. I feel bad about myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daydream Believer Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 Shit. I got a ?1000 bike on a cycle to work scheme and totally forgot it was a tax dodge and bought a lottery ticket this week. I feel bad about myself. I'm not sure if you're serious (in fact I'm sure you're not) but using a cycle to work scheme isn't a dodge so you're OK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tazio Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 I'm not sure if you're serious (in fact I'm sure you're not) but using a cycle to work scheme isn't a dodge so you're OK. Phew. Mind you I work for a charitable organisation that is totally funded by the taxpayer. So all of you mugs pay my wages that I squander on booze and gambling. That makes me feel kind of warm and fuzzy knowing that you all support my habits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.