Mini Budget

[Taffin]

19 minutes ago, Joey J J Jr Shabadoo said:

Is he not meaning the people who screw the benefits system, not the retired?

 

Possibly, but people aren't annoyed that folk have a desire stay at home and do what's right for their family (who wouldn't want to do that?!?) which is the part that has an equivalence to the post by LBJ...they're annoyed by the expectations that someone else should work to facilitate and pay for it. They're very different things.

Edited October 18, 2022 by Taffin

[Victorian]

Not sure what the hell that is,  but the poster is surely capable of more respectful and tolerant co-existence with his fellow posters. 

 

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

1 minute ago, Taffin said:

 

Possibly, but people aren't annoyed that folk have a desire stay at home and do what's right for their family (who wouldn't want to do that?!?) which is the part that has an equivalence to the post by LBJ...they're annoyed by the expectations that someone else should work to facilitate and pay for it. They're very different things.

He provided an example. You also only need to read the Tory cheer leaders in the press.

[Dazo]

6 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

Possibly, but people aren't annoyed that folk have a desire stay at home and do what's right for their family (who wouldn't want to do that?!?) which is the part that has an equivalence to the post by LBJ...they're annoyed by the expectations that someone else should work to facilitate and pay for it. They're very different things.

Your point is being completely missed. Why shoukd anyone care about someone’s decision to do what’s right by their family. Just don’t expect someone else to pay for it. Sitting on your arse, by choice playing happy families at someone else’s expense isn’t really on. 

[Unknown user]

11 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

Possibly, but people aren't annoyed that folk have a desire stay at home and do what's right for their family (who wouldn't want to do that?!?) which is the part that has an equivalence to the post by LBJ...they're annoyed by the expectations that someone else should work to facilitate and pay for it. They're very different things.

 

I'm annoyed by the expectation that they should work in poverty to pay for the mistakes of the enriched elite.

[Unknown user]

12 minutes ago, Victorian said:

Not sure what the hell that is,  but the poster is surely capable of more respectful and tolerant co-existence with his fellow posters. 

 

Live from the independence thread I'm afraid, the boy's been having a shitemare the last few weeks.

[Taffin]

31 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

Well here's an example.

 

 

 

 

"Would be ideal if I had the time to read through all pages but as I am paid to do a job of work, I don't have the time. Some on here have the luxury though of doing **** all throughout day and living off others work, so perhaps they could make the effort, if it isn't too arduous, and summarise exactly what we are facing. They can always have a nap afterwards if reading takes it out of them.

 

From the reactions of press, it is high on vagueness and offers zero detail on how all of it will be paid for. I suspect that's because authors have no idea themselves."

 

The key bit is the bold bit, which I said at the start was the key element that cannot just be stripped out. Of course people have contempt for those who choose not to work and expect others to pay for it...and for me, that's true of those who exploit the labour of others to enable it.

 

Nobody has any issue with someone saying it's not worth working anymore and I'd rather spend time with my family. 

[Unknown user]

Just now, Taffin said:

 

 

"Would be ideal if I had the time to read through all pages but as I am paid to do a job of work, I don't have the time. Some on here have the luxury though of doing **** all throughout day and living off others work, so perhaps they could make the effort, if it isn't too arduous, and summarise exactly what we are facing. They can always have a nap afterwards if reading takes it out of them.

 

From the reactions of press, it is high on vagueness and offers zero detail on how all of it will be paid for. I suspect that's because authors have no idea themselves."

 

The key bit is the bold bit, which I said at the start was the key element that cannot just be stripped out. Of course people have contempt for those who choose not to work and expect others to pay for it...and for me, that's true of those who exploit the labour of others to enable it.

 

Nobody has any issue with someone saying it's not worth working anymore and I'd rather spend time with my family. 

 

Hey, they didn't make the rules.

[Taffin]

Just now, Smithee said:

 

Hey, they didn't make the rules.

 

Never said they did. 

 

This is a stupid argument. You seemed to suggest it's interesting people viewed LBJ differently to those who sponge off the rest through choice.

 

I don't think that, I think they're very different and give those who need the help a bad name unfairly.

 

Line drawn, happy for you to not agree with that. 

[Unknown user]

6 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

Never said they did. 

 

This is a stupid argument. You seemed to suggest it's interesting people viewed LBJ differently to those who sponge off the rest through choice.

 

I don't think that, I think they're very different and give those who need the help a bad name unfairly.

 

Line drawn, happy for you to not agree with that. 

 

If you characterise it that way, fair enough.

I find it easy to put myself in the shoes of someone who's close to breaking and in poverty, I see it often enough. I think we'll see more and more people giving up, and instead of blaming the society that's ****ed up and left these people with no hope, we'll see them getting blamed.

[Unknown user]

6 minutes ago, Lord BJ said:

I’m not sure what I’ve woke up to this morning. Is it, seriously, being suggested I need to be more tolerant to coexist on this board (if not aimed at me my bad fuzzy head this morning)

 

For clarity, my situation is **** all like someone choosing to live of benefits. FFS I was working up to about 3 weeks ago, in as close as I will ever get, to ‘traditional’ employment. Even accounting for that I am taking a step back to spend more time with my family, particularly my daughter  (which there are very good reason for as @Smitheeshould be aware of) I will still be active in various areas for myself and contributing to economy. 

 

As comparisons go its up there with comparing apples with lions.. 
 

I’m not going about this board, demonising the poor, or whatever. I generally stay away from the ad hominem stuff, albeit I have my moments 😂 Demonisation, does happen all the time around these parts, I accept. It’s generally idiots, snarking at anyone other than themselves so it happens to poor, rich, working, middle class etc and just outright trolling. @Smithee maybe you should take your on advice about ignoring idiots.

 

My reference to I didn’t make this rules, which seems to have triggered some. Relates to my view it’s worthless spending energy on something you can’t control. Spending time and energy on something I can control is much better use of my time. I don’t even disagree the system is broken but I ain’t changing that with my 1 pissy vote.

 

I’m pretty confused this morning by the reaction my post, I’m hoping and suspect I’m missing something.

 

Don't know why you're so defensive, I certainly haven't attacked you or accused you of anything.

Edited October 18, 2022 by Smithee

[Unknown user]

My whole point was meant to be that on one hand, putting one's own interests first is entirely understandable. But it isn't understandable if you're poor and you choose the least shit option.

 

None of it's aimed at @Lord BJ it was more of a jumping off point

[Unknown user]

1 minute ago, Lord BJ said:

It’s more confusion tbh . A combination of fuzzy head and your post making absolutely no sense tbqhwy.🤷🏻‍♂️

I’m sure there is a point in there somewhere but not sure what it is.

 

 

Maybe it's just the fuzzy head then, I think I've been pretty clear, and I'm certainly not triggered, I just have an opinion.

[Unknown user]

5 minutes ago, Lord BJ said:

As @Taffin suggests they are not comparable so seems a strange jump off.

 

Anyway have a good day, I’m off to play golf with the boy😁

👍

[Sooperstar]

Smithee's point was pretty obvious, no?

 

The consensus seems to be that it's alright to be selfish for the betterment of your family if that involves your own money which the system allowed you to receive, but not if it is money which the system allows you to receive where you don't happen to be in employment.

[Dazo]

5 minutes ago, Sooperstar said:

Smithee's point was pretty obvious, no?

 

The consensus seems to be that it's alright to be selfish for the betterment of your family if that involves your own money which the system allowed you to receive, but not if it is money which the system allows you to receive where you don't happen to be in employment.

Choose not to be employed. 
 

Other than that are we saying it’s selfish to look after your children with your own money within the rules ? Because that’s some spin. 

[Victorian]

36 minutes ago, Lord BJ said:

I’m not sure what I’ve woke up to this morning. Is it, seriously, being suggested I need to be more tolerant to coexist on this board (if not aimed at me my bad fuzzy head this morning)

 

For clarity, my situation is **** all like someone choosing to live of benefits. FFS I was working up to about 3 weeks ago, in as close as I will ever get, to ‘traditional’ employment. Even accounting for that I am taking a step back to spend more time with my family, particularly my daughter  (which there are very good reason for as @Smitheeshould be aware of) I will still be active in various areas for myself and contributing to economy. 

 

As comparisons go its up there with comparing apples with lions.. 
 

I’m not going about this board, demonising the poor, or whatever. I generally stay away from the ad hominem stuff, albeit I have my moments 😂 Demonisation, does happen all the time around these parts, I accept. It’s generally idiots, snarking at anyone other than themselves so it happens to poor, rich, working, middle class etc and just outright trolling. @Smithee maybe you should take your on advice about ignoring idiots.

 

My reference to I didn’t make this rules, which seems to have triggered some. Relates to my view it’s worthless spending energy on something you can’t control. Spending time and energy on something I can control is much better use of my time. I don’t even disagree the system is broken but I ain’t changing that with my 1 pissy vote.

 

I’m pretty confused this morning by the reaction my post, I’m hoping and suspect I’m missing something.

 

That wasn't you.  

[Victorian]

This 'triggered' patter is lame stuff.  Come on,  be a nice guy.

[AndyNic]

 

[Taffin]

16 minutes ago, Sooperstar said:

Smithee's point was pretty obvious, no?

 

The consensus seems to be that it's alright to be selfish for the betterment of your family if that involves your own money which the system allowed you to receive, but not if it is money which the system allows you to receive where you don't happen to be in employment.

 

I'd say that was more my point, at least when it comes to choosing not to work which was what was offered up as the scenario....of course people view those differently. Those who can't work is a totally different thing. What I took was Smithee was somehow suggesting it was strange or a double standard to view them differently...but I may well have just picked that up wrong.

Edited October 18, 2022 by Taffin

[AlimOzturk]

From what I have understood, all Smithee is saying is that the wealthy can often benefit from taking advantage of the system and this is seen as ok. Yet when the poor or unemployed do, because working would otherwise make them worse off and with less time with their families, they are seen as scum. 
 

Fwiw I think it is a pretty and accurate point and not difficult to understand given how clear he has made it. 🤷

[Taffin]

1 minute ago, AlimOzturk said:

From what I have understood, all Smithee is saying is that the wealthy can often benefit from taking advantage of the system and this is seen as ok. Yet when the poor or unemployed do, because working would otherwise make them worse off and with less time with their families, they are seen as scum. 
 

Fwiw I think it is a pretty and accurate point and not difficult to understand given how clear he has made it. 🤷

 

But is that even a thing? Benefits must be a lot more than I have been led to believe if they're more than full time on the minimum wage.

Edited October 18, 2022 by Taffin

[XB52]

3 minutes ago, AlimOzturk said:

From what I have understood, all Smithee is saying is that the wealthy can often benefit from taking advantage of the system and this is seen as ok. Yet when the poor or unemployed do, because working would otherwise make them worse off and with less time with their families, they are seen as scum. 
 

Fwiw I think it is a pretty and accurate point and not difficult to understand given how clear he has made it. 🤷

That's how I took it, pretty easy to understand, unless you are a tory trying to blame people on benefits for the current shit show

[XB52]

3 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

But is that even a thing? Benefits must be a lot more than I though it they're more than full time on the minimum wage.

And one post later proves my point 

[Taffin]

6 minutes ago, XB52 said:

And one post later proves my point 

 

Is it a thing? How's questioning that blaming folk on benefits for the current shit show?!?

[Sooperstar]

13 minutes ago, AlimOzturk said:

From what I have understood, all Smithee is saying is that the wealthy can often benefit from taking advantage of the system and this is seen as ok. Yet when the poor or unemployed do, because working would otherwise make them worse off and with less time with their families, they are seen as scum. 
 

Fwiw I think it is a pretty and accurate point and not difficult to understand given how clear he has made it. 🤷

Yep.

[Sooperstar]

11 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

But is that even a thing? Benefits must be a lot more than I have been led to believe if they're more than full time on the minimum wage.

Not necessarily more than full time, but these hypothetical people have to weigh off whether or not it is worth slaving away for 35 hours a week in a dead end job for the sake of a few more pounds than they can get from not working and spending time with their families instead.

[AlimOzturk]

13 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

I'd say that was more my point, at least when it comes to choosing not to work which was what was offered up as the scenario....of course people view those differently. Those who can't work is a totally different thing. What I took was Smithee was somehow suggesting it was strange or a double standard to view them differently...but I may well have just picked that up wrong.

Being on universal credits will mean their rents are paid, council tax are reduced, extra help with energy costs, families will receive child tax credits and other benefits for children and so forth. It is far from a comfortable existence but folk are resilient and often find ways to live like that. 
 

I think compared to a minimum wage job with government top ups the difference between the two are negligible. Difference being is one you have to graft the other you don’t. 🤷

 

[hughesie27]

15 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

But is that even a thing? Benefits must be a lot more than I have been led to believe if they're more than full time on the minimum wage.

Some would then need to start paying for childcare, taking up a lot of their wages.

Add on public transport to and from work, or petrol money to run a car.

Depending in the number of hours worked and money earned it would also reduce or end existing benefits for example housing benefit.

[Taffin]

12 minutes ago, Sooperstar said:

Not necessarily more than full time, but these hypothetical people have to weigh off whether or not it is worth slaving away for 35 hours a week in a dead end job for the sake of a few more pounds than they can get from not working and spending time with their families instead.

 

7 minutes ago, AlimOzturk said:

Being on universal credits will mean their rents are paid, council tax are reduced, extra help with energy costs, families will receive child tax credits and other benefits for children and so forth. It is far from a comfortable existence but folk are resilient and often find ways to live like that. 
 

I think compared to a minimum wage job with government top ups the difference between the two are negligible. Difference being is one you have to graft the other you don’t. 🤷

 

 

5 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

Some would then need to start paying for childcare, taking up a lot of their wages.

Add on public transport to and from work, or petrol money to run a car.

Depending in the number of hours worked and money earned it would also reduce or end existing benefits for example housing benefit.

 

Cheers 👍

 

I take it back, I guess those on benefits haven't got it too bad then actually, sounds decent, might look into it. 

 

I thought it would be miles off c.£20k

Edited October 18, 2022 by Taffin

[Cade]

It's not really a case of "benefits are too much" but more a case of "working wages are shite and the cost of living is too high"

 

But this it the UK and all the UK knows is punching downwards instead of pulling people upwards.

 

With all these record profits being generated, there's plenty of money in the system. It's just not being given to the workers, making having a job more hassle than it's worth in some rare cases.

Edited October 18, 2022 by Cade

[AlimOzturk]

Just now, Taffin said:

 

 

 

Cheers 👍

 

I take it back, I guess those on benefits haven't got it too bad then actually, sounds decent, might look into it. 

^^^completely missing the point. 

[Taffin]

2 minutes ago, AlimOzturk said:

^^^completely missing the point. 

 

Sorry, I thought the point was that it can be better not to work financially, I didn't think that was true, turns out it is. Now I'm on board with it and I'm missing the point?!?

Edited October 18, 2022 by Taffin

[Taffin]

23 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

 

 

Cheers 👍

 

I take it back, I guess those on benefits haven't got it too bad then actually, sounds decent, might look into it. 

 

I thought it would be miles off c.£20k

 

This post was flippant. Sorry.

 

I did genuinely think the gap between a full time wage and benefits was considerable though. It was all good faith up until a few posts ago triggered me.

[Footballfirst]

Mark Drakeford getting upset with the Tories (and his folder).

 

 

[Japan Jambo]

4 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Mark Drakeford getting upset with the Tories (and his folder).

 

 

 

It's good to see passion, too many exchanges are robotic and scripted.

 

Edited October 18, 2022 by Japan Jambo

[MoncurMacdonaldMercer]

4 hours ago, Victorian said:

Not sure what the hell that is,  but the poster is surely capable of more respectful and tolerant co-existence with his fellow posters. 

 

agreed however when posters go out their way to be offensive rather than just stating their views (the queens death being a very obvious example) then it’s a bit rich to start bleating about less than civil posts flying about - “ if u don’t like what I say, avoid it” or words to that affect also  thrown about - now we’ve to get all sensitive - generally not how it works 

 

 

 

 

[ri Alban]

What's been happening the day. I have some insensitivity, if folk want it. 

[The Mighty Thor]

4 hours ago, Cade said:

But this it the UK and all the UK knows is punching downwards instead of pulling people upwards.

This.

 

In the absence of them dirty immigrants, go after the dole scroungers. The lazy kants. 

 

[The Mighty Thor]

Front of tomorrow's FT

 

BT pension fund left with a £11bn black hole after mini budget. 

 

 

[Victorian]

6 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

Front of tomorrow's FT

 

BT pension fund left with a £11bn black hole after mini budget. 

 

 

 

It's the Guardian reading,  Tofu eating,  Auntie Growff coalition wuts at fault.  Clearly.

[WorldChampions1902]

18 minutes ago, The Mighty Thor said:

Front of tomorrow's FT

 

BT pension fund left with a £11bn black hole after mini budget. 

 

 

[Mikey1874]

The messages for Conservative MPs

 

 

[JudyJudyJudy]

6 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

Mark Drakeford getting upset with the Tories (and his folder).

 

 

The mouse that roared springs to mind ! But good on him 

[Jambo_jim2001]

3 hours ago, The Mighty Thor said:

Front of tomorrow's FT

 

BT pension fund left with a £11bn black hole after mini budget. 

 

 

Probably like my pension ,way too many folk making a really good life for themselves running it also🤬 they pull a fair whack out for their wages and bonuses regardless how well it's doing

[Ulysses]

14 hours ago, Sooperstar said:

This should be watched...

 

 

 

 

If they can, they will ride you all senseless.

[ri Alban]

Pensioners should not need to worry or struggle in a country that is supposed to be very wealthy. Working all yer days, to work part time , when they should be working on the golf handicap, after retirement is cruel. This place under the Tories is very fecking cruel. Blaming people on UC, when the top are indulging themselves on the tax payers hard earned pound. They are the benefits cheats, not the people who are on help because of circumstance. If you support this government, I'd love to know why. 

 

Cruel *******s!

[manaliveits105]

9 hours ago, Mikey1874 said:

The messages for Conservative MPs

 

 

Fair enough 

[Jeffros Furios]

4 minutes ago, manaliveits105 said:

Fair enough 

Move along comrade 

[jack D and coke]