[Closed] So Mr Cameron

We spend more on benefits than we do on health, education and defence COMBINED.

And tax avoidance (legal or otherwise) is valued at a third of what the benefits bill is. Why is there not a war on that? And I don't mean simply telling on Jimmy Carr to his mum.

It's like he's actively trying to outdo Maggie as if it's a competition…

Good luck with that. 😆
Where will you go if they don't get independence?

Because we decided to base our entire economy on the financial services industry moving around imaginary sums of money, instead of actually making anything or doing anything useful you mean?

Once Scotlandshire has ****ed off, we'll be sorted. They cost the rest of us a fortune. Everyone up there is a fried food guzzling, buckfast gurgling smackhead. I saw a film about it once

[img] [/img]

Where will you go if they don't get independence?

Scandinavia?

Hows about, rather than a Cull, we just stop even more people coming here?

Given that most of the people who come here are net contributors - how is that going to help?

bamboo - Member

If the government wanted to tackle the housing benefit costs, they should reintroduce rent controls. This would stop the government paying billions of pounds each year into the pockets of buy to let landlords, reduce rents, and go some way to making this country a cheaper and more competitive place to do business. But then Cameron and his mates (plus the Labour lot to be fair) all have their noses in the property trough so they won't do this.

completely agree with this

Why not have an immigration system based on points like the canadians, australians or americans?
Ensure that those coming have the skills we need, no benefits for any immigrants until they get citizenship (5 years or so), eject all immigrants for committing a crime (or getting caught).

[img] ?zz=1[/img]

Because we decided to base our entire economy on the financial services industry moving around imaginary sums of money, instead of actually making anything or doing anything useful you mean?

If we actually built anything of quality we wouldn't have had to do this - it is a bit poor when it takes Japanese companies like Nissan to show us how to build quality cars in this country.

Funny thing is I think it was a British guy who peddled his ideas about quality control to the Japanese after the war because no-one in Britain wanted them.

Plus it never seems to go down well whenever I suggest that someone should favor something built in this country over something like Shimano if the cost/quality is similar.

It is also funny how young people from Eastern European countries can afford to come over here and work, whereas young people from this country need housing benefit.

Isn't that because they all live in somebodies garden shed in East London? And exist exclusively on a diet of Perch stolen from the local angling club, marinated in vodka?

wrecker - you do realise that immigration in the UK is in fact governed by a system not dissimilar to Oz/Canada/USA where [non-EU migrants] must jump through various hoops to demonstrate they are bringing value, and those immigrants don't qualify for most benefits - or have you just been reading the daily mail too much?

But that only applies to non EU immigrants, doesn't it? And there are only 23 of those a year anyway. As opposed to 2 thirds of the adult population of Warsaw. Every week. Or something

And exist exclusively on a diet of Perch stolen from the local angling club, marinated in vodka?

Don't forget about the swans. They eat our swans you know.

or have you just been reading the daily mail too much?

I don't read the mail. Never have, I don't get told my opinion by a newspaper. I do have eyes though, and I see and speak to a variety of non EU people who have no obvious place to be during working hours.

and those immigrants don't qualify for most benefits

mcboo and Z11 - please explain how the Scandinavian countries have actually got it so wrong?

Because these countries aren't libertarian enough? Remember, when dealing with people like these two, they are coming from the point of "ME before country".

Maybe we need to be looking at immigration from within the EU in a similar style to non eu immigration?

Don't forget about the swans. They eat our swans you know.

Our swans? How dare you. They're Her Majesty's swans.

How can they catch the swans without having their arms broken?

You do realise that the Swedish government has been cutting taxes and reducing welfare payments since the financial crisis.

The Archbishop Canterbury said the Tory "Big Society" is a...

"deeply damaging withdrawal of the state from its responsibilities to the most vulnerable”

And I agree.

The economy needs sorting, but hammering the poor is not the right way to do it. How anyone can support throwing young families into situations where there is no food or clothing is beyond me. There are certainly a few who play the system, but better that than escalation of childhood suffering and mortality through abject financial hardship.

The economy needs sorting, but hammering the poor is not the right way to do it. How anyone can support throwing young families into situations where there is no food or clothing is beyond me. There are certainly a few who play the system, but better that than escalation of childhood suffering and mortality through abject financial hardship.

Because they only care for themselves. They know they are throwing these people on the skip because they didn't get the education, opportunities, or even have financial backing that those in charge got.

Our leaders live in another country.

The Archbishop Canterbury said ...

And I agree.

😯

Somebody on STW agreeing with the Church?

What is the world coming to *shakes head*

Everybody on here seems to think the Church should not be involved in politics or decisions that affect the nation ...

😉

I don't agree with the AofC's beliefs, but on social justice and responsibility, he speaks much sense. And fair dues to him for sticking his head above the parapet and saying what needs saying sometimes. He knows that he'll be listened to, so why not?

Seeing as under 25's will see reduced services, will we see reduced tax?

NO.

I don't agree with the AofC's beliefs, but on social justice and responsibility, he speaks much sense. And fair dues to him for sticking his head above the parapet and saying what needs saying sometimes. He knows that he'll be listened to, so why not?

+1

So why are the Tories not cutting benefits for the middle and upper class pensioners? The same people who hold very much more wealth than the current under-25's.

Or are people who no longer have any long term benefit for the country more important than those that do?

they may want to but that age group actually vote so why not annoy those who dont?

+2 for AoC

[i]So why are the Tories not cutting benefits for the middle and upper class pensioners? The same people who hold very much more wealth than the current under-25's.

Or are people who no longer have any long term benefit for the country more important than those that do?[/i]

Um.... because those people have proved their worth? (rather than people who simply assume they will make a contribution)

...and because they all vote Tory too.

Could we not cut the council tax bill by sorting out the housing shortage as all the money goes to landlords anyway?

Um.... because those people have proved their worth?

or just been lucky when they were born. My parents are sat on £1m of housing and they were only teachers when they bought the house / holiday home.

Could we not cut the council tax bill by sorting out the housing shortage as all the money goes to landlords anyway?

[b]You what?!!![/b]

[img] [/img]

[i]only teachers[/i]

Only?

ONLY?

Only the people we entrust the education of our young to?

I can tell they didn't smack you enough...

Um.... because those people have proved their worth? (rather than people who simply assume they will make a contribution)

What so the generations that helped bring us two world wars, mutually assured destruction, the depression in the 70's, Thatcherism, an ageing population crisis, rampant unsustainable consumerism and global warming, have contributed enough to get benefits they do not need?

[i]What so the generations that brought us two world wars, mutually assured destruction, the depression in the 70's, Thatcherism, an ageing population crisis, rampant unsustainable consumerism and global warming, have contributed enough to get benefits they do not need?[/i]

I think you may be blaming all the ills of the modern world on my mum and grandma, which is not entirely fair.

When you and your generation are in a position to look back, perhaps you may have a point. Until then you seem to be petulant.

My point still stands, why do they [i]deserve[/i] to get benefits they do not need, apart from having paid tax? Which all of us do and will do. In fact my generation will most likely end up paying more tax to keep senile old codgers warm over the next decade, then never get such support from the government ourselves when we are 80. Why should we carry the burden of an ageing population and not the individuals in question?

We will pay as much tax but receive much less support from the government than the 50 plus generation.

Bwaarp +1.

Have you read 'The Jilted Generation'?

So they've paid the tax, but you've decided that they don't need the benifits?

You assume that you'll pay the tax too, but you haven't done yet.

And this "[i]senile old codgers[/i]" suggests that what you really need is a lesson in how to treat old people with some respect and dignity.

Those 'senile old codgers' are the people who worked all their lives, the majority in hard, low paid jobs to give you the society you sit back and criticise on the internet.

My mum would kick your sorry arse...

...and sit up straight, turn your music down and tidy your bedroom.

With respect crikey, your response is basically to say 'respect your elders', and this doesn't address the point that the young generation are being shafted by the older generation. One of the basic premises of a civilised society is to pass on the opportunities that you were afforded onto the next generation. The current younger generation certainly don't get the same level of education, employment, or housing opportunities that the current older generation or 'boomers' were afforded. So I think that the youth have a right be be a bit annoyed. Your argument of respect your elders is a bit of a red rag to a bull IMHO.

@bwaarp - of course an older person (middle class pensioner) has more money than an under 25, they've worked an entire lifetime to build that wealth. An under 25 is in debt to the nation, they've benefitted from free education and the health service for most of their life whilst contributing very little. That's fine of course, the state has invested in them.

The young generation are absolutely not being "shafted" by the elder generation, to the contrary the elder generation have been paying for the young throughout their lives.

The older generation got free education, grants for university and anyone who got a 2:1 or better could do a PhD ...what do we give those under 25 now?

the pensions crisis is a result of these retired now not having paid enough to cover what they will take - they are living much longer than expected and apparently the only solution is for us to pay more to pay for their pension and accept less ourselves ...because they have "earned it".

Many, many pensioners are very well off, no mortgage, huge increase in house prices and we give them winter fuel allowance. my dad spent the winter in Porrtugal in his 100 k camper van he bought when he retired...he got the winter fuel allowance. They should be mean tested IMHO

The young they paid for were their own children and grandchildren and most of the pension issues are the result of them taking more than they paid for. We now pay for the young and the old because they did not pay enough

To expect those currently less well off than them[ i am in cash terms worse of than my dad and I get above the average wage for example and have a mortgage and he does not] to pay for this and to expect us to then have worse pensions than they did and to expect their grandkids to have an even harder time is a tad selfish of these old folk who could contribute far more and take a little less.
their benefits are no untouchable for some reason lost on me.

@junkyard - the old vote, the young don't bother (bit if a generalisation but I think you get my point)

Yeah i dont disagree and I know why they are doing it but it is not "fair".
if i was a politician I would not mess with either pensioners or car drivers either...even democracy has it's weaknesses

the pensions crisis is a result of these retired now not having paid enough to cover what they will take

What they paid was spent on the pensions of prior generations. There is no government 'pension scheme', they take tax from tax payers and pay it to pensioners.

The pension crisis is the result of the onion shaped population, i.e. people having less and less kids since the second world war so there are less taxpayers in each subsequent generation. Namely moving from more taxpayers than pensioners to more pensioners than taxpayers.

[img] [/img]

The fault if there is any is the politicians in a succession of government's for not actually setting up a a sustainable pension scheme.

Can't wait til I'm 80, look how many surplus chicks there are...