Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Fri Nov 18, 2011 2:07 pm  

Standee wrote:

not just interest only mortgages, credit in general, people are, on the whole, in way too much debt.

I like the way you simplify things to try and build and argument, you'd do really well on The Cube.

I haven't simplified anything, merely repeated your simplistic arguments back to you. They sound a bit daft, don't they?

Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Fri Nov 18, 2011 2:09 pm  

Standee wrote:

not just interest only mortgages, credit in general, people are, on the whole, in way too much debt.

I like the way you simplify things to try and build and argument, you'd do really well on The Cube.

Taking on credit has proven entirely rational for those people. We have governmemts hell bent on propping the banks up by propping up the indebted home owners. The irrational ones are those who are not in debt as we are the only ones who can pay for the debtors. That means people who "have done the right thing" come away with poverty in retirement and a smaller house than they could have had; and those who borrowed come away with more capital than then should have had - by having a bigger house than they could rightfully have afforded. Effectively, those hard-working families stretching to fund their mortgages and lifestyles are all effectively on welfare.

Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Fri Nov 18, 2011 2:09 pm  

Rock God X wrote:

That's a £50 net income, not a net gain. It's actually less than being on JSA. So, I ask again, do you think it reasonable that a man should have to work for 40 hours and not see his family all week, for an income lower than he would get on JSA?

And what about if he needed full time child care and it ended up costing him money to go to work? Should he have to do that too?

but why does anyone "need" full time child care, we never used to, one parent working was enough. This is what I mean, we've built ourselves a society where two wages is a minimum to live, that's not right, and it wasn't Labour or the Conservatives that pushed us own this route, it is us as a society, where we have a "want" as opposed to "need" culture.

look around when you get home (unless you're already at home), how much of the stuff that surrounds you do you genuinely NEED and how much was bought because you simply wanted it?

and I am not saying I am not guilty of the same, far from it, but to try and blame politicians for our own behaviour is simply wrong. You say there aren't enough jobs, why is that, is it because the population of the UK Has been allowed to increase unabated, with little regard for how we might cope with that population increase, or is it because David Cameron went to Eaton and his parents are wealthy?

Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Fri Nov 18, 2011 2:10 pm  

cod'ead wrote: Like the Goldman Sachs model for Europe? Not going to read that link. Mintball has already opined - and that newspaper is piss-poor.

cod'ead wrote: Like the Goldman Sachs model for Europe? Not going to read that link. Mintball has already opined - and that newspaper is piss-poor.

Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Fri Nov 18, 2011 2:14 pm  

Standee wrote:

but why does anyone "need" full time child care, we never used to, one parent working was enough. This is what I mean, we've built ourselves a society where two wages is a minimum to live, that's not right, and it wasn't Labour or the Conservatives that pushed us own this route, it is us as a society, where we have a "want" as opposed to "need" culture.

look around when you get home (unless you're already at home), how much of the stuff that surrounds you do you genuinely NEED and how much was bought because you simply wanted it?

and I am not saying I am not guilty of the same, far from it, but to try and blame politicians for our own behaviour is simply wrong. You say there aren't enough jobs, why is that, is it because the population of the UK Has been allowed to increase unabated, with little regard for how we might cope with that population increase, or is it because David Cameron went to Eaton and his parents are wealthy?

One parent in this house does work, that's me. I'm one of those nasty, evil single parents. So what do I do? Sit at home claiming benefits or work full time?

Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Fri Nov 18, 2011 2:15 pm  

hopps wrote:

One parent in this house does work, that's me. I'm one of those nasty, evil single parents. So what do I do? Sit at home claiming benefits or work full time?

an entirely different dimension to the conversation, you may be the only parent present, but I doubt you conceived alone.

society is too lenient on absentee parents as well, both male and female. (again, in my opinion)

Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Fri Nov 18, 2011 2:19 pm  

Standee wrote:

but why does anyone "need" full time child care, we never used to, one parent working was enough. This is what I mean, we've built ourselves a society where two wages is a minimum to live, that's not right, and it wasn't Labour or the Conservatives that pushed us own this route, it is us as a society, where we have a "want" as opposed to "need" culture.

look around when you get home (unless you're already at home), how much of the stuff that surrounds you do you genuinely NEED and how much was bought because you simply wanted it?

That's an entirely different topic, and a transparent attempt to dodge the issue.

What you 'need' is to be able to pay rent/mortgage, council tax, gas, electricity and water bills, then be able to feed and clothe your family and travel to work. Those are the bare essentials, without taking into account stuff that we could reasonably say it was ok for a person to have (like a phone and a TV licence, for example). It is perfectly conceivable that one person's wage won't cover all these expenses given the ridiculously high cost of housing, and the ever increasing cost of energy, food and fuel. So, it's not just a case of 'want' driving the fact that some families have both parents working.

I noticed you didn't answer my question, either.

I'll quote it, so you can see the one I mean:

So, I ask again, do you think it reasonable that a man should have to work for 40 hours and not see his family all week, for an income lower than he would get on JSA?

Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Fri Nov 18, 2011 2:26 pm  

Rock God X wrote:

I find it disgusting that JSA discourages people from seeking work.

Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Fri Nov 18, 2011 2:34 pm  

Standee wrote:

I find it disgusting that JSA discourages people from seeking work.

So you think that £53 (for under 25s) or £67 (for over 25s) is too much? You'd rather see the unemployed get, what? Nothing?

I think you're using JSA to try and cloud the issue, so I'll rephrase:

Do you think it's reasonable that a man should have to work 40 hours a week and live away from his family for 5 days out of 7, for a net income of £50? And do you think those that would need full time childcare should go to work to make a loss?

Re: State Sponsored Slavery : Fri Nov 18, 2011 2:37 pm  

Standee wrote:

an entirely different dimension to the conversation, you may be the only parent present, but I doubt you conceived alone.

society is too lenient on absentee parents as well, both male and female. (again, in my opinion)

and if the absence is due to death?