Survival of the Unfittest and the UK Benefits System, page 4

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 19 times

reply posted on 2-2-2012 @ 09:05 PM by Kalixi

My friend works as an electrician whose company services and installs elevators. His company got a contract to service the Commission High Rise Flats near the city. He told me it was the worst work site he's ever worked on.
He said that the car park had two BMW's and one $60,000 car (I can't remember the brand) He said the hall ways had graffiti and the lift was scratched up with syringes on the floor and defecated in. Every 6 months the government has to pay them to return because the lifts are intentionally broken and vandalized by the residents, again.

So there are some people on welfare who can afford luxury cars (drug money? or cash in hand jobs?) but not their own rent and food. Those high rises are in the most exclusive inner city suburbs. One pregnant Sudanese lady walked past with 8 small children and merely pointed to the lift they were working on grunting; it seemed she didn't know enough English to ask when the lift would be up and running again.

On the 'survival of the unfittest' notion; shouldn't countries be looking after our own citizens instead of cramming 'refugees' and boat people into these high rises to depend on welfare, increase crime, breed like rabbits and create social enclaves and ghettos.

Immigration is fine as long as it is controlled and managed by accepting people that would bring skills and money into the country, to have a positive impact on our society. Why should we accept other countries problems to the detriment of our own people?

reply posted on 2-2-2012 @ 09:20 PM by Kalixi

reply to post by mr-lizard

There's a bunch of people who hang out side my local supermarket and ask everyone if they could trade their food vouchers for cigarettes and alcohol. These homeless people are thinner than a young anorexic girl and would sooner pass out the the gutter from alcohol than buying themselves some food.

If you can't afford to feed yourself then you definitely can't afford 'luxuries' such as cigarettes and alcohol so perhaps you shouldn't have them. It's all about priorities.

With all the research coming through about how detrimental sugar is I wonder if the food stamps will change to 'Fresh Food Only'.

reply posted on 2-2-2012 @ 10:00 PM by gosseyn

Oh, right guys, why don't we let them die, or why not kill them right away? Oh wait, why just kill them? Why don't we use them for pharmaceutical experiments ? We should do as follow : under a certain amount of money (because as we know it all, the value of a human being equals his stock of money), we simply remove them from the human species by ordinance, and we can also tattoo their face so if you cross them on your way to your beautiful job, you know you can use them as toilet paper. And why stop there ? There are so many ways to use them. I say we should re-establish slavery, and use them as productive animals and all kind of stuff. This way we would be sure that they are 100% productive and that they contribute to the max to society and its goals. Uh, sorry, but what was the goal of society again? I forgot.

It is obvious that it's completely useless to start to think about the concept of money, it is useless to think about where money comes from, how it is created and who really benefits from it. Those worthless scum should find a job, and who cares what type of job and whether that job contributes to the well-being of others or not, as long as they find a JOB and they are given MONEY.

reply posted on 2-2-2012 @ 11:51 PM by starseedflower

Let me share with you why this story makes me feel let' s say exploited, my partner and I are EU nationals and both work full-time here in the UK in jobs which have NOT been taken away from any British people, as we share between the two of us six fluently spoken languages and skills hard to find among English people, we have one child and do not intend to expand our family any time soon, we pay more than 40.000 Pounds per year in taxes to the UK government, we rent privately, which is pretty expensive in Surrey, we pay council tax in full, we pay for the additional child care like after school club and holiday activities in full, we do not receive any benefits from the government at all, of course there must be a social net for people in need and help them out in difficult life situations, but I kind of feel it would be nicer to choose who I give my hard earned money to, I would rather have it going to a charity of my choice than to people taking advantage of the system. Why can' t we have as taxpayers the opportunity let' s say to mark on a multiple choice form our preference for tax spending, and be sure my choice is never going to be families like the one above or going to war with other countries or bailing out the bankers.

reply posted on 3-2-2012 @ 06:20 AM by christina-66

reply to post by AnIntellectualRedneck

I don’t disagree with you. As far as I’m concerned there’s a sickness running through the whole of our society – it’s rotten inside and out and from top to bottom. It’s the result of years of self seeking, self gratifying short term thinking culminating in a general collapse of all the functions of good governance - especially our complicit media.

There is a grander plan being played out here. Long term – methinks we’re nearing the ‘logical and ultimate’ conclusion of a humungous economic experiment. These guys certainly play their part in it. You wanna talk about evil rich kids??

Our strong track record in large, medium and smaller transactions, and our enduring relationships with a wide range of loyal clients, distinguishes Rothschild from other advisory firms. We have forged long and close relationships with the UK and Irish governments, spanning from historic government bond writing through to the privatisation programmes of the 1980s and the turbulent markets of today.

Yep – the Rothschilds have a ‘how to privatise national assets’ department’ that’s been ‘teaching’ our government how to rob it’s citizenry of their birthright since the early 1980’s (according to their own website). And they’re still at it...

Our recent notable assignments include the bid defence of Carlsberg and Heineken’s offers for Scottish & Newcastle, the sale of British Energy to EDF and the sale of Pets at Home, the IPOs of Amadeus and Rusal, and advice to the Irish Government on the restructuring and recapitalisation of the domestic banking sector.

Rothschild.com

edit on 3-2-2012 by christina-66 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 3-2-2012 @ 09:16 AM by SearchLightsInc

Yano, while were on the business of caps, when will we be capping MP's expenses? Because they're just as feckless as this raymond guy. No i dont believe he should sit on his arse and spawn more minions, but i do believe that there should actually be a suitable alternative - Like a job that will allow him the same lifestyle he enjoys now. But oh no, he's part of the underclass and therefore does not deserve any of that stuff. His purpose in life is to work and pay his way - with no benefits.

Seriously, i dont blame this guy, this country's gone to # since thatcher.

reply posted on 3-2-2012 @ 09:43 AM by christina-66

reply to post by colin42

Yep – unemployment and ill health have both become industries. Then of course there’s the black economy (natural side effect of unemployment) ensuring the police, court and prison services also remain growth industries. But that’s not the kind of country/world I want to live in.

We do have to reintroduce this whole concept of a ‘living wage’ that takes into account living costs and quality of life. They reckon that in the first half of the 20th century, (largely because we had just gone through two world wars) labour (the work-force) held too much power in the economic equation. Labour’s strength was eroded throughout the 70’s and 80’s. Labour may well have been over-powered but with the severe swing to the dominance of capital in the new economic equation workers rights have been eroded, negated, even forgotten, over time.

How can it be that Raymond & Co can even come close to (never mind better) the standard of living of a similar family with two working parents (even in the humblest of employment). The state appears to have a more realistic view of what the cost of living actually is than the so-called free market. All things being equal the stock market just shouldn’t be that ‘money for nothing’ merry go round it seems to have been. Companies should not be declaring the levels of profit they are when their wage bills are subsidised by the state in the form of a tax credit. Their dividend wouldn’t have seemed so tempting if they were truly being asked to carry their full costs.

edit on 3-2-2012 by christina-66 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 3-2-2012 @ 09:59 AM by colin42

reply to post by Kalixi

I remember working at a high rise building once. Those that were there were condescending, rude. Felt and showed we were beneath contempt. When they could be bothered to talk to you they grunted and pointed

They arrived and left in big powerful cars they never paid for and drank themselves into a stupor in a subsidised bar.

Yep. I refused to work in the House of Commons again right up to the day I left that company.

edit on 3-2-2012 by colin42 because: (no reason given)

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >> ^^TOP^^