Its Budget day!!

Just remember who it was who got us here.... One pace forward Messrs Blair & Brown and your happy cohorts.

Why are we still paying for Teflon Tony's security when he is lecturing to make money, surely if he is being paid he can pay for his own CP?
 
Just remember who it was who got us here.... One pace forward Messrs Blair & Brown and your happy cohorts.

Why are we still paying for Teflon Tony's security when he is lecturing to make money, surely if he is being paid he can pay for his own CP?

We OWE it to the Rest Of the World to provide the security! We let him phook up our world the security are there to try and stop him from doing the same to the rest of the world. Give him a dish-dash and a beard, air drop him into Afghanistan (Parachute optional) and let him take control of the Taliban. The boys would be home by Christmas!
 
hi,

dont want to start on about our boys over there as thats way of this thread.. "need a smiley with scots flag"

the only people who are not affected in any great form are those on the dole.
as tony and gordon said your better off on the dole :stir: oh or was that better off the dole.

my prices are up by 21/2% in jan, another two and a half higher than those who dont pay any tax and still work grrrrrr


I hold the govt of the last 13 years liable not the man holding a red hot coal today.... p.s not a conservative voter either.

we still have more to come.... not a happy time. the harder you work the more you pay for those who don't..
900 jobs at scottish amicable likely to go announced today.. poor sods

f.
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately my work place is full of left wing ****s who've never experienced life outside of education and would happily **** our country away to all the lazy parasites who consider it their right for us to keep them in the luxury that they've grown used to. I just couldn't believe my ears when a group today exclaimed how awful it was that housing benefits were being capped at £400 per week!

£400 per week - who the f**k is entitled to housing benefit of at least £1600 per month?
 
Unfortunately my work place is full of left wing ****s who've never experienced life outside of education and would happily **** our country away to all the lazy parasites who consider it their right for us to keep them in the luxury that they've grown used to. I just couldn't believe my ears when a group today exclaimed how awful it was that housing benefits were being capped at £400 per week!

£400 per week - who the f**k is entitled to housing benefit of at least £1600 per month?

scotsgun

that sir is about 85% of the dole munching public today.
unfortunately the other 15%is made up of redundant people who dont know how to fxxk the system and get £49 a week instead

baaa huuuummmm bugggggg
 
Unfortunately my work place is full of left wing ****s who've never experienced life outside of education and would happily **** our country away to all the lazy parasites who consider it their right for us to keep them in the luxury that they've grown used to. I just couldn't believe my ears when a group today exclaimed how awful it was that housing benefits were being capped at £400 per week!

£400 per week - who the f**k is entitled to housing benefit of at least £1600 per month?

I know what you mean scotsgun but to balance it just a little it does depend on what part of the country you are in. My daughter lives in London in a Housing Assoc. one bed flat and her rent is £105 per week. She is lucky enough to have a job (unlike I was at her age in Paisley before I moved south --- yep - for work). Given that housing assoc rents are always cheaper than private landlords and the shortage of public sector housing it is not difficult to see how a family with 2 or 3 children could have rent approaching £400 per week. I agree with the cap as necessary but wonder how much it will actually save. If you are under 25 and privately renting they will only pay towards you renting a room in a house, in other cases they have maximums they will pay so if you had a landlord who was charging you £3000 a month for a 3 bed house where the market rent was £500 then HB would set the bar at £500 and the claimant would either have to move or else find the rest of the rent elsewhere.

The cases where some money may be saved is where the council is obligated to house a large family but does not have any available houses large enough to do so and are forced into privately renting as a council cannot house a family in overly cramped conditions. I suspect some money may be saved here - although the councils will still have the obligation to house large families in suitable accommodation so they may still have to provide the housing but not be able to pass the charges onto the family. There we would have a situation where the council would have to swallow the costs instead of HB so we may just be switching the costs to a different department.

At the end of the day I suspect this is a political statement designed to appeal to a section of voters and I would be interested to see the projected cost savings, the source of the data, and where it was thought the excess costs would be picked up with a net sum expected to be saved after taking the above into account.
 
I know what you mean scotsgun but to balance it just a little it does depend on what part of the country you are in. My daughter lives in London in a Housing Assoc. one bed flat and her rent is £105 per week. She is lucky enough to have a job (unlike I was at her age in Paisley before I moved south --- yep - for work). Given that housing assoc rents are always cheaper than private landlords and the shortage of public sector housing it is not difficult to see how a family with 2 or 3 children could have rent approaching £400 per week. I agree with the cap as necessary but wonder how much it will actually save. If you are under 25 and privately renting they will only pay towards you renting a room in a house, in other cases they have maximums they will pay so if you had a landlord who was charging you £3000 a month for a 3 bed house where the market rent was £500 then HB would set the bar at £500 and the claimant would either have to move or else find the rest of the rent elsewhere.

The cases where some money may be saved is where the council is obligated to house a large family but does not have any available houses large enough to do so and are forced into privately renting as a council cannot house a family in overly cramped conditions. I suspect some money may be saved here - although the councils will still have the obligation to house large families in suitable accommodation so they may still have to provide the housing but not be able to pass the charges onto the family. There we would have a situation where the council would have to swallow the costs instead of HB so we may just be switching the costs to a different department.

At the end of the day I suspect this is a political statement designed to appeal to a section of voters and I would be interested to see the projected cost savings, the source of the data, and where it was thought the excess costs would be picked up with a net sum expected to be saved after taking the above into account.

What I find difficult to understand in all of this, is that we have to house people with large families, why we did not breed the buggers. I know there will be all sorts of reasons why contraception cannot be used ranging from religion to the prevailing wind but, if they are irresponsible enough to have children when they cannot afford them, what makes their irresponsibility our problem. I cannot recall any of this from when I was a kid, is the modern world really an improvement?

John
 
Anyone who knows something about economics knows raising taxes will not bring any more money to the budget. I guess new chancellor never heard about the Laffer curve. Did he graduate from the communist's nest - London School of Economics ? :-|
 
WildGoose,
Now i agree with you in principle but unfortunately the wife used to be a benefits fraud investigator and some of her stories just make my blood boil, like:

-The claimant who had his rent paid for him. His flat was in mayfare, london and he drove a merc.
- The Nigerians who would rent out kids so that others could claim more benefits and demand housing.

The so called new security state and it being supposedly harder to screw the system is a joke. One of the biggest scams going is usually done my illegal immigrants - they used to pop down to the central records office (formally St Catherine's Hse, London) where you can browse the births/deaths registers for the country. They would browse the big registers and seek out a baby that's died and then request its birth certificate. Legally you can request anyone's birth cert. for a small fee.
Once that is delivered to them or they collect it, thay can then claim their national insurance card, provisional driving licence and ultimately a whole new identity. They're also now free to screw the benefits system as they wish. They were even as blatant as to put a tick or 'x' next to the birth/deathe record they intended to use so that others would know not to use that one too!
Her team caught one Nigerian who was using 54 such identities and claiming hundreds of thousands. He was bailed to appear, disappeared and is no doubt continuing to screw the system - they didn't even detain him in order to deport because they couldn't find his own passport. Legally he couldn't be detained iif he didn't surrender his own passport.........how mad is that?
The wife says that now the system is more computerised it's even easier for them - they don't even have to attend the records office.

There's a reason why we have one of the largest benefits burdens in Europe and why so many immigrants want to be here - because we allow our benefits system to be so easily abused for fear of being seen to be unfair or racist. What we should realise is our complacency is detrimentally effecting the future of our kids,our grandkids and making it harder to help those who actually need it - those who deserve and actually need the benefits system.

I used to be a dreamer but now i'm just a ****ed off working tax payer - a realist.
 
What I find difficult to understand in all of this, is that we have to house people with large families, why we did not breed the buggers. I know there will be all sorts of reasons why contraception cannot be used ranging from religion to the prevailing wind but, if they are irresponsible enough to have children when they cannot afford them, what makes their irresponsibility our problem. I cannot recall any of this from when I was a kid, is the modern world really an improvement?

John

That's easy to answer...because it's the law! Under the Children's Act and subsequent acts it's illegal for a local authority to refuse housing or other benefits if there's a child who'll be effected. Go ahead and screw the system, get caught even but if you have a child the authority cannot withhold benefits. Common amongst those working whilst claiming.
There's a whole raft of legislation like each child over 7yrs is entitled to their own room. An entitlement which authorities are finding increasingly impossible to abide by due to housing shortages, but it's only the tip of the iceberg. Each kid is a gravy train lasting at least 16yrs.
 
scotsgun,

I cant see how you cant be happy with the system as it stands,

unpaid workers get more than those who do,
unmarried single mums get houses while divorcees and women from abused homes cant,
people with a legitimate disability cant get benefits yet those with none get a car every three years and lots of dosh,
people who want to leave home get a council house to get them a start cant yet an immigrant who pays nothing to the state can cos there foreign,
people who work and pay taxes get hammered if they earn some extra money by second jobs but those whom are on the dole for there first job are free to work anywhere,
if a working man gets caught breaking the law he is made an example of but if you are a persistent offender you get £5 a week fine,
if your over qualified for your job you get no extra pay but if your on the dole have either a drug issue, drink issue or pee the bed(yes pee the bed) you get extra benefits to pay for drink drugs and nappies,
if a legitimate tenant needs to pay rent they work hard all month and pay the landlord if your on the dole don't work you get paid the cash into your account spend it on drugs the landlord cant throw you out

IF YOUR MUM AND DAD WORKED SO DO YOU, IF YOUR MUM AND DAD ARE ON THE DOLE SO ARE YOU. and that's the law

As i say scotsgun i cant see what you problem is as the system works very well.
your problem is your on the wrong side of the fence just like every one else here

just keep going to work as they have a lifestyle to keep up

atb f.
 
That's easy to answer...because it's the law! Under the Children's Act and subsequent acts it's illegal for a local authority to refuse housing or other benefits if there's a child who'll be effected. Go ahead and screw the system, get caught even but if you have a child the authority cannot withhold benefits. Common amongst those working whilst claiming.
There's a whole raft of legislation like each child over 7yrs is entitled to their own room. An entitlement which authorities are finding increasingly impossible to abide by due to housing shortages, but it's only the tip of the iceberg. Each kid is a gravy train lasting at least 16yrs.

Is it not time this Country grew a pair and sorted this rubbish out. You cannot say this is PC gone mad it is way beyond that, the Government is so bloody scred that they will be viewed as racist or unfair they allow the bloody lunatics to run the asylum. If the Government did stand up to this nonsense and sort it a bit bloody lively, I for one would not view it as a bad thing and I suspect neither would the vast majority of the UK population. Probably even the rest of Europe and Co. would sort themselves out. It would only be the bath dodging loony left tree hugging idealist's that would complain, but complaining is what they live for. All joking aside something needs doing, the future for our youngsters today is not bright.

John
 
Couldn't agree more Jayb!

Problem is now that other European countries have had enough and are actively doing what we should be, the immigration issue and subsequent drain on our welfare system will only get worse. just look at the recent steps taken by Denmark.

Unfortunately the only political party that has actually recognised the growing frustration of the working tax payer are those bloody loonies in the BNP. The BNP can thank their previous success in gaining a seat in the London Borough of Barking and Havering due to Westminster Council. The governement decreed that each authority would have to accept and provide benefits for a proportional number of immigrants. Westminster bean counters very quickly worked out that it would be cheeper to farm their immigrants out to other authorities by renting premises direct from landlords for exactly one year. After the 12 months, the immigrants are the problem of that other authority and Westminster can withdraw benefits.
Westminster sent so many immigrants out to Barking and Havering over a 4yr period that it became practically impossible to obtain private rented accomodation, the local authority housing became non-existent after the 12month period and whole areas of the town literally changed in 'colour.' Whether founded or not, the traditionally white English population became concerned (especially the older community), began to feel unsafe and frustrations arose over the massive pressures on housing, schools, health, etc. The BNP were voted in because of the fears and frustrations created by one authority shitting on another.
 
Anyone who knows something about economics knows raising taxes will not bring any more money to the budget. I guess new chancellor never heard about the Laffer curve. Did he graduate from the communist's nest - London School of Economics ? :-|

Great to hear the Laffer Curve mentioned on a Deer Stalking site!! Where the Laffer Curve may not perform as planned is in the very short timeframe, before people have adjusted to the fact that (as you rightly say in your tag line) government is stealing less of their wealth. In the very short timeframe, before people can adjust, raising tax may therefore generate more booty, but that increased booty will fall away in line with Laffer in the medium term.

Ten years ago, Osborne was talking about Flat Taxes. Interestingly, now he is in a position to do something about it, there is no mention of them.
 
Back
Top