RE: Welfare benefit scroungers - the evidence just doesn't add up.

RE: Welfare benefit scroungers - the evidence just doesn't add up. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

metamorfosis -> RE: Welfare benefit scroungers - the evidence just doesn't add up. (12/4/2012 12:27:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic The tactic of manipulating moderation is well understood. Since liberal posters have the numbers, it's even possible to do it with the death of a thousand cuts, where none of the players even reach the level of a mod note And apparently, it's an acceptable status quo. If that were true, this post wouldn't still be here. Pam

RemoteUser -> RE: Welfare benefit scroungers - the evidence just doesn't add up. (12/4/2012 12:33:26 AM)
Having been in the system in my younger years, it still amazes me how short sighted the Welfare office of Canada can be. The biggest kick in the rear I've seen from them was (at one point) that if you owned a car, you were expected to sell it for money before applying for Welfare, as it was considered a luxury. While I've never owned a car, I know the benefits of one, especially when job hunting and getting 'there and back again'. If memory serves you don't have to sell the car anymore, but the office reserves the right to get an estimate on the vehicle's worth, in the event they need you to sell it to repay the monies you were given. I also personally know several people who have committed Welfare fraud; and, surprise, it was because they were unscrupulous, not because they were poor. I reported one of them (hard not to, they claimed they were living at my residence, I got their cheque in my mail) and discovered that the government just didn't care. They said to pass the mail on and if they needed to investigate they would. This did not lessen my view of the people, but rather the system. [8\|]

metamorfosis -> RE: Welfare benefit scroungers - the evidence just doesn't add up. (12/4/2012 1:12:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: erieangel I happen to be one of those people who "claimed mental illness" and had her student loans forgiven. And guess what, I didn't fraudulently claim mental illness. That is more difficult to do than most people realize. I didn't say she faked mental illness. I said she was (and is) able to work. That said, I'm sorry to hear about your experiences. Pam

meatcleaver -> RE: Welfare benefit scroungers - the evidence just doesn't add up. (12/4/2012 2:37:09 AM)
People always bitch about the welfare system and scroungers, well in the UK most welfare scroungers, if you want to call them that, are actually working! The problem is, most people at the bottom of the pay scale aren't paid enough to live on so the government has to step in. This is the government in affect once again subsidising the rich and corporations, it is a subsidy for capitalism which just illustrates capitalism isn't working.

cordeliasub -> RE: Welfare benefit scroungers - the evidence just doesn't add up. (12/4/2012 6:38:38 AM)
I have had mixed feelings as I read this thread. As a teacher, I have seen things that break my heart and that make me raise an eyebrow. I have seen the boy who used his old sister's pink and purple coat and grungy back because the assistance that his ill mother (dad had left years ago) received wasn't enough to get him one....so we teachers stepped in. I have seen kids stay home on field trip days because the 5.00 for the bus and the small amount of cash recommended for the trip to McDonalds while on the field trip was more than the family could afford. Again, parents or teachers stepped up and helped. I have also seen the kids who receive free lunch and who are prohibited from missing field trips - the school MUST foot the bill - get dropped off in a brand new Escalade with head to toe designer clothing, 250 dollar Nikes, and iphones in their backpacks. I never really said anything because maybe all those things were gifts.....but I admit I do wonder about it. Because I am not naive, I have no doubt that there are probably adults out there who "play the system," though I believe the vast majority are people who really are in need and/or are caught between that rock and hard place of assistance providing more than a job would. All I see are the kids, and regardless of the scruples of their parents, I would hate for kids to go without. What can I say, I am a softie. That being said.....if mama CAN buy her own Cadillac, weekly pedicure, and 250 dollar Nikes....she might want to think about paying the 5.00 for a field trip without whining.

tazzygirl -> RE: Welfare benefit scroungers - the evidence just doesn't add up. (12/4/2012 7:40:51 AM)
Arent you assuming "mama" owns or bought those things?

Aswad -> RE: Welfare benefit scroungers - the evidence just doesn't add up. (12/4/2012 12:41:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer It really is peculiar, isn't it? Unfortunately, no, it's not very peculiar. And, incidentally, to a lot of people, morality and law is the same thing, even more unfortunately. IWYW, — Aswad.

PeonForHer -> RE: Welfare benefit scroungers - the evidence just doesn't add up. (12/4/2012 1:25:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer It really is peculiar, isn't it? Unfortunately, no, it's not very peculiar. And, incidentally, to a lot of people, morality and law is the same thing, even more unfortunately. IWYW, — Aswad. Depends which part of the law: the law that's most relevant to fine upstanding people, or the law that's most relevant to the lower orders. Here, people will complain about those on benefits doing cash-in-hand work, while themselves feeling it to be perfectly acceptable to pay cash-in-hand to any serviceman who works at their house. Motorists rant about cyclists that jump the traffic lights but rarely keep to the speed limits, despite knowing what damage, injury and even death can be caused by speeding. Hence, at the very same time, one of our leading little right wing, ultra-stuffed up newspapers, The Daily Mail, ran a campaign a) to bring in a policy of Zero Tolerance on US lines and a campaign b) to get rid of speed cameras on the roads.

cordeliasub -> RE: Welfare benefit scroungers - the evidence just doesn't add up. (12/4/2012 2:00:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Arent you assuming "mama" owns or bought those things? That is a very good point. I had not even thought of that until recently, when I read something on facebook about how a woman does her own pedis, her car is a lease with no extras, the clothing is from family, etc. We just never know what is going on behind the scenes.

tazzygirl -> RE: Welfare benefit scroungers - the evidence just doesn't add up. (12/4/2012 2:12:15 PM)
We dont. And your first assumption could very well be true. I would like to point out something that I also have not thought about until today. Many are saying charities should help these people. It dawned on me that many of the charities, locally at least, and the Catholic Charities, require people to have a denial letter from welfare before they can apply.

Rule -> RE: Welfare benefit scroungers - the evidence just doesn't add up. (12/4/2012 4:51:15 PM)
In my experience most people on welfare have medical issues and/or psychological issues. If we could truly cure the sick, it might be a different world.

stef -> RE: Welfare benefit scroungers - the evidence just doesn't add up. (12/4/2012 5:03:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule In my experience... Which is what, exactly?

PeonForHer -> RE: Welfare benefit scroungers - the evidence just doesn't add up. (12/4/2012 5:07:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: stef quote: ORIGINAL: Rule In my experience... Which is what, exactly? Enough.

Lucylastic -> RE: Welfare benefit scroungers - the evidence just doesn't add up. (12/4/2012 5:08:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Arent you assuming "mama" owns or bought those things? [image]local://upfiles/228382/F567F8FA75ED4F369276725154D82DC0.jpg[/image]

PeonForHer -> RE: Welfare benefit scroungers - the evidence just doesn't add up. (12/4/2012 5:09:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl It dawned on me that many of the charities, locally at least, and the Catholic Charities, require people to have a denial letter from welfare before they can apply. You're kidding. Really? That's the absolute pits. What a collection of disgusting little stuffed up wankers.

jlf1961 -> RE: Welfare benefit scroungers - the evidence just doesn't add up. (12/4/2012 5:14:55 PM)
Here locally, all one needs is an eviction notice, a cut off notice and the food banks dont care if you are on assistance or not, they will let you get food.

tazzygirl -> RE: Welfare benefit scroungers - the evidence just doesn't add up. (12/4/2012 5:26:59 PM)
Not the food banks... they just care about income. I am talking about the expensive stuff... medical, dental, housing, home care....

Rule -> RE: Welfare benefit scroungers - the evidence just doesn't add up. (12/4/2012 6:22:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl I'm the flat tax girl. No deductions, tax as low as poverty level. Doesn't get much simpler than that, and turns out the numbers work out, though I still think an incentive slope would be good, if it could be integrated without making the tax code too complex to gain the benefits. If we implement it here at any point, that would have the side benefit of taking out the primary objection to legalizing polyamorous marriages: the difficulties in classifying such "poliages" for taxes, and updating the tax codes and software to deal with the change. Simpler can, sometimes, be better. About twentyfive years ago I conceived of a progressive tax system. It would start at whatever politicians deemed basic necessity and would increase with whatever slope of the exponential function they determined. So for example the first two hundred euro earned would be tax free. Then next the progressive tax starts, say one percent increase per hundred euro's per month earned. So if one earns three hundred euros, one pays 1 euro tax. If one earns four hundred euros, one pays 4 euro's tax (i.e. two percent on two hundred euros). If one earns four hundred euros, one pays 9 euros tax. If one earns twelve hundred euros, one pays one hundred euro tax. If one earns 2200 euros, one pays four hundred euros tax. If one earns 5200 euros, one pays 2500 euros tax. If one earns 10200 euros, one pays ten thousand euros tax. No deductions except for gifts. So, say someone earns 10200 euros, but has to pay ten thousand euros in taxes. He now donates one thousand euro's each to the Departments of Defence, Economy, Infrastructure, Police, and to his poor mom. He is then left with 5200 euros to be taxed and pays 2500 euros in taxes, leaving him with 2700 to spend as he pleases. In this scheme minimum wages can be abolished. The consequence of which is that everyone can have a job. quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad that would have the side benefit of taking out the primary objection to legalizing polyamorous marriages: the difficulties in classifying such "poliages" for taxes, and updating the tax codes and software to deal with the change. Simpler can, sometimes, be better. That is not the primary objection to polyamorous marriages. The primary objection is that polyamorous marriages cause social instability and that it is bad for the gene pool, resulting in barbarism.

erieangel -> RE: Welfare benefit scroungers - the evidence just doesn't add up. (12/4/2012 6:28:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: erieangel I happen to be one of those people who "claimed mental illness" and had her student loans forgiven. And guess what, I didn't fraudulently claim mental illness. That is more difficult to do than most people realize. Before becoming ill, I was on the Dean's List, maintained a GPA of 3.8 and worked 3 part time jobs all while raising 2 toddlers and dealing with am abusive husband who was slowly losing his eyesight and feeling insecure that I'd leave him once I had my degree and was "smarter" than he was. It is a common known fact that research after research has verified for anyone not too lazy to reseach that mental illness is prevalent amongst the poor. Not only is mental illness rife amongst the poor but phsysical illness too and life expectancy is far lower. People who caim otherwise are wilfully ignorant because there is endless data on the subject. You shouldn't have to defend yourself against the ignorant. I'm not so sure that the poor tend to suffer mental illness more often than the "not poor". It's a which came first thing. Mental illness is in many cases, the cause of poverty--not the result.

PeonForHer -> RE: Welfare benefit scroungers - the evidence just doesn't add up. (12/4/2012 6:35:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule That is not the primary objection to polyamorous marriages. The primary objection is that polyamorous marriages cause social instability and that it is bad for the gene pool, resulting in barbarism. I've never heard of that before. My impression is that the primary objection to polyamorous marriages is that such marriages aren't usual, therefore they must be wrong. It was said in the Bible, or one of the Grimms Fairy Stories (one of the two, I can never remember which). But wherever and whoever said it, it was at a time when no-one knew what the hell a 'gene pool' was, anyway. Of that I'm pretty certain.

Page: << < prev 7 8 [9] 10 11 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875