Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Sun)   Cute jobless couple claim £17,680 a year in benefits, don't even bother looking for work because it would leave them worse off: "Gina looked up escorting and saw you can make £110 an hour, but we decided we wouldn't go down that route" (w/pics)   (thesun.co.uk ) divider line
    More: Dumbass, housing benefit, child tax credit  
•       •       •

34925 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Jan 2013 at 5:17 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



376 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-01-26 11:56:32 PM  
This means that everyone who needs government assistance is a moocher and that safety net money is to now be sent to pay for tax cuts for the more deserving wealthy
 
2013-01-26 11:58:19 PM  
......and we think the welfare system in THIS country is abused.  Won't look for a job because it would pay less than what they can suck off the government teat.  That's farking pathetic.
 
2013-01-27 12:07:33 AM  
This is wrong and should be addressed. However, corporations take more in government handouts then all the welfare queens combine. Lets go after them first and then figure out what to do about the welfare cheats.
 
2013-01-27 12:08:24 AM  
Oh look, it's this story again.
 
2013-01-27 12:09:09 AM  
I bet they even own a refrigerator.

This thread will be utterly trolltastic in no time, I can almost guarantee it.
 
2013-01-27 12:19:24 AM  
I honest thought it was going to be a story on the Royal Family.
 
2013-01-27 12:54:46 AM  

Coco LaFemme: ......and we think the welfare system in THIS country is abused.  Won't look for a job because it would pay less than what they can suck off the government teat.  That's farking pathetic.


It happens here, too.
 
2013-01-27 12:58:06 AM  
Also, cute?
 
2013-01-27 01:16:24 AM  

crypticsatellite: Also, cute?


British cute.


What's sad is that there is no job that pays more than government benefits. $28K a year ain't much to raise a kid on.
 
2013-01-27 01:20:35 AM  
"Their lounge is dominated by the huge TV"

Thirty five inches isn't dominating or huge.
 
2013-01-27 01:22:58 AM  
How do you get a job seekers benefit if you're not seeking a job?
 
2013-01-27 01:23:37 AM  
How do you get a job seekers benefit if you're not seeking a job?

GAT_00: Oh look, it's this story again.


Oh look it is this Communist again.
 
2013-01-27 01:24:14 AM  
That was odd.
 
2013-01-27 01:25:54 AM  
The Sun and the Daily Mail sure report a lot on people like this. They must handsomely compensate the lazy bastards. Either that or they just feel THAT entitled that they are willing to talk about it. Maybe both. I dunno.
 
2013-01-27 01:29:08 AM  

violentsalvation: The Sun and the Daily Mail sure report a lot on people like this. They must handsomely compensate the lazy bastards. Either that or they just feel THAT entitled that they are willing to talk about it. Maybe both. I dunno.


Or perhaps the reporters could lie to them as to what the interview is about.
 
2013-01-27 01:38:43 AM  

EvilEgg: violentsalvation: The Sun and the Daily Mail sure report a lot on people like this. They must handsomely compensate the lazy bastards. Either that or they just feel THAT entitled that they are willing to talk about it. Maybe both. I dunno.

Or perhaps the reporters could lie to them as to what the interview is about.


Pretty sure he got that and was joking.
 
2013-01-27 01:44:22 AM  

EvilEgg: "Their lounge is dominated by the huge TV"

Thirty five inches isn't dominating or huge.


Depends upon the size of the lounge....
 
2013-01-27 01:48:58 AM  
Fox News + boobies = The Sun.
 
2013-01-27 01:51:57 AM  
There aren't any jobs in Britain anyway. Cameron and Osborn have made sure of that. The UK economy is in danger of triple dipping. Even the ghouls at the IMF think there is a problem.
 
2013-01-27 01:53:50 AM  
When the idle poor become the idle rich,
You'll never know just who is who or who is which,
Won't it be rich when everyone's poor relative becomes a Rockefellertive,
And palms no longer itch, what a switch,
When we all have ermine and plastic teeth,
How will we determine who's who underneath?
And when all your neighbors are upper class,
You won't know your Joneses from your Astors,
Let's toast the day,
The day we drink that drinkie up,
But with the little pinkie up,
The day on which, the idle poor become the idle rich.
When a rich man doesn't want to work,
He's a bon vivant, yes, he's a bon vivant,
But when a poor man doesn't want to work,
He's a loafer, he's a lounger, he's a lazy good for nothing, he's a jerk.
When a rich man loses on a horse, isn't he the sport?
Oh isn't he the sport?
But when a poor man loses on a horse,
He's a gambler, he's a spender, he's a lowlife,
He's a reason for divorce.
When a rich man chases after dames,
He's a man about town, oh, he's a man about town,
But when a poor man chases after dames,
He's a bounder, he's a rounder, he's a rotter and a lotta dirty names.
When the idle poor become the idle rich,
You'll never know just who is who or who is which,
No one will see the Irish or the Slav in you,
For when you're on Park Avenue, Cornelius and Mike look alike.

Same as it ever was, same as it ever way, same as it ever was.
 
2013-01-27 02:22:25 AM  

Bucky Katt: There aren't any jobs in Britain anyway. Cameron and Osborn have made sure of that. The UK economy is in danger of triple dipping. Even the ghouls at the IMF think there is a problem.


Yeah, that austerity did wonders for their economy *snert*
 
2013-01-27 03:01:31 AM  
well, if the Sun says so...
 
2013-01-27 03:31:37 AM  

GAT_00: EvilEgg: violentsalvation: The Sun and the Daily Mail sure report a lot on people like this. They must handsomely compensate the lazy bastards. Either that or they just feel THAT entitled that they are willing to talk about it. Maybe both. I dunno.

Or perhaps the reporters could lie to them as to what the interview is about.

Pretty sure he got that and was joking.


They have bullshiat journalism mastered.
 
2013-01-27 04:00:19 AM  

EvilEgg: "Their lounge is dominated by the huge TV"

Thirty five inches isn't dominating or huge.


Article said 47 inch TV.  Not huge, but big enough.
 
2013-01-27 04:40:08 AM  

Lsherm: EvilEgg: "Their lounge is dominated by the huge TV"

Thirty five inches isn't dominating or huge.

Article said 47 inch TV.  Not huge, but big enough.


The one in the article hardly looks 47"

/the penis joke is left as an exercise for the student.
 
2013-01-27 05:20:16 AM  
I got a 46" TV a year ago on Boxing Day for $400 CDN. That size TV isn't very expensive anymore.
 
2013-01-27 05:22:39 AM  
It's just being smart. Why work if you'll make less than what you can get for free? Only work if you can earn more than you can get by not doing anything.
 
2013-01-27 05:23:04 AM  
Can the government give 'cute assistance' to that couple?
 
2013-01-27 05:23:08 AM  
Hey, your name is repeat... Right haven't I seen you here before?
 
2013-01-27 05:25:55 AM  
It would only leave them worse off if they didn't bother trying to advance in a company to get more money! I have my own business and currently earning less but id rather earn less than not try at all!
 
2013-01-27 05:27:38 AM  
It is supposed to be a safety net, you farking morons, not a frakking hammock!
 
2013-01-27 05:28:48 AM  
I wonder if there are British people who read the Enquirer or the World net Daily and think it's really about stuff that actually happens in America.
 
2013-01-27 05:29:41 AM  
Seems a solution might be to not grant the dole to individuals who are not physically disabled, or are not mentally incapacitated...If you are physically and mentally able to work, even shat jobs like McDonald's, then get out there and work. Life is suffering, get busy.
This would reduce stories like this and perhaps reduce the burden on the dole system...
Or perhaps government sponsered homes should be dorm style...just one apartment building with two families per suite, this would ensure that either you are desperate for a home or encourage you to better yourself as soon as possible.
 
2013-01-27 05:32:17 AM  
"Danny's mum, 45, works as a carer."

I wonder if when the market gets tight she says, "I couldn't carer less..."
 
2013-01-27 05:32:51 AM  
It's people like this that make get my paddle out

/back in my college days,I remember overhearing two Nimrods talk and one was going on about how he'll go on welfare and live off that, play his xbox and get weed everyday
//was two feet away from beating him with my text books
 
2013-01-27 05:33:45 AM  

I have just obtained this photo of the couple in future

2.bp.blogspot.com



Rose: Why is Onslow reading the Financial Times?

Onslow: I like to keep an eye on the economy. A bloke in my position has to wonder how long the country can afford him. If we don't get the economy right, people like me are gonna be in trouble! It's the duty of all of us to be concerned about the shrinking pound.

Daisy: And when I married him, I thought he was just a sex symbol.

/Any more bacon?
 
2013-01-27 05:33:54 AM  
I think were all missing the more important underlying story here: where the fark does this guy get his hair cut?

img.thesun.co.uk
 
2013-01-27 05:34:26 AM  
This is, obviously, Obama's fault. This ought to give Tea Partiers lots of ammunition. Damn if they should be still paying taxes to King George III for a bunch of moochers.
 
2013-01-27 05:37:43 AM  
Meanwhile, the waves of non-Caucasian immigrants have been taking up the slack in the UK, while the entitled natives scream "this is our country, get out!" while sitting around doing nothing but sponging off the system.
 
2013-01-27 05:38:07 AM  
One of their points is that they would be worse off working than sitting home on their asses. Unfortunately, that's true in many cases. Instead of encouraging people to work, our system actually encourages people not to work. Lets take a single mom. If she doesn't work, she gets free housing, food stamps, and health care lets say $2,000 a month in benefits. If she takes a $10.00 part time job she will take home around $600-700 dollars a month, and lose every penny of her benefits. Why the fark would she choose to work?
 
2013-01-27 05:39:24 AM  
i would like to call "FAKE!" but at the same time it seems plausible. happens here too. when i worked furniture delivery i took a washer and dryer to a lady in the ghetto. single, 3 kids, and government assisted housing. while i was hooking it up she informed me that she had it made. all she had to do was work part time at mcdonalds and stay under a certain amount to keep all her benefits.


'MURICA
 
2013-01-27 05:44:58 AM  

a login name very similar to this one: I think were all missing the more important underlying story here: where the fark does this guy get his hair cut?

[img.thesun.co.uk image 620x467]


I was going to ask roughly the same thing. Same place this guy does, I presume.
i.imgur.com
 
2013-01-27 05:49:31 AM  

Wolf892: Seems a solution might be to not grant the dole to individuals who are not physically disabled, or are not mentally incapacitated...If you are physically and mentally able to work, even shat jobs like McDonald's, then get out there and work. Life is suffering, get busy.
This would reduce stories like this and perhaps reduce the burden on the dole system...
Or perhaps government sponsered homes should be dorm style...just one apartment building with two families per suite, this would ensure that either you are desperate for a home or encourage you to better yourself as soon as possible.



So much this...I have no problem paying my taxes and having it go to the less fortunate in this world..the righteously disabled, the mentally disabled, struggling veterans, people who are temporarily unemployed due to some kind of hardships they have encountered...

...but healthy individuals like these fuknuts...there should be someone who goes around pounding on these people rendering them legitimately disabled. And the people who defend them are no better, most likely because they have a little freeloading tendencies in them too
 
2013-01-27 05:50:36 AM  
Welfare Queens, the Bat Boy of British tabloids.
 
2013-01-27 05:51:10 AM  

a login name very similar to this one: I think were all missing the more important underlying story here: where the fark does this guy get his hair cut?

[img.thesun.co.uk image 620x467]


www.marketoracle.co.uk
 
2013-01-27 05:55:04 AM  
Liberals are always afraid that innocent people might be unfairly punished.

Conservatives are always afraid that innocent people might be unfairly rewarded.
 
2013-01-27 06:00:47 AM  

Ishkur: Conservatives are always afraid that innocent people might be unfairly rewarded.


I believe this case CLEARLY demonstrates the Conservative point of view. This is the pinnacle of government wealth redistribution. Take from those who have worked hard and give to those who are able to work but won't.

/not conservative.
//Things wealth redistribution to people like this is a travesty and REALLY takes from those who actually need assistance and support.
///Jail them. Jail them both for crimes against their fellow countrymen.
 
2013-01-27 06:01:27 AM  

carnifex2005: I got a 46" TV a year ago on Boxing Day for $400 CDN. That size TV isn't very expensive anymore.


In 2003 I paid $4500 for a 42" Philips plasma.  This past October, the ballast that fires up the tube went bad, and it was $250 just for the part to fix it.  Even though I had great memories from that TV, into the trash it went.  It also helped that it sucked up about 800 watts while it was on, which made it hot and drove up the electric bill.

I replaced it with a 55" Panasonic plasma that runs at 200 watts.  Cost?  $700.

Can't stop the march of technology.
 
2013-01-27 06:03:01 AM  

Ishkur: Liberals are always afraid that innocent people might be unfairly punished.

Conservatives are always afraid that innocent people might be unfairly rewarded.


Liberals always cheerlead a system that lets you take.

Conservatives always cheerlead a system that lets you earn.
 
2013-01-27 06:03:10 AM  
Maybe we should take this as an indication that wages haven't kept up with the cost of living and if we want less people "sucking the government's teat dry" we might need to rethink not only what people should be paid but what might help reduce the cost of living?
 
2013-01-27 06:04:23 AM  

Cer10Death: I believe this case CLEARLY demonstrates the Conservative point of view. This is the pinnacle of government wealth redistribution. Take from those who have worked hard and give to those who are able to work but won't.


And if the Sun said it, it must be true.
 
2013-01-27 06:05:44 AM  
40 cigarettes a day? I somehow doubt that. That's way more expensive than those benefits will allow.

At any rate, if they are at one fourth that with the cigarettes, that poor baby.
 
2013-01-27 06:09:14 AM  

Wolf892: Seems a solution might be to not grant the dole to individuals who are not physically disabled, or are not mentally incapacitated...If you are physically and mentally able to work, even shat jobs like McDonald's, then get out there and work. Life is suffering, get busy.
This would reduce stories like this and perhaps reduce the burden on the dole system...
Or perhaps government sponsered homes should be dorm style...just one apartment building with two families per suite, this would ensure that either you are desperate for a home or encourage you to better yourself as soon as possible.


Except shiat jobs like McD's don't pay enough for a 2 bedroom apartment and all the expenses that come along with kids. A better solution would be to require work but don't cut off benefits entirely when they get a job. Reduce the benefits by the amount of money they get paid.

The trouble is that we've created a system that is incapable of making that sort of adjustment to benefits. It's not possible to say, "You made $1234.56 at your McJob this month so your benefit check will be reduced by that amount." There are half a dozen agencies (if not more), each with their own regulations and bureaucracy. Many of them are either/or scenarios where they either qualify for benefits or they don't qualify. There's no "you qualify for 30%". The whole damn system is out of order!
 
2013-01-27 06:10:20 AM  
What ever happened to The National Enquirer? They never had articles about a poor man living with a rat on his head but they had some great stuff about Elvis's Outer Space Love Twins and the like. Really top notch news reporting, all in all.

/ Enquiring minds want to know
 
2013-01-27 06:12:44 AM  

fusillade762: Bucky Katt: There aren't any jobs in Britain anyway. Cameron and Osborn have made sure of that. The UK economy is in danger of triple dipping. Even the ghouls at the IMF think there is a problem.

Yeah, that austerity did wonders for their economy *snert*


We haven't actually had any austerity in the UK...

/ do carry on with your talking points, though.
 
2013-01-27 06:13:16 AM  
www.otf2.com
 
2013-01-27 06:14:11 AM  
I always get a kick out of people who claim they're entitled to welfare money because their parents pay taxes. For one, I seriously doubt their parents pay £17,680 a year in tax, and even if they did, don't these morons realize that taxes are meant to pay for things we benefit from every day like schools, roads, police, military, a court/legal system, trash/waste disposal, and (seeing as this is the UK) healthcare?
 
2013-01-27 06:14:51 AM  
I've got family that are entitlement sponges ... liars and con artists, too, since they receive all kinds of benefits they legally don't qualify for.

I'm squeaking by working 50+ hours at a job and earning extra money on music and art projects, and they're not only bringing in more money than I am, but have all the free time in the world to drink, eat pills, smoke pot, party, play video games, eat out, and so on. They actually make fun of me "behind my back" for working (I guess they think I don't know how Facebook works).

Yeah, corporations need to stop getting government money (not to mention foreign countries), but so do welfare queens. The system is being abused on a rampant scale, and despite alleged initiatives to get people working and independent, entitlement workers actually advise people on methods of obtaining MORE in handouts.
 
2013-01-27 06:15:16 AM  
Are those yoga pants she's wearing?
 
2013-01-27 06:20:49 AM  

BigBooper: One of their points is that they would be worse off working than sitting home on their asses. Unfortunately, that's true in many cases. Instead of encouraging people to work, our system actually encourages people not to work. Lets take a single mom. If she doesn't work, she gets free housing, food stamps, and health care lets say $2,000 a month in benefits. If she takes a $10.00 part time job she will take home around $600-700 dollars a month, and lose every penny of her benefits. Why the fark would she choose to work?


In the UK it's not so much that they'd be worse off (the benefits system stops that), it's that there is a benefit withdrawal rate that is the equivalent of a 75-85% tax rate. Someone on the £7/hr minimum wage will end up about £10 better off for a day's work after tax and loss of benefits. Take off say £3/day for bus etc, and you're left with very little for taking 8 hours of crap rather than spending it with your family.
 
2013-01-27 06:21:29 AM  

jtown: Or perhaps government sponsored homes should be dorm style...


I like this idea, as long as you're only applying it to those who need long-term housing help. It'd suck to have to sell your house and pay to store all your possessions just to get your unemployment check. ;)
 
2013-01-27 06:21:32 AM  
If they want to live like parasites then go for it. I'd prefer if tax payers money went to more deserving people, but at least I can look at myself on the mirror unlike these spineless farks who will never amount to shiat.
 
2013-01-27 06:21:34 AM  

Coco LaFemme: ......and we think the welfare system in THIS country is abused.  Won't look for a job because it would pay less than what they can suck off the government teat.  That's farking pathetic.


To be fair, this is the Sun. They've been known to completely take things out of context in order to humiliate someone in difficult circumstances, in the name of sensationalizing a non-story.

This likely how it went:

"Of course there are people that believe we think ridiculous things, such as: 'We could easily get a job but why would we want to work - we would be worse off.' In reality, we spend 80 hours a week looking for work, but there are no jobs. Businesses say it's the austerity measures."

The part in bold is the portion the Sun printed.
 
2013-01-27 06:22:42 AM  

Lsherm: Ishkur: Liberals are always afraid that innocent people might be unfairly punished.

Conservatives are always afraid that innocent people might be unfairly rewarded.

Liberals always cheerlead a system that lets you take.

Conservatives always cheerlead a system that lets you acquire.

 
2013-01-27 06:24:16 AM  

shiathead: [www.otf2.com image 328x450]


ah yes, that well known British citizen Frank Ribery... born in Boulogne, France
 
2013-01-27 06:25:37 AM  

No Time To Explain: It's people like this that make get my paddle out

/back in my college days,I remember overhearing two Nimrods talk and one was going on about how he'll go on welfare and live off that, play his xbox and get weed everyday
//was two feet away from beating him with my text books


TBH, I think the joke's was on you.
 
2013-01-27 06:28:27 AM  

FreetardoRivera: Lsherm: Ishkur: Liberals are always afraid that innocent people might be unfairly punished.

Conservatives are always afraid that innocent people might be unfairly rewarded.

Liberals Greedy bastards always cheerlead a system that lets you take.

Conservatives Honest people always cheerlead a system that lets you acquire.

I have many planets and stars to sell anyone that believes 'takers' are only found in one political affiliation.
 
2013-01-27 06:29:21 AM  

whither_apophis: I honest thought it was going to be a story on the Royal Family.


I don't even know why I waste the precious seconds of my day on you, being that you are a conservative and unlikely to ever learn anything, but the royal family are a net gain for England due to tourism income.
 
2013-01-27 06:30:31 AM  
Fark lazy people that want to play the victim role. These social programs are now crap because of lazy asses and ruin it for those true individuals in need who it was designed for.
 
2013-01-27 06:31:25 AM  
From TFA:

The pair left school with no qualifications..

..while Gina's mum, 46, is a teacher..


I'm not saying we should blame the parents but it looks like this pair has been cruising for quite some time, probably too late for them to change now.
 
2013-01-27 06:31:25 AM  
The big injustice here is that the baby will have to live with that name until she's old enough to change it legally.

/Tullulah-Rose?
//Seriously?
 
2013-01-27 06:34:16 AM  
After looking over this thread again, I see the Sun was once again wildly successful in leading today's two-minute hate.
 
2013-01-27 06:36:49 AM  

digistil: "Of course there are people that believe we think ridiculous things, such as: 'We could easily get a job but why would we want to work - we would be worse off.' In reality, we spend 80 hours a week looking for work, but there are no jobs. Businesses say it's the austerity measures."


Trust me, I could find these people a job within a day. A friend of mine got made redundant recently and while looking for another job (he wasn't going to be unemployed for long), he got a job in a pub. It took less than a day of walking around town to get a job.

The whole reason why UK supermarkets, shops and cafes are stuffed full of Poles, Ukranians, Russians and Romanians is that those shops just can't get the staff.
 
2013-01-27 06:36:55 AM  
ALL OF YOUR THEORIES ABOUT PARASITES STEALING YOUR MONEY ARE CORRECT. NOW HERE ARE SOME BOOBIES.

BOOBIES!
 
2013-01-27 06:37:47 AM  

Beowoolfie: jtown: Or perhaps government sponsored homes should be dorm style...

I like this idea, as long as you're only applying it to those who need long-term housing help. It'd suck to have to sell your house and pay to store all your possessions just to get your unemployment check. ;)


That wasn't my idea.
 
2013-01-27 06:43:46 AM  
Humanity is an interesting mix.

Some people will go to great lengths, working darned hard, tryign to make de when they victim of a setback and reluctant to take a handout unless they just can't avoid it.

Others will turn down a higher paycheck for a much lower amount of free money, and will mooch, fake, lie, pretend to have whatever status it takes to keep getting that money.

It is hard to make a system that helps the former that isnt abused by hordes of the latter.
 
2013-01-27 06:44:10 AM  

farkeruk: BigBooper: One of their points is that they would be worse off working than sitting home on their asses. Unfortunately, that's true in many cases. Instead of encouraging people to work, our system actually encourages people not to work. Lets take a single mom. If she doesn't work, she gets free housing, food stamps, and health care lets say $2,000 a month in benefits. If she takes a $10.00 part time job she will take home around $600-700 dollars a month, and lose every penny of her benefits. Why the fark would she choose to work?

In the UK it's not so much that they'd be worse off (the benefits system stops that), it's that there is a benefit withdrawal rate that is the equivalent of a 75-85% tax rate. Someone on the £7/hr minimum wage will end up about £10 better off for a day's work after tax and loss of benefits. Take off say £3/day for bus etc, and you're left with very little for taking 8 hours of crap rather than spending it with your family.


Over here in the U.S. we have people like the family man who lost his $40,000 a year job, and did odd jobs for cash while looking for a new job. His problem is that he reported his $100 a week that he was making mowing lawns and the like. So of course they took away every penny of his unemployment insurance payments.

The biggest problem that we have in our system is that over here we punish those who want to get out and work, while we reward people who are dishonest and find ways to game the system.

Another example is my situation. I got hurt at work. Not just a little hurt, but a serious spinal cord injury that left me temporarily paralyzed, and in the hospital for nearly a month. While I wasn't working, I earning nearly $600 a week for work comp disability. For the last six months, I've put every last bit of energy into my recovery. I've worked through pain unlike anything that I've ever known. All so I can get back my life, and get back to work. So now that I'm back to twenty hours a week of work, I get a little more than $50.00 a week in disability payments.

By the end of the day, I can hardly move I'm in so much pain, and for what? To earn less then if I sat on my ass and Farked all day? I know there are people in my situation that are on full disability; and I understand why.
 
2013-01-27 06:44:43 AM  
Cute? I guess the British standard is really, really low. That's a hard 18 and 21.
 
2013-01-27 06:45:29 AM  
My sister and her fiance were in the exact same position for a year after they had their child. They had a two-bedroom flat, which was disgusting, with horrific neighbours, and rising damp in the child's room which was one of the main reasons they moved out. They had a 50in television given to them second hand by someone else. My sister worked very hard to make sure the flat looked nice; but the furnishings were as cheap as possible and quite often, hand-me-downs from other people. Certainly, the two piece leather sofa was second hand. Admittedly, neither of them smoke, but they did spend money on a TV licence and two mobile phone contracts. The benefits they recieved while her fiance was between jobs were higher than his original wage. Thankfully, he managed to get a job paying higher, although eventually they realised they could no longer afford to pay the (subsidised by government) rent on the flat, and moved in with my mother. Although it is clear that some lifestyle choices differ between these two couples, I roundly refuse to get whipped up into a frenzy by the idea that it's easier to be on benefits than to find a job, or that two people managed to acquire a television.
 
2013-01-27 06:46:06 AM  

EvilEgg: Lsherm: EvilEgg: "Their lounge is dominated by the huge TV"

Thirty five inches isn't dominating or huge.

Article said 47 inch TV.  Not huge, but big enough.

The one in the article hardly looks 47"


I recently got a 47" TV. In this room it does look huge. Unless that couch is deep enough to also be a footstool for normal sized people and these are secret British giants that is NOT a 47" TV. It *might* be a 37" TV. I mean come on, Look at that tiny end table with the laptop that barely fits on it. I'm not sure that little end table is ever 1.5 feet across and yet that TV might just barely be twice the width of it.
 
2013-01-27 06:47:12 AM  

EvilEgg: "Their lounge is dominated by the huge TV"

Thirty five inches isn't dominating or huge.


Plus, nowadays those tvs are the cheapest ones, and anyone will be hard-pressed to find a cheaper and smaller tv for sale. I mean, even with monitors it's almost impossible to find one which is smaller than 22''.
 
2013-01-27 06:51:59 AM  
Glad this could never happen here in the US.
 
2013-01-27 06:55:13 AM  

barnacleboy: If they want to live like parasites then go for it. I'd prefer if tax payers money went to more deserving people, but at least I can look at myself on the mirror unlike these spineless farks who will never amount to shiat.


The problem with your judgment is that every single potential recipient of any welfare program can be argued by any moron that, no matter how much he had worked or how much taxes had he paid, he is a parasite who doesn't deserve any inch of any social safety net.

It all boils down to pettiness. Your kind should be happy that your society actually takes care of the poor. Instead, you kick and scream that they should be miserable and suffering.
 
2013-01-27 06:56:22 AM  
Coco LaFemme: ......and we think the welfare system in THIS country is abused.  Won't look for a job because it would pay less than what they can suck off the government teat.  That's farking pathetic.

not as pathetic as you making overbroad conclusions after reading a sham article from a propaganda newspaper, but i digress.
 
2013-01-27 07:00:12 AM  
Bucky Katt: There aren't any jobs in Britain anyway. Cameron and Osborn have made sure of that. The UK economy is in danger of triple dipping. Even the ghouls at the IMF think there is a problem.

There may be no jobs for uneducated chavs, but britain's economy is, taken as a whole, extraordinarily healthy. it's a similar situation in the USA - the only major difference is that in the USA there is a major drain to the economy by 'make work' jobs that are criminally inefficient from a public policy standpoint - this basically includes overpaid/overpensioned police/fire/other well paid government and related jobs (such as defense contractors) and most of the for-profit "health care" sector.
 
2013-01-27 07:05:14 AM  
I HEARD THEY PAY YOU TO ABUSE CHILDREN.

ALSO I NEVER LEARN THAT "CUTE" IS SARCASM.
 
2013-01-27 07:08:34 AM  
According to Wikipedia, unemployment in the UK in January of 2012 was at 8.3% Link. According to a report from Moody's, Food Stamps (not the only type of benefits, but certainly one type of benefit) gives the best return on investment for government spending (I had a link for this, but Fark didn't like it. Google Mark Zandi Stimulus Impact 2008).

The way I see it, with unemployment this high, the best "stimulus" a government can provide is in the form of welfare to the unemployed. So I don't begrudge these people their benefits. I certainly wouldn't trade places with them for anything.

/at least, that's what I keep telling myself so I don't have the urge to go homicidal
 
2013-01-27 07:11:07 AM  
*In Canada, you barely make enough to survive on welfare unless you also have subsidized housing, and each new addition to the family only adds approximately 50$ to your benefits(last i checked which was several yrs ago) You do also get child tax benefit, but even still, you don't do nearly as well as this family.

*my hubby is IN England, LOOKING FOR WORK, and they won't give him a damned cent, even though when he first went over, i was making minimum wage here in canada, and not full-time hours, and am now unemployed.

*my ei runs out in a couple of months, neither of us can find work in our respective countries, I'm afraid I'm never going to see him again at this rate. It'll be a year in may since he left to go looking. :(
 
2013-01-27 07:19:10 AM  
Sterilize the farkers.
 
2013-01-27 07:19:24 AM  

BigBooper: One of their points is that they would be worse off working than sitting home on their asses. Unfortunately, that's true in many cases. Instead of encouraging people to work, our system actually encourages people not to work. Lets take a single mom. If she doesn't work, she gets free housing, food stamps, and health care lets say $2,000 a month in benefits. If she takes a $10.00 part time job she will take home around $600-700 dollars a month, and lose every penny of her benefits. Why the fark would she choose to work?


First off there is no free housing for anybody and there is no 2000 a month in benefits unless someone has like 5 kids. But she is not getting a 10.00 an hour job, it's more likely an 8.00 an hour job with no bennies. It's 149 a month max benefit per person for food stamps.

For those saying that they hate those taking a "free ride" I suggest that they quit their job and try it themselves.
 
2013-01-27 07:22:35 AM  

GreenSun: It's just being smart. Why work if you'll make less than what you can get for free? Only work if you can earn more than you can get by not doing anything.

^ That up there.
Who's the bigger fool: the man who refuses to work because he doesn't have to, or the man who works to support him?

In the short term, the taxpayer is the fool. In the long run, the moocher is screwing himself because the funding will eventually dry up.
 
2013-01-27 07:26:58 AM  

EvilEgg: crypticsatellite: Also, cute?

British cute.


That's what I came here to figure out.

thanks guys.
 
2013-01-27 07:27:12 AM  

farkeruk: digistil: "Of course there are people that believe we think ridiculous things, such as: 'We could easily get a job but why would we want to work - we would be worse off.' In reality, we spend 80 hours a week looking for work, but there are no jobs. Businesses say it's the austerity measures."

Trust me, I could find these people a job within a day. A friend of mine got made redundant recently and while looking for another job (he wasn't going to be unemployed for long), he got a job in a pub. It took less than a day of walking around town to get a job.

The whole reason why UK supermarkets, shops and cafes are stuffed full of Poles, Ukranians, Russians and Romanians is that those shops just can't get the staff.


Funny that, those are the sorts of jobs my hubby is trying to get there, and he can't get one, even though the last job he had, he held for nearly four years before marrying me and moving to Canada.
 
2013-01-27 07:29:03 AM  
Any sort of means-tested welfare will always backfire. What we need in developed countries is a universal citizens dividend that everyone receives whether they are disabled and can't work, work all the odd jobs they can, has a steady job, or makes millions on real-estate. We could get rid of so many beurocrats and paperwork. And we can make any job worth having.
 
2013-01-27 07:29:54 AM  

GoSlash27: In the short term, the taxpayer is the fool. In the long run, the moocher is screwing himself because the funding will eventually dry up.


THIS

I live my life by that quote from Apocalypse Now: "I'm in here, getting weaker and Charlie's out there, getting stronger". If you're in a jammy, comfortable place, you're probably going to get burnt when the jam stops. Far better to keep striving and be prepared for how things might change.
 
2013-01-27 07:33:46 AM  

Coco LaFemme: ......and we think the welfare system in THIS country is abused.  Won't look for a job because it would pay less than what they can suck off the government teat.  That's farking pathetic.


The welfare in this country *is* abused.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a780LGWG7to
 
2013-01-27 07:35:57 AM  

carnifex2005: I got a 46" TV a year ago on Boxing Day for $400 CDN. That size TV isn't very expensive anymore.


I got one for free. Amazing what you can find on the curb lawns of nicer neighborhoods.
 
2013-01-27 07:37:31 AM  
A SOLUTION. Long-term unemployed are required to log a minimum number of hours of community service in order to receive their welfare payments. Ta-da! Suddenly they must work either way, and contribute to society either way. This was done in Australia (blessed Howard by memory) and out came the bleeding heart libtards saying its disgustingly unfair.
 
2013-01-27 07:43:38 AM  

Coco LaFemme: ......and we think the welfare system in THIS country is abused.  Won't look for a job because it would pay less than what they can suck off the government teat.  That's farking pathetic.


...and you don't think that happens here?
 
2013-01-27 07:45:46 AM  

LiberalConservative: A SOLUTION. Long-term unemployed are required to log a minimum number of hours of community service in order to receive their welfare payments. Ta-da! Suddenly they must work either way, and contribute to society either way. This was done in Australia (blessed Howard by memory) and out came the bleeding heart libtards saying its disgustingly unfair.


Another solution? Maybe corporations could offer jobs that pay the job-seekers more than they get sitting at home.

But no, that would cut into a corp's profit, so that's right out.
 
2013-01-27 07:46:48 AM  

violentsalvation: The Sun and the Daily Mail sure report a lot on people like this. They must handsomely compensate the lazy bastards. Either that or they just feel THAT entitled that they are willing to talk about it. Maybe both. I dunno.


I like to dream that they are actually turning these people in so they can get kicked off the teat.

That it is like intervention but all welfare-y.
 
2013-01-27 07:48:54 AM  

LiberalConservative: A SOLUTION. Long-term unemployed are required to log a minimum number of hours of community service in order to receive their welfare payments. Ta-da! Suddenly they must work either way, and contribute to society either way. This was done in Australia (blessed Howard by memory) and out came the bleeding heart libtards saying its disgustingly unfair.


I'd say that far enough as long as you made the trust fund kiddies and the people (under 60) who live on investments alone also do community service. I mean if we are talking about the moral imperative to work it should apply to all classes.
 
2013-01-27 07:50:11 AM  
So...That's what Meg did after she left The White Stripes

Get a job Meg!!

/got nutin
 
2013-01-27 07:54:39 AM  

Lernaeus: I've got family that are entitlement sponges ... liars and con artists, too, since they receive all kinds of benefits they legally don't qualify for.

I'm squeaking by working 50+ hours at a job and earning extra money on music and art projects, and they're not only bringing in more money than I am, but have all the free time in the world to drink, eat pills, smoke pot, party, play video games, eat out, and so on. They actually make fun of me "behind my back" for working (I guess they think I don't know how Facebook works).

Yeah, corporations need to stop getting government money (not to mention foreign countries), but so do welfare queens. The system is being abused on a rampant scale, and despite alleged initiatives to get people working and independent, entitlement workers actually advise people on methods of obtaining MORE in handouts.



So report the cheating family to the relevant authorities. They will investigate.

When I was 19, I was on benefits as an unmarried mom with no skills. I decided to go to college to be a scientist. I was accepted as a transfer from a community college into a good 4year college for a astro/physics degree and that summer began to volunteer as an intern at a local observatory. Our local paper got wind of my bootstrappiness thru the community colleges' PR person and the did a little story in the paper about how a welfare mom went to college and was now in an internship at an observatory.

That next week I had to embarrass myself by getting written notes from the head of the facility where I was interning, promising that I was not being compensated for my internship in any way -- because a paper pusher at the welfare office saw the article.

Oh, yes, if you report on someone, they will come.
 
2013-01-27 07:56:52 AM  

IlGreven: LiberalConservative: A SOLUTION. Long-term unemployed are required to log a minimum number of hours of community service in order to receive their welfare payments. Ta-da! Suddenly they must work either way, and contribute to society either way. This was done in Australia (blessed Howard by memory) and out came the bleeding heart libtards saying its disgustingly unfair.

Another solution? Maybe corporations could offer jobs that pay the job-seekers more than they get sitting at home.

But no, that would cut into a corp's profit, so that's right out.


Er... in my unemployed experiences (including right now), 20 hours a week of min wage work will net you more than unemployment payments (Australia). This may vary elsewhere due to minimum wage rates and size of welfare payments. Is a balance i guess. If corporations are not paying enough to provide incentive to work I would expect government to impose increases to minimum wage; its in their best interest to do so since reducing welfare claims helps government budgets. Or we could just hate on corporations because it is fun and socialism is so awesome.
 
2013-01-27 07:57:18 AM  
I work with a Guy that likes to play the system. He has a baby with his batshiat crazy girlfriend (she's 21, its her 3rd kid with her 3rd baby-daddy) . When I say batshiat crazy, I'm talking diagnosed, unmedicated, split personality disorder. One personality even tries to kill him sometimes. Needless to say, she's receiving disability and all sorts of other benefits. So back to him, every January and July he calls in to work at least 2 or 3 times a week because he has to recertify for his handouts so he has to show he doesn't make much money. He even brags about it at work. We all biatch about how much of our paychecks is taken out in taxes, and he brags because he is collecting it.
 
2013-01-27 08:01:44 AM  

LiberalConservative: A SOLUTION. Long-term unemployed are required to log a minimum number of hours of community service in order to receive their welfare payments. Ta-da! Suddenly they must work either way, and contribute to society either way. This was done in Australia (blessed Howard by memory) and out came the bleeding heart libtards saying its disgustingly unfair.


I remember FL trying to pass that in 2011. Link

I did volunteer while I was on unemployment, mostly to take my mind off the fact that the 30+ job postings I'd applied to last week had either been filled already or the hiring manager wasn't taking 'check-up' calls on the positions. It was incredibly disheartening and discouraging spending hours of my day filling out job applications and typing up cover letters and catering my resume to each position (and yes, I was qualified for the positions for which I was applying) ... and hearing nothing in return. I volunteered at a public library and helped out at the front circulation desk so that I could keep my customer service skills sharp and 'advertise' myself, per se, by frankly telling anyone who asked why a woman in her mid-20s was a volunteer and not an employee my situation in the hopes that one of them might say, "Well, my company is hiring for some positions, here's my card".

Three months before my UA ran out, I moved from FL to another state. Within six weeks of my move, I had interviewed, been hired and had started training at a full-time temp job.

tl;dr: I volunteered while I was unemployed to stay sane and to maintain my customer service skills.
 
2013-01-27 08:05:07 AM  

LostGuy: LiberalConservative: A SOLUTION. Long-term unemployed are required to log a minimum number of hours of community service in order to receive their welfare payments. Ta-da! Suddenly they must work either way, and contribute to society either way. This was done in Australia (blessed Howard by memory) and out came the bleeding heart libtards saying its disgustingly unfair.

I'd say that far enough as long as you made the trust fund kiddies and the people (under 60) who live on investments alone also do community service. I mean if we are talking about the moral imperative to work it should apply to all classes.


That's just... strange. If someone earns enough from investments to support themselves they are not a burden on welfare and those that pay taxes, so there is no problem here.
You just want to punish rich people for the sake of it? Most older rich people often do volunteer work on their own volition anyhow, its boring to do nothing.
 
2013-01-27 08:06:19 AM  
There's just no incentive to find work when we've got a better lifestyle than if we were to go out and work for 35-40 hours every week. Why would we give this up?

I was always told "Don't go past the principal's office if you don't have to"
 
2013-01-27 08:10:00 AM  

clapperton: I work with a Guy that likes to play the system. He has a baby with his batshiat crazy girlfriend (she's 21, its her 3rd kid with her 3rd baby-daddy) . When I say batshiat crazy, I'm talking diagnosed, unmedicated, split personality disorder. One personality even tries to kill him sometimes. Needless to say, she's receiving disability and all sorts of other benefits. So back to him, every January and July he calls in to work at least 2 or 3 times a week because he has to recertify for his handouts so he has to show he doesn't make much money. He even brags about it at work. We all biatch about how much of our paychecks is taken out in taxes, and he brags because he is collecting it.


Oh, I'm SO jealous of that lifestyle and the welfare money she's collecting.

The handout certification is probably so he doesn't make too much money to reduce her benefits, as they're together. Once a woman with kids from multiple fathers enters the system, shes better off single. The system is set up to keep men away from their children and out of the woman's household, or him not working if they're in the household. Mom is bat shiat crazy, the dad being around is probably saving the state a lot of foster and other costs.
 
2013-01-27 08:10:40 AM  

LiberalConservative: Er... in my unemployed experiences (including right now), 20 hours a week of min wage work will net you more than unemployment payments (Australia).


In America, I believe that unemployment benefits are scaled to what you paid in, so here even full time min. wage work won't generally cover the bennies of a guy who was "too expensive" for a corporation to keep.

LiberalConservative: Or we could just hate on corporations because it is fun and socialism is so awesome.


Because expecting corporations to actually leave society better than when they took it is socialism, apparently.

/Meanwhile, you might wanna steer clear of false dichotomies.
 
2013-01-27 08:15:22 AM  
Skiving?

Also, that's two people and a baby living off the equivalent of $30,000/ yr.

When the job market doesn't pay a living wage, what do you expect to happen?
 
2013-01-27 08:16:25 AM  

EvilEgg: What's sad is that there is no job that pays more than government benefits. $28K a year ain't much to raise a kid on.


It's not that the jobs don't exist, it's that this person just lacks any kind of skills or qualifications.
 
2013-01-27 08:19:12 AM  
Looks like this is what's going to be passing for 'journalism' in the Sun for the foreseeable future.

"Excuse me, do you claim benefits of any sort?"
"Yes"
"Great! Mind if I pop round and measure your TV?"

/Bloody celebrities, getting all protective of their voicemails.
 
2013-01-27 08:19:51 AM  
img.thesun.co.uk
"Cosy ... jobless Danny Creamer and Gina Allan with baby Tullulah-Rose at their taxpayer-funded flat"

Gina could easily earn £110 an hour as an escort, probably more with that pretty month. I am assuming Gina is the one on the right in the photograph...
 
2013-01-27 08:23:27 AM  
Raise the minimum wage. Tax companies that outsource into oblivion and encourage home grown replacements of those companies. Any able bodied person on assistance longer than six months has to go to school or work a couple days a week. If they are in public housing that work can be done maintaining/administrating the complex.

Necessities have become far too expensive, wages have stagnated and companies don't want to hire locally.

That said... this article is a steaming pile of bullsh*t. If it's not I'm sure whoever handles their case will be giving them a talking to very soon.
Hurr durr poor people be stealing mah monies!! Most of you idiots don't even pay taxes.
 
2013-01-27 08:26:20 AM  

IlGreven: LiberalConservative: Er... in my unemployed experiences (including right now), 20 hours a week of min wage work will net you more than unemployment payments (Australia).

In America, I believe that unemployment benefits are scaled to what you paid in, so here even full time min. wage work won't generally cover the bennies of a guy who was "too expensive" for a corporation to keep.

LiberalConservative: Or we could just hate on corporations because it is fun and socialism is so awesome.

Because expecting corporations to actually leave society better than when they took it is socialism, apparently.

/Meanwhile, you might wanna steer clear of false dichotomies.


Lighten up, tongue in cheek etc. Sounds like the American system is out of balance then, and perhaps corporation's requirements need adjusting. But I do hope you realise the purpose of a corporation is not to benefit society. Rather their purpose is to make profit which just happens to produce other benefits to society like products, services, employment, taxes and so on. If you do not agree to that... what solution or system do you suggest? Socialism/communism/comunes? -That last bit was more tongue in cheek in case you missed it.
 
2013-01-27 08:29:12 AM  

here to help: Hurr durr poor people be stealing mah monies!! Most of you idiots don't even pay taxes.


Oh and if you DO actually pay taxes it is pretty much guaranteed you've absorbed far more in government services in your life than you have paid.

YOU'RE the welfare queens!! HAHAHA!!! LOOSERS!!!!
 
2013-01-27 08:29:18 AM  

thepeterd: Gina could easily earn £110 an hour as an escort, probably more with that pretty month. I am assuming Gina is the one on the right in the photograph...


She wouldn't get £110/hr as an escort. She's not ugly, but she's really at a massage parlour standard. OK, if she got back-to-back clients, she'd get £100+, but a lot of the time, the girls in a massage parlour are sitting around waiting for a client.
 
2013-01-27 08:31:11 AM  

EvilEgg: "Their lounge is dominated by the huge TV"

Thirty five inches isn't dominating or huge.


Perhaps Danny is the huge, dominating TV.
 
2013-01-27 08:31:18 AM  
And you all missed the actually cute chick at the bottom of the article.
 
2013-01-27 08:39:00 AM  
The parents probably bought the TV and furniture for these two as gifts.

Now, it's time they both grew up and go to work.
 
2013-01-27 08:40:50 AM  

thepeterd: EvilEgg: "Their lounge is dominated by the huge TV"

Thirty five inches isn't dominating or huge.

Perhaps Danny is the huge, dominating TV.


Arf! Magnificent...
 
2013-01-27 08:43:06 AM  
USA...USA...USA...USA...USA...!!
 
2013-01-27 08:45:19 AM  
It's sad to see that self-respect and dignity are no longer considered to be worth anything.
 
2013-01-27 08:49:05 AM  

LostGuy: Any sort of means-tested welfare will always backfire. What we need in developed countries is a universal citizens dividend that everyone receives whether they are disabled and can't work, work all the odd jobs they can, has a steady job, or makes millions on real-estate. We could get rid of so many beurocrats and paperwork. And we can make any job worth having.


Yeah, it makes a lot of sense although it could be a hard sell to some. But the benefits are that low paying jobs aren't effectively taxed at sometimes 80% or more because of all the welfare lost by the way the system works, without having to punish some 2 year old kids because of who they were born to.

Pretty sure it would never be implemented in the US even if it was massively successful in every other developed nation, I mean look at healthcare systems where the US can steadfastly maintain the worst of all possible worlds (for non-millionaires, and even just a millionaire is probably not 100% safe if they get the wrong illness and their insurance guy wants a bonus this year). After all a citizens dividend would also be paid out to blacks and hispanics, not just white people, so the majority of the white poor would vote/campaign against it.
 
2013-01-27 08:52:45 AM  
Hrm.....either there are hordes of British people living on the dole, yet willing to make themselves targets for investigation and possibly losing their benefits by openly admitting they're flouting the rules, naming themselves, and even posing for "fark you gubmint, bring it on!" photos or....

Tabloids make shiat up.

I wonder...
 
2013-01-27 08:54:27 AM  

LostGuy: LiberalConservative: A SOLUTION. Long-term unemployed are required to log a minimum number of hours of community service in order to receive their welfare payments. Ta-da! Suddenly they must work either way, and contribute to society either way. This was done in Australia (blessed Howard by memory) and out came the bleeding heart libtards saying its disgustingly unfair.

I'd say that far enough as long as you made the trust fund kiddies and the people (under 60) who live on investments alone also do community service. I mean if we are talking about the moral imperative to work it should apply to all classes.


There's a bit of a difference there, in that the trust fund kiddies and retirees aren't living on the government dime.

But then, expecting people to work is socialism - to each according to their needs, from each according to their abilities, and all that. Just dispensing checks without requesting anything in return is corporatism...
 
2013-01-27 08:58:27 AM  

xria: even just a millionaire is probably not 100% safe if they get the wrong illness and their insurance guy wants a bonus this year


Nah, he's pretty set. Lifetime limits and the other tricks that would get him have been banned by Obamacare.
 
2013-01-27 08:59:52 AM  
My brother is on disability, and he has a nice TV too. Because it was gifted to him. A disabled vet I know has his own home, two cars, and a small sailboat. He inherited them. Maybe people shouldn't get outraged about things when they don't have all the pertinent facts.
 
2013-01-27 09:02:09 AM  

here to help: Raise the minimum wage. Tax companies that outsource into oblivion....
Necessities have become far too expensive, wages have stagnated and companies don't want to hire locally....


Raising wages and taxes will cause prices to rise. Math is cruel taskmaster.
 
2013-01-27 09:05:58 AM  
That paper published articles like this 2-3 times each week.

And FARK activates the DERP machine for each of them.
 
2013-01-27 09:08:00 AM  
Let's see, the war on poverty where you take money from one person and give it to another has been going on for close to 70 years, spent TRILLIONS of dollars and has enslaved more people without raising them out of poverty?

That war? As George Bush would say, Mission Accomplished liberals!
 
2013-01-27 09:11:56 AM  

jso2897: I wonder if there are British people who read the Enquirer or the World net Daily and think it's really about stuff that actually happens in America.


The ones who read the Enquirer knew that John Edwards was having an affair long before those who only get their news from the liberal media had a clue. Tabloids are more trustworthy than most of the liberal media these days.
 
2013-01-27 09:14:55 AM  

neenerist: here to help: Raise the minimum wage. Tax companies that outsource into oblivion....
Necessities have become far too expensive, wages have stagnated and companies don't want to hire locally....

Raising wages and taxes will cause prices to rise. Math is cruel taskmaster.


I don't have the link handy, but a study was done on that, and found that a 10% increase in the minimum wage resulted in a whopping 0.01% increase in the price of products and services. The whole, "OMG, if we pay the poors more money, everything will get too expensive!" is a bullshiat myth.
 
2013-01-27 09:19:17 AM  
It's hard to believe that anyone would brag to reporters of how they are taking advantage of the welfare system, and thus jeopardize their dole.
 
2013-01-27 09:22:22 AM  

Mean Daddy: s


Are you sure that's this weeks spin? Are welfare recipients living like kings with multiple color TVs, video game consoles, $400 sneakers, and even (gasp!) refrigerators in their homes? Or has all anti-poverty spending been for naught, not lifting a single person out of poverty? Based on this article, I think it's the latter. But I don't hold it against you: it changes so fast it's hard for anyone to keep up.
 
2013-01-27 09:22:59 AM  
I have yet to encounter someone who can give me a legitemate reason why this is so bad. Oh sure, they can come up with plenty of reasons that are just different ways of whining "b-b-but it's not FAIIIIIIIIRRRR!!!", but no one ever comes up with an objectively good reason that people living "on the dole" are harmful to anyone other than themselves.

Think about it. If it were that bad objectively, then children, retired people, and those too sick or infirm to work would be the worst people ever, right? Most people don't feel that way, but show them some folks like this couple and their inner four year old comes out and they start to whinge and cry about how it's just not fair. Life isn't fair, so get used to it you farkin crybabies.
 
2013-01-27 09:23:25 AM  

Lsherm: Ishkur: Liberals are always afraid that innocent people might be unfairly punished.

Conservatives are always afraid that innocent people might be unfairly rewarded.

Liberals always cheerlead a system that lets you take.

Conservatives always cheerlead a system that lets you forces you to earn.


Fixed that for you.
 
2013-01-27 09:27:40 AM  

Teufelaffe: neenerist: here to help: Raise the minimum wage. Tax companies that outsource into oblivion....
Necessities have become far too expensive, wages have stagnated and companies don't want to hire locally....

Raising wages and taxes will cause prices to rise. Math is cruel taskmaster.

I don't have the link handy, but a study was done on that, and found that a 10% increase in the minimum wage resulted in a whopping 0.01% increase in the price of products and services. The whole, "OMG, if we pay the poors more money, everything will get too expensive!" is a bullshiat myth.


I think we're approaching pay regulation from the wrong angle though. Employees should share in the profits, not simply get a minimum amount.
 
2013-01-27 09:32:24 AM  

Flaumig: I have yet to encounter someone who can give me a legitemate reason why this is so bad. Oh sure, they can come up with plenty of reasons that are just different ways of whining "b-b-but it's not FAIIIIIIIIRRRR!!!", but no one ever comes up with an objectively good reason that people living "on the dole" are harmful to anyone other than themselves.

Think about it. If it were that bad objectively, then children, retired people, and those too sick or infirm to work would be the worst people ever, right? Most people don't feel that way, but show them some folks like this couple and their inner four year old comes out and they start to whinge and cry about how it's just not fair. Life isn't fair, so get used to it you farkin crybabies.


Well, let's see: perhaps it's because old people and children can't be expected to work, but 21 year old adults are perfectly capable of working. And well, I don't mind my money getting spent on educating kids, fixing roads, defence and people who can't work but I take exception to my money being spent on moochers.
 
WD
2013-01-27 09:32:37 AM  
40 cigs a day? Swoon...
 
2013-01-27 09:33:25 AM  

Teufelaffe: ...is a bullshiat myth.


The myth is minimum wage was the only aspect discussed.
 
2013-01-27 09:34:56 AM  

a login name very similar to this one: I think were all missing the more important underlying story here: where the fark does this guy get his hair cut?

[img.thesun.co.uk image 620x467]


Seriously, they are owed an additional 50 pounds monthly hair allowance.
 
2013-01-27 09:37:26 AM  
Whoa. Just read some of the posts. People here actually believe what The Sun reports?

/must believe The Enquirer about Bat-Boy being Oprah's love child as well.
 
2013-01-27 09:41:17 AM  
Three words for the best fix:

Basic Income Guarantee
 
2013-01-27 09:45:19 AM  
I think its great that we have advanced to the point in society that not everyone has to work. These people are now free to pursue more meaningful things in live without having to be tied down to a meaningless job just so they can pay bills.

I know if I didnt have to work and pay biulls, I would do other things that would help people more than my current crappy job.
 
2013-01-27 09:45:45 AM  

Animatronik: a login name very similar to this one: I think were all missing the more important underlying story here: where the fark does this guy get his hair cut?

[img.thesun.co.uk image 620x467]

Seriously, they are owed an additional 50 pounds monthly hair allowance.


She needs to fix her roots, too.
 
2013-01-27 09:45:46 AM  
Didn't ANYONE notice the hot chick in the article at the bottom???

OF COURSE, she isn't British... she's Lithuanian.
 
2013-01-27 09:46:31 AM  
Here is an uncomfortable truth: Western-style democracy/capitalism is not sustainable in a closed system with limited resources. Technology replaces people in the workforce. That is technology's purpose, from an economic perspective. As technology advances, less people are needed to the same work. We have now largely exploited the easily obtainable natural resources here in the continental US - so the major gravy train that has kept America at the economic forefront is drying up quickly. Employment itself is a finite resource needed by employees, and one that is growing more scarce as technology negates the need for people. This trend is going to continue until the proverbial tipping point is reached. What that tipping point will bring into existence is anyone's guess - but history and fiction do not offer many promising outcomes. Global climate change and water wars will only acerbate the problem.

Doom awaits us. DOOOOOOOM!

I make light of it, because what else can you do? The older I get, the more I think I should take over the world and become a benevolent dictator, despised in my own time, but later realized as someone who Did What Needed Doing.
 
2013-01-27 09:49:40 AM  

Teufelaffe:
I don't have the link handy, but a study was done on that, and found that a 10% increase in the minimum wage resulted in a whopping 0.01% increase in the price of products and services. The whole, "OMG, if we pay the poors more money, everything will get too expensive!" is a bullshiat myth.


Elasticity is a concept in economics that has been around a long time. It just seems to be a fact of life that the people that complain the most about the economy, know the least about how it works.
 
2013-01-27 09:49:44 AM  
I've thoroughly enjoyed the number of people who quoted me, believing I somehow was saying that welfare in this country ISN'T abused.  I was saying that the abuse that happens to the welfare system in the UK is worse than the abuse that happens to the welfare system here.  You know, like saying, "You think it's bad here?  Check out what's going on over there."  That's not the same as saying the welfare system in the United States is not gamed by anyone.

Jesus Christ, people.
 
2013-01-27 09:51:21 AM  
wtom - there is plenty of fresh water to go around. This planet's surface is 70% water.
 
2013-01-27 09:53:10 AM  

GreenSun: It's just being smart. Why work if you'll make less than what you can get for free? Only work if you can earn more than you can get by not doing anything.


Agreed, this couple is making a rational busiess decision. This reminds me of those articles speaking to how businesses can simply walk away from unfavorable mortgages with a minimum of criticism while individuals are put to a higher moral standard to keep paying. Morality has no place here. If we want to see changes in behavior, change the laws.
 
2013-01-27 09:53:17 AM  
"We spend £40 a month on clothes for Tullulah-Rose. It's important she looks nice.
"We like a takeaway too, Why shouldn't we? It isn't like I'm some scrounging single mum trying to cash in. It's silly to think I'd actually be better off financially if Danny walked out on me and my daughter than if one of us got a job.
"Anyone else would do exactly the same if they were in our shoes. It's actually really hard for us. We're in a lose-lose situation here."


yeah, uh--that is not a real quote.
 
2013-01-27 09:58:11 AM  
WELFARE CREEPS BEAM GAY RADIO WAVES INTO YOUR CHILDREN'S BEDROOMS. ALSO KILL GRANDMA WITH YOUTH IN ASIA.

SCROLL DOWN FURTHER, HOT CHICK PIC.

BOOBIES!
 
2013-01-27 10:01:04 AM  

jtown: Wolf892: Seems a solution might be to not grant the dole to individuals who are not physically disabled, or are not mentally incapacitated...If you are physically and mentally able to work, even shat jobs like McDonald's, then get out there and work. Life is suffering, get busy.
This would reduce stories like this and perhaps reduce the burden on the dole system...
Or perhaps government sponsered homes should be dorm style...just one apartment building with two families per suite, this would ensure that either you are desperate for a home or encourage you to better yourself as soon as possible.

Except shiat jobs like McD's don't pay enough for a 2 bedroom apartment and all the expenses that come along with kids. A better solution would be to require work but don't cut off benefits entirely when they get a job. Reduce the benefits by the amount of money they get paid.

The trouble is that we've created a system that is incapable of making that sort of adjustment to benefits. It's not possible to say, "You made $1234.56 at your McJob this month so your benefit check will be reduced by that amount." There are half a dozen agencies (if not more), each with their own regulations and bureaucracy. Many of them are either/or scenarios where they either qualify for benefits or they don't qualify. There's no "you qualify for 30%". The whole damn system is out of order!


A one for one reduction in benefits to offset a new salary won't work. Take a simple case - you get $20k in annual govt benefits, but you're offered a job at a $20k salary. Why should you work for $20k when you can get it for free? This is the fundamental problem with a lot of welfare programs. They give you just enough to live on but they don't incent you to find work that pays just enough to live on.
 
2013-01-27 10:01:33 AM  
I do like their Trains...
 
2013-01-27 10:02:20 AM  

LiberalConservative: Lighten up, tongue in cheek etc. Sounds like the American system is out of balance then, and perhaps corporation's requirements need adjusting. But I do hope you realise the purpose of a corporation is not to benefit society. Rather their purpose is to make profit which just happens to produce other benefits to society like products, services, employment, taxes and so on. If you do not agree to that... what solution or system do you suggest? Socialism/communism/comunes? -That last bit was more tongue in cheek in case you missed it.


That's precisely what the government was designed for: To keep entities that are doing harm to society in check. And right now, the average multinational corporation is doing more harm to society than good...and getting away with it by buying out of all the governments it can, and refusing to do business with those it can't. And the people outside of the government are allowing them to get away with it under the guise of freedom...as in "we're free to rid your pockets of all that excess money, and we're free to pay you as little as possible, and if you don't like that...well, you're free to suckle off the ebil gubmint teat...like we do."
 
2013-01-27 10:03:41 AM  

IlGreven: LiberalConservative: A SOLUTION. Long-term unemployed are required to log a minimum number of hours of community service in order to receive their welfare payments. Ta-da! Suddenly they must work either way, and contribute to society either way. This was done in Australia (blessed Howard by memory) and out came the bleeding heart libtards saying its disgustingly unfair.

Another solution? Maybe corporations could offer jobs that pay the job-seekers more than they get sitting at home.

But no, that would cut into a corp's profit, so that's right out.


If businesses were compelled to pay higher wages they'd just pass on the cost to the consumer. So we would all end up paying for welfare anyway.
 
2013-01-27 10:04:42 AM  

dopekitty74: farkeruk:
Trust me, I could find these people a job within a day. A friend of mine got made redundant recently and while looking for another job (he wasn't going to be unemployed for long), he got a job in a pub. It took less than a day of walking around town to get a job.
The whole reason why UK supermarkets, shops and cafes are stuffed full of Poles, Ukranians, Russians and Romanians is that those shops just can't get the staff.
Funny that, those are the sorts of jobs my hubby is trying to get there, and he can't get one, even though the last job he had, he held for nearly four years before marrying me and moving to Canada.


I love that story about how easy it is to get a menial job--always from a bunch of people who've never done that kind of work in their lives, but somehow always know that there's tons of illegals and stuff working in those fields, because no white people will do "that kind of work."

Maybe you should leave it to the people who actually do "that kind of work" to know what the job market is like in those fields. I don't see the crew at McDonalds telling YOU how to update your resume.
 
2013-01-27 10:07:56 AM  

farkeruk: Flaumig: I have yet to encounter someone who can give me a legitemate reason why this is so bad. Oh sure, they can come up with plenty of reasons that are just different ways of whining "b-b-but it's not FAIIIIIIIIRRRR!!!", but no one ever comes up with an objectively good reason that people living "on the dole" are harmful to anyone other than themselves.

Think about it. If it were that bad objectively, then children, retired people, and those too sick or infirm to work would be the worst people ever, right? Most people don't feel that way, but show them some folks like this couple and their inner four year old comes out and they start to whinge and cry about how it's just not fair. Life isn't fair, so get used to it you farkin crybabies.

Well, let's see: perhaps it's because old people and children can't be expected to work, but 21 year old adults are perfectly capable of working. And well, I don't mind my money getting spent on educating kids, fixing roads, defence and people who can't work but I take exception to my money being spent on moochers.


They can be. Children were getting their hands and fingers cut off by looms and what not and getting lung diseases from being sent up to clean chimneys not so long ago. That sort of thing is a price worth paying if it means right wing newspaper owners can pay less taxes.

opiumpoopy: fusillade762: Bucky Katt: There aren't any jobs in Britain anyway. Cameron and Osborn have made sure of that. The UK economy is in danger of triple dipping. Even the ghouls at the IMF think there is a problem.

Yeah, that austerity did wonders for their economy *snert*

We haven't actually had any austerity in the UK...

/ do carry on with your talking points, though.


Go look at how much cuts your local council has to make because of less funding from central government, nitwit.
 
2013-01-27 10:11:26 AM  
Since you have to proof to the unemployment people, even in Britain, that you are looking for work to qualify for the dole, maybe putting in a tabloid you do not even try is a great way to get your benefits cut to £0.00 a year. I don't think they thought through their cunning plan.

They are also going to be screwed during retirements. Basic rate is £80/week if you don't add to it.
 
2013-01-27 10:11:44 AM  

Flaumig: Think about it. If it were that bad objectively, then children, retired people, and those too sick or infirm to work would be the worst people ever, right? Most people don't feel that way, but show them some folks like this couple and their inner four year old comes out and they start to whinge and cry about how it's just not fair. Life isn't fair, so get used to it you farkin crybabies.


Children, retired people, and those too sick or infirm to work aren't shiatting out more and more kids who will then be raised to hold the same values and thus repeat the process with exponential growth. If we sterilized these assholes before giving them a dime, then nobody would care.
 
2013-01-27 10:15:28 AM  
It's musical chairs. Except they don't just take away chairs, they add players.

This seat is reserved for CEOs
 
2013-01-27 10:18:52 AM  

a login name very similar to this one: I think were all missing the more important underlying story here: where the fark does this guy get his hair cut?

[img.thesun.co.uk image 620x467]


By his daughter? Maybe also in the dark?
 
2013-01-27 10:18:57 AM  

Zasteva: Lsherm: Ishkur: Liberals are always afraid that innocent people might be unfairly punished.

Conservatives are always afraid that innocent people might be unfairly rewarded.

Liberals always cheerlead a system that lets you take.

Conservatives always cheerlead a system that lets you forces you to earn.

Fixed that for you.


Yeah, how dare people have to work to survive.  It's barbaric.
 
2013-01-27 10:25:40 AM  
Headlne: Corporate-Owned Media Outlet Conflates Single Anecdote about Welfare Abuse in Order to Distract Public from the TRILLIONS Lost to Abuses of Corporate Tax Code.
 
2013-01-27 10:29:35 AM  

Lsherm: Ishkur: Liberals are always afraid that innocent people might be unfairly punished.
Conservatives are always afraid that innocent people might be unfairly rewarded.

Liberals always cheerlead a system that lets you take.
Conservatives always cheerlead a system that lets you earn.



Yeah, see, the difference between my statement and your statement is mine was non-partisan and true while yours was partisan douchebaggery and false.
 
2013-01-27 10:29:48 AM  
This is from the Onion, right? Right? Please?
 
2013-01-27 10:34:45 AM  

Weidermeijer: Didn't ANYONE notice the hot chick in the article at the bottom???

OF COURSE, she isn't British... she's Lithuanian.


I'd let her satiate me, if you know what I mean. And I think you do.
 
2013-01-27 10:36:20 AM  
I know that this story is in Britain, but seriously, in the US, more than half of our national budget goes to tax cuts, breaks and loopholes. That's right, we spend more on giving the wealthy and corporation favorable tax status than we do on ACTUAL SPENDING.

I don't care how lazy or undeserving you or NewsCorp believes the recipients to be, this is wealthiest nation on Earth, every tax dollar that goes to feeding a hungry person is a-ok in my book.
 
2013-01-27 10:47:12 AM  

xria: After all a citizens dividend would also be paid out to blacks and hispanics, not just white people, so the majority of the white poor would vote/campaign against it.


Sad but true...( the GOP has done a magnificent job at motivating people to vote against their best interests, IMHO)
 
2013-01-27 10:47:47 AM  

umad: Flaumig: Think about it. If it were that bad objectively, then children, retired people, and those too sick or infirm to work would be the worst people ever, right? Most people don't feel that way, but show them some folks like this couple and their inner four year old comes out and they start to whinge and cry about how it's just not fair. Life isn't fair, so get used to it you farkin crybabies.

Children, retired people, and those too sick or infirm to work aren't shiatting out more and more kids who will then be raised to hold the same values and thus repeat the process with exponential growth. If we sterilized these assholes before giving them a dime, then nobody would care.


And statistically, neither are people like this.

The people who are actually shiatting out kids by the dozen (at least in the US) are the Mexicans that work 18 hours a day for minimum wage and refuse even basic everyday government services regardless of immigration status because of all the deportation talk they hear on AM radio and Fox News.

Certain segments off the media are fond of saying that Americans are getting lazy, and usually it's tied to some racial or class-based political argument (like in TFA), but in truth, our workforce productivity in this country is the highest of any country in human history. We work harder for less compensation in this country than any free people who have ever walked the face of the earth.
 
2013-01-27 10:48:33 AM  

Lsherm:
Ishkur: Liberals are always afraid that innocent people might be unfairly punished.

Conservatives are always afraid that innocent people might be unfairly rewarded.

Lsherm: Liberals always cheerlead a system that lets you take.

Conservatives always cheerlead a system that lets you forces you to earn.

Zasteva: Fixed that for you.

Lsherm: Yeah, how dare people have to work to survive. It's barbaric.


Never thought of it that way. Of course people should be forced to work to survive! And if they are too young to work and their parents are lazy, we'll just let them starve! Anything else would be barbaric!!

/that was sarcasm, in case you weren't sure.
 
2013-01-27 10:56:40 AM  
Entitled because of taxes paid by hard working parents?We have six grown children who work and carry their own load(they even help us on occasion).If any one of them took this route this old man would beat their ass into next year.
 
2013-01-27 10:58:18 AM  
They must have a vote on this stuff coming up with all these articles.
 
2013-01-27 11:03:40 AM  
The top 1% always win by pitting the bottom two 49.5% against each other.

This is certainly a hit-piece designed by the super-wealthy to get one half of the working/poor class angry at the other half, so they will vote against the social safety net that costs the super-wealthy dearly.
 
2013-01-27 11:11:12 AM  

BigBooper: One of their points is that they would be worse off working than sitting home on their asses. Unfortunately, that's true in many cases. Instead of encouraging people to work, our system actually encourages people not to work. Lets take a single mom. If she doesn't work, she gets free housing, food stamps, and health care lets say $2,000 a month in benefits. If she takes a $10.00 part time job she will take home around $600-700 dollars a month, and lose every penny of her benefits. Why the fark would she choose to work?


oh, I don't know, self respect? passing on something valuable to her child / children?

//I get where you're coming at. just be snarky.
 
2013-01-27 11:14:22 AM  
You'd think with the number of these stories we see, people going to the newspaper to tell this story of mooching off the gov't someone would do something about it... I would like to volunteer to burn their cute little flat down.

/why no, I'm not a nice person.
 
2013-01-27 11:15:52 AM  

Zasteva: Of course people should be forced to work to survive!


It's not even that. It's that increasingly, even if you do work, you won't survive. You won't make enough money. Your productivity is leeched away for executive bonuses and investors' capital gains, both of which whom have never had more money than they do now.

The lesson here isn't that "OMG, the dole pays TOO MUCH." but "OMG, honest work pays SO LITTLE".

I used to work making cell phone interfaces until my department was outsourced. I started making $18/hr with full benefits. When outsourcing didn't go well, they tried to restart the department staffed with part-time interns, all making less than $10/hr, no benefits.
Mrs. Grumbles' employer is a US national chain of pharmacies. They getting ready to pull a Circuit City and lay off a bunch of their store management, and give them the "opportunity" to return at a $4-$8 pay cut per hour.
What the hell can you even do? Corporations make the dole an attractive alternative to being farked over daily in every way imaginable. Don't even give me this "learn a valuable skill" crap. Can't think of anything more farking relevant in the world today than cell phone interfaces, and that didn't save me or my department from the same bullshiat.
 
2013-01-27 11:16:34 AM  

cryinoutloud: I love that story about how easy it is to get a menial job--always from a bunch of people who've never done that kind of work in their lives, but somehow always know that there's tons of illegals and stuff working in those fields, because no white people will do "that kind of work."


Well, not only is it true, there are also lots of reasons WHY it's true.

Look at this couple. They're getting £17K/year in benefits. I think his numbers are wrong - he'd have to earn £23K to stand still. But still, that's a lot more than minimum wage. And to stand still, he's got to go to work for that rather than staying home, smoking and watching TV. Even if he goes to work and earns £25K, well, that means he ends up only slightly better off than being at home all day.

This isn't a criticism of these people. And people can moan about what these people do, but honestly, getting a job in their situation is nuts.

For decades people said that there weren't the jobs, then after we got free movement of people from Poland, they quickly started taking shop and farm jobs. Funny, they found jobs that people with no qualifications could have done.
 
2013-01-27 11:19:11 AM  

aesirx: passing on something valuable to her child / children?


What are you passing on to your kids if you're breaking your back for a job that won't even let you break even?
 
2013-01-27 11:19:43 AM  
When the minimum wage in a state/country is less than what benefits pay, benefits will always win. Especially (as in the US) when the minimum wage isn't even a livable wage.
 
2013-01-27 11:26:54 AM  

Sergeant Grumbles: The lesson here isn't that "OMG, the dole pays TOO MUCH." but "OMG, honest work pays SO LITTLE".


It's both.

On the one hand, people on the dole in the UK get more than what they need to survive (if you can smoke, drink and afford a cellphone you have more than you need). On the other hand, we heavily tax people on low incomes (if you're on min wage, you're paying income tax) and housing is expensive because of NIMBYs preventing development.
 
2013-01-27 11:27:07 AM  

farkeruk: For decades people said that there weren't the jobs, then after we got free movement of people from Poland, they quickly started taking shop and farm jobs. Funny, they found jobs that people with no qualifications could have done.


Yeah, that isn't what happened. I'm sure it's the same shiat that happened in the U.S.
They didn't find new jobs. They just offered to do the same jobs at a cheaper wage and greedy employers took advantage. If the employers are going to turn around and whine about people on the dole, they only have themselves to blame.
Your country's citizens are either kept at your country's standard of living through wages or taxes. Pick one, and don't expect your profits to increase as standard of living declines due to your cheapassery.
 
2013-01-27 11:27:50 AM  

LiberalConservative: LostGuy: LiberalConservative: A SOLUTION. Long-term unemployed are required to log a minimum number of hours of community service in order to receive their welfare payments. Ta-da! Suddenly they must work either way, and contribute to society either way. This was done in Australia (blessed Howard by memory) and out came the bleeding heart libtards saying its disgustingly unfair.

I'd say that far enough as long as you made the trust fund kiddies and the people (under 60) who live on investments alone also do community service. I mean if we are talking about the moral imperative to work it should apply to all classes.

That's just... strange. If someone earns enough from investments to support themselves they are not a burden on welfare and those that pay taxes, so there is no problem here.
You just want to punish rich people for the sake of it? Most older rich people often do volunteer work on their own volition anyhow, its boring to do nothing.


People who live off of investments are still living off others while performing no useful labor themselves. Most working people are paying part of their income to tax and part to interest. You end up with pretty much the same thing. Except occasionally the welfare recipients improve their lot and start working. A rich parasite is a parasite forever. If you don't see how the idle rich are moochers just as the idle poor, the whole reality of economics will forever be hidden from you.
 
2013-01-27 11:28:27 AM  

stiletto_the_wise: The top 1% always win by pitting the bottom two 49.5% against each other.

This is certainly a hit-piece designed by the super-wealthy to get one half of the working/poor class angry at the other half, so they will vote against the social safety net that costs the super-wealthy dearly.


Indeed. It's interesting too when we begin to point the finger at the top 1% how quickly they play the victim card. They are the real moochers off society that do nothing relative to the amount they take in. When this is brought up in America it turns into "Class Warfare!!!", and "We're the job creators where would you be without us, it's those welfare queens"

It's also impressive how defensive the rich are of their fortunes. They go to great lengths to try and make a case for paying back less to society when they are already richer than most could ever dream. Lengths that include putting people that already have nothing in greater debt. If there were a hell there would be a special section of it waiting for them.
 
2013-01-27 11:31:05 AM  

Sergeant Grumbles: They didn't find new jobs. They just offered to do the same jobs at a cheaper wage and greedy employers took advantage. If the employers are going to turn around and whine about people on the dole, they only have themselves to blame.


Less than minimum wage? Try again.
 
2013-01-27 11:31:28 AM  

aesirx: BigBooper: One of their points is that they would be worse off working than sitting home on their asses. Unfortunately, that's true in many cases. Instead of encouraging people to work, our system actually encourages people not to work. Lets take a single mom. If she doesn't work, she gets free housing, food stamps, and health care lets say $2,000 a month in benefits. If she takes a $10.00 part time job she will take home around $600-700 dollars a month, and lose every penny of her benefits. Why the fark would she choose to work?

oh, I don't know, self respect? passing on something valuable to her child / children?

//I get where you're coming at. just be snarky.


If I'm desperately poor, and I have to make a choice between my ego and feeding my kids, "self-respect" is going to get thrown out the window every time.

Oh, and if I take a job that sets me back financially, what I'm actually passing along to my kids is called "stupidity" and "a total lack of respect for the value of a dollar."
 
2013-01-27 11:32:10 AM  

Coco LaFemme: ......and we think the welfare system in THIS country is abused.  Won't look for a job because it would pay less than what they can suck off the government teat.  That's farking pathetic.


But profitable.
 
2013-01-27 11:34:41 AM  

farkeruk: It's both.


Nope. Not even.

Don't start in with this crap about minor modern luxuries being too extravagant, or soon you'll be biatching about refrigerators. TVs, cellphones, and Xboxes are cheap and effective means of entertainment and communication and are cheap compared to all other life necessities.
Nor are some smokes and beers too extravagant. It's simple disposable entertainment, also cheap and effective.

Get rid of the idea that the poor need to suffer in silence and boredom, eating only rice and beans. There's no reason anyone in a first world nation should live like that when we have such bounty all around us, a lot of it wasted for no other reason than it's more profitable to throw it away than reuse it.
 
2013-01-27 11:37:02 AM  

Sergeant Grumbles: Zasteva: Of course people should be forced to work to survive!

It's not even that. It's that increasingly, even if you do work, you won't survive. You won't make enough money. Your productivity is leeched away for executive bonuses and investors' capital gains, both of which whom have never had more money than they do now.

The lesson here isn't that "OMG, the dole pays TOO MUCH." but "OMG, honest work pays SO LITTLE".

I used to work making cell phone interfaces until my department was outsourced. I started making $18/hr with full benefits. When outsourcing didn't go well, they tried to restart the department staffed with part-time interns, all making less than $10/hr, no benefits.
Mrs. Grumbles' employer is a US national chain of pharmacies. They getting ready to pull a Circuit City and lay off a bunch of their store management, and give them the "opportunity" to return at a $4-$8 pay cut per hour.
What the hell can you even do? Corporations make the dole an attractive alternative to being farked over daily in every way imaginable. Don't even give me this "learn a valuable skill" crap. Can't think of anything more farking relevant in the world today than cell phone interfaces, and that didn't save me or my department from the same bullshiat.


I agree completely.
 
2013-01-27 11:40:05 AM  

MayoSlather: It's also impressive how defensive the rich are of their fortunes. They go to great lengths to try and make a case for paying back less to society when they are already richer than most could ever dream. Lengths that include putting people that already have nothing in greater debt. If there were a hell there would be a special section of it waiting for them.


Particularly since it's society (and the backs of the middle class) that have allowed them to amass their fortunes.

If you work for a living, you're a sucker, since both the idle rich and the idle poor are mooching off of your labor. And rest assured, the rich are mooching far more off you than the poor. But since the idle rich control the conversation and steer the dialog, they've gotten you convinced that it's those lazy people on benefits who are the big problem!
 
2013-01-27 11:41:26 AM  

Sergeant Grumbles: It's not even that. It's that increasingly, even if you do work, you won't survive. You won't make enough money. Your productivity is leeched away for executive bonuses and investors' capital gains, both of which whom have never had more money than they do now.


This.

If you're a wealthy person who disagrees that ALL people who work full time are entitled to healthcare, a home, food, and a living wage, then you deserve the negative tax consequence that are coming your way as a result of the political/economic climate you've created.

The fact is that the wealthy spent the last 70 years trying to deny us workers our right to organize and bargain collectively, so us workers simply did an end-around these bargaining tables that were stacked against us, and made our demands through legislation.

Let Obamacare be a lesson to the John Schnatters of the world.
 
2013-01-27 11:42:59 AM  

farkeruk: Sergeant Grumbles: They didn't find new jobs. They just offered to do the same jobs at a cheaper wage and greedy employers took advantage. If the employers are going to turn around and whine about people on the dole, they only have themselves to blame.

Less than minimum wage? Try again.


Of course no employer would ever hire someone for cash under the table to skirt minimum wage and benefits laws, or pay someone for fewer hours than they actually worked, or hire them as something other than an hourly employee. Nope, those things have never happened, and never will, because all employers are honest fine upright people who have no incentive whatsoever to try to get around the rules. I mean, it's not like it would mean they'd make more money or anything.
 
2013-01-27 11:45:37 AM  

Sergeant Grumbles: Get rid of the idea that the poor need to suffer in silence and boredom, eating only rice and beans.


Of course they shouldn't! The poor, those who choose not to work, should live the High Life. Lobster, Caviar, T-Bone steaks! Huge (free) apartments, free childcare, free everything!! All paid by the idiots who actually, you know, work.
 
2013-01-27 11:50:47 AM  

fredklein: Of course they shouldn't! The poor, those who choose not to work, should live the High Life. Lobster, Caviar, T-Bone steaks! Huge (free) apartments, free childcare, free everything!! All paid by the idiots who actually, you know, work.


Reducto ad absurdium!
Seriously, owning something you could buy on a month's pay at a minimum wage job is not luxury. If the TVs are bigger and flashier, it's because technology is better, not because the poor have become better at bilking you out of money. My cell phone bill is less than the cost of a tank of gasoline, less than a week of groceries, for fark's sake.
 
2013-01-27 11:53:21 AM  

Sergeant Grumbles: farkeruk: It's both.

Nope. Not even.

Don't start in with this crap about minor modern luxuries being too extravagant, or soon you'll be biatching about refrigerators. TVs, cellphones, and Xboxes are cheap and effective means of entertainment and communication and are cheap compared to all other life necessities.
Nor are some smokes and beers too extravagant. It's simple disposable entertainment, also cheap and effective.

Get rid of the idea that the poor need to suffer in silence and boredom, eating only rice and beans. There's no reason anyone in a first world nation should live like that when we have such bounty all around us, a lot of it wasted for no other reason than it's more profitable to throw it away than reuse it.


These minor, modern luxuries exist not just for the benefit of the poor, but to occupy the poor, for the benefit of the wealthy and powerful. When Stalin talked about "bread and circuses", these things weren't gifts to the people, they were to placate the people into submission, to provide political safety to those that were benefiting most from his society.

Ask anybody who's ever worked at a prison: conservatives may like to biatch about prisoners getting televisions and palatable food, but these things make everyone safer in that environment. You're less likely to shiv your cellmate and start a riot if you have something to look forward to that can be taken away.
 
2013-01-27 11:58:31 AM  
udhq: These minor, modern luxuries exist not just for the benefit of the poor, but to occupy the poor, for the benefit of the wealthy and powerful.

3.bp.blogspot.com

Don't think we're quite there, yet.
Instead we're stuck where those ignorant of hardship thinking the poor can be punished and shamed into not being so, all while exacerbating what makes them poor to begin with.
 
2013-01-27 12:11:14 PM  
b>Sergeant Grumbles: Don't start in with this crap about minor modern luxuries being too extravagant, or soon you'll be biatching about refrigerators. TVs, cellphones, and Xboxes are cheap and effective means of entertainment and communication and are cheap compared to all other life necessities.
Nor are some smokes and beers too extravagant. It's simple disposable entertainment, also cheap and effective.


What's the moral argument for me paying for other people's luxuries or entertainment?
 
2013-01-27 12:16:25 PM  
Coco LaFemme: ......and we think the welfare system in THIS country is abused.  Won't look for a job because it would pay less than what they can suck off the government teat.  That's farking pathetic.

If the welfare system pays so well or minimum wage pays so poorly that it actually costs you money in order to work than either welfare needs cut or min wage needs increased.
 
2013-01-27 12:17:19 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: Don't think we're quite there, yet.
Instead we're stuck where those ignorant of hardship thinking the poor can be punished and shamed into not being so, all while exacerbating what makes them poor to begin with.


Exactly:

RICHIE RICH: Why can't the poor stop being so poor! (takes away pensions)

RICHIE RICH: Why can't the poor stop being so poor! (freezes pay increases)

RICHIE RICH: Why can't the poor stop being so poor! (replaces workers with cheaper labor)

RICHIE RICH: Why can't the poor stop being so poor! (replaces cheap labor with automation)

RICHIE RICH: Why can't the poor stop being so poor! (fights government benefits programs)

RICHIE RICH: Why can't the poor stop being so poor! (fights universal medical care)

RICHIE RICH: Why can't the poor stop being so poor! (funds hit-piece in the news about moochers on benefits)

RICHIE RICH: Waaahhhh the government wastes my tax dollars paying for all these goddamned poor people!!!! Why can't they just stop being so poor????
 
2013-01-27 12:17:34 PM  

LostGuy: LiberalConservative: LostGuy: LiberalConservative: A SOLUTION. Long-term unemployed are required to log a minimum number of hours of community service in order to receive their welfare payments. Ta-da! Suddenly they must work either way, and contribute to society either way. This was done in Australia (blessed Howard by memory) and out came the bleeding heart libtards saying its disgustingly unfair.

I'd say that far enough as long as you made the trust fund kiddies and the people (under 60) who live on investments alone also do community service. I mean if we are talking about the moral imperative to work it should apply to all classes.

That's just... strange. If someone earns enough from investments to support themselves they are not a burden on welfare and those that pay taxes, so there is no problem here.
You just want to punish rich people for the sake of it? Most older rich people often do volunteer work on their own volition anyhow, its boring to do nothing.

People who live off of investments are still living off others while performing no useful labor themselves. Most working people are paying part of their income to tax and part to interest. You end up with pretty much the same thing. Except occasionally the welfare recipients improve their lot and start working. A rich parasite is a parasite forever. If you don't see how the idle rich are moochers just as the idle poor, the whole reality of economics will forever be hidden from you.


You're an idiot. Those investments provide the capital needed so the company you work for can stay in business and keep giving you money.
 
2013-01-27 12:18:11 PM  

udhq: If I'm desperately poor, and I have to make a choice between my ego and feeding my kids, "self-respect" is going to get thrown out the window every time.

Oh, and if I take a job that sets me back financially, what I'm actually passing along to my kids is called "stupidity" and "a total lack of respect for the value of a dollar."


Exactly. These people are doing what is in their best economic self-interest. They have apparently done the math. Until local businesses start paying a higher (living) wage because it is in those businesses' best economic interest, these two kooky kids are doing the financially smartest thing for themselves.
 
2013-01-27 12:23:28 PM  

farkeruk: b>Sergeant Grumbles: Don't start in with this crap about minor modern luxuries being too extravagant, or soon you'll be biatching about refrigerators. TVs, cellphones, and Xboxes are cheap and effective means of entertainment and communication and are cheap compared to all other life necessities.
Nor are some smokes and beers too extravagant. It's simple disposable entertainment, also cheap and effective.

What's the moral argument for me paying for other people's luxuries or entertainment?


The moral argument is that a "social safety net" that ensures a bare minimum floor of how poor we allow people to be in this country is a collective investment in the safety and stability of our society, and accepting the help of that safety net doesn't change the fact that how the people in TFA choose to live their lives is still none of your goddam business.

And "You're" not paying for it, anymore than "I'm" paying for the roads and power lines that run to your house.
 
2013-01-27 12:24:09 PM  

farkeruk: What's the moral argument for me paying for other people's luxuries or entertainment?


What's the moral argument for you paying for tax subsidies to already profitable industries? What's the moral argument for your tax dollars being funneled into defense contracting companies for unnecessary wars? What's the moral argument for your tax rate being higher than Warren Buffet's?

You're outraged that you're paying for some slacker's cigarettes and beer, but not that your paying for someone's luxury yacht or private island.
 
2013-01-27 12:26:15 PM  
farkeruk

Oops, you're from the UK. Well, there are probably UK-equivilents for all of the above examples I gave of how you also subsidize the rich.
 
2013-01-27 12:29:53 PM  
2.bp.blogspot.com
Indeed.
/hot, like the show used to be.
 
2013-01-27 12:32:40 PM  

Wolf892: Seems a solution might be to not grant the dole to individuals who are not physically disabled, or are not mentally incapacitated...If you are physically and mentally able to work, even shat jobs like McDonald's, then get out there and work. Life is suffering, get busy.
This would reduce stories like this and perhaps reduce the burden on the dole system...
Or perhaps government sponsered homes should be dorm style...just one apartment building with two families per suite, this would ensure that either you are desperate for a home or encourage you to better yourself as soon as possible.


"Dorm style"...you mean like the projects?
 
2013-01-27 12:33:13 PM  
Working class wages are in the toilet, and they have been for a long time. Meanwhile the top 1% are making out like bandits. But sure, blame "welfare moochers" because they aren't living in utter squalor, totally makes sense. If this shiat keeps up communism will eventually make a comeback, you know, and all the money in the world won't make the kleptocracy bulletproof.
 
2013-01-27 12:35:06 PM  
The mistake that I have seen many people make when deciding to live on benefits instead of taking a low paying job is that they forget to assign a value to being employed. Their calculations only include the hard numbers. When the benefits run out, employers choose the applicant with a solid work history over the unemployed every time. The value of being employable must factor into the equation.
 
2013-01-27 12:35:56 PM  

farkeruk: What's the moral argument for me paying for other people's luxuries or entertainment?


As I said before, they're not luxuries. You're not paying for a poor person's yacht, or his country club membership, or his vacation to the Bahamas.
You're paying for basic subsistence, having decided that you'd rather pay taxes than wages to support your country's standard of living. Basic subsistence includes cheap entertainment, and I don't think you'll find much cheaper than TV and booze.
 
2013-01-27 12:37:51 PM  

umad: LostGuy: LiberalConservative: LostGuy: LiberalConservative: A SOLUTION. Long-term unemployed are required to log a minimum number of hours of community service in order to receive their welfare payments. Ta-da! Suddenly they must work either way, and contribute to society either way. This was done in Australia (blessed Howard by memory) and out came the bleeding heart libtards saying its disgustingly unfair.

I'd say that far enough as long as you made the trust fund kiddies and the people (under 60) who live on investments alone also do community service. I mean if we are talking about the moral imperative to work it should apply to all classes.

That's just... strange. If someone earns enough from investments to support themselves they are not a burden on welfare and those that pay taxes, so there is no problem here.
You just want to punish rich people for the sake of it? Most older rich people often do volunteer work on their own volition anyhow, its boring to do nothing.

People who live off of investments are still living off others while performing no useful labor themselves. Most working people are paying part of their income to tax and part to interest. You end up with pretty much the same thing. Except occasionally the welfare recipients improve their lot and start working. A rich parasite is a parasite forever. If you don't see how the idle rich are moochers just as the idle poor, the whole reality of economics will forever be hidden from you.

You're an idiot. Those investments provide the capital needed so the company you work for can stay in business and keep giving you money.


ALL wealth is created through labor.

Appreciation of an investment is ALWAYS a purchased service of someone else's labor.

Labor, on the other hand, has an intrinsic value, no matter who's it is, no matter where they are, and no matter how unskilled it is.

If you ever wonder why we tax investment income at such a lower rate than income earned through labor, take a look at congress and those that lobby congress for a living and tell me how many miners or production workers or farm laborers you see there.
 
2013-01-27 12:38:29 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: As I said before, they're not luxuries. You're not paying for a poor person's yacht, or his country club membership, or his vacation to the Bahamas.
You're paying for basic subsistence, having decided that you'd rather pay taxes than wages to support your country's standard of living. Basic subsistence includes cheap entertainment, and I don't think you'll find much cheaper than TV and booze.


OK, scrub luxuries. What's the moral argument for me to pay for someone else's entertainment?
 
2013-01-27 12:43:06 PM  

oldcub: The value of being employable must factor into the equation.


Considering employers barely value that above an easy screen to toss resumes in the garbage, I don't know why you expect workers to.
What good-wage job is looking for low-wage skills, anyway? Is my work at McDonald's really going to matter the next time I apply for a programming job? 99% of the time, not in the least.
Again we come to one of those weird little hypocrisies of those who've never had to deal with hardship. On the one hand, low-wage work is something any unskilled moron can do, and should be paid like it. On the other hand, low-wage work teaches valuable skills, so you should never stop working.
So which is it? Stuff any moron can do or valuable skills?
 
2013-01-27 12:43:37 PM  
At least he saves money on that haircut by getting a rabid weasel to chew it short.
 
2013-01-27 12:48:39 PM  

udhq: farkeruk: b>Sergeant Grumbles: Don't start in with this crap about minor modern luxuries being too extravagant, or soon you'll be biatching about refrigerators. TVs, cellphones, and Xboxes are cheap and effective means of entertainment and communication and are cheap compared to all other life necessities.
Nor are some smokes and beers too extravagant. It's simple disposable entertainment, also cheap and effective.

What's the moral argument for me paying for other people's luxuries or entertainment?

The moral argument is that a "social safety net" that ensures a bare minimum floor of how poor we allow people to be in this country is a collective investment in the safety and stability of our society, and accepting the help of that safety net doesn't change the fact that how the people in TFA choose to live their lives is still none of your goddam business.

And "You're" not paying for it, anymore than "I'm" paying for the roads and power lines that run to your house.


Yes, I am. These people are living off the taxpayers. I pay taxes from my work, therefore, I'm paying for it. So, actually, it is my goddamn business.

Now, I support benefits for people who are unable to work, the temporarily unemployed and so forth. I'm happy, as a higher earner for lower earners to pay a lower percentage of tax than I do. That, I consider to be part of the social contract. But I don't agree with people who can work living off me at anything more than survival sums. You want to be lazy? You can have rice and beans on the table. If you want steak, then you'd better go to farking work.
 
2013-01-27 12:50:36 PM  

stiletto_the_wise: What's the moral argument for you paying for tax subsidies to already profitable industries? What's the moral argument for your tax dollars being funneled into defense contracting companies for unnecessary wars? What's the moral argument for your tax rate being higher than Warren Buffet's?

You're outraged that you're paying for some slacker's cigarettes and beer, but not that your paying for someone's luxury yacht or private island.


Where did you see me say that I was OK with big, wasteful government?

In case you hadn't grasped what I'm saying, I don't blame these people. They're responding to incentives created by... big, wasteful government.
 
2013-01-27 12:52:30 PM  

farkeruk: What's the moral argument for me to pay for someone else's entertainment?


Entertainment is still a need, a part of basic subsistence.
Funding it is compassionate, cheap, and effective.
You would cause more problems and hardship by denying this basic need.
There's really no good reason not to in an economy of first-world abundance beyond ignorant selfishness and jealousy.

This stuff is cheap. We're not talking about you sacrifice and suffer so your neighbor can live in opulence. We're talking about you giving up a little so your neighbor need not suffer at all. Like I said before, you either use wages or taxes to support your country's standard of living. Lowering it for anyone else ultimately lowers it for you, no matter how much money you might have.
 
2013-01-27 12:53:23 PM  

farkeruk: If you want steak, then you'd better go to farking work.


What if no matter how hard you work, you'll never be paid enough to afford steak?
 
2013-01-27 01:01:13 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: Entertainment is still a need, a part of basic subsistence.


It absolutely is not a part of basic subsistence. We didn't even have games consoles 30 years ago.

Lowering it for anyone else ultimately lowers it for you, no matter how much money you might have.

Go on... explain the math behind that.
 
2013-01-27 01:04:14 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: What if no matter how hard you work, you'll never be paid enough to afford steak?


At £5/lb? Less than the price of a packet of smokes? Who are these mythical working people who can't afford that?
 
2013-01-27 01:10:21 PM  

farkeruk: It absolutely is not a part of basic subsistence. We didn't even have games consoles 30 years ago.


Sergeant Grumbles: If the TVs are bigger and flashier, it's because technology is better, not because the poor have become better at bilking you out of money.


farkeruk: Go on... explain the math behind that.


Do I really have to explain the underpinnings of civilized society?
Does it benefit you more to personally employ your own security force, purify your own water, build your own transportation, create your own entertainment, respect your own laws, or to have an entire society funding and maintaining those things of their own volition? Your pay for your society either through wages or taxes. If you're going to deny everyone else access to food, housing, entertainment, you'll have to pay that much more for your own as the costs are no longer spread out.
In the U.S., supposed businesspeople wonder why the economy stagnates and recession takes us, never thinking that stagnating and declining wages have anything to do with it...
Ignorant selfishness and jealousy.
 
2013-01-27 01:12:29 PM  

farkeruk: udhq: farkeruk: b>Sergeant Grumbles: Don't start in with this crap about minor modern luxuries being too extravagant, or soon you'll be biatching about refrigerators. TVs, cellphones, and Xboxes are cheap and effective means of entertainment and communication and are cheap compared to all other life necessities.
Nor are some smokes and beers too extravagant. It's simple disposable entertainment, also cheap and effective.

What's the moral argument for me paying for other people's luxuries or entertainment?

The moral argument is that a "social safety net" that ensures a bare minimum floor of how poor we allow people to be in this country is a collective investment in the safety and stability of our society, and accepting the help of that safety net doesn't change the fact that how the people in TFA choose to live their lives is still none of your goddam business.

And "You're" not paying for it, anymore than "I'm" paying for the roads and power lines that run to your house.

Yes, I am. These people are living off the taxpayers. I pay taxes from my work, therefore, I'm paying for it. So, actually, it is my goddamn business.

Now, I support benefits for people who are unable to work, the temporarily unemployed and so forth. I'm happy, as a higher earner for lower earners to pay a lower percentage of tax than I do. That, I consider to be part of the social contract. But I don't agree with people who can work living off me at anything more than survival sums. You want to be lazy? You can have rice and beans on the table. If you want steak, then you'd better go to farking work.


No, it really isn't your money. It's the fee you pay for the service of living in a strong, stable society. The second you turn in over, it ceases to be "your money", and becomes the country's money, the same way if you bought a sandwich with it, it would stop being your money and become Subway's money.

That being said, in return for this fee, you get a vote--a single vote, one of 300million--as to what our values as a society are, i.e. how that money should be spent. The big lie of the last 30 years is that being a "high earner" and paying more in taxes entitles you to a proportionally larger voice in this debate. The U.S. Constitution guarantees that It does not.

So, yes, in a roundabout way, you're right, you do get a vote on whether you think people like those in TFA deserve access to the social safety net. But only 1 vote out of 300million. And if the country should decide otherwise, you are perfectly free to give up the benefits of being an American, if you feel they no longer outweigh the costs. But no, it's still absolutely none of your business how these people, or anyone else chooses to live their lives.
 
2013-01-27 01:13:46 PM  

farkeruk: At £5/lb? Less than the price of a packet of smokes? Who are these mythical working people who can't afford that?


I was using it as an analogy, the same as you.
You want people to work for their rewards. I'm saying that with the way things are, there's little point. Working leaves you tired and broken, no closer to any reward. If you're not outright replaced by a cheaper foreigner, your productivity is sapped by management, investors, and increased prices.
 
2013-01-27 01:14:34 PM  

udhq: That being said, in return for this fee, you get a vote--a single vote, one of 300million--as to what our values as a society are, i.e. how that money should be spent. The big lie of the last 30 years is that being a "high earner" and paying more in taxes entitles you to a proportionally larger voice in this debate. The U.S. Constitution guarantees that It does not.


I think he's British.
 
2013-01-27 01:18:38 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: Do I really have to explain the underpinnings of civilized society?


No, just the math of how me giving more money to moochers for entertainment lowers my standard of living.
 
2013-01-27 01:22:43 PM  

farkeruk: No, just the math of how me giving more money to moochers for entertainment lowers my standard of living.


I mean, raises my standard of living.
 
2013-01-27 01:27:01 PM  

clapperton: I work with a Guy that likes to play the system. He has a baby with his batshiat crazy girlfriend (she's 21, its her 3rd kid with her 3rd baby-daddy) . When I say batshiat crazy, I'm talking diagnosed, unmedicated, split personality disorder. One personality even tries to kill him sometimes. Needless to say, she's receiving disability and all sorts of other benefits. So back to him, every January and July he calls in to work at least 2 or 3 times a week because he has to recertify for his handouts so he has to show he doesn't make much money. He even brags about it at work. We all biatch about how much of our paychecks is taken out in taxes, and he brags because he is collecting it.


Now that the NRA is on board with implementing a proper First World health care system (at least as far as mental health is concerned), maybe there's a one in a million chance the girlfriend might get some help? At least until the NRA remembers that proper mental health care is zOMG SOOOOOOOCIALISM! and they're agin' it once more.
 
2013-01-27 01:29:36 PM  

farkeruk: I mean, raises my standard of living.


Wages or taxes. Pick one.
They're needed to maintain your society's standard of living. Skimp on one or the other, and that standard falls, and you'll have to pay more to maintain your own.
 
2013-01-27 01:36:37 PM  

Coco LaFemme: ......and we think the welfare system in THIS country is abused.  Won't look for a job because it would pay less than what they can suck off the government teat.  That's farking pathetic.


No, it's rational. The purpose of employment is income. If being unemployed pulls in a higher income than being employed...why would one choose employment?

I just can't muster much righteous outrage, here. Given the same circumstances, I'd make the same choice.

Meh.
 
2013-01-27 01:54:36 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: Seriously, owning something you could buy on a month's pay at a minimum wage job is not luxury.


Then I demand you buy me a 50" tv. After all, according to you , it's a necessity, and I don't currently have one.

Oh, and a (cheap) car.

Oh, and pay my rent.

Oh, and buy all my food- light on the veggies, heavy on the steak and lobster, okay?

You can't say no- all these things are necessities, not luxuries, Right?
 
2013-01-27 02:01:23 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: farkeruk: What's the moral argument for me paying for other people's luxuries or entertainment?

As I said before, they're not luxuries. You're not paying for a poor person's yacht, or his country club membership, or his vacation to the Bahamas.
You're paying for basic subsistence



The point is, a 45" TV is not "basic subsistence". Neither is a cell phone. Neither is Internet access.
 
2013-01-27 02:02:55 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: farkeruk: If you want steak, then you'd better go to farking work.

What if no matter how hard you work, you'll never be paid enough to afford steak?


Then get a better job.
 
2013-01-27 02:04:37 PM  
They can work at Walmart and collect foodstamps, then both sides of the argument will receive a happy ending.

/surprised nobody has commented on whether the chickie-bird is worth 110 quid an hour.
//Personally, I outsource my shagging to Thailand and the Philippines. But that's just a preference.
 
2013-01-27 02:10:47 PM  

WhippingBoy: It's sad to see that self-respect and dignity are no longer considered to be worth anything.


They are, but you don't get that by working any job. There are jobs out there who are more demeaning and shameful than going on welfare, and in some cases the job itself may actually be fine, but the boss is such a huge coont that he makes the whole experience even more demeaning than having to stand in line for a handout.

And before you say that you can always switch jobs, no. No, you can't.
 
2013-01-27 02:12:31 PM  

Arthur Jumbles: This is wrong and should be addressed. However, corporations take more in government handouts then all the welfare queens combine. Lets go after them first and then figure out what to do about the welfare cheats.


The us spent over 1 trillion in means tested hand outs last year.

Stop farking lying.
 
2013-01-27 02:14:53 PM  

Bucky Katt: There aren't any jobs in Britain anyway. Cameron and Osborn have made sure of that. The UK economy is in danger of triple dipping. Even the ghouls at the IMF think there is a problem.


Increasing taxes in the wealthy and upping spending didnt work? Krugman should hear this.
 
2013-01-27 02:17:47 PM  

Bumblefark: Coco LaFemme: ......and we think the welfare system in THIS country is abused.  Won't look for a job because it would pay less than what they can suck off the government teat.  That's farking pathetic.

No, it's rational. The purpose of employment is income. If being unemployed pulls in a higher income than being employed...why would one choose employment?

I just can't muster much righteous outrage, here. Given the same circumstances, I'd make the same choice.

Meh.


If the government offered a corporation more money to not make widgets than they would take in by making widgets, and the CEO decided to forgo that money and make the widgets because "hey, we have to maintain our self-respect", that company's shareholders would sue that CEO into the next time zone.

Why people expect businesses to act in their own best-interests, but call it "greed" when people do so is one of the weirdest economic phenomenons out there.
 
2013-01-27 02:17:51 PM  

fredklein: Then get a better job.


What if no matter how hard you work, you'll never be paid enough to afford steak?
 
2013-01-27 02:19:07 PM  

fredklein: Sergeant Grumbles: Seriously, owning something you could buy on a month's pay at a minimum wage job is not luxury.

Then I demand you buy me a 50" tv. After all, according to you , it's a necessity, and I don't currently have one.

Oh, and a (cheap) car.

Oh, and pay my rent.

Oh, and buy all my food- light on the veggies, heavy on the steak and lobster, okay?

You can't say no- all these things are necessities, not luxuries, Right?


Then go on benefits (or Welfare in the US) if you think it's so great! Do it! Live the life of luxury you're so tired of paying for others to live!
 
2013-01-27 02:20:06 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: They're needed to maintain your society's standard of living.


You can keep saying that, but you're not explaining the math. I'm giving money to moochers, who produce nothing. How does that make me richer?
 
2013-01-27 02:28:02 PM  

farkeruk: You can keep saying that, but you're not explaining the math. I'm giving money to moochers, who produce nothing. How does that make me richer?


I have explained it. You have yet to understand it. You pay to maintain society. Absent society, you'd have to pay for all its trappings by yourself. Which do you think is more expensive?
Why don't you go Galt already? Being so self sufficient, I'm sure that will go well for you.
 
2013-01-27 02:30:55 PM  

fredklein: Sergeant Grumbles: Seriously, owning something you could buy on a month's pay at a minimum wage job is not luxury.

Then I demand you buy me a 50" tv. After all, according to you , it's a necessity, and I don't currently have one.

Oh, and a (cheap) car.

Oh, and pay my rent.

Oh, and buy all my food- light on the veggies, heavy on the steak and lobster, okay?

You can't say no- all these things are necessities, not luxuries, Right?


Your assumption that them being on welfare entitles you to veto power over other peoples' life or spending decisions is not how the real world works. This doesn't just stop being a free country for people when they are in need. That's only true in the magical world of Republican Authoritarian Candyland.

I know, some people just like to scoff at those in need because it makes them feel better about themselves, but remember something my grandma used to tell me: "When you wag your finger at the needy, you're also sticking your dick in Jesus's ear."
 
2013-01-27 02:33:06 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: fredklein: Then get a better job.

What if no matter how hard you work, you'll never be paid enough to afford steak?


I'd stop buying big-screen tvs, cell phones, tattoos, fancy manicures, etc,etc ,etc until I could afford to feed myself.

It's not hard.
 
2013-01-27 02:33:49 PM  

stiletto_the_wise: Then go on benefits (or Welfare in the US) if you think it's so great! Do it! Live the life of luxury you're so tired of paying for others to live!


Sorry, I have my pride.
 
2013-01-27 02:34:48 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: I have explained it. You have yet to understand it. You pay to maintain society.


How does paying 'moochers' "maintain society"??
 
2013-01-27 02:34:55 PM  

fredklein: I'd stop buying big-screen tvs, cell phones, tattoos, fancy manicures, etc,etc ,etc until I could afford to feed myself.


And what if you couldn't? What if, absent all those things, you were still deeper in the hole at the end of a month of work? When is it okay to give up, call bullshiat, stop degrading yourself for the profit of others?
 
2013-01-27 02:37:33 PM  

udhq: Your assumption that them being on welfare entitles you to veto power over other peoples' life or spending decisions is not how the real world works.


So, if you were giving me money because "I need something to eat", you'd not be upset if I wasted that money on, say, lotto tickets instead of food? You happily continue to hand me money (because I still need to eat), and watch me waste it, and not care??

Where do you live? I'm hungry and need to eat....
 
2013-01-27 02:39:00 PM  

fredklein: How does paying 'moochers' "maintain society"??


Hungry people, who realize they can't eat their pride, and in great numbers, are generally detrimental to a society. They tend not to starve quietly, or with dignity.
And they're only moochers in so far as they've refused to provide their labor to employers who give nothing back. Those employers can either employ them, placate them, or ultimately be torn down by them.
 
2013-01-27 02:40:42 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: And what if you couldn't? What if, absent all those things, you were still deeper in the hole at the end of a month of work?


Then I'd get a better job. Haven't we been here before?

Two people can room together, have min wage jobs, and pay rent and the grocery bill. It can happen, it has happened. It's a fact. It is possible. if people choose not to do it, that's not MY fault.
 
2013-01-27 02:42:13 PM  

fredklein: The point is, a 45" TV is not "basic subsistence". Neither is a cell phone. Neither is Internet access.


Cell phones can be cheaper than land lines, and good luck getting a job without some kind of phone. Not having internet access is also a huge blow to a job search - you don't have access to your best job hunting tools. Items like televisions are rare purchases - if you spread the cost of a TV over the years you'll use it, it comes down to $5/month or so.

Having until recently lived on minimum wage, the vast majority of all spending goes to rent, food, utilities, and transportation. That's assuming you don't need day care and go without health insurance, hoping you never need medical care - with health insurance, your essentials already exceed 100% of your income.

Everything else combined is really a drop in the bucket, a few percent of your income max. No matter how much you slash from this "not subsistence" budget, you're not really going to make any overall dent in spending when combined it makes up 3-5% of your income.
 
2013-01-27 02:43:13 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: fredklein: How does paying 'moochers' "maintain society"??

Hungry people, who realize they can't eat their pride, and in great numbers, are generally detrimental to a society. They tend not to starve quietly, or with dignity.


But they do starve. Or step up and get jobs. Either way, no more moochers! What's the downside?

And they're only moochers in so far as they've refused to provide their labor to employers who give nothing back.

It's called a paycheck. And every worker gets one. Perhaps it's not as much as some believe they should get, but, hey- I want a salary of $10000000000 an hour....
 
2013-01-27 02:43:48 PM  

octopied: 40 cigarettes a day? I somehow doubt that. That's way more expensive than those benefits will allow.

At any rate, if they are at one fourth that with the cigarettes, that poor baby.


Someone may have pointed this out already (I haven't read all the way through the thread yet), but this is the UK, not America - cigarettes over there can be had for under $1 a pack.
 
2013-01-27 02:45:24 PM  

fredklein: Then I'd get a better job. Haven't we been here before?

Two people can room together, have min wage jobs, and pay rent and the grocery bill. It can happen, it has happened. It's a fact. It is possible. if people choose not to do it, that's not MY fault.


Better jobs aren't forthcoming. And there's only so much you can cut and sacrifice. Eventually you get to the point where there's no point in working because you'll never receive the benefits of a first-world nation.
Why work when all it will get you is a bedroom shared with two other people, a mishmash of cheap processed food, and just enough money to make it to work the next day, without even two pennies to rub together to keep yourself entertained? Better just to rob the trash of the wealthy by that point, as they're wasting egregiously, while telling us we deserve nothing.
 
2013-01-27 02:46:07 PM  

farkeruk: Sergeant Grumbles: They're needed to maintain your society's standard of living.

You can keep saying that, but you're not explaining the math. I'm giving money to moochers, who produce nothing. How does that make me richer?


Widespread poverty has social costs that are paid by everyone: increased crime, lower property values, weaker currency, political instability, etc. You could spend money on walled communities and armed guards, but history has shown us that it's almost always cheaper and more desirable to attack that problem at the roots.

Even if you're wealthy, your money has an extremely limited ability to protect itself. Outside of that ability, in the midst of social unrest, the only thing that's reinforcing your property rights--your ownership of your own wealth-- is the rule of law. And at the end of the day, the social contract within the rule of law applies ONLY to people that feel they have something to lose within the status quo. This simple principle is behind 99% of the political turnover in human history.
 
2013-01-27 02:47:04 PM  

Sum Dum Gai: Cell phones can be cheaper than land lines,


Land lines can be shared- among roommates for example.

Not having internet access is also a huge blow to a job search - you don't have access to your best job hunting tools

People managed to find and land jobs before the Internet even existed, much less without a 30Mb connection to it.

.with health insurance, your essentials already exceed 100% of your income.

Then you're not buying call phones and tvs and internet access, are you?
 
2013-01-27 02:47:20 PM  

fredklein: But they do starve. Or step up and get jobs. Either way, no more moochers! What's the downside?


You can't punish and shame the poor into not being poor. The downside is that it has never worked that way, ever.
Stop posting nonsense and read up on your history.
 
2013-01-27 02:48:52 PM  

jtown: Wolf892: Seems a solution might be to not grant the dole to individuals who are not physically disabled, or are not mentally incapacitated...If you are physically and mentally able to work, even shat jobs like McDonald's, then get out there and work. Life is suffering, get busy.
This would reduce stories like this and perhaps reduce the burden on the dole system...
Or perhaps government sponsered homes should be dorm style...just one apartment building with two families per suite, this would ensure that either you are desperate for a home or encourage you to better yourself as soon as possible.

Except shiat jobs like McD's don't pay enough for a 2 bedroom apartment and all the expenses that come along with kids. A better solution would be to require work but don't cut off benefits entirely when they get a job. Reduce the benefits by the amount of money they get paid.

The trouble is that we've created a system that is incapable of making that sort of adjustment to benefits. It's not possible to say, "You made $1234.56 at your McJob this month so your benefit check will be reduced by that amount." There are half a dozen agencies (if not more), each with their own regulations and bureaucracy. Many of them are either/or scenarios where they either qualify for benefits or they don't qualify. There's no "you qualify for 30%". The whole damn system is out of order!


A 1:1 reduction isn't worth it - if you're still only going to make the same amount of money working instead of not working, then why work at all?

IE., if someone makes $2000 on government assistance, and then gets a job at McDonalds for $1,000 a month and they still get the other $1,000 a month from government assistance, that's still the same $2000 a month. They can sit on their ass at home and get the $2000 a month for doing nothing.
 
2013-01-27 02:49:02 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: Why work when all it will get you is a bedroom shared with two other people, a mishmash of cheap processed food, and just enough money to make it to work the next day, without even two pennies to rub together to keep yourself entertained?


Because that's life. Why should a lion chase an antelope when all it will get him is a meal or two, and he'll have to chase another one tomorrow?
 
2013-01-27 02:51:26 PM  

fredklein: udhq: Your assumption that them being on welfare entitles you to veto power over other peoples' life or spending decisions is not how the real world works.

So, if you were giving me money because "I need something to eat", you'd not be upset if I wasted that money on, say, lotto tickets instead of food? You happily continue to hand me money (because I still need to eat), and watch me waste it, and not care??

Where do you live? I'm hungry and need to eat....


See, your second major failure here is your assumption that the social safety net is some personal favor you're doing for the poor, just because you're such a great guy.
 
2013-01-27 02:55:44 PM  

udhq: Widespread poverty has social costs that are paid by everyone: increased crime, lower property values, weaker currency, political instability, etc. You could spend money on walled communities and armed guards, but history has shown us that it's almost always cheaper and more desirable to attack that problem at the roots.


So, bribe the poor and lazy for now so they don't revolt? Never mind that that just encourages the poor and lazy to remain poor and lazy, thus increasing the burden on everyone else. It simply delays the problem- eventually the ones working will no longer be able to support the one who don't- and when that happens, the poor and lazy will outnumber the working.

It's better to force the issue now, while the workers are still in the majority, and have a chance at winning.
 
2013-01-27 02:57:59 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: You can't punish and shame the poor into not being poor.


And you can't solve poverty by throwing money at it.
 
2013-01-27 03:03:03 PM  

fredklein: udhq: Widespread poverty has social costs that are paid by everyone: increased crime, lower property values, weaker currency, political instability, etc. You could spend money on walled communities and armed guards, but history has shown us that it's almost always cheaper and more desirable to attack that problem at the roots.

So, bribe the poor and lazy for now so they don't revolt? Never mind that that just encourages the poor and lazy to remain poor and lazy, thus increasing the burden on everyone else. It simply delays the problem- eventually the ones working will no longer be able to support the one who don't- and when that happens, the poor and lazy will outnumber the working.

It's better to force the issue now, while the workers are still in the majority, and have a chance at winning.


There are two types of people in this world: those whose struggles have given them a sense of gratitude, and those whose lack of struggle have given them a sense of entitlement.

You can usually spot the second type when they do things like conflate the words "poor" and "lazy".
 
2013-01-27 03:08:33 PM  

fredklein: udhq: Widespread poverty has social costs that are paid by everyone: increased crime, lower property values, weaker currency, political instability, etc. You could spend money on walled communities and armed guards, but history has shown us that it's almost always cheaper and more desirable to attack that problem at the roots.

So, bribe the poor and lazy for now so they don't revolt? Never mind that that just encourages the poor and lazy to remain poor and lazy, thus increasing the burden on everyone else. It simply delays the problem- eventually the ones working will no longer be able to support the one who don't- and when that happens, the poor and lazy will outnumber the working.

It's better to force the issue now, while the workers are still in the majority, and have a chance at winning.


Do yourself a favor and move to Somalia then. Barely any government, no safety net, no dole. It's a paradise for hard workers like you.
 
2013-01-27 03:15:51 PM  

udhq: farkeruk: b>Sergeant Grumbles: Don't start in with this crap about minor modern luxuries being too extravagant, or soon you'll be biatching about refrigerators. TVs, cellphones, and Xboxes are cheap and effective means of entertainment and communication and are cheap compared to all other life necessities.
Nor are some smokes and beers too extravagant. It's simple disposable entertainment, also cheap and effective.

What's the moral argument for me paying for other people's luxuries or entertainment?

The moral argument is that a "social safety net" that ensures a bare minimum floor of how poor we allow people to be in this country is a collective investment in the safety and stability of our society, and accepting the help of that safety net doesn't change the fact that how the people in TFA choose to live their lives is still none of your goddam business.

If we can't create wealth without having is t confiscated by force, then we do not have security. We are not getting what you say we are paying for.

And even if it were, you do not have a good moral argument when you say I am being provided with something I may not need or want.

And "You're" not paying for it, anymore than "I'm" paying for the roads and power lines that run to your house.


Just because you are OK with paying this money, does not make it morally acceptable to force me to pay.
 
2013-01-27 03:18:12 PM  
The Sun ran a story last week about this immigrant who was claiming £14,508 in benefits a year:

img.thesun.co.uk

Turns out that she was an actress. Oops.
 
2013-01-27 03:18:52 PM  

IlGreven: LiberalConservative: Er... in my unemployed experiences (including right now), 20 hours a week of min wage work will net you more than unemployment payments (Australia).

In America, I believe that unemployment benefits are scaled to what you paid in, so here even full time min. wage work won't generally cover the bennies of a guy who was "too expensive" for a corporation to keep.


You don't pay into the UI fund; that's employer-funded by a tax on the employer's payroll. (This should not be confused with a payroll tax such as FICA, which a deduction against an employee's earnings.)


LiberalConservative: Er... in my unemployed experiences (including right now), 20 hours a week of min wage work will net you more than unemployment payments (Australia). This may vary elsewhere due to minimum wage rates and size of welfare payments. Is a balance i guess. If corporations are not paying enough to provide incentive to work I would expect government to impose increases to minimum wage; its in their best interest to do so since reducing welfare claims helps government budgets.


Here in the People's Republic of San Francisco, minimum wage is $10.55; California UI benefits max out at $450/wk. Do the math.

We also found over the last five years of generational-high unemployment that employers aren't eager to hire former cubicle rats to sling fries for minimum wage. "Suitable work" cuts both ways.

We're almost at a point in the First World where work as we know it simply isn't a reasonable expectation for most of the adult population. If I don't live to see it, most of you reading this will.
 
2013-01-27 03:19:17 PM  
fredklein:

Land lines can be shared- among roommates for example.

So can cell phones, if you leave them in the apartment (like you would have to with a land line).

People managed to find and land jobs before the Internet even existed, much less without a 30Mb connection to it.

Because both employers and employees used different methods to announce and seek jobs. As a job searcher, you're forced to use the tools that the companies are using to announce their job openings. Companies have primarily moved job listings to the internet, so there's little choice for job seekers but to do the same.
 
2013-01-27 03:22:05 PM  

udhq: If the government offered a corporation more money to not make widgets than they would take in by making widgets, and the CEO decided to forgo that money and make the widgets because "hey, we have to maintain our self-respect", that company's shareholders would sue that CEO into the next time zone.

Why people expect businesses to act in their own best-interests, but call it "greed" when people do so is one of the weirdest economic phenomenons out there.


Agreed. I found myself unemployed for the first time in my adult life around the same time that the banks were shamelessly lining up to be financially rewarded for tanking the global economy by route of their misadventures in mortgage lending.

I guess the timing helped relieve me of any misty-eyed sentimentalism about the nature and pursuit of livelihood...
 
2013-01-27 03:25:54 PM  

fredklein: But they do starve. Or step up and get jobs. Either way, no more moochers! What's the downside?


10/10 -- I'm completely convinced that you really do believe this. Here's some classic economic theory to help you support your arguments: Jonathon Swift - A Modest Proposal
 
2013-01-27 03:25:58 PM  

udhq: No, it really isn't your money. It's the fee you pay for the service of living in a strong, stable society. The second you turn in over, it ceases to be "your money", and becomes the country's money, the same way if you bought a sandwich with it, it would stop being your money and become Subway's money.

I have an absolute right to live in the country where I was born, and to be treated as an equal within it. I do not have to buy that right.

Even if that were the case, I would have an interest in getting a fair price. And either way, my money really is mine until I hand it over voluntarily. That's how property works. If you steal my money, it remains mine.

The redistributional element of taxation is neither a service nor an insurance premium. If it were, then the amount would be the same for everybody, or even cheaper for people with good earning histories. No, it is simply centralised altruism, and we do it because most of us feel good about doing so. No other reason.

So, yes, in a roundabout way, you're right, you do get a vote on whether you think people like those in TFA deserve access to the social safety net. But only 1 vote out of 300million. And if the country should decide otherwise, you are perfectly free to give up the benefits of being an American, if you feel they no longer outweigh the costs. But no, it's still absolutely none of your business how these people, or anyone else chooses to live their lives.


Democracy requires the votes to have access to information, so they absolutely do have an interest in the lifestyles and choices of the recipients of altruistic redistribution. How else could they choose how to vote? You suggest that the vote is a reward for paying taxes, but to force them do so blindly (or even worse, only allowed to learn things from people like you) is a false gift.
 
2013-01-27 03:27:01 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: udhq: farkeruk: b>Sergeant Grumbles: Don't start in with this crap about minor modern luxuries being too extravagant, or soon you'll be biatching about refrigerators. TVs, cellphones, and Xboxes are cheap and effective means of entertainment and communication and are cheap compared to all other life necessities.
Nor are some smokes and beers too extravagant. It's simple disposable entertainment, also cheap and effective.

What's the moral argument for me paying for other people's luxuries or entertainment?

The moral argument is that a "social safety net" that ensures a bare minimum floor of how poor we allow people to be in this country is a collective investment in the safety and stability of our society, and accepting the help of that safety net doesn't change the fact that how the people in TFA choose to live their lives is still none of your goddam business.

If we can't create wealth without having is t confiscated by force, then we do not have security. We are not getting what you say we are paying for.

And even if it were, you do not have a good moral argument when you say I am being provided with something I may not need or want.

And "You're" not paying for it, anymore than "I'm" paying for the roads and power lines that run to your house.

Just because you are OK with paying this money, does not make it morally acceptable to force me to pay.


Yes, it is absolutely morally acceptable for you to be forced to pay your fair share for the costs of maintaining society if you choose to accept the benefits.

If you feel that people like those in TFA should not deserve access to the social safety net, you're free to cast your 1/300million vote as such, but should America decide otherwise (as they have, time and time again), you are simply not entitled to a vote as to how they choose to live their lives.
 
2013-01-27 03:33:53 PM  

udhq: There are two types of people in this world: those whose struggles have given them a sense of gratitude, and those whose lack of struggle have given them a sense of entitlement.

You can usually spot the second type when they do things like conflate the words "poor" and "lazy".



Hmm. Interesting. You think that *I* have a sense of entitlement? Not the ones who stay on welfare forever, not the one who raise generation after generation sucking the public teat, but- Me?
 
2013-01-27 03:35:25 PM  

stiletto_the_wise: Do yourself a favor and move to Somalia then. Barely any government, no safety net, no dole. It's a paradise for hard workers like you.


Oh, I have no problem with Government. Government does useful things. And, sometimes, un-useful things. So, save that strawman for another argument.
 
2013-01-27 03:36:25 PM  

Tunney: The Sun ran a story last week about this immigrant who was claiming £14,508 in benefits a year:

img.thesun.co.uk

Turns out that she was an actress. Oops.



Um, I think you mean "Turns out she has ONE acting role like 8 years ago".
 
2013-01-27 03:37:42 PM  

udhq: farkeruk: Sergeant Grumbles: They're needed to maintain your society's standard of living.

You can keep saying that, but you're not explaining the math. I'm giving money to moochers, who produce nothing. How does that make me richer?

Widespread poverty has social costs that are paid by everyone: increased crime, lower property values, weaker currency, political instability, etc. You could spend money on walled communities and armed guards, but history has shown us that it's almost always cheaper and more desirable to attack that problem at the roots.

But the "root" of poverty is not a lack of redistribution, it's a lack of productive work. So would you then advocate workhouses for the poor? I hope not, because the real lessons of history show that this leads to totalitarianism.

So it must be more subtle than you think. Maybe there's something to do with preserving the freedom of the poor that is helping to keep society safe and stable. Something you don't get, and never will since your comments reveal an underlying stateism in your outlook.

Even if you're wealthy, your money has an extremely limited ability to protect itself. Outside of that ability, in the midst of social unrest, the only thing that's reinforcing your property rights--your ownership of your own wealth-- is the rule of law. And at the end of the day, the social contract within the rule of law applies ONLY to people that feel they have something to lose within the status quo. This simple principle is behind 99% of the political turnover in human history.


The only things anyone else wants from me are (1) my money and (2) my freedom. The poor want my money and the government want power over me. Under your system, I must hand my money to the government, who take a cut before passing some of it to the poor, and I must hand my freedoms over to the government also. The government taks a large slice of my money and freedom. Who will protect me from them?

Again, the real lesson of history is: when governments take control over everything, instead of society becoming "optimal" in every way, a country collapses. So the hands of government might not be the best place for my money and freedom.
 
2013-01-27 03:38:28 PM  

Sum Dum Gai: fredklein:

Land lines can be shared- among roommates for example.

So can cell phones, if you leave them in the apartment (like you would have to with a land line).



That's poor people logic- buy a portable method of communication... then leave it in one place.

Do you also leave the remote on top the TV?
 
2013-01-27 03:39:57 PM  

Zasteva: fredklein: But they do starve. Or step up and get jobs. Either way, no more moochers! What's the downside?

10/10 -- I'm completely convinced that you really do believe this. Here's some classic economic theory to help you support your arguments: Jonathon Swift - A Modest Proposal


No one is suggesting EATING the poor. Or eating that strawman of yours.

Oh, and don't think I didn't notice you didn't answer the question.
 
2013-01-27 03:42:59 PM  

udhq: fredklein: udhq: Your assumption that them being on welfare entitles you to veto power over other peoples' life or spending decisions is not how the real world works.

So, if you were giving me money because "I need something to eat", you'd not be upset if I wasted that money on, say, lotto tickets instead of food? You happily continue to hand me money (because I still need to eat), and watch me waste it, and not care??

Where do you live? I'm hungry and need to eat....

See, your second major failure here is your assumption that the social safety net is some personal favor you're doing for the poor, just because you're such a great guy.


He's closer to the truth than you are. It is centralised altruism, the society-level equivalent of a favour.

You say it is something like a service, even though it is not charged according to cost, benefit or market forces and
is not optional, coming at the expense of our basic rights. If we did not *want* to help the poor, we would have no problems protecting ourselves from them.
 
2013-01-27 03:49:35 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: But the "root" of poverty is not a lack of redistribution, it's a lack of productive work. So would you then advocate workhouses for the poor? I hope not, because the real lessons of history show that this leads to totalitarianism.


So, what happens when we reach a point (and we will, due to increasing technological sophistication and falling costs of automation) where there is simply nothing productive left to do for a large portion of the world's population? When the entire world's productivity relies on robotics and automation, with a few people who can fix the robots, how do we come up with a fair way to divvy up the world's resources? Just let people starve because there's no work to do?

The idea that "amount of work done" is a reasonable way to distribute wealth is either dead or dying.
 
2013-01-27 03:53:36 PM  

udhq: Yes, it is absolutely morally acceptable for you to be forced to pay your fair share for the costs of maintaining society if you choose to accept the benefits.

we are not given that choice. Ergo, unacceptable.

If you feel that people like those in TFA should not deserve access to the social safety net, you're free to cast your 1/300million vote as such, but should America decide otherwise (as they have, time and time again), you are simply not entitled to a vote as to how they choose to live their lives.

TFA is set in UK, where NAME hails from.

In UK, we have in fact just elected a right-of-centre government, with the intention of them undoing some of the more severe excesses of benefits exploitation. We could not have done this without newspapers such as the Sun telling us what sorts of things are happening.

Leftists embedded in the UK's bloated public institutions are presently using their positions to try and undermine the government's ability to pass laws and to revoke the freedom of the press.

Freedom of information and the vote are fundamental rights and you should not even be suggesting that they come in exchange for anything if you want to even talk about "civilised society".
 
2013-01-27 03:54:44 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: udhq: No, it really isn't your money. It's the fee you pay for the service of living in a strong, stable society. The second you turn in over, it ceases to be "your money", and becomes the country's money, the same way if you bought a sandwich with it, it would stop being your money and become Subway's money.

I have an absolute right to live in the country where I was born, and to be treated as an equal within it. I do not have to buy that right.

Even if that were the case, I would have an interest in getting a fair price. And either way, my money really is mine until I hand it over voluntarily. That's how property works. If you steal my money, it remains mine.

The redistributional element of taxation is neither a service nor an insurance premium. If it were, then the amount would be the same for everybody, or even cheaper for people with good earning histories. No, it is simply centralised altruism, and we do it because most of us feel good about doing so. No other reason.

So, yes, in a roundabout way, you're right, you do get a vote on whether you think people like those in TFA deserve access to the social safety net. But only 1 vote out of 300million. And if the country should decide otherwise, you are perfectly free to give up the benefits of being an American, if you feel they no longer outweigh the costs. But no, it's still absolutely none of your business how these people, or anyone else chooses to live their lives.

Democracy requires the votes to have access to information, so they absolutely do have an interest in the lifestyles and choices of the recipients of altruistic redistribution. How else could they choose how to vote? You suggest that the vote is a reward for paying taxes, but to force them do so blindly (or even worse, only allowed to learn things from people like you) is a false gift.


Except the social safety net is not "altruistic redistribution."

It is exactly what it is called: "Social Security". It's there to protect the fabric of society from the ill effects of widespread poverty, not to feed the hungry and house the homeless because it's the right thing to do.

And nowhere in the law does it state that utilizing that safety net means sacrificing ones' civil liberties.
 
2013-01-27 03:57:03 PM  

fredklein: Um, I think you mean "Turns out she has ONE acting role like 8 years ago".


And then, after The Sun article was published, her acting profile mysteriously vanished. Odd that, isn't it?
 
2013-01-27 04:02:05 PM  

stiletto_the_wise: THE GREAT NAME: But the "root" of poverty is not a lack of redistribution, it's a lack of productive work. So would you then advocate workhouses for the poor? I hope not, because the real lessons of history show that this leads to totalitarianism.

So, what happens when we reach a point (and we will, due to increasing technological sophistication and falling costs of automation) where there is simply nothing productive left to do for a large portion of the world's population?

Shorter working week.

When the entire world's productivity relies on robotics and automation, with a few people who can fix the robots, how do we come up with a fair way to divvy up the world's resources?

You watch too many Japanese cartoons.

Just let people starve because there's no work to do?

Ridiculous hyperbole.

The idea that "amount of work done" is a reasonable way to distribute wealth is either dead or dying.


It's not a way of redistributing wealth. Working creates wealth.
 
2013-01-27 04:05:15 PM  

fredklein: Zasteva: fredklein: But they do starve. Or step up and get jobs. Either way, no more moochers! What's the downside?

10/10 -- I'm completely convinced that you really do believe this. Here's some classic economic theory to help you support your arguments: Jonathon Swift - A Modest Proposal

No one is suggesting EATING the poor. Or eating that strawman of yours.

Oh, and don't think I didn't notice you didn't answer the question.


There is a difference between sarcasm and constructing a strawman argument. I was employing sarcasm.

The biggest is that undernourished children perform below their level of capability in school, which means that rather than training them to contribute to a vibrate modern economy, we are training them to fail.

Do you think that it's okay to set children up to fail because of the circumstances of their birth?
 
2013-01-27 04:05:59 PM  

udhq: Except the social safety net is not "altruistic redistribution."

Except... yes it is.

It is exactly what it is called: "Social Security".

You idiot. When they call it that, they're trying to make it sound like an insurance policy, that's all.

It's there to protect the fabric of society from the ill effects of widespread poverty, not to feed the hungry and house the homeless because it's the right thing to do.

And nowhere in the law does it state that utilizing that safety net means sacrificing ones' civil liberties.


But paying for it may. By the way, you seem to be saying you would not help the poor if it were not for your fear of civil unrest. You're obvious a cold empty shell of a man, dead inside.
 
2013-01-27 04:08:13 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: It's not a way of redistributing wealth. Working creates wealth.


That explains why bricklayers are the wealthiest people on Earth and Kim Kardashian and other idle socialites are starving in the gutter.
 
2013-01-27 04:08:39 PM  

fredklein: udhq: There are two types of people in this world: those whose struggles have given them a sense of gratitude, and those whose lack of struggle have given them a sense of entitlement.

You can usually spot the second type when they do things like conflate the words "poor" and "lazy".


Hmm. Interesting. You think that *I* have a sense of entitlement? Not the ones who stay on welfare forever, not the one who raise generation after generation sucking the public teat, but- Me?


Absolutely.

You obviously feel that you have some sort of intrinsic entitlement to unilaterally divide poor people into those who are deserving, and those who are not deserving by virtue of having the character flaws that you clearly posses yourself.
 
2013-01-27 04:10:16 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: But paying for it may. By the way, you seem to be saying you would not help the poor if it were not for your fear of civil unrest. You're obvious a cold empty shell of a man, dead inside.


Says the person whose position is that his tax dollars helping the poor sacrifices his civil liberties.
 
2013-01-27 04:11:40 PM  

fredklein: That's poor people logic- buy a portable method of communication... then leave it in one place.


A portable method of communication left in one place that is still cheaper than a non-portable method of communication that has to be left in one place.
 
2013-01-27 04:12:17 PM  

udhq: Absolutely.

You obviously feel that you have some sort of intrinsic entitlement to unilaterally divide poor people into those who are deserving, and those who are not deserving by virtue of having the character flaws that you clearly posses yourself.


FWIW, I've favorited you for that comment. Brilliant
 
2013-01-27 04:17:04 PM  

stiletto_the_wise: THE GREAT NAME: It's not a way of redistributing wealth. Working creates wealth.

That explains why bricklayers are the wealthiest people on Earth and Kim Kardashian and other idle socialites are starving in the gutter.


KK is rich because lots of bricklayers choose to give her some of their wealth. You can't stop them doing that and still call it a free country. This is just a case of you being butthurt that others with freedom don't make the choices you think they should.
 
2013-01-27 04:20:17 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: udhq: Except the social safety net is not "altruistic redistribution."

Except... yes it is.

It is exactly what it is called: "Social Security".

You idiot. When they call it that, they're trying to make it sound like an insurance policy, that's all.

It's there to protect the fabric of society from the ill effects of widespread poverty, not to feed the hungry and house the homeless because it's the right thing to do.

And nowhere in the law does it state that utilizing that safety net means sacrificing ones' civil liberties.

But paying for it may. By the way, you seem to be saying you would not help the poor if it were not for your fear of civil unrest. You're obvious a cold empty shell of a man, dead inside.


Ok, I'll bite: please site where in the law it states that one must sacrifice one's civil liberties in order to utilize government services.

To address your second...ummm..."point"...do I think the poor deserve our charity? Sure. I give money to charity when I can and spend a few days a month at the soup kitchen. But that's a personal decision. Our government is not a charity and should not be treated as such. It is there to enforce the rule of law, and to enact our values as a society.

In that spirit, so-called "welfare" from the government exists for 2 reasons. 1, it's smart, effective, and and efficient public safety policy. And 2, we, as a society have decided that it's morally wrong to force ANYONE in need to rely on the mere charity of the well-off for their survival. In a word, we have decided that charity is a personal virtue, but as social policy, it is the exact opposite of justice.
 
2013-01-27 04:20:47 PM  

stiletto_the_wise: THE GREAT NAME: But paying for it may. By the way, you seem to be saying you would not help the poor if it were not for your fear of civil unrest. You're obvious a cold empty shell of a man, dead inside.

Says the person whose position is that his tax dollars helping the poor sacrifices his civil liberties.


It does. I want the poor to be helped, and am willing to accept the sacrifice to a reasonable degree. But I won't accept the BS leftists spread about it.
 
2013-01-27 04:24:37 PM  

udhq: In that spirit, so-called "welfare" from the government exists for 2 reasons. 1, it's smart, effective, and and efficient public safety policy. And 2, we, as a society have decided that it's morally wrong to force ANYONE in need to rely on the mere charity of the well-off for their survival. In a word, we have decided that charity is a personal virtue, but as social policy, it is the exact opposite of justice.


"We" decided no such thing. Who do you think you are speaking for? You and other people who think the government is smart, effective and efficient?
 
2013-01-27 04:24:59 PM  
Stick around, Amerika, it is coming your way soon.

In Amerika, we spend enough on poverty assistance to hire every poor person at good wages, but the money all goes to bureaucrats. English parasites suck on the system---Amerikan parasites are the system.

Just for good measure, we also paid enough to a handful of billionaires to "--fight the recession---" to hire every unemployed person in the USSA with $650 billion left over.

All I can say is, enjoy it while it lasts. Half the country figures there is no need to work everything will be provided---the other half figures, why work, the parasites will just take it anyway.

Good luck when the sh*t hits the fan, which it surely will do in time,
 
2013-01-27 04:44:33 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: udhq: In that spirit, so-called "welfare" from the government exists for 2 reasons. 1, it's smart, effective, and and efficient public safety policy. And 2, we, as a society have decided that it's morally wrong to force ANYONE in need to rely on the mere charity of the well-off for their survival. In a word, we have decided that charity is a personal virtue, but as social policy, it is the exact opposite of justice.

"We" decided no such thing. Who do you think you are speaking for? You and other people who think the government is smart, effective and efficient?


I'm speaking for the people who understand that in a democracy, the government is a reflection of the society that elected it.

Show me someone complaining about the competence of his government, and I'll you and incompetent voter.
 
2013-01-27 04:47:32 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: KK is rich because lots of bricklayers choose to give her some of their wealth. You can't stop them doing that and still call it a free country. This is just a case of you being butthurt that others with freedom don't make the choices you think they should.


What in the world are you talking about? Now you're simply not making any sense. Socialites and the idle rich are wealthy because they live on the dole--the only difference is it comes from their (also idle) family and not the government.

In a sense, it doesn't matter if welfare comes from the government or "nepotistically" from rich parents--it all inevitably comes from the rest of us suckers. Just as a dollar gets funneled from your tax bill to the poor, dollars are getting funneled from your labor to the rich and other idle aristocrats on the "wealth dole". This may have been your point about all wealth coming from work, and if it was, I take back my previous retort. But your comment failed to recognize that there are two money funnels at play, with both of them redistributing wealth to people not working. One small one going to folks on benefits, and one giant one going to the already wealthy business owners, who then choose who the beneficiaries are. I really don't see much of a difference is besides the fact that when it gets redistributed up to the rich it tends to stay concentrated there.
 
2013-01-27 04:51:25 PM  

stiletto_the_wise: You're outraged that you're paying for some slacker's cigarettes and beer, but not that your paying for someone's luxury yacht or private island.


You realize an excluded middle perspective isn't mandatory, even on Fark? It's OK to be outraged by both, I suggest even essential ...
 
2013-01-27 05:07:58 PM  

Zasteva: Do you think that it's okay to set children up to fail because of the circumstances of their birth?


The 'circumstances of their birth' are setting them up, not me.
 
2013-01-27 05:13:30 PM  

udhq: You obviously feel that you have some sort of intrinsic entitlement to unilaterally divide poor people into those who are deserving, and those who are not deserving


en·ti·tle·ment
/enˈtītlmənt/
Noun
The fact of having a right to something.

I think, as you put it, poor people can be divided into those who are deserving, and those who are not deserving. I don't think that's something one needs a 'right' to do, however. Does one need a right to appreciate beauty? Does one need a right to make a scientific discovery?
 
2013-01-27 05:17:44 PM  

Sum Dum Gai: fredklein: That's poor people logic- buy a portable method of communication... then leave it in one place.

A portable method of communication left in one place that is still cheaper than a non-portable method of communication that has to be left in one place.


[citation needed].
 
2013-01-27 05:33:21 PM  

fredklein: Zasteva: Do you think that it's okay to set children up to fail because of the circumstances of their birth?

The 'circumstances of their birth' are setting them up, not me.


Shame. I thought you'd find some way to excuse your lack of compassion for others, and you didn't prove me wrong.

I've got better things to do this Sunday afternoon than try to instruct you on how to be a decent human being. I hope that if you ever find yourself in bad circumstances the people around you will show you the compassion you don't currently feel for others.
 
2013-01-27 05:40:06 PM  

Zasteva: Shame. I thought you'd find some way to excuse your lack of compassion for others, and you didn't prove me wrong.


Why have compassion for those who take advantage of the system?

I've got better things to do this Sunday afternoon than try to instruct you on how to be a decent human being.

...which includes giving money to people who don't deserve it, I guess.

I hope that if you ever find yourself in bad circumstances the people around you will show you the compassion you don't currently feel for others.
I hope they show me the exact compassion I have... for people who actually need help, and don't take advantage of the system.
 
2013-01-27 05:51:27 PM  

fredklein: ...which includes giving money to people who don't deserve it, I guess.


Again, so much talk about who DESERVES what, and not a peep about all your money that was taken to finance the lavish lifestyles of idly wealthy socialites and well-heeled business owners...
 
2013-01-27 06:03:57 PM  

fredklein: Zasteva: Shame. I thought you'd find some way to excuse your lack of compassion for others, and you didn't prove me wrong.

Why have compassion for those who take advantage of the system?


Explain to me how a child can possibly "take advantage of the system"?
 
2013-01-27 06:05:48 PM  

udhq: THE GREAT NAME: udhq: In that spirit, so-called "welfare" from the government exists for 2 reasons. 1, it's smart, effective, and and efficient public safety policy. And 2, we, as a society have decided that it's morally wrong to force ANYONE in need to rely on the mere charity of the well-off for their survival. In a word, we have decided that charity is a personal virtue, but as social policy, it is the exact opposite of justice.

"We" decided no such thing. Who do you think you are speaking for? You and other people who think the government is smart, effective and efficient?

I'm speaking for the people who understand that in a democracy, the government is a reflection of the society that elected it.

Show me someone complaining about the competence of his government, and I'll you and incompetent voter.


So you're saying I should agree with your big-government statist politics... or I'm a bad voter? You sound like you fear democracy.
 
2013-01-27 06:06:09 PM  
fredklein:

Oh, and just because you don't see it on your W2 doesn't mean it's not happening. The profits from your labor are taken from you and funneled up to the ownership class as regularly as they are funneled to those less fortunate through taxes. This wealth redistribution (to the rich) is as voluntary as your paying taxes. By the very nature of employment, you are being paid less than the value that you deliver to whatever company you work for, and that withheld difference is redistributed directly into the pockets of "investors" and other people who do not work for it.

But somehow you're silent about how deserving these people are of what's rightfully yours.
 
2013-01-27 06:12:06 PM  

stiletto_the_wise: THE GREAT NAME: KK is rich because lots of bricklayers choose to give her some of their wealth. You can't stop them doing that and still call it a free country. This is just a case of you being butthurt that others with freedom don't make the choices you think they should.

What in the world are you talking about? Now you're simply not making any sense. Socialites and the idle rich are wealthy because they live on the dole--the only difference is it comes from their (also idle) family and not the government.

In a sense, it doesn't matter if welfare comes from the government or "nepotistically" from rich parents--it all inevitably comes from the rest of us suckers.


I'll have to stop you there. If I build a table why you just proselytise on fark, then I can leave that table to my children. My child now has wealth yours does not, even though nothing "came from" you or your child.

If you think that owning wealth is necessarily theft then you are a sucker, because those that seek power can exploit your sense of justice.
 
2013-01-27 06:17:17 PM  

fredklein: I hope they show me the exact compassion I have... for people who actually need help, and don't take advantage of the system.


All I can say is that you must be a man of absolutely unimpeachable moral character if you feel you're qualified to decide which is which.
 
2013-01-27 06:18:13 PM  

BigBooper: farkeruk: BigBooper: One of their points is that they would be worse off working than sitting home on their asses. Unfortunately, that's true in many cases. Instead of encouraging people to work, our system actually encourages people not to work. Lets take a single mom. If she doesn't work, she gets free housing, food stamps, and health care lets say $2,000 a month in benefits. If she takes a $10.00 part time job she will take home around $600-700 dollars a month, and lose every penny of her benefits. Why the fark would she choose to work?

In the UK it's not so much that they'd be worse off (the benefits system stops that), it's that there is a benefit withdrawal rate that is the equivalent of a 75-85% tax rate. Someone on the £7/hr minimum wage will end up about £10 better off for a day's work after tax and loss of benefits. Take off say £3/day for bus etc, and you're left with very little for taking 8 hours of crap rather than spending it with your family.

Over here in the U.S. we have people like the family man who lost his $40,000 a year job, and did odd jobs for cash while looking for a new job. His problem is that he reported his $100 a week that he was making mowing lawns and the like. So of course they took away every penny of his unemployment insurance payments.

The biggest problem that we have in our system is that over here we punish those who want to get out and work, while we reward people who are dishonest and find ways to game the system.

Another example is my situation. I got hurt at work. Not just a little hurt, but a serious spinal cord injury that left me temporarily paralyzed, and in the hospital for nearly a month. While I wasn't working, I earning nearly $600 a week for work comp disability. For the last six months, I've put every last bit of energy into my recovery. I've worked through pain unlike anything that I've ever known. All so I can get back my life, and get back to work. So now that I'm back to twenty hours a week of work, I get a ...




This, except my spinal cord injury was car accident. And despite it being degenerative, and involving chronic pain (I was assessed by our notoriously difficult guild lines for disability as never able to work, or category 4), I work part time, which I push to nearly full time, despite coming home in agony, spending weekends in bed recovering, and having to work from home often. And we don't make a lot more than the pension (still get partial pension as part time wage). Husband does kids and house and any care I need, so he is full time family. But I am doing what I can, so I can look my kids in the eyes. And if I have to stop, I did my best. I don't judge anyone honestly on benefits, they are (in Australia) nowhere near luxury levels, but I do wonder what can be done for generational unemployment. Here, single parents have to work once child starts school. But child care is obscene and eats into small wages, so that's almost unsustainable. It's hard, and there is abuse on all sides, including the poverty it traps people into, and the despair. I do know disabled people want more opportunities to work, and am joining the board of a group working towards that. Yeah, copious free time stuff;) gotta push while I can!
 
2013-01-27 06:26:35 PM  
I notice in this thread that udhq and stiletto seem not to respect the concept of personal freedom. They don't think voters should be able to question the beneficiaries of government redistribution. That voters are bad voters if they distrust government. That people who buy things from businesses are being exploited. That people do not have the right to live in their country of birth, or to enjoy the fruits of their labour. That there is injustice inherent in a person choosing to create something. That people would only support helping the poor if intimidated into doing so. And they lie about their charitable donations.

These people are extreme authoritarian-totalitarians. They literally fear the freedom of others to choose their own destiny. I feel sorry for udhq and stiletto, they live in a world made up only of reflections of their own egos. What an empty life.
 
2013-01-27 06:29:04 PM  

fredklein: [citation needed].


Depending on your phone usage (both in terms of minutes used and how those split local/long distance), cell phones can be much cheaper than land lines. The cheapest possible land line in my area is $30/month after taxes & fees (unlimited local calls, 30 minutes long distance free). A prepaid cell phone can be had for as little as $10 per month for 100 minutes of either local or long distance.
 
2013-01-27 06:41:57 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: I notice in this thread that udhq and stiletto seem not to respect the concept of personal freedom. They don't think voters should be able to question the beneficiaries of government redistribution. That voters are bad voters if they distrust government. That people who buy things from businesses are being exploited. That people do not have the right to live in their country of birth, or to enjoy the fruits of their labour. That there is injustice inherent in a person choosing to create something. That people would only support helping the poor if intimidated into doing so. And they lie about their charitable donations.

These people are extreme authoritarian-totalitarians. They literally fear the freedom of others to choose their own destiny. I feel sorry for udhq and stiletto, they live in a world made up only of reflections of their own egos. What an empty life.


***yawn***

Hey, it's the old "You're not really free unless you're free to starve to death or die of an easily treatable disease" trope.

Look, I know you're British, and I don't know how things are over there, but here in the US, we spend more on creating favorable aberrations in our tax code than we do on appropriations. If you look at the ledger of our federal government, about 52% of it goes to tax breaks, cuts and loopholes. Only about 48% of our spending actually goes to spending.

So please, explain to me why the money that goes to give food and medicine to the undeserving poors is "altruistic redistribution", while the majority of our spending, which goes largely to corporations and the wealthy, is not?

Or, you can just be honest and admit what we're all suspecting: that you're really just an actor here to research your next role as a villain in a Charles Dickens play.
 
2013-01-27 06:42:56 PM  

Coco LaFemme: I've thoroughly enjoyed the number of people who quoted me, believing I somehow was saying that welfare in this country ISN'T abused.  I was saying that the abuse that happens to the welfare system in the UK is worse than the abuse that happens to the welfare system here.  You know, like saying, "You think it's bad here?  Check out what's going on over there."  That's not the same as saying the welfare system in the United States is not gamed by anyone.

Jesus Christ, people.


I think the point we're trying to make is that we've got the exact same situation going on over here. Not every State (yet), just the ones that have the most out- of- control budgets and the highest taxes.
We all know that this example doesn't represent the majority of cases over there or here, but they do exist. This problem will continue to grow until we stop subsidizing it. After all, why would anybody want to work if it makes more financial sense to sit around?
 
2013-01-27 06:44:48 PM  

MyRandomName: Arthur Jumbles: This is wrong and should be addressed. However, corporations take more in government handouts then all the welfare queens combine. Lets go after them first and then figure out what to do about the welfare cheats.

The us spent over 1 trillion in means tested hand outs last year.

Stop farking lying.


English, motherfarker. Do you speak it?
 
2013-01-27 06:46:36 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: I notice in this thread that udhq and stiletto


I can do that too.

THE GREAT NAME and fredklein

Clearly the few ultra-rich at the very top have successfully programmed you, through propaganda pieces like this article, to channel your sense of self-righteousness against the least fortunate, and to excuse them as they redistribute the wealth of the world into their own pockets.
 
2013-01-27 06:49:08 PM  

udhq: THE GREAT NAME: I notice in this thread that udhq and stiletto seem not to respect the concept of personal freedom. They don't think voters should be able to question the beneficiaries of government redistribution. That voters are bad voters if they distrust government. That people who buy things from businesses are being exploited. That people do not have the right to live in their country of birth, or to enjoy the fruits of their labour. That there is injustice inherent in a person choosing to create something. That people would only support helping the poor if intimidated into doing so. And they lie about their charitable donations.

These people are extreme authoritarian-totalitarians. They literally fear the freedom of others to choose their own destiny. I feel sorry for udhq and stiletto, they live in a world made up only of reflections of their own egos. What an empty life.

***yawn***

Hey, it's the old "You're not really free unless you're free to starve to death or die of an easily treatable disease" trope.

Which is actually true.

Look, I know you're British, and I don't know how things are over there, but here in the US, we spend more on creating favorable aberrations in our tax code than we do on appropriations. If you look at the ledger of our federal government, about 52% of it goes to tax breaks, cuts and loopholes. Only about 48% of our spending actually goes to spending.

Only a socialist sees tax breaks as a form of spending. This is because a socialist sees the state as owner of everything, and any amount not taxed as a gift from the state. Which is ridiculous, because the state does not generate the wealth.

So please, explain to me why the money that goes to give food and medicine to the undeserving poors is "altruistic redistribution", while the majority of our spending, which goes largely to corporations and the wealthy, is not?

Question based on false premise.

Or, you can just be honest and admit what we're all suspecting: that you're really just an actor here to research your next role as a villain in a Charles Dickens play.

...and you seem to be using Fark to test out the script for your planned sequel to Animal Farm.
 
2013-01-27 06:52:30 PM  

stiletto_the_wise: THE GREAT NAME: I notice in this thread that udhq and stiletto

I can do that too.

THE GREAT NAME and fredklein

Clearly the few ultra-rich at the very top have successfully programmed you, through propaganda pieces like this article, to channel your sense of self-righteousness against the least fortunate, and to excuse them as they redistribute the wealth of the world into their own pockets.


Actually around about now, tche ultra rich, in the form of Al Gore and the rest of the Club of Rome, are trying to program me into believing in Climate Change. It is not working. But I bet it worked on you didn't it.

Now, climate change really is a direct redistribution from poor to rich. And you you don't mention it.
 
2013-01-27 06:57:37 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: Only a socialist sees tax breaks as a form of spending. This is because a socialist sees blah blah blah blah blah.


I love how you use that word as if it's an insult.
 
2013-01-27 06:59:26 PM  

stiletto_the_wise: THE GREAT NAME: Only a socialist sees tax breaks as a form of spending. This is because a socialist sees blah blah blah blah blah.

I love how you use that word as if it's an insult.


I love how you quietly avoid nailing your colours to any particular mast.
 
2013-01-27 07:03:55 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: stiletto_the_wise: THE GREAT NAME: Only a socialist sees tax breaks as a form of spending. This is because a socialist sees blah blah blah blah blah.

I love how you use that word as if it's an insult.

I love how you quietly avoid nailing your colours to any particular mast.


fasttrack.hk
 
2013-01-27 07:11:24 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: stiletto_the_wise: THE GREAT NAME: I notice in this thread that udhq and stiletto

I can do that too.

THE GREAT NAME and fredklein

Clearly the few ultra-rich at the very top have successfully programmed you, through propaganda pieces like this article, to channel your sense of self-righteousness against the least fortunate, and to excuse them as they redistribute the wealth of the world into their own pockets.

Actually around about now, tche ultra rich, in the form of Al Gore and the rest of the Club of Rome, are trying to program me into believing in Climate Change. It is not working. But I bet it worked on you didn't it.

Now, climate change really is a direct redistribution from poor to rich. And you you don't mention it.


Ok, I was going to write out an answer to your "For some reason that I won't explain, tax breaks don't count" face-palmer, but I see that you've gone full retard, so we're done here.
 
2013-01-27 07:14:51 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: Actually around about now, tche ultra rich, in the form of Al Gore and the rest of the Club of Rome, are trying to program me into believing in Climate Change. It is not working. But I bet it worked on you didn't it.


Why is it these always end up being the same people? They have the same contempt for the environment as they do for the poor, and no bank bailout, superstorm, record-setting wealth disparity or temperature is going to convince them otherwise.
 
2013-01-27 07:18:42 PM  

stiletto_the_wise: fredklein: ...which includes giving money to people who don't deserve it, I guess.

Again, so much talk about who DESERVES what, and not a peep about all your money that was taken to finance the lavish lifestyles of idly wealthy socialites and well-heeled business owners...


Yup. because this thread is about... lets see... Cute jobless couple claim £17,680 a year in benefits, don't even bother looking for work because it would leave them worse off: "Gina looked up escorting and saw you can make £110 an hour, but we decided we wouldn't go down that route".

Find a thread about "the lavish lifestyles of idly wealthy socialites and well-heeled business owners", and see what I have to say there.
 
2013-01-27 07:22:22 PM  

Zasteva: fredklein: Zasteva: Shame. I thought you'd find some way to excuse your lack of compassion for others, and you didn't prove me wrong.

Why have compassion for those who take advantage of the system?

Explain to me how a child can possibly "take advantage of the system"?


The same way anyone else can.
 
2013-01-27 07:23:44 PM  

stiletto_the_wise: fredklein:

Oh, and just because you don't see it on your W2 doesn't mean it's not happening. The profits from your labor are taken from you and funneled up to the ownership class as regularly as they are funneled to those less fortunate through taxes. This wealth redistribution (to the rich) is as voluntary as your paying taxes. By the very nature of employment, you are being paid less than the value that you deliver to whatever company you work for, and that withheld difference is redistributed directly into the pockets of "investors" and other people who do not work for it.

But somehow you're silent about how deserving these people are of what's rightfully yours.


BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS THREAD IS ABOUT. This thread is about people who cheat welfare.

Sheesh.
 
2013-01-27 07:24:41 PM  

udhq: fredklein: I hope they show me the exact compassion I have... for people who actually need help, and don't take advantage of the system.

All I can say is that you must be a man of absolutely unimpeachable moral character if you feel you're qualified to decide which is which.


Pretty much. I don't lie, cheat, or steal, which (to be quite frank) puts me pretty high up the list.
 
2013-01-27 07:28:12 PM  

fredklein: stiletto_the_wise: fredklein:

Oh, and just because you don't see it on your W2 doesn't mean it's not happening. The profits from your labor are taken from you and funneled up to the ownership class as regularly as they are funneled to those less fortunate through taxes. This wealth redistribution (to the rich) is as voluntary as your paying taxes. By the very nature of employment, you are being paid less than the value that you deliver to whatever company you work for, and that withheld difference is redistributed directly into the pockets of "investors" and other people who do not work for it.

But somehow you're silent about how deserving these people are of what's rightfully yours.

BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS THREAD IS ABOUT. This thread is about people who cheat welfare.

Sheesh.


Ok, since you seem to think it's an actual problem, please enlighten us all: how many people actually cheat welfare?
 
2013-01-27 07:28:47 PM  

Sum Dum Gai: fredklein: [citation needed].

Depending on your phone usage (both in terms of minutes used and how those split local/long distance), cell phones can be much cheaper than land lines. The cheapest possible land line in my area is $30/month after taxes & fees (unlimited local calls, 30 minutes long distance free). A prepaid cell phone can be had for as little as $10 per month for 100 minutes of either local or long distance.



Anecdotal evidence? And incomplete at that. Where's the cost of the cell phone itself? and, how far will 100 minutes a month go when spread among, say, 4 roommates? 25 min/month each, or about 5/6 of a minute per day. For their primary form of communication while actively looking for work?

Yeeeeeah, right.
 
2013-01-27 07:29:37 PM  

fredklein: udhq: fredklein: I hope they show me the exact compassion I have... for people who actually need help, and don't take advantage of the system.

All I can say is that you must be a man of absolutely unimpeachable moral character if you feel you're qualified to decide which is which.

Pretty much. I don't lie, cheat, or steal, which (to be quite frank) puts me pretty high up the list.


Ok, clearly my sarcasm detector's broken.

Carry on.
 
2013-01-27 07:30:02 PM  

stiletto_the_wise: Clearly the few ultra-rich at the very top have successfully programmed you, through propaganda pieces like this article, to channel your sense of self-righteousness against the least fortunate, and to excuse them as they redistribute the wealth of the world into their own pockets.


Oh, I don't excuse them. But that's a discussion for a different thread. THIS THREAD is discussing welfare cheats.

Stay on topic.
 
2013-01-27 07:32:41 PM  

udhq: Ok, since you seem to think it's an actual problem, please enlighten us all: how many people actually cheat welfare?


I don't have to be able to lay an egg to smell a bad one. And I don't have to answer questions like that. Even ONE person cheating is a problem. And I'm pretty sure there's more than one.
 
2013-01-27 07:55:39 PM  

Southern100: jtown: Wolf892: Seems a solution might be to not grant the dole to individuals who are not physically disabled, or are not mentally incapacitated...If you are physically and mentally able to work, even shat jobs like McDonald's, then get out there and work. Life is suffering, get busy.
This would reduce stories like this and perhaps reduce the burden on the dole system...
Or perhaps government sponsered homes should be dorm style...just one apartment building with two families per suite, this would ensure that either you are desperate for a home or encourage you to better yourself as soon as possible.

Except shiat jobs like McD's don't pay enough for a 2 bedroom apartment and all the expenses that come along with kids. A better solution would be to require work but don't cut off benefits entirely when they get a job. Reduce the benefits by the amount of money they get paid.

The trouble is that we've created a system that is incapable of making that sort of adjustment to benefits. It's not possible to say, "You made $1234.56 at your McJob this month so your benefit check will be reduced by that amount." There are half a dozen agencies (if not more), each with their own regulations and bureaucracy. Many of them are either/or scenarios where they either qualify for benefits or they don't qualify. There's no "you qualify for 30%". The whole damn system is out of order!

A 1:1 reduction isn't worth it - if you're still only going to make the same amount of money working instead of not working, then why work at all?

IE., if someone makes $2000 on government assistance, and then gets a job at McDonalds for $1,000 a month and they still get the other $1,000 a month from government assistance, that's still the same $2000 a month. They can sit on their ass at home and get the $2000 a month for doing nothing.


In my scenario, the only way to get assistance is to work (or be mentally and/or physically incapable of working). Even if it's old-school Soviet style stuff like cutting the courthouse lawn with scissors. No workee, no checkee. You can hit the bricks and your kids go to an orphanarium.
 
2013-01-27 07:56:09 PM  

fredklein: I don't have to be able to lay an egg to smell a bad one.


He just knows it in his gut. No evidence will ever convince him otherwise. And better a thousand go hungry than one undeserving mouth tasting a morsel!
*yawn*
Just say "I've got mine, fark you." and be done with it. That's all your argument will boil down to.
 
2013-01-27 08:16:34 PM  

jtown: In my scenario, the only way to get assistance is to work (or be mentally and/or physically incapable of working). Even if it's old-school Soviet style stuff like cutting the courthouse lawn with scissors. No workee, no checkee. You can hit the bricks and your kids go to an orphanarium.



Well, I, for one, am grateful that I live in America, rather than your Soviet-style feudal serfdom!
 
2013-01-27 08:18:04 PM  

fredklein: Anecdotal evidence? And incomplete at that. Where's the cost of the cell phone itself?


Pretty insignificant in the long run - AT&T has cell phones that work with their prepaid plans for as little as $18. You'd pay around $8 for the cheapest corded phone, so it's really just an added $10; the cell phone pays for itself in under a month.

and, how far will 100 minutes a month go when spread among, say, 4 roommates? 25 min/month each, or about 5/6 of a minute per day. For their primary form of communication while actively looking for work?

Again, that depends on usage. If you're making a lot of local calls for long durations, a land line makes sense. Still, you can get 300 minutes / month for the cost of a land line, and if you have four people looking for work, they're likely doing a lot of long distance calling (my last job search, about three years ago, saw me apply for positions in about 15 states), so the unlimited local calling isn't necessarily a great reason to get a land line for a job hunt, especially when I didn't have three roommates at that time.

I also found I wasn't really using the phone much - most of my time spent communicating with prospective employers was online, and most phone calls (apart from a 40 minute phone interview) were pretty brief.
 
2013-01-27 08:21:30 PM  

Sergeant Grumbles: Just say "I've got mine, fark you." and be done with it. That's all your argument will boil down to.


"I got mine, go get yours instead of taking mine".

How's that?
 
2013-01-27 08:41:10 PM  

fredklein: Sergeant Grumbles: Just say "I've got mine, fark you." and be done with it. That's all your argument will boil down to.

"I got mine, go get yours instead of taking mine".

How's that?


You're doing it wrong.
 
2013-01-27 09:02:34 PM  
So as the discussion winds down, nobody is willing to own these kids? Fark it. I'll do it. Here's the reality: They actually *are* trapped.
Not only do they get paid more to sit around than they do to go out and work, but they are actually *punished* for trying.
I know about this because I was there once myself. This isn't a system designed to keep people from falling through the cracks, but rather a system designed to trap people in dependency. That way their votes are secure.

I happened to make it out because I had marketable skills (no thanks to them), but it wasn't easy. Most of the people I knew back then are dead and gone.
These days I biatch online about the system. Not because "I'm rich and so fark you", but because it's not what you folks who haven't actually *lived* it think it is.
You think you're supporting a good cause that keeps people from slipping through the cracks, but in reality you're supporting a a morally bankrupt system that traps people into a cycle of dependency that's just as bad as drug addiction.
Link
 
2013-01-27 09:08:21 PM  

GoSlash27: This isn't a system designed to keep people from falling through the cracks, but rather a system designed to trap people in dependency. That way their votes are secure.


As methods of buying votes go, this is so over-expensive as to be a complete work of fiction. It would be easier for the pols to do their job and actually make people *want* them in power for good reason, than to buy their votes in this manner.
 
2013-01-27 09:29:41 PM  

gweilo8888: GoSlash27: This isn't a system designed to keep people from falling through the cracks, but rather a system designed to trap people in dependency. That way their votes are secure.

As methods of buying votes go, this is so over-expensive as to be a complete work of fiction. It would be easier for the pols to do their job and actually make people *want* them in power for good reason, than to buy their votes in this manner.


Nobody runs cost analyses when they're not responsible for the spending. It *is* happening and this is why. I know you want to believe that you're supporting something good and egalitarian, but you're not. And if you ever live that existence, you will soon come to realize what I mean.
 
2013-01-27 09:33:31 PM  

GoSlash27: So as the discussion winds down, nobody is willing to own these kids? Fark it. I'll do it. Here's the reality: They actually *are* trapped.
Not only do they get paid more to sit around than they do to go out and work, but they are actually *punished* for trying.
I know about this because I was there once myself. This isn't a system designed to keep people from falling through the cracks, but rather a system designed to trap people in dependency. That way their votes are secure.

I happened to make it out because I had marketable skills (no thanks to them), but it wasn't easy. Most of the people I knew back then are dead and gone.
These days I biatch online about the system. Not because "I'm rich and so fark you", but because it's not what you folks who haven't actually *lived* it think it is.
You think you're supporting a good cause that keeps people from slipping through the cracks, but in reality you're supporting a a morally bankrupt system that traps people into a cycle of dependency that's just as bad as drug addiction.
Link


I don't disagree with you that we can and need to do more to help people to be able to stand on their own 2 feet.

Unfortunately, what I hear from conservatives is not "Let's teach the man to fish," but rather "Let's take his fish, that'll teach him!"
 
2013-01-27 09:45:40 PM  

GoSlash27: Here's the reality: They actually *are* trapped.
Not only do they get paid more to sit around than they do to go out and work, but they are actually *punished* for trying.


I agree so far.

This isn't a system designed to keep people from falling through the cracks, but rather a system designed to trap people in dependency. That way their votes are secure.

Here is where I would disagree. I don't think the current system is "designed" to trap people. It's a consequence of having such a hodgepodge of safety nets, all administered by different agencies at different levels of government and with no coordinated goals nor overarching vision.

Ideally, every dollar earned should reduce benefits by less than than one dollar (and certainly never more than one dollar). Plus, there needs to be some consideration for the fact that holding a job often increases expenses (i.e. transportation, day care, etc.) and these should be offset by some additional benefits to help ease the transition to working.
 
2013-01-27 09:47:21 PM  

fredklein: Sergeant Grumbles: Just say "I've got mine, fark you." and be done with it. That's all your argument will boil down to.

"I got mine, go get yours instead of taking mine".

How's that?


You do realize that it stops being your money once you give it to the government, right? Unless you're handing money directly to welfare cheats, they're not actually getting any of "your" money, so you can stop pretending to be a victim now.
 
2013-01-27 10:01:52 PM  

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: You do realize that it stops being your money once you give it to the government, right? Unless you're handing money directly to welfare cheats, they're not actually getting any of "your" money, so you can stop pretending to be a victim now.


To be fair, all money is inextricably tied to the government. It's not like a piece of paper with "100" written on it has some sort of intrinsic value. It's just a scorecard printed by a bank that we're all convinced is worth something.

If you hate taxes so much, let's move to a system where nobody pays it, but the government simply prints out enough each year to pay the bills and everyone gets hit with inflation. Same shiat, different toilet.
 
2013-01-27 10:10:14 PM  
ahhh...SOCIALISM!
 
2013-01-27 11:22:22 PM  

GoSlash27: Nobody runs cost analyses when they're not responsible for the spending. It *is* happening and this is why. I know you want to believe that you're supporting something good and egalitarian, but you're not. And if you ever live that existence, you will soon come to realize what I mean.


Loosen the tinfoil, buddy. You're starting to turn a funny color.
 
2013-01-28 12:53:20 AM  
LibertyHiller:

LiberalConservative: Er... in my unemployed experiences (including right now), 20 hours a week of min wage work will net you more than unemployment payments (Australia). This may vary elsewhere due to minimum wage rates and size of welfare payments. Is a balance i guess. If corporations are not paying enough to provide incentive to work I would expect government to impose increases to minimum wage; its in their best interest to do so since reducing welfare claims helps government budgets.

Here in the People's Republic of San Francisco, minimum wage is $10.55; California UI benefits max out at $450/wk. Do the math.

We also found over the last five years of generational-high unemployment that employers aren't eager to hire former cubicle rats to sling fries for minimum wage. "Suitable work" cuts both ways.

We're almost at a point in the First World where work as we know it simply isn't a reasonable expectation for most of the adult population. If I don't live to see it, most of you reading this will.


Yeah, then sounds like the minimum wage to UI benefits is out of balance. Fix it. If not personally, then vote in fically responsible governments that will rebalance rather than increase handouts. My previous suggestion would also help. Requiring longterm unemployed to perform community or volunteer work to receive welfare is a good way to ensure they are contributing to society in exchange for their tax-funded welfare benefits. Unemployed people who want to work will do this willingly anyhow and the welfare cheats who desire to do nothing will be foiled. This approach will also slow down or prevent your prediction or "work as we know it... isnt a reasonable expectation for most of the adult population". We are no where near that yet by the way; last time I checked unemployment in America is not yet approaching 50% (is 7.8% as of December 2012). There is time to rebalance, but voters have to want reform more than they want more money for the poor poor people.
 
2013-01-28 01:11:25 AM  

LostGuy: LiberalConservative: LostGuy: LiberalConservative: A SOLUTION. Long-term unemployed are required to log a minimum number of hours of community service in order to receive their welfare payments. Ta-da! Suddenly they must work either way, and contribute to society either way. This was done in Australia (blessed Howard by memory) and out came the bleeding heart libtards saying its disgustingly unfair.

I'd say that far enough as long as you made the trust fund kiddies and the people (under 60) who live on investments alone also do community service. I mean if we are talking about the moral imperative to work it should apply to all classes.

That's just... strange. If someone earns enough from investments to support themselves they are not a burden on welfare and those that pay taxes, so there is no problem here.
You just want to punish rich people for the sake of it? Most older rich people often do volunteer work on their own volition anyhow, its boring to do nothing.

People who live off of investments are still living off others while performing no useful labor themselves. Most working people are paying part of their income to tax and part to interest. You end up with pretty much the same thing. Except occasionally the welfare recipients improve their lot and start working. A rich parasite is a parasite forever. If you don't see how the idle rich are moochers just as the idle poor, the whole reality of economics will forever be hidden from you.


Wow, you seem to hate rich people so much you just make up stuff? Just wow. "The reality of economics will forever be hidden from you"... pretty special from someone who doesnt seem to understand: 1) People who live off investments are not parasiting. Those investments are taxed which means that the rich person is actually contributing to the country. Therefore they are not mooching as you seem to think. Additionally most people who live off investments also do other unpaid work because it is boring to do nothing. 2) Welfare recipients who are not working (or volunteering) are the ones not contributin to the country. They are a net drain on a country, or in your words "a parasite". Lumping those two into the same parasite/moocher basket is just stupid (and perhaps self-delusional).
To prevent welfare recipients being a "parasite" they could be required to perform volunteer/community work in order to receive their payments. That way they are contributing and may build skills and experience that will help them get off of welfare payments.
 
2013-01-28 06:19:43 AM  

Clash City Farker: wtom - there is plenty of fresh water to go around. This planet's surface is 70% water.


Yes - but the key is going to be who has access to it, and who doesn't - that is what will start the water wars. Will the average american donate a few hundred bucks each to pay for desalinization plants for north africa?

Doom, I tells ya, DOOOOOM!
 
2013-01-28 07:04:14 AM  

LiberalConservative: LostGuy: LiberalConservative: LostGuy: LiberalConservative: A SOLUTION. Long-term unemployed are required to log a minimum number of hours of community service in order to receive their welfare payments. Ta-da! Suddenly they must work either way, and contribute to society either way. This was done in Australia (blessed Howard by memory) and out came the bleeding heart libtards saying its disgustingly unfair.

I'd say that far enough as long as you made the trust fund kiddies and the people (under 60) who live on investments alone also do community service. I mean if we are talking about the moral imperative to work it should apply to all classes.

That's just... strange. If someone earns enough from investments to support themselves they are not a burden on welfare and those that pay taxes, so there is no problem here.
You just want to punish rich people for the sake of it? Most older rich people often do volunteer work on their own volition anyhow, its boring to do nothing.

People who live off of investments are still living off others while performing no useful labor themselves. Most working people are paying part of their income to tax and part to interest. You end up with pretty much the same thing. Except occasionally the welfare recipients improve their lot and start working. A rich parasite is a parasite forever. If you don't see how the idle rich are moochers just as the idle poor, the whole reality of economics will forever be hidden from you.

Wow, you seem to hate rich people so much you just make up stuff? Just wow. "The reality of economics will forever be hidden from you"... pretty special from someone who doesnt seem to understand: 1) People who live off investments are not parasiting. Those investments are taxed which means that the rich person is actually contributing to the country. Therefore they are not mooching as you seem to think. Additionally most people who live off investments also do other unpaid work because it is boring to do nothing. 2 ...


I don't hate the rich. There just playing the hand they're dealt. To me, a parasite is someone who gains wealth without work whether they pay tax or not. After all, that tax they are paying is just part of the money they're extracting from working people. Let me give you a small island hypothetical and see if it makes things clear. Let's say my granddad takes an AK-47 and clears off a small tropical island of all it's natives, making it his island. Then he passes that island down to me. Then some industrious fellow Bob comes along and decides my Island will be perfect for his pineapple plantation. I say, "Fine Bob, but it's my island so I get half of your income." So Bob works hard all day out in the fields and I build a nice house using half of his money and watch old Star Treks all day. One day, I'm out walking around the island when I see one of the natives my grandfather must have missed. Not being a fighter like my grandfather, I decide not to kill the native and give him some of my extra stuff so he doesn't want to kill me. So now Bob, the native, and I are all living off of Bob's hard work. I'm rich, the native is still pretty poor, Bob ain't doing bad either but he earned it. Aren't I the biggest moocher in this story? I mean the native is mooching off Bob too, but not as much as I am. Does my grandfather's AK massacre really give me the right to half Bob's stuff?

Oh and BTW, there are plenty of folks on food stamps doing volunteer work. If you think being rich and unemployed is boring, try being poor and unemployed and without kids. You'll do anything to get out of the house.
 
2013-01-28 08:41:32 AM  

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: You do realize that it stops being your money once you give it to the government, right?


And once you hand a beggar $5 "to buy food because I'm starving", it becomes his money, and you can't get mad if he rushes off to the liquor store to get a bottle of hooch? Bullshiat. The money was given for one specific purpose, and then used for completely different one.

Look at it this way- If a company charges you for "tax" and then doesn't actually use that to pay the government, then it is FRAUD.
 
2013-01-28 08:43:43 AM  

LiberalConservative: 1) People who live off investments are not parasiting. Those investments are taxed which means that the rich person is actually contributing to the country. Therefore they are not mooching as you seem to think.


Not to mention hat those investments are invested in... something. Something useful is being done with that money.
 
2013-01-28 08:49:55 AM  

LostGuy: Let's say my granddad takes an AK-47 and clears off a small tropical island of all it's natives, making it his island. Then he passes that island down to me. Then some industrious fellow Bob comes along and decides my Island will be perfect for his pineapple plantation. I say, "Fine Bob, but it's my island so I get half of your income." So Bob works hard all day out in the fields and I build a nice house using half of his money and watch old Star Treks all day. One day, I'm out walking around the island when I see one of the natives my grandfather must have missed. Not being a fighter like my grandfather, I decide not to kill the native and give him some of my extra stuff so he doesn't want to kill me. So now Bob, the native, and I are all living off of Bob's hard work. I'm rich, the native is still pretty poor, Bob ain't doing bad either but he earned it. Aren't I the biggest moocher in this story?


Um, you're not a moocher at all- you are renting your island to Bob, in exchange for half his profits. How is that "mooching"? I mean, maybe the rate you are charging is a little high (or too low), but that's between you and Bob, and none of my concern.
 
2013-01-28 10:14:23 AM  

fredklein: Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: You do realize that it stops being your money once you give it to the government, right?

And once you hand a beggar $5 "to buy food because I'm starving", it becomes his money, and you can't get mad if he rushes off to the liquor store to get a bottle of hooch? Bullshiat. The money was given for one specific purpose, and then used for completely different one.

Look at it this way- If a company charges you for "tax" and then doesn't actually use that to pay the government, then it is FRAUD.


It's only fraud if they fail to pay the government entirely. It's not fraud if they take your money that they charged for "tax", then use money they got somewhere else to pay their taxes. Like it or not, money stops being yours when you give it to someone else and you don't get to decide what other people are allowed to spend their money on.

But I can tell that you feel pretty strongly about this, so I will make you a deal. You get to try and control how other people spend the money you've given them as long as anyone who gives you money gets to tell you what to do with it. Be sure to let your employer's payroll department know that you'll be submitting your monthly budget to them for approval.
 
2013-01-28 10:16:46 AM  

fredklein: Not to mention hat those investments are invested in... something. Something useful is being done with that money.


It's so adorable that you believe that.
 
2013-01-28 10:25:38 AM  

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: It's only fraud if they fail to pay the government entirely. It's not fraud if they take your money that they charged for "tax", then use money they got somewhere else to pay their taxes.


Yes, Money is fungible. The point is, if they charge me $.10 in "tax", they better pay the government $.10, else it's fraud.

Like it or not, money stops being yours when you give it to someone else and you don't get to decide what other people are allowed to spend their money on.

But I can (or should) be able to decide IF I GIVE THEM ANY MONEY to begin with. And if they mis-use the money I give them, then I DON'T WANT TO GIVE THEM MORE.

But I can tell that you feel pretty strongly about this, so I will make you a deal. You get to try and control how other people spend the money you've given them as long as anyone who gives you money gets to tell you what to do with it. Be sure to let your employer's payroll department know that you'll be submitting your monthly budget to them for approval.

Ohh, so close. They don't "give" me money- I EARN the money. Unlike those on the dole.
 
2013-01-28 10:27:13 AM  

I created this alt just for this thread: fredklein: Not to mention hat those investments are invested in... something. Something useful is being done with that money.

It's so adorable that you believe that.


You have an example of an investment that doesn't accomplish something useful?
 
2013-01-28 10:37:56 AM  

fredklein: Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: It's only fraud if they fail to pay the government entirely. It's not fraud if they take your money that they charged for "tax", then use money they got somewhere else to pay their taxes.

Yes, Money is fungible. The point is, if they charge me $.10 in "tax", they better pay the government $.10, else it's fraud.

Like it or not, money stops being yours when you give it to someone else and you don't get to decide what other people are allowed to spend their money on.

But I can (or should) be able to decide IF I GIVE THEM ANY MONEY to begin with. And if they mis-use the money I give them, then I DON'T WANT TO GIVE THEM MORE.

But I can tell that you feel pretty strongly about this, so I will make you a deal. You get to try and control how other people spend the money you've given them as long as anyone who gives you money gets to tell you what to do with it. Be sure to let your employer's payroll department know that you'll be submitting your monthly budget to them for approval.

Ohh, so close. They don't "give" me money- I EARN the money. Unlike those on the dole.


That's entirely irrelevant to the fact that your money stops being your money once it's transferred to someone else. If you want to play the victim and be a whiny biatch for the rest of your life, that's your prerogative, but don't expect the rest of us to listen to you blubbering about what other people are doing with "your" money. It's not your money anymore, so shut the fark up about it.
 
2013-01-28 10:58:30 AM  

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: That's entirely irrelevant to the fact that your money stops being your money once it's transferred to someone else. If you want to play the victim and be a whiny biatch for the rest of your life, that's your prerogative, but don't expect the rest of us to listen to you blubbering about what other people are doing with "your" money. It's not your money anymore, so shut the fark up about it.


Not that guy, but:
Er... no. That tax money I am paying goes to the government which serves me, the voter. As a voter, what government does with my tax payments IS my damn business. If my government takes my taxes and gives a portion of it to unemployed people that have no intention of seeking employment... I have every right to complain/biatch/whine/blubber, and ask for changes to that system.
 
2013-01-28 11:11:09 AM  

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: That's entirely irrelevant to the fact that your money stops being your money once it's transferred to someone else.


Yes, it does. However, I should have the choice to give it or not. If the person I give it to is mis-using it, I should be able to stop giving them money.

If you want to play the victim and be a whiny biatch for the rest of your life, that's your prerogative, but don't expect the rest of us to listen to you blubbering about what other people are doing with "your" money. It's not your money anymore, so shut the fark up about it.

Someone runs up to you, yanks your wallet of of your pocket, and tosses the cash in it up in the air. A bunch of homeless people grab the bills as they flutter to the ground. You say:

A) "Hey, that's my money!"

B) "It's not my money anymore, so I'll shut the fark up"
 
2013-01-28 11:25:51 AM  

LiberalConservative: Requiring longterm unemployed to perform community or volunteer work to receive welfare is a good way to ensure they are contributing to society in exchange for their tax-funded welfare benefits.


One other thing I forgot to mention: In America, unemployment compensation is taxable as ordinary income. So maybe they're already contributing, hmmmm?

Interestingly, I saw in the morning's news that almost half of Americans with college degrees are in jobs for which they're overqualified. USAT via Detroit Free Press Meanwhile, we keep pushing kids to get college degrees, despite the strong likelihood that they'll never be able to get the jobs for which they educated themselves -- often at great expense.

The fact is that even after the Boomers die off in another 20-30years, we're going to have a hard time finding enough work for everyone who wants it. Putting people to work painting courthouses with toothbrushes isn't going to teach them the dignity of accomplishment, or the joy of earning their own way. It's just punitive, vicious and mean-spirited.
 
2013-01-28 11:32:52 AM  

Ishkur: Lsherm: Ishkur: Liberals are always afraid that innocent people might be unfairly punished.
Conservatives are always afraid that innocent people might be unfairly rewarded.

Liberals always cheerlead a system that lets you take.
Conservatives always cheerlead a system that lets you earn.


Yeah, see, the difference between my statement and your statement is mine was non-partisan and true while yours was partisan douchebaggery and false.


No, yours was douchey, partisan, and false.  If it were true, then conservatives wouldn't give more to charity than liberals.
 
2013-01-28 01:35:10 PM  

Lsherm: conservatives wouldn't give more to charity than liberals.


I would love to see a study done in regard to that whole thing that compared volunteering of time in addition to monetary donations. I have a sneaking suspicion that you'd find that liberals are more likely to donate their time and effort to charitable causes than conservatives are.
 
2013-01-28 01:42:53 PM  

Lsherm: No, yours was douchey, partisan, and false


In what way? It's a dual-positive assertion. There's nothing partisan about it. It's basically an observation at how the two political ideologies look at fairness, how one almost looks at it from an optimist perspective and the other from a pessimist perspective. Neither is more correct than the other. They're too perspectives of the same issue.

Your assertion, on the other hand, was unsubstantiated horseshiat that saw fit to champion Conservative ideology over Liberal ideology. It's partisan hackery and wrong.

Lsherm: If it were true, then conservatives wouldn't give more to charity than liberals.


First of all, I don't think that's even true. You're going to have to provide a citation. Secondly, I didn't say anything about charity.

I said Conservatives just really don't like it when someone, somewhere, gets something for free, and that's true. No one else complains about entitlements, benefits, handouts and welfare more than them.
 
2013-01-28 04:15:26 PM  

stiletto_the_wise: fredklein: Sergeant Grumbles: Seriously, owning something you could buy on a month's pay at a minimum wage job is not luxury.

Then I demand you buy me a 50" tv. After all, according to you , it's a necessity, and I don't currently have one.

Oh, and a (cheap) car.

Oh, and pay my rent.

Oh, and buy all my food- light on the veggies, heavy on the steak and lobster, okay?

You can't say no- all these things are necessities, not luxuries, Right?

Then go on benefits (or Welfare in the US) if you think it's so great! Do it! Live the life of luxury you're so tired of paying for others to live!


I live in low-income rent controlled housing, and I am one of the few in the entire building who works. The rest have been on the dole for years if not decades. They have cars, TVs, smokes, and more cash floating through their fingers than they have any right to, and more than I have ever had running through mine. While I could go on the dole as much as they do, as I have various issues which could put me on SSDI and other programs, I choose to work for my bread. I have my father to thank for that, as he and my mother worked every day for the last 40 years to provide for their children. Their work ethic is what I aspire to, and what is also causing me to go back to school with 2 jobs, so as to create a lasting solution to my own personal finance problem.

/Only one on my floor who works
//Thanks mom & dad
 
2013-01-28 05:50:43 PM  

Trance354: stiletto_the_wise: fredklein: Sergeant Grumbles: Seriously, owning something you could buy on a month's pay at a minimum wage job is not luxury.

Then I demand you buy me a 50" tv. After all, according to you , it's a necessity, and I don't currently have one.

Oh, and a (cheap) car.

Oh, and pay my rent.

Oh, and buy all my food- light on the veggies, heavy on the steak and lobster, okay?

You can't say no- all these things are necessities, not luxuries, Right?

Then go on benefits (or Welfare in the US) if you think it's so great! Do it! Live the life of luxury you're so tired of paying for others to live!

I live in low-income rent controlled housing, and I am one of the few in the entire building who works. The rest have been on the dole for years if not decades. They have cars, TVs, smokes, and more cash floating through their fingers than they have any right to, and more than I have ever had running through mine. While I could go on the dole as much as they do, as I have various issues which could put me on SSDI and other programs, I choose to work for my bread. I have my father to thank for that, as he and my mother worked every day for the last 40 years to provide for their children. Their work ethic is what I aspire to, and what is also causing me to go back to school with 2 jobs, so as to create a lasting solution to my own personal finance problem.

/Only one on my floor who works
//Thanks mom & dad


We're the last of a dying breed.
 
2013-01-29 03:57:05 AM  

Teufelaffe: Lsherm: conservatives wouldn't give more to charity than liberals.

I would love to see a study done in regard to that whole thing that compared volunteering of time in addition to monetary donations. I have a sneaking suspicion that you'd find that liberals are more likely to donate their time and effort to charitable causes than conservatives are.


Libs are just more likely to lie and claim they give. Liberals just want to look morally superior, so that they have a stronger debating position to demand what they want, for themselves. Their sense of self-interest actually exceeds the boundary of honesty.
 
2013-01-29 04:04:17 AM  

Ishkur: Lsherm: Ishkur: Liberals are always afraid that innocent people might be unfairly punished.
Conservatives are always afraid that innocent people might be unfairly rewarded.

Liberals always cheerlead a system that lets you take.
Conservatives always cheerlead a system that lets you earn.


Yeah, see, the difference between my statement and your statement is mine was non-partisan and true while yours was partisan douchebaggery and false.


I don't think yours was non-partisan. It contains a semi-hidden pop at conservatives (due to the common assumption that it is never unfair to reward the innocent). And you're wasting your time with this whole "my leftist argument is really the centre ground so you have to agree with it" rubbish. Take a position, argue from it, or go away.
 
2013-01-29 06:30:46 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: I don't think yours was non-partisan. It contains a semi-hidden pop at conservatives (due to the common assumption that it is never unfair to reward the innocent). And you're wasting your time with this whole "my leftist argument is really the centre ground so you have to agree with it" rubbish. Take a position, argue from it, or go away.


I'm Canadian. We can't help but argue both sides against each other or else it's considered rude.
 
2013-01-29 08:20:40 AM  

THE GREAT NAME: Teufelaffe: Lsherm: conservatives wouldn't give more to charity than liberals.

I would love to see a study done in regard to that whole thing that compared volunteering of time in addition to monetary donations. I have a sneaking suspicion that you'd find that liberals are more likely to donate their time and effort to charitable causes than conservatives are.

Libs are just more likely to lie and claim they give. Liberals just want to look morally superior, so that they have a stronger debating position to demand what they want, for themselves. Their sense of self-interest actually exceeds the boundary of honesty.


Yay, I get to dust this off again...

Liberals learn about conservatives by watching what they do and say.
Conservatives learn about liberals by listening to what other conservatives tell them about liberals.

You should try thinking for yourself sometime. You'd be amazed at how different the world looks when you're not seeing it through a lens of what other people want you to believe.
 
2013-01-29 03:15:52 PM  

Teufelaffe: THE GREAT NAME: Teufelaffe: Lsherm: conservatives wouldn't give more to charity than liberals.

I would love to see a study done in regard to that whole thing that compared volunteering of time in addition to monetary donations. I have a sneaking suspicion that you'd find that liberals are more likely to donate their time and effort to charitable causes than conservatives are.

Libs are just more likely to lie and claim they give. Liberals just want to look morally superior, so that they have a stronger debating position to demand what they want, for themselves. Their sense of self-interest actually exceeds the boundary of honesty.

Yay, I get to dust this off again...

Liberals learn about conservatives by watching what they do and say.
Conservatives learn about liberals by listening to what other conservatives tell them about liberals.

You should try thinking for yourself sometime. You'd be amazed at how different the world looks when you're not seeing it through a lens of what other people want you to believe.


You're semi-right.
Liberals learn about conservatives from the superficial sense of "niceness" in what they say.
Conservatives do not believe the "niceness" in what liberals say until they have considered it in the context of reality.
 
2013-01-29 03:42:07 PM  

THE GREAT NAME: Liberals learn about conservatives from the superficial sense of "niceness" in what they say.
Conservatives do not believe the "niceness" in what liberals say until they have considered it in the context of reality.


Rebuttals work better when they make sense. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
 
Displayed 376 of 376 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report