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.

(Telegraph)   Britain is raising the amount it spends on welfare a bit more slowly than normal. THIS IS AN OUTRAGE   (blogs.telegraph.co.uk) divider line 15
    More: Stupid, Britain, Iain Duncan Smith, immorality, welfare  
•       •       •

415 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Jul 2013 at 12:37 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



15 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-07-15 12:40:40 PM
How much did the Royals get in their cost of living increase this year again?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-07-15 12:43:08 PM
It's a good thing there isn't any sort of economic slump causing more people to be on benefits than there were before.
 
2013-07-15 12:51:03 PM
How much did the Royals get in their cost of living
increase this year again?


Probably a lot less than the American Head of State.
 
2013-07-15 12:52:00 PM
They're in an austerity-induced economic slump and their population is growing. Yes, it is an outrage. Because it's a stupid thing to do.
 
2013-07-15 12:52:41 PM
The massive hikes in welfare spending under the last government had the paradoxical effect of widening the gap between rich and poor, because they made welfare more attractive than work.

got that far and stopped. more right wing bullshiat. if the sun and the daily fail have taught us anything there are indeed louts who layabout in council housing complaining their 4 bedroom houses don't have room for a full sized mini theater BUT... well with those publications that's all there is in Britain now. that and cavs in their caravans misbehaving.
 
2013-07-15 12:55:48 PM

xane: How much did the Royals get in their cost of living
increase this year again?

Probably a lot less than the American Head of State.


To be fair, the "American Head of State" actually works for a living.
 
2013-07-15 12:58:53 PM

Alphakronik: xane: How much did the Royals get in their cost of living
increase this year again?

Probably a lot less than the American Head of State.

To be fair, the "American Head of State" actually works for a living.


Going to endless social functions, playing nice to tedious boors from around the world, appearing at the royal equivalent of supermarket openings, that would be more than work to me, it would be justifiable grounds for suicide.
 
2013-07-15 01:14:01 PM

Alphakronik: How much did the Royals get in their cost of living increase this year again?


How much does Britain make off of property that is owned by the royal family?

(hint: it's a lot)
 
2013-07-15 01:18:07 PM

Alphakronik: xane: How much did the Royals get in their cost of living
increase this year again?

Probably a lot less than the American Head of State.

To be fair, the "American Head of State" actually works for a living.


And the president only gets paid what? 1/100th of what the Brits give the royal family?
 
2013-07-15 01:19:49 PM
Well, good thing there are so many fewer people in need of assistance this year!

/grow more slowly = cut
 
2013-07-15 01:30:33 PM

Curious: The massive hikes in welfare spending under the last government had the paradoxical effect of widening the gap between rich and poor, because they made welfare more attractive than work.

got that far and stopped. more right wing bullshiat. if the sun and the daily fail have taught us anything there are indeed louts who layabout in council housing complaining their 4 bedroom houses don't have room for a full sized mini theater BUT... well with those publications that's all there is in Britain now.


Eh.... if this article was in the US I'd be more inclined to agree, but having grown up in a relatively poor part of the UK I knew several kids in my school who decided that having a baby to get to the front of the council house queue was a better plan* than doing well in school** and getting a job minimum wage job and forking out half their income on rent. I knew a couple of people who purposefully had additional children in order to get moved from a council flat into a council house*** and a few more who were in a position where employment made no economic sense as the income they would gain would be only slightly higher than the benefits they would lose and would take 40+ hours a week out of their time for a shiat job****.

Dependency on benefits is a viable***** option in the UK, much more so than in the US. A lot of the kids I knew who went down this path were raised by parents who had never worked and sometimes had to go back two or more generations to find a relative who worked. Of course a lot of those generations were <16 years....

* I suspect in hindsight most of them would probably feel it wasn't a good plan after all, but I can see why a 16 year old who felt they had minimal prospects would make that choice.
** Also trapped in a 'class' mentality where only posh people go to university and don't want to be class traitors
*** A lot of the time this can be a route out of a high crime tower block to a better area. I can see why someone who started on this path would make that choice.
**** This was a few years ago. IIRC the UK did some benefits reform since to make it more of a sliding scale.
***** Your quality of life will be shiat. It's not living, it's surviving.
 
2013-07-15 02:12:34 PM

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Alphakronik: How much did the Royals get in their cost of living increase this year again?

How much does Britain make off of property that is owned by the royal family?

(hint: it's a lot)


People who say this kind of thing amuse me.   They apparently assume that Royals are they type of people who would happily give up power and a lot of money for a steady salary and they, and their advisers, are too stupid to realize they are getting a raw deal.

They aren't.

The Civil List Act is an arrangement where the Royals give up power and income from Royal property in exchange for both a salary *AND* having to pay for large parts of the civil government that they used to have to pay for.   Any new monarch is free to reject this deal, but since running the government costs far more than the income for the royal estates, they would be bankrupted quickly.

Royals have a long history of overspending, usually on wars, and then having to give up some power in exchange for getting their debt paid off.   The Manga Carta is another example of such.
 
2013-07-15 02:21:07 PM

xane: How much did the Royals get in their cost of living
increase this year again?

Probably a lot less than the American Head of State.


Didn't the Ameican Head of State return part of his salry because of the sequester? The salary,itself, was not scheduled to change from 2012 to 2013. Or were you making a numerous reference to the way the heads of U.S. corporations seem to be sucking the rest of America dry?
 
2013-07-15 03:31:07 PM
Target Builder:  a bunch of text

my post was meant tongue in cheek but your point that there are large differences in welfare between the US and UK is noted.
 
2013-07-15 04:32:36 PM
www.thetimes.co.uk

/not amused
 
Displayed 15 of 15 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report