Scroungers
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
leggedstruggle  Croydon 09 Jul 15 10.33am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 09 Jul 2015 9.30am
Quote leggedstruggle at 08 Jul 2015 4.48pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 08 Jul 2015 3.15pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 08 Jul 2015 1.32pm
Working people should be made to go round to the homes of people on benefits and give them half of their wages to save them having to go to the benefits office. Mind you, it would probably take more than one working person's wages to fund the £25,000 (equivalent of a taxable wage of £32,000) that Anjem Choudary receives from the taxation of working people. Terrorist apologist (or worse) Choudary, calls his Job Seekers Allowance, "Jihad Seeker's Allowance". (Would advise those going to his £450,000 house to wear heavy scarves, in case someone tries to cut their heads off.) Edited by leggedstruggle (08 Jul 2015 1.35pm) You mean half my pre-tax income. If you're going to scrap VAT, National Insurance, fuel duty, booze duty, stamp duty, inheritance and income Tax, and instead call it 50%, I think quite a few people would be better off. There are always cries of anguish when benefit reforms are proposed. Would you not agree that reform is required when people such as Choudary are taking the piss? No, its better that he takes the piss than other people suffer as a result of 'punishing' him. The mark of a civilized society is that it treats its treats those who disagree with it in the same way as those who support it. Countries that persecute people based on their beliefs and ideologies, are what we're arguably fighting against. So you don't think the welfare system is capable of reform then. You don't think it possible to deal with a man who openly says he is fraudulently claiming benefits and encourages others to do so without others 'suffering' - why would they? We would be 'punishing' him for benefit fraud, not his beliefs and ideologies (we should prosecute him for those under the appropriate anti-terrorism legislation.)
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| jamiemartin721 Reading 09 Jul 15 11.01am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 09 Jul 2015 10.33am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 09 Jul 2015 9.30am
Quote leggedstruggle at 08 Jul 2015 4.48pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 08 Jul 2015 3.15pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 08 Jul 2015 1.32pm
Working people should be made to go round to the homes of people on benefits and give them half of their wages to save them having to go to the benefits office. Mind you, it would probably take more than one working person's wages to fund the £25,000 (equivalent of a taxable wage of £32,000) that Anjem Choudary receives from the taxation of working people. Terrorist apologist (or worse) Choudary, calls his Job Seekers Allowance, "Jihad Seeker's Allowance". (Would advise those going to his £450,000 house to wear heavy scarves, in case someone tries to cut their heads off.) Edited by leggedstruggle (08 Jul 2015 1.35pm) You mean half my pre-tax income. If you're going to scrap VAT, National Insurance, fuel duty, booze duty, stamp duty, inheritance and income Tax, and instead call it 50%, I think quite a few people would be better off. There are always cries of anguish when benefit reforms are proposed. Would you not agree that reform is required when people such as Choudary are taking the piss? No, its better that he takes the piss than other people suffer as a result of 'punishing' him. The mark of a civilized society is that it treats its treats those who disagree with it in the same way as those who support it. Countries that persecute people based on their beliefs and ideologies, are what we're arguably fighting against. So you don't think the welfare system is capable of reform then. You don't think it possible to deal with a man who openly says he is fraudulently claiming benefits and encourages others to do so without others 'suffering' - why would they? We would be 'punishing' him for benefit fraud, not his beliefs and ideologies (we should prosecute him for those under the appropriate anti-terrorism legislation.) I think reform is a term used by the right to mean reduced, not reformed. Its a loaded term, that has nothing at all to do with reform, but entirely about reducing costs to the state. Is he committing benefit fraud, if so he should be arrested and charged. If he's within the law, then its fine. The actual costs of benefit fraud isn't really significant in terms of the costs required to crack down further. Similarly he should only face charges over beliefs and ideologies should he step outside of the much vaunted freedom of speech and expression.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| leggedstruggle Croydon 09 Jul 15 11.24am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 09 Jul 2015 11.01am
Quote leggedstruggle at 09 Jul 2015 10.33am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 09 Jul 2015 9.30am
Quote leggedstruggle at 08 Jul 2015 4.48pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 08 Jul 2015 3.15pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 08 Jul 2015 1.32pm
Working people should be made to go round to the homes of people on benefits and give them half of their wages to save them having to go to the benefits office. Mind you, it would probably take more than one working person's wages to fund the £25,000 (equivalent of a taxable wage of £32,000) that Anjem Choudary receives from the taxation of working people. Terrorist apologist (or worse) Choudary, calls his Job Seekers Allowance, "Jihad Seeker's Allowance". (Would advise those going to his £450,000 house to wear heavy scarves, in case someone tries to cut their heads off.) Edited by leggedstruggle (08 Jul 2015 1.35pm) You mean half my pre-tax income. If you're going to scrap VAT, National Insurance, fuel duty, booze duty, stamp duty, inheritance and income Tax, and instead call it 50%, I think quite a few people would be better off. There are always cries of anguish when benefit reforms are proposed. Would you not agree that reform is required when people such as Choudary are taking the piss? No, its better that he takes the piss than other people suffer as a result of 'punishing' him. The mark of a civilized society is that it treats its treats those who disagree with it in the same way as those who support it. Countries that persecute people based on their beliefs and ideologies, are what we're arguably fighting against. So you don't think the welfare system is capable of reform then. You don't think it possible to deal with a man who openly says he is fraudulently claiming benefits and encourages others to do so without others 'suffering' - why would they? We would be 'punishing' him for benefit fraud, not his beliefs and ideologies (we should prosecute him for those under the appropriate anti-terrorism legislation.) I think reform is a term used by the right to mean reduced, not reformed. Its a loaded term, that has nothing at all to do with reform, but entirely about reducing costs to the state. Is he committing benefit fraud, if so he should be arrested and charged. If he's within the law, then its fine. The actual costs of benefit fraud isn't really significant in terms of the costs required to crack down further. Similarly he should only face charges over beliefs and ideologies should he step outside of the much vaunted freedom of speech and expression. Reform has everything to do with reform. The left treats benefits as a sacred cow and would do absolutely nothing about abuses of the system. It is a laudable aim to reduce the 'cost to the state' as it is not a cost to the state, it is a cost to working people paying taxes. The scale of benefit fraud is no doubt far higher than generally accepted. The lack of a crackdown is for political reasons rather than cost. Choudary openly states that he is fraudulently claiming benefits and openly encourages terrorism. Again, he is not prosecuted for political reasons - meanwhile, an eighty-five-year-old women is handcuffed, arrested and fined for telling some people to 'go home', so much for her 'free speech'.
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 09 Jul 15 11.46am |
|
|---|---|
|
Yes, reform, but by your own stance, you clearly believe that any reform should be about reducing the cost to the state, irrespective of the actual needs of those claiming, most of whom are or have been tax payers, or are family members of tax payers and social contributors. Reform isn't the problem, its the fact that reform of social services under the current conservative and previous government has entirely been directed from the outset of reducing claims. Its not reform if the idea from the outset is 'cuts', its just cuts under a more acceptable name. As for Choudary, if he's claiming benefits illegally then he should be investigated.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 johnfirewall 09 Jul 15 12.07pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Then there's this guy £1m house, him and his wife on the sick but really should have been deported. I imagine they're probably suffering from depression as a result of having to live in this awful Western society. Have either of them been for an assessment?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| leggedstruggle Croydon 09 Jul 15 12.12pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 09 Jul 2015 11.46am
Yes, reform, but by your own stance, you clearly believe that any reform should be about reducing the cost to the state, irrespective of the actual needs of those claiming, most of whom are or have been tax payers, or are family members of tax payers and social contributors. Reform isn't the problem, its the fact that reform of social services under the current conservative and previous government has entirely been directed from the outset of reducing claims. Its not reform if the idea from the outset is 'cuts', its just cuts under a more acceptable name. As for Choudary, if he's claiming benefits illegally then he should be investigated. The reduction in cost to the taxpayer is a by-product of good management. I did not say 'irrespective of the actual needs of those claiming'. Those in true need would benefit from a reformed benefits system, as would those encouraged to work for a living rather than living on benefits. Choudary will not be investigated for similar reasons to why child rapists in Rotherham were not investigated - along with several other political considerations.
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| leggedstruggle Croydon 09 Jul 15 12.13pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 09 Jul 2015 11.46am
Yes, reform, but by your own stance, you clearly believe that any reform should be about reducing the cost to the state, irrespective of the actual needs of those claiming, most of whom are or have been tax payers, or are family members of tax payers and social contributors. Reform isn't the problem, its the fact that reform of social services under the current conservative and previous government has entirely been directed from the outset of reducing claims. Its not reform if the idea from the outset is 'cuts', its just cuts under a more acceptable name. As for Choudary, if he's claiming benefits illegally then he should be investigated. The reduction in cost to the taxpayer is a by-product of good management. I did not say 'irrespective of the actual needs of those claiming'. Those in true need would benefit from a reformed benefits system, as would those encouraged to work for a living rather than living on benefits. Choudary will not be investigated for similar reasons to why child rapists in Rotherham were not investigated - along with several other political considerations.
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 09 Jul 15 12.37pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 09 Jul 2015 11.24am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 09 Jul 2015 11.01am
Quote leggedstruggle at 09 Jul 2015 10.33am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 09 Jul 2015 9.30am
Quote leggedstruggle at 08 Jul 2015 4.48pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 08 Jul 2015 3.15pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 08 Jul 2015 1.32pm
Working people should be made to go round to the homes of people on benefits and give them half of their wages to save them having to go to the benefits office. Mind you, it would probably take more than one working person's wages to fund the £25,000 (equivalent of a taxable wage of £32,000) that Anjem Choudary receives from the taxation of working people. Terrorist apologist (or worse) Choudary, calls his Job Seekers Allowance, "Jihad Seeker's Allowance". (Would advise those going to his £450,000 house to wear heavy scarves, in case someone tries to cut their heads off.) Edited by leggedstruggle (08 Jul 2015 1.35pm) You mean half my pre-tax income. If you're going to scrap VAT, National Insurance, fuel duty, booze duty, stamp duty, inheritance and income Tax, and instead call it 50%, I think quite a few people would be better off. There are always cries of anguish when benefit reforms are proposed. Would you not agree that reform is required when people such as Choudary are taking the piss? No, its better that he takes the piss than other people suffer as a result of 'punishing' him. The mark of a civilized society is that it treats its treats those who disagree with it in the same way as those who support it. Countries that persecute people based on their beliefs and ideologies, are what we're arguably fighting against. So you don't think the welfare system is capable of reform then. You don't think it possible to deal with a man who openly says he is fraudulently claiming benefits and encourages others to do so without others 'suffering' - why would they? We would be 'punishing' him for benefit fraud, not his beliefs and ideologies (we should prosecute him for those under the appropriate anti-terrorism legislation.) I think reform is a term used by the right to mean reduced, not reformed. Its a loaded term, that has nothing at all to do with reform, but entirely about reducing costs to the state. Is he committing benefit fraud, if so he should be arrested and charged. If he's within the law, then its fine. The actual costs of benefit fraud isn't really significant in terms of the costs required to crack down further. Similarly he should only face charges over beliefs and ideologies should he step outside of the much vaunted freedom of speech and expression. Reform has everything to do with reform. The left treats benefits as a sacred cow and would do absolutely nothing about abuses of the system. It is a laudable aim to reduce the 'cost to the state' as it is not a cost to the state, it is a cost to working people paying taxes. The scale of benefit fraud is no doubt far higher than generally accepted. The lack of a crackdown is for political reasons rather than cost. Choudary openly states that he is fraudulently claiming benefits and openly encourages terrorism. Again, he is not prosecuted for political reasons - meanwhile, an eighty-five-year-old women is handcuffed, arrested and fined for telling some people to 'go home', so much for her 'free speech'.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| leggedstruggle Croydon 09 Jul 15 12.45pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote nickgusset at 09 Jul 2015 12.37pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 09 Jul 2015 11.24am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 09 Jul 2015 11.01am
Quote leggedstruggle at 09 Jul 2015 10.33am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 09 Jul 2015 9.30am
Quote leggedstruggle at 08 Jul 2015 4.48pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 08 Jul 2015 3.15pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 08 Jul 2015 1.32pm
Working people should be made to go round to the homes of people on benefits and give them half of their wages to save them having to go to the benefits office. Mind you, it would probably take more than one working person's wages to fund the £25,000 (equivalent of a taxable wage of £32,000) that Anjem Choudary receives from the taxation of working people. Terrorist apologist (or worse) Choudary, calls his Job Seekers Allowance, "Jihad Seeker's Allowance". (Would advise those going to his £450,000 house to wear heavy scarves, in case someone tries to cut their heads off.) Edited by leggedstruggle (08 Jul 2015 1.35pm) You mean half my pre-tax income. If you're going to scrap VAT, National Insurance, fuel duty, booze duty, stamp duty, inheritance and income Tax, and instead call it 50%, I think quite a few people would be better off. There are always cries of anguish when benefit reforms are proposed. Would you not agree that reform is required when people such as Choudary are taking the piss? No, its better that he takes the piss than other people suffer as a result of 'punishing' him. The mark of a civilized society is that it treats its treats those who disagree with it in the same way as those who support it. Countries that persecute people based on their beliefs and ideologies, are what we're arguably fighting against. So you don't think the welfare system is capable of reform then. You don't think it possible to deal with a man who openly says he is fraudulently claiming benefits and encourages others to do so without others 'suffering' - why would they? We would be 'punishing' him for benefit fraud, not his beliefs and ideologies (we should prosecute him for those under the appropriate anti-terrorism legislation.) I think reform is a term used by the right to mean reduced, not reformed. Its a loaded term, that has nothing at all to do with reform, but entirely about reducing costs to the state. Is he committing benefit fraud, if so he should be arrested and charged. If he's within the law, then its fine. The actual costs of benefit fraud isn't really significant in terms of the costs required to crack down further. Similarly he should only face charges over beliefs and ideologies should he step outside of the much vaunted freedom of speech and expression. Reform has everything to do with reform. The left treats benefits as a sacred cow and would do absolutely nothing about abuses of the system. It is a laudable aim to reduce the 'cost to the state' as it is not a cost to the state, it is a cost to working people paying taxes. The scale of benefit fraud is no doubt far higher than generally accepted. The lack of a crackdown is for political reasons rather than cost. Choudary openly states that he is fraudulently claiming benefits and openly encourages terrorism. Again, he is not prosecuted for political reasons - meanwhile, an eighty-five-year-old women is handcuffed, arrested and fined for telling some people to 'go home', so much for her 'free speech'.
Yes, that's where I got it from; seemed a sensible chap, why was he banned?
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 09 Jul 15 1.03pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 09 Jul 2015 12.13pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 09 Jul 2015 11.46am
Yes, reform, but by your own stance, you clearly believe that any reform should be about reducing the cost to the state, irrespective of the actual needs of those claiming, most of whom are or have been tax payers, or are family members of tax payers and social contributors. Reform isn't the problem, its the fact that reform of social services under the current conservative and previous government has entirely been directed from the outset of reducing claims. Its not reform if the idea from the outset is 'cuts', its just cuts under a more acceptable name. As for Choudary, if he's claiming benefits illegally then he should be investigated. The reduction in cost to the taxpayer is a by-product of good management. I did not say 'irrespective of the actual needs of those claiming'. Those in true need would benefit from a reformed benefits system, as would those encouraged to work for a living rather than living on benefits. Choudary will not be investigated for similar reasons to why child rapists in Rotherham were not investigated - along with several other political considerations. You do seem to have a thing for Choudary. As far as I'm aware he hasn't actually committed any crimes. I'd like to see the media actually suffocate the oxygen of publicity they seem so obcessesed with giving him. As for benefits, wife and five children, so that six of them, so less than 5k per person per year, doesn't seem that much (when you consider that will include the cost of housing).
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| leggedstruggle Croydon 09 Jul 15 1.17pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 09 Jul 2015 1.03pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 09 Jul 2015 12.13pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 09 Jul 2015 11.46am
Yes, reform, but by your own stance, you clearly believe that any reform should be about reducing the cost to the state, irrespective of the actual needs of those claiming, most of whom are or have been tax payers, or are family members of tax payers and social contributors. Reform isn't the problem, its the fact that reform of social services under the current conservative and previous government has entirely been directed from the outset of reducing claims. Its not reform if the idea from the outset is 'cuts', its just cuts under a more acceptable name. As for Choudary, if he's claiming benefits illegally then he should be investigated. The reduction in cost to the taxpayer is a by-product of good management. I did not say 'irrespective of the actual needs of those claiming'. Those in true need would benefit from a reformed benefits system, as would those encouraged to work for a living rather than living on benefits. Choudary will not be investigated for similar reasons to why child rapists in Rotherham were not investigated - along with several other political considerations. You do seem to have a thing for Choudary. As far as I'm aware he hasn't actually committed any crimes. I'd like to see the media actually suffocate the oxygen of publicity they seem so obcessesed with giving him. As for benefits, wife and five children, so that six of them, so less than 5k per person per year, doesn't seem that much (when you consider that will include the cost of housing). 'As far as you are aware' - you should become a bit more aware then and follow current affairs. £25,000 a year (£32,000 in a taxable job) would 'seem that much' to many working people with five children - many can only dream of earning that much. I expect he has few more wives tucked away as an estimated 20,000 polygamous 'marriages' exist in his 'community'.
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hoof Hearted 12 Jul 15 10.23am | |
|---|---|
|
Quote Pawson Palace at 08 Jul 2015 3.16pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 08 Jul 2015 3.12pm
Then again most welfare is in getting people back to work. After all, its called Jobseekers allowance. I wouldn't say that either welfare or subsidy of business are poorly spent or wasted. The original poster is simply being satirical presenting the concept in the same negative light that welfare is generally presented. An awful lot of the welfare budget is spent on 'getting people into work' and providing for those injured through work, have retired, are retraining etc. Its just that some people like to focus on the minority. Which is what the original poster is parodying, quite successfully. Presenting the few as the majority is the problem. There are those who abuse the tax system, and those who abuse the benefits system. The article is not a parody. It is probably the most ridiculous, ill thought out and argued piece I've read for a while which is quite an achievement. I mean the part about public transport being given subsidies almost made me laugh out loud. Who would have thought a public service received government money eh?? The sad part, is judging from the comments, that people actually believe this tripe as much as people on the other end of the spectrum believe that immigration is bad.
Aimed at ideological airheads that lap it up like Serial Thriller.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.