Re: Iain Duncan Smith : Thu Apr 04, 2013 12:37 pm  

Ajw71 wrote:

It's a total myth that the richest in this country don't pay their 'fair share'.

To be fair i could have worded it better, they will pay more than i do, that's for sure, i only earn 13k, but those people could AFFORD to lose a little more and still live a very comfortable life, the people who are being targeted right now are those who probably can't afford to lose any more money. I'm not including those people who smoke and drink too much in that statement though, those 2 things should be cut down on if you're running a tight ship.

Re: Iain Duncan Smith : Thu Apr 04, 2013 12:53 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

Maybe if the system wasn't so open to abuse the likes of Philpott might have actually gone out and got a job rather than have a life on benefits based on breeding increasing number of off spring?

He had a job at one time – he was in the Army. And later, he lived off the incomes of various women – income that included that earned in jobs.

It is a myth that that household was always simply on benefits and that Philpott himself was "a product" of benefits. He was no more "a product" of benefits than he was "a product" of the Army.

And feel free to offer up a single example of a single institution or system where everything work perfectly, 100% of the time. You can include private business in this too.

[John_D]

Re: Iain Duncan Smith : Thu Apr 04, 2013 1:47 pm  

Mintball wrote:

He had a job at one time – he was in the Army. And later, he lived off the incomes of various women – income that included that earned in jobs.

It is a myth that that household was always simply on benefits and that Philpott himself was "a product" of benefits. He was no more "a product" of benefits than he was "a product" of the Army.

Lord Lucan was in the army too.
A pattern is beginning to emerge. IDS should be arrested and locked away immediately for the safety of everyone.

Re: Iain Duncan Smith : Thu Apr 04, 2013 2:01 pm  

Good call, that man.

Re: Iain Duncan Smith : Thu Apr 04, 2013 2:03 pm  

The question that should be asked as a result of the Philpott case is how society deals with psychopaths – whether in work or not is irrelevant, although psychopathy may well make it less likely for someone to get/hold a job.

[DaveO]

Re: Iain Duncan Smith : Thu Apr 04, 2013 2:53 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

That's possibly because in reality, the number of "mickey takers" really is not as great as government and some sections of the media might like us to believe.

I am sure that is true.

When you look into what the government is on about it soon becomes clear this is an ideologically driven set of cuts because the amount of money being saved by them is going to be a relative pin-prick in terms of reducing the deficit.

As someone else pointed out the real big benefit bills are pensions and housing benefit and while they are reducing the latter in a pretty arbitrary manner they will still be necessarily large bills for the government.

It seems totally counter productive to put so much effort into clawing relatively small amounts of money back and causing a lot of misery at the same time when there are targets that would yield so much more revenue.

Re: Iain Duncan Smith : Thu Apr 04, 2013 4:39 pm  

DaveO wrote:

<snip>

And it's worth noting that over 80% of households in receipt of housing benefit are working households.

A huge part of the problem is the shortage of decent, affordable housing.

Re: Iain Duncan Smith : Thu Apr 04, 2013 4:47 pm  

Mintball wrote:

And it's worth noting that over 80% of households in receipt of housing benefit are working households.

A huge part of the problem is the shortage of decent, affordable housing.

As I said above, the government thinks those households should make more of an effort to earn more!

Re: Iain Duncan Smith : Thu Apr 04, 2013 5:16 pm  

Ajw71 wrote:

It's a total myth that the richest in this country don't pay their 'fair share'.

Well, it ain't the poor who move their dosh to tax havens.

Re: Iain Duncan Smith : Thu Apr 04, 2013 5:39 pm  

Dally wrote:

As I said above, the government thinks those households should make more of an effort to earn more!

Which is a load of utter poop, when many will be caught in, for instance, zero-hours contracts.