Re: Iain Duncan Smith : Thu Apr 04, 2013 5:49 pm  

I'd love to know just how many couples sit there and think: "Well we've got two kids, how can we become more wealthy? I know, lets' have another kid and get an extra £13.40 a week"

Re: Iain Duncan Smith : Fri Apr 05, 2013 10:50 am  

Dally wrote:

... As always, politicians of all persuasions are the problem.

He takes a lot of stick from a lot of people in a lot of threads, but this once - maybe just this once - Dally is absolutely correct.

There can be little doubt that the tories' constant attacks on those in most need are ideologically driven and cannot survive economic or pragmatic examination or tests of basic decency; or that the lib-dems are hand-in-glove with them while the labour party is becoming increasingly difficult to differentiate from them.

As my late mother-in-law used to say, "they all pee in the same pot".

Re: Iain Duncan Smith : Fri Apr 05, 2013 11:08 am  

LeedsBornWelshRoots wrote: He takes a lot of stick from a lot of people in a lot of threads, but this once - maybe just this once - Dally is absolutely correct. There can be little doubt that the tories' constant attacks on those in most need are ideologically driven and cannot survive economic or pragmatic examination or tests of basic decency; or that the lib-dems are hand-in-glove with them while the labour party is becoming increasingly difficult to differentiate from them. As my late mother-in-law used to say, "they all pee in the same pot". Labour started going in that direction when Blair was elected as leader and immediately scrapped Clause 4. Via Twitter earlier this week, there was some discussion going on about the preponderance of Parliamentary politicians from all parties that went to Oxford to study for a PPE. Some of the discussion focussed on how incredibly limited the philosophy part of that is. But what it means, though, is that vast numbers of politicians – and we're talking career politicians here, which is also an important factor – have studied a limited and identical course, and come out with an inevitably limited range of ideas on the subjects shoehorned into that course. And its influence in media terms is also noticeable. List.

LeedsBornWelshRoots wrote: He takes a lot of stick from a lot of people in a lot of threads, but this once - maybe just this once - Dally is absolutely correct. There can be little doubt that the tories' constant attacks on those in most need are ideologically driven and cannot survive economic or pragmatic examination or tests of basic decency; or that the lib-dems are hand-in-glove with them while the labour party is becoming increasingly difficult to differentiate from them. As my late mother-in-law used to say, "they all pee in the same pot". Labour started going in that direction when Blair was elected as leader and immediately scrapped Clause 4. Via Twitter earlier this week, there was some discussion going on about the preponderance of Parliamentary politicians from all parties that went to Oxford to study for a PPE. Some of the discussion focussed on how incredibly limited the philosophy part of that is. But what it means, though, is that vast numbers of politicians – and we're talking career politicians here, which is also an important factor – have studied a limited and identical course, and come out with an inevitably limited range of ideas on the subjects shoehorned into that course. And its influence in media terms is also noticeable. List.

Re: Iain Duncan Smith : Fri Apr 05, 2013 11:22 am  

El Barbudo wrote:

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

Interesting the 63% of taxes are paid by the richest 30% - this seems a high figure given these bods move all their dosh to tax havens?

Re: Iain Duncan Smith : Fri Apr 05, 2013 11:28 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

Interesting the 63% of taxes are paid by the richest 30% - this seems a high figure given these bods move all their dosh to tax havens?

and it's something like the top 1% pay 27% of income taxes.

Re: Iain Duncan Smith : Fri Apr 05, 2013 11:33 am  

Mintball wrote: ... vast numbers of politicians – and we're talking career politicians here, which is also an important factor – have studied a limited and identical course, and come out with an inevitably limited range of ideas on the subjects shoehorned into that course... List. That list is frightening. Another factor is that Thatcher et al's unforgivable destruction of British industry and consequent emasculation of the trades unions has reduced the input of shop-floor to parliament MPs who could at least inject some experience of real life and work experience into the debates.

Mintball wrote: ... vast numbers of politicians – and we're talking career politicians here, which is also an important factor – have studied a limited and identical course, and come out with an inevitably limited range of ideas on the subjects shoehorned into that course... List. That list is frightening. Another factor is that Thatcher et al's unforgivable destruction of British industry and consequent emasculation of the trades unions has reduced the input of shop-floor to parliament MPs who could at least inject some experience of real life and work experience into the debates.

Re: Iain Duncan Smith : Fri Apr 05, 2013 11:35 am  

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.

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.

People evolve over time - it could be argued - taking your premise he was product of his upbringing i.e. his apparent selfishness - rather than the army. It is a much reasonable assumption to make that his ability live the way did on benefits influenced his lifestyle much more than anything that happened in the army.

Yes I agree this is an extreme case - but the idea that this a one off and abuse of the system is not a regular occurence should not be ignored either. I have myself highlighted a situation within my own in-laws, they were both convicted for a second time and are wearing tags!! They have split up - he has returned to his first wife and she is pregnant again to another man!!

Re: Iain Duncan Smith : Fri Apr 05, 2013 11:37 am  

samwire wrote:

and it's something like the top 1% pay 27% of income taxes.

Why do you think that is? Could it be anything to do with them having all the f******g money perhaps?

Re: Iain Duncan Smith : Fri Apr 05, 2013 11:44 am  

samwire wrote:

and it's something like the top 1% pay 27% of income taxes.

Don't know about the stat but its a fairly equitable system thats worked fine for many, many decades if not a century or so, its also fairly well known that the richer you are the more likely you are to employ someone to handle your tax affairs for you to open up many of the tax relief schemes that mere mortals are often unaware of, again, perfectly fair and equitable and no reason to feel sorry for the top 1% of earners, indeed within that top 1% will be some who are more than happy to pay a share of their income to help those who haven't been so lucky in life.

Re: Iain Duncan Smith : Fri Apr 05, 2013 11:47 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

People evolve over time - it could be argued - taking your premise he was product of his upbringing i.e. his apparent selfishness - rather than the army. It is a much reasonable assumption to make that his ability live the way did on benefits influenced his lifestyle much more than anything that happened in the army.

Yes I agree this is an extreme case - but the idea that this a one off and abuse of the system is not a regular occurence should not be ignored either. I have myself highlighted a situation within my own in-laws, they were both convicted for a second time and are wearing tags!! They have split up - he has returned to his first wife and she is pregnant again to another man!!

Give it over. He was a psycopath with no feelings of empathy or remorse. If he'd had any brain cells he's have been running RBS. The fact he was able to claim benefits has nothing to do with burning his f****g kids to death. He didn't want the other kids back for the child benefit, he wanted them back because he thought he owned them and he was too stupid to work out a clever way of doing it.