Re: Iain Duncan Smith : Fri Apr 05, 2013 11:57 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!!

I have not said that he was "a product" of the Army. But if he has to characterised as "a product" of anything, then why not the things that happened earlier in his life?

The Mail's (and now Osborne's) attempt to use this case to claim that he was "a product" of "Welfare UK" is no stupider than if I was claiming that he was "a product" of the Army.

They are using the deaths of six children for political gain.

And the argument remains that, if he was "a product" of benefits, then what were Shipman, West, Sutfcliffe and countless others the 'products' of?

If it is reasonable to suggest that the benefits system is, in some way, to blame for the deaths of those children, then it just as reasonable to say that long distance lorry driving is responsible for Peter Sutcliffe and his murders. But that would be idiocy, wouldn't it? And everyone knows that it would be idiocy.

So why, in this one, very particular case, does it suddenly become the great question? The answer is quite simple and obvious – ideology.

And nobody has said that there are no system abusers out there, but that is a different issue, which is not helped by conflating it with this crime and this psychopathic individual, who was psychopathic and violent well before he was receiving benefits.

Re: Iain Duncan Smith : Fri Apr 05, 2013 12:16 pm  

LeedsBornWelshRoots wrote:

That list is frightening...

Isn't it?

It really does make you understand why there is such a paucity of diverse opinion on economic matters in particular.

LeedsBornWelshRoots wrote:

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.

Agreed.

Re: Iain Duncan Smith : Fri Apr 05, 2013 1:13 pm  

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?

Where did I say they ALL move ALL their dosh?
I didn't.
I was responding to a dimwit who said that it was all a total myth anyway, when it clearly isn't.

But, in response to stats you provide ... wouldn't you expect that richest pay more anyway? ... isn't that how it's supposed to work?

Re: Iain Duncan Smith : Fri Apr 05, 2013 1:22 pm  

Ajw71 wrote:

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

Is it? Do you have figures to support that view?

Re: Iain Duncan Smith : Fri Apr 05, 2013 1:58 pm  

LeedsBornWelshRoots wrote: 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. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/22/manufacturing_figures/

LeedsBornWelshRoots wrote: 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. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/22/manufacturing_figures/

[DaveO]

Re: Iain Duncan Smith : Fri Apr 05, 2013 2:19 pm  

samwire wrote: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/22/manufacturing_figures/ Are you agreeing or disagreeing with LeedsBornWelshRoots? The fact the article says: "...it is also gobsmackingly obvious that fewer people are employed in manufacturing than in the past." would tend to support the notion that this will mean less people coming through from the shop floor as MP's. Which was the the point LeedsBornWelshRoots was making. I suspect you posted that link as some sort of rebuttal of the point being made. Be interesting to see what you have to say now given it does the exact opposite.

samwire wrote: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/22/manufacturing_figures/ Are you agreeing or disagreeing with LeedsBornWelshRoots? The fact the article says: "...it is also gobsmackingly obvious that fewer people are employed in manufacturing than in the past." would tend to support the notion that this will mean less people coming through from the shop floor as MP's. Which was the the point LeedsBornWelshRoots was making. I suspect you posted that link as some sort of rebuttal of the point being made. Be interesting to see what you have to say now given it does the exact opposite.

Re: Iain Duncan Smith : Fri Apr 05, 2013 2:32 pm  

samwire wrote: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/22/manufacturing_figures/ Very interesting. AS you posted it as a reply to WelshRoots, perhaps you could explain what it has to do with his comment about trade unions or Thatcher's wanton-ness or anything else that he mentioned? Or did you miss the point? Again.

samwire wrote: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/22/manufacturing_figures/ Very interesting. AS you posted it as a reply to WelshRoots, perhaps you could explain what it has to do with his comment about trade unions or Thatcher's wanton-ness or anything else that he mentioned? Or did you miss the point? Again.

Re: Iain Duncan Smith : Fri Apr 05, 2013 5:07 pm  

El Barbudo wrote:

Where did I say they ALL move ALL their dosh?
I didn't.
I was responding to a dimwit who said that it was all a total myth anyway, when it clearly isn't.

But, in response to stats you provide ... wouldn't you expect that richest pay more anyway? ... isn't that how it's supposed to work?

Well it clearly IS the case.

You seem the extreme socialist type so 'fair share' for you is probably 100% but in terms of normal people's perception of fair you are way off.

I shouldn't feed trolls but I couldn't help it in this case.

Re: Iain Duncan Smith : Fri Apr 05, 2013 9:48 pm  

Ajw71 wrote:

Well it clearly IS the case.

You seem the extreme socialist type so 'fair share' for you is probably 100% but in terms of normal people's perception of fair you are way off.

I shouldn't feed trolls but I couldn't help it in this case.

What is a "normal person's" perception of fair?

Re: Iain Duncan Smith : Sat Apr 06, 2013 8:15 am  

El Barbudo wrote:

Where did I say they ALL move ALL their dosh?
I didn't.
I was responding to a dimwit who said that it was all a total myth anyway, when it clearly isn't.

But, in response to stats you provide ... wouldn't you expect that richest pay more anyway? ... isn't that how it's supposed to work?

You were suggesting the rich move much of their money to avoid paying taxes - government figures don't support your argument something you have to accept.

How much do you expect the better off to pay - why should they pay at higher rates 20% of £1m a year is still a significantly higher contribution than 20% of £20k? Why should I pay 2k a year in council tax when somebody pay < half that? Do I get my bins emptied more often, do the police come quicker if I dial 999, if I have a fire will the fire brigade come topless for the wife to admire?