Here we go! | Page 1586 | Vital Football

Here we go!

Lienking said:
It isn't 37bn out of £265. It's highly likely the universal credit part of £60 billion is higher than £37 billion, though as I said I can't find any figures for it. Personally I wouldn't include pensions, but as you have it's highly likely that they are paid to people who aren't employed. I'm not sure how any of the benefits work, but presumably there will be portions of child benefit, housing benefit, disability benefit etc also paid to people not in work. Not sure if the government analyses them out though.
Click to expand...

you won't find any current figures unless you have some mates in the treasury.

not sure you actually have a point beyond you don't like benefits or you think we spend too much on them. Can we assume you want pensions cut as well since they are benefits to non employed people?
 
radfordinlondon said:
you won't find any current figures unless you have some mates in the treasury.

not sure you actually have a point beyond you don't like benefits or you think we spend too much on them. Can we assume you want pensions cut as well since they are benefits to non employed people?
Click to expand...
id give way more money to people unemployed, based on several factors, i.e they either struggle to work or are not very good at routines or are difficult to employ.
Id support them, not force them to work, and the ones who are skilled in other ways, for example maybe they are creative or nurturing and can beneft the community with thier ideas or the abilty to start a small business.
I really struggle with people who have an issue with this, or rather struggle as to why they have that thought process.
If its just finances, then that seems because said person is working for less than thier worth or of course that most working class people are. To me that suggests that the problem is low wage and inequality. not people getting a grand a month benefits. Id give them 1500
 
paz1967 said:
id give way more money to people unemployed, based on several factors, i.e they either struggle to work or are not very good at routines or are difficult to employ.
Id support them, not force them to work, and the ones who are skilled in other ways, for example maybe they are creative or nurturing and can beneft the community with thier ideas or the abilty to start a small business.
I really struggle with people who have an issue with this, or rather struggle as to why they have that thought process.
If its just finances, then that seems because said person is working for less than thier worth or of course that most working class people are. To me that suggests that the problem is low wage and inequality. not people getting a grand a month benefits. Id give them 1500
Click to expand...
For the unemployed, the core should be that we return to some kind of contributary system

UC for the unemployed is absolutely unlivable; it is staggeringly ungenerous and there is zero chance you could live on it whilst actually looking for a job. Unless you are entitled to housing and other benefits, you cannot possibly live on UC.

Under UC, I believe it more or less makes no difference whether you have ever paid into the system or not.

This is hardly a fair safety net for people who have worked and been taxed all their life. Should you get unlucky and lose your job after years of working, you should not be on abject poverty wages, forced to wait 5 weeks even for that, and then bullied into just any job, no matter how unsuitable, when given a little time you have every chance of getting a job back in your own profession and experience.

This has been one of the most shameful developments of the Cameron era. A worker is treated no better in unemployment than someone who has never bothered.

If you have worked and paid tax for 5 years, including the past two, you should have a proper living wage for a set period and freedom to find a job of your choice, not just anything out there.

Most other countries do this
 
mao tse tung said:
No, unfortunately, I am not drunk.

Rather than trying to substantiate a remark like Go woke, go broke, with actual facts you quote the Torygraph.

Sales of Bud Light in North America fell on the back of that campaign, but sales on other lines increased.

The recorded fall in overall sales in North America was 4% which was put down to an increase in prices - the increase is down to the increased cost of raw materials, hugely impacted by the Ukraine conflict.

Worldwide Sales increased by 7.7% which did not meet broker expectations but was in line with adjusted Company forecasts.

The share price fell on the back of news that further price increases will be necessary, and due to the news that they will be disposing of their 50% share in AB In Bev Efes which trades in Russia.

As good as the FT is, it is not always the goto place for Financial information; certainly not when one's Stockbroker offers a far better service
Click to expand...
that just backs up that the campaign was a fail and people moved 'logos' tho.
Im not anti gay but if something became the choice of gay people id probably avoid it right? Not just gay f course, can be kids, females, people i dont like, anythng that might take away the 'everybody' angle or doesnt aim at specifically at my tastes.
 
Strett said:
This has been a terrible result for Labour. Almost puts any GE result back in the balance; and it's been 100% Labour's own doing.

As a party, they are far more comfortable talking about allegations of Islamophobia than confronting the often ugly and threatening behaviour of pro-Palestinian demonstrators who have besieged MPs’ offices and homes and even parliament itself recently.

Galloway will be everywhere from now until the GE. News panel shows, question time, radio stations. He will be like dog shit, and he will be listened to. He will focus on the left wing and Muslim voters’ frustration with Keir Starmer’s support for Israel.
Click to expand...
its hardly suprising that pro palestinians have been up in arms about things is it?oh, bad choice of words perhaps
 
Pope John XXIII said:
For the unemployed, the core should be that we return to some kind of contributary system

UC for the unemployed is absolutely unlivable; it is staggeringly ungenerous and there is zero chance you could live on it whilst actually looking for a job. Unless you are entitled to housing and other benefits, you cannot possibly live on UC.

Under UC, I believe it more or less makes no difference whether you have ever paid into the system or not.

This is hardly a fair safety net for people who have worked and been taxed all their life. Should you get unlucky and lose your job after years of working, you should not be on abject poverty wages, forced to wait 5 weeks even for that, and then bullied into just any job, no matter how unsuitable, when given a little time you have every chance of getting a job back in your own profession and experience.

This has been one of the most shameful developments of the Cameron era. A worker is treated no better in unemployment than someone who has never bothered.

If you have worked and paid tax for 5 years, including the past two, you should have a proper living wage for a set period and freedom to find a job of your choice, not just anything out there.

Most other countries do this
Click to expand...
funny how clash when we have similar empathies on various things
 
Pope John XXIII said:
For the unemployed, the core should be that we return to some kind of contributary system

UC for the unemployed is absolutely unlivable; it is staggeringly ungenerous and there is zero chance you could live on it whilst actually looking for a job. Unless you are entitled to housing and other benefits, you cannot possibly live on UC.

Under UC, I believe it more or less makes no difference whether you have ever paid into the system or not.

This is hardly a fair safety net for people who have worked and been taxed all their life. Should you get unlucky and lose your job after years of working, you should not be on abject poverty wages, forced to wait 5 weeks even for that, and then bullied into just any job, no matter how unsuitable, when given a little time you have every chance of getting a job back in your own profession and experience.

This has been one of the most shameful developments of the Cameron era. A worker is treated no better in unemployment than someone who has never bothered.

If you have worked and paid tax for 5 years, including the past two, you should have a proper living wage for a set period and freedom to find a job of your choice, not just anything out there.

Most other countries do this
Click to expand...
In fairness the erosion of contribution based benefits goes back to the 80s. I started in what is now DWP in 94 and even then the contribution based benefit (UB) was in line with the non-contributory (IS).
 
paz1967 said:
id give way more money to people unemployed, based on several factors, i.e they either struggle to work or are not very good at routines or are difficult to employ.
Id support them, not force them to work, and the ones who are skilled in other ways, for example maybe they are creative or nurturing and can beneft the community with thier ideas or the abilty to start a small business.
I really struggle with people who have an issue with this, or rather struggle as to why they have that thought process.
If its just finances, then that seems because said person is working for less than thier worth or of course that most working class people are. To me that suggests that the problem is low wage and inequality. not people getting a grand a month benefits. Id give them 1500
Click to expand...

yes I think LK must own a stegasorus or something equally Jurassic (yes I know they were probably crustatous or other period).

It's why the idea of minimum income is gaining traction. can't see the super rich going for it tho...
 
Basha73 said:
In fairness the erosion of contribution based benefits goes back to the 80s. I started in what is now DWP in 94 and even then the contribution based benefit (UB) was in line with the non-contributory (IS).
Click to expand...

let's be honest, the system was never designed for generational unemployment and globalisation. after the breakdown in universalism in welfare it has just got more and more complicated trying to balance out various interests. targeting sounded and still sounds good, unless you understand how much more difficult and costly it is to practically implement it.
 
Pope John XXIII said:
Yes.

Just like with Afghanistan, across the whole country not enough Americans want democracy, and as a consequence they are about to lose it.

The majority of Americans want democracy. But about 30% of them don't, and another 10-20% either don't see the danger or don't care enough.

Trump is going to win and he is going to end democracy in the USA as we know it. He toyed with dictatorship, he had his Munich Putsch, he got away with it. He was constantly flying the kite during his term to see if his base would turn against him, and they lapped it up all the more.

Anyone in this country who praises Trump tells me a lot about who they are as a person and that includes a couple on here. I would never trust a person who was wholeheartedly for Trump.

And anyone who believes Trump being President and ending democracy in the USA will be anything other than absolutely catastrophic for the world and this country in particular needs to wake up
Click to expand...
And yet we have never been closer to the potential for World War 3 and a world economic depression of the likes you have never seen.....
 
Last edited:
Strett said:
Details man Pope has never been that hot on the detail so let's cut him some slack.
Click to expand...
I don't blame Pope-other than for the expectation that what he is being told by the mainstream media is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth

Lots of other headlines today -some poor bloke is being forced to paint over a muriel depicting Great Britain and Great British fish.

"They" want to destroy any sign of nationalism. Next it will be religion, then it will be your economic freedoms. Then traditional lifestyles. But yet Trump is the threat....apparently
 
Pope John XXIII said:
Because Trump spent four years encouraging, enabling and appeasing Putin

He has made half of the American political class and their base of voters into pro-Russian traitors
Click to expand...
Absolute nonsense. Democrats have been out to get the Russians for some time. Putin loves Biden . He loves dealing with the predictable. Expect the following deal if Trump is elected:- War ends on current borders (i.e eastern Ukraine annexed) , deal on security , Eu forming part of the EU, money for Ukraine to rebuild other damaged parts of the country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.