Benefit system to get a 10.1% pay increase

[dsr]

You are going full Rowls here dsr

You know its an unfair comparison

Why did you raise it then? Literally two posts ago you introduce a new comparison, entirely irrelevant to the debate, about millionaires and billionaires; and then you have a pop at me because your comparison is unfair?

For once I agree with you. When having a discussion about valid deductions from a small business startup and individual tax affairs, introducing millionaires and billionaires to the discussion is unfair and irrelevant. Whether that means you're going "full Rowls" when you introduced it, you can judge for yourself.

[Lancasterclaret]

Why did you raise it then? Literally two posts ago you introduce a new comparison, entirely irrelevant to the debate, about millionaires and billionaires; and then you have a pop at me because your comparison is unfair?

For once I agree with you. When having a discussion about valid deductions from a small business startup and individual tax affairs, introducing millionaires and billionaires to the discussion is unfair and irrelevant. Whether that means you're going "full Rowls" when you introduced it, you can judge for yourself.

I'm glad that you agree with me, as you'd have to be ideologically crazed not to

Whether people like it or not, for society to function, the richer have to pay more than the poorest, and we need to remember that

[dsr]

I'm glad that you agree with me, as you'd have to be ideologically crazed not to

Ignore. Goodbye.

[Jellybean]

The rich do pay a lot more than the poorest!

[Jakubclaret]

Don't flatter yourself, your views aren't deliberately controversial, they are simply ill thought out and stupid.

On the now defunct "Ashley Barnes Arrested" thread on Thursday, May 20th last year you were of the opinion and stated quite categorically that "Some people are better/safer drivers whilst under the influence of drink/ drugs because it makes nervous drivers relaxed and less likely to make mistakes/accidents."

You did go onto to wonder whether this was provable or not. I think our current legislation would suggest not, wouldn't you?
So, again, no persecution - you wish! - just normal folk questioning your version of events.

I won't be detracting from the AB thread on to this 1 because it's quite clear & logical to any sane minded individual what's historically been stated by you. Regarding the drugs & driving it's something that's never been experimented certainly not on a sizeable scale anyhow because the risk assessments with regard to running pilot schemes. Personally I'd rather be on the road with people induced by low levels of tranquillisers than people nervous & panic driven making mistakes.

[Lancasterclaret]

The rich do pay a lot more than the poorest!

Yes, but its all about what they can afford isn't it?

We all benefit from a strong state, though I don't expect everyone to agree with that!

[Nori1958]

The rich do pay a lot more than the poorest!

Always have done

Cannot see much to complain about so far in the statement, though Iam sure many will

[Rileybobs]

Regarding the drugs & driving it's something that's never been experimented certainly not on a sizeable scale anyhow because the risk assessments with regard to running pilot schemes.

I really don't think that is the reason the government haven't looked into encouraging drug driving.

[evensteadiereddie]

I won't be detracting from the AB thread on to this 1 because it's quite clear & logical to any sane minded individual what's historically been stated by you. Regarding the drugs & driving it's something that's never been experimented certainly not on a sizeable scale anyhow because the risk assessments with regard to running pilot schemes. Personally I'd rather be on the road with people induced by low levels of tranquillisers than people nervous & panic driven making mistakes.

So, what's "historically been stated" by me has flummoxed you so much you have to make stuff up?

Your drink driving nonsense and the subsequent lying about it shows precisely how far out of your depth you are on here.

Anyway, back on topic, what's your stance on disability benefits?
Too much? Too little? About right?

[Big Vinny K]

“Risk assessments with regard to running pilot scheme”

You couldn't make stuff up like this. The problem is he does.
I’ve rarely seen anyone who uses so many terms completely out of context.

Just break down what he has said here and it’s a perfect example of why hardly anything he posts makes any sense whatsoever.

“Drugs and driving never been experimented on a sizeable scale; : by definition you would not be experimenting if it was on a sizeable scale”

“Because of the risk assessments with regard to running pilot schemes” : let’s put to one side the batshit crazy idea being the reason it’s never been tried and pretend that this was actually a worthwhile thing to roll out !! So why would the risk assessment of running the pilot scheme stop you ? That’s literally the point of the risk assessment to mitigate the risk !!

It’s not just the extreme right wing views but it’s also the complete lack of ability to put together a coherent sentence.

[TheFamilyCat]

I won't be detracting from the AB thread on to this 1 because it's quite clear & logical to any sane minded individual what's historically been stated by you. Regarding the drugs & driving it's something that's never been experimented certainly not on a sizeable scale anyhow because the risk assessments with regard to running pilot schemes. Personally I'd rather be on the road with people induced by low levels of tranquillisers than people nervous & panic driven making mistakes.

What happens when a driver on tranquillisers has an accident and kills a third party? Members of the dead person's family get to vote on their punishment, presumably?

[Lancasterclaret]

It is very funny, but all he is doing is trying to get the thread killed

[CoolClaret]

It is very funny, but all he is doing is trying to get the thread killed

I still can’t work out if he’s serious or a master troll.

The painkiller driving stuff is absolutely legendary

[evensteadiereddie]

It is very funny, but all he is doing is trying to get the thread killed

Again.

[atlantalad]

We all benefit from a strong state, though I don't expect everyone to agree with that!

Depends what you mean by, or define as "a strong state." Is a strong state interventionist?

[Bosscat]

I won't be detracting from the AB thread on to this 1 because it's quite clear & logical to any sane minded individual what's historically been stated by you. Regarding the drugs & driving it's something that's never been experimented certainly not on a sizeable scale anyhow because the risk assessments with regard to running pilot schemes. Personally I'd rather be on the road with people induced by low levels of tranquillisers than people nervous & panic driven making mistakes.

I do hope a member of your family is NEVER killed when involved in an accident caused by someone under the influence of drink/drugs however mild or whatever ... I know of several families who were bereaved in such circumstances ... try and tell them your views you idiot.

[Lancasterclaret]

Depends what you mean by, or define as "a strong state." Is a strong state interventionist?

Thinking more of working infrastructure, working healthcare, working support services, working support for those who are struggling

Costs though, but are we at that stage where we all realise and accept that?

[elwaclaret]

I’ve avoided this thread because it was clear that this was always going to descend into a left/right argument. However, I would just like to point out that for most families we are talking of a rise that provides a family, 1 family meal. 10% addition to benefits is less than 2% in wages in monetary terms.

The only people who benefit from recession are speculators and moneylenders… and a lot of people are all too keen to criticise social support until they find its their turn to need its help. The whole market turned against Truss because even those involved recognised trying to jump start the economy exactly because Trickle down economics has caused every Recession in the last hundred years… because if you strip the poor, eventually it means you have to move up the chain. If no one can buy things recession can only go one way, once people cannot feed themselves other costs go through the roof exacerbating the need to raise tax much higher (think the 70’s, falsely put at Labour’s door), against those still enjoying the privileges others have already lost (some a long time ago). Next step strikes…. We nearly have a General strike by any other name now… and then agitation and calls for reform…

Short termism (not just in Britain) is what has created this mess, surviving to the next election is not the ay to run a country. I have never been a fan of proportional representation but something radical now seems to be the only answer to parties that themselves are now so far divided within themselves to agree anything, therefore; they are not fit to rule for the common good.

[evensteadiereddie]

You're not wrong.

[atlantalad]

Lancaster: Fair enough - the normal things any government placed in power should do to support its citizens. Not sure what you are including in 'working support services". That can mean anything unless you set boundaries. Similarly, with the phrase "working support for those who are struggling ". Guess that depends what you mean by struggling- a very broad term.

For one I disagreed with the introduction of the working tax credit. Why should raised revenues be used to subsides low paid workers? That policy just opened the flood gates for a low pay economy wherein those on working tax credits effectively became pseudo public sector workers in the private sector. It's bit of a jeopardy, tax the low payed then give them it back as a "credit' ! It also encourages industry to pay low wages knowing workers will eventually see some of their wages increased via the eventual corporations taxes paid. ( This is akin to the conversation above extolling the virtues of individuals maximising their legal tax allowances. Sounds a total nonsense of a taxation system. May be it was introduced to increase the public sector workforce - more particularly DWP employees.

Anyway, given the title of the thread I'm personally happy enough that the triple lock was maintained to offset some of the cost of living ( noting though tax thresholds are going to last until 2028 - so again pay Peter take off Paul).

[Jakubclaret]

I do hope a member of your family is NEVER killed when involved in an accident caused by someone under the influence of drink/drugs however mild or whatever ... I know of several families who were bereaved in such circumstances ... try and tell them your views you idiot.

You can easily spin that the other way I do hope a member of your family is NEVER killed by somebody with a mental health illness whilst driving, you idiot!

[Big Vinny K]

What happens when a driver on tranquillisers has an accident and kills a third party? Members of the dead person's family get to vote on their punishment, presumably?

The circle of life
Or circle of death depending on the punishment Judge Jakub and the window cleaner decide to dish out

[Bosscat]

You can easily spin that the other way I do hope a member of your family is NEVER killed by somebody with a mental health illness whilst driving, you idiot!

Have you ever wondered why they put on prescription drug labels "DO NOT DRIVE OR OPERATE MACHINERY WHILST TAKING THIS MEDICATION"

Obviously not ... now jog on you fool

[Bigbopper]

The UK full (maximum) state pension is £185 per week/£9,000 per year. It's not a living wage but it's more then 'bugger all'. Sensible people must surely know that they need a second pension from their employers or privately. Most people will have this (I do).

I don't know what benefits if any can be claimed by those living only on a state pension.

Yes , those living on a state pension alone can claim certain benefits. Those that decided to set aside a part of their income to provide an extra private pension are taxed on it. This tax goes some way to provide benefits to those that p----- up a wall all their disposable income. Makes you wonder who made the best decision.

[Jakubclaret]

Have you ever wondered why they put on prescription drug labels "DO NOT DRIVE OR OPERATE MACHINERY WHILST TAKING THIS MEDICATION"

Obviously not ... now jog on you fool

On prescription drugs yes I'm suggesting low levels of dosage which wouldn't present that problem! Jog on fool.

[martin_p]

Yes , those living on a state pension alone can claim certain benefits. Those that decided to set aside a part of their income to provide an extra private pension are taxed on it. This tax goes some way to provide benefits to those that p----- up a wall all their disposable income. Makes you wonder who made the best decision.

No it really doesn’t.

[Nori1958]

It is very funny, but all he is doing is trying to get the thread killed

Highlighting the thread might get pulled, probably means it will
Just ignore who you don't like, don't try and moderate the board and all will be well

[Bosscat]

On prescription drugs yes I'm suggesting low levels of dosage which wouldn't present that problem! Jog on fool.

I "bow to you superior medical knowledge" ...

Jesus wept ... Jakub ... Its no wonder people on here stay away from threads you pander your extreme views on ...

You are a complete and utter maniac and not worth bothering with ... goodbye

[claretonthecoast1882]

I "bow to you superior medical knowledge" ...

Jesus wept ... Jakub ... Its no wonder people on here stay away from threads you pander your extreme views on ...

You are a complete and utter maniac and not worth bothering with ... goodbye

He is the perfect poster boy for the just say no campaign

[Lancasterclaret]

Yes , those living on a state pension alone can claim certain benefits. Those that decided to set aside a part of their income to provide an extra private pension are taxed on it. This tax goes some way to provide benefits to those that p----- up a wall all their disposable income. Makes you wonder who made the best decision.

Well, it doesn't really does it?

If you saved money into a private pension plus your state one, then you are better off than those that didn't

And the state pension is one of the worst in Europe as well

Seems pretty clear to me to be honest

[Lancasterclaret]

He is the perfect poster boy for the just say no campaign

He's the perfect poster boy for the society in Logans Run

[Jakubclaret]

I "bow to you superior medical knowledge" ...

Jesus wept ... Jakub ... Its no wonder people on here stay away from threads you pander your extreme views on ...

You are a complete and utter maniac and not worth bothering with ... goodbye

Yes it's a good idea in society to let more & more people with complex mental health problems out on the roads driving having accidents when low dosages of tranquillisers could POTENTIALLY provide a solution & mitigate the accidents. Even for the placebo effect the reptilian part of the brain which is vital for human behaviour would respond positively & make people feel more relaxed but to hell with trying to the right thing & reduce accidents.

[Bigbopper]

Well, it doesn't really does it?

If you saved money into a private pension plus your state one, then you are better off than those that didn't

And the state pension is one of the worst in Europe as well

Seems pretty clear to me to be honest

The amount of benefits you can claim if you are only on a state pension makes up the vast majority of the difference

[Lancasterclaret]

The amount of benefits you can claim if you are only on a state pension makes up the vast majority of the difference

Course, this is posted without any evidence to back it up

[evensteadiereddie]

Yes it's a good idea in society to let more & more people with complex mental health problems out on the roads driving having accidents when low dosages of tranquillisers could POTENTIALLY provide a solution & mitigate the accidents. Even for the placebo effect the reptilian part of the brain which is vital for human behaviour would respond positively & make people feel more relaxed but to hell with trying to the right thing & reduce accidents.

Ah, so it's potentially, sorry POTENTIALLY, now, is it?

Bonkers, absolutely bonkers.

What's your stance on benefits for the disabled?
I must have missed your earlier answer...

[Nori1958]

Course, this is posted without any evidence to back it up

And you've replied with any evidence to the contrary

[boatshed bill]

You wouldn't have an ISA, then?

Correct, I do not.

[Nori1958]

And you've replied with any evidence to the contrary

Sorry, missed a question mark out.... Too late to edit.

[dsr]

Correct, I do not.

I admire your principles. Thanks.

[Bigbopper]

The amount of benefits you can claim if you are only on a state pension makes up the vast majority of the difference

The moon is not made of green cheese unfortunately I have no evidence to support that statement

[CoolClaret]

I can’t get over envisioning a doped up driver in Jakub’s crazed world seeing a hazard sort of 30-50 yards away from them in the road and simply being unable to react and plowing straight into it.

It’s properly bonkers

[Lancasterclaret]

The moon is not made of green cheese unfortunately I have no evidence to support that statement

Jakub has some serious competition

[boatshed bill]

I admire your principles. Thanks.

Yep, I'm happy with it.

I could also claim petrol to Burnley and back by calling it a business trip, could probably get a hotel for the night with 20% off, but I don't and never have.
It's actually these little "perks" which I am opposed to as much as anything.

[Bosscat]

I can’t get over envisioning a doped up driver in Jakub’s crazed world seeing a hazard sort of 30-50 yards away from them in the road and simply being unable to react and plowing straight into it.

It’s properly bonkers

Hence my reply to the idiot about "knowing families who have lost a son/brother to exactly that" ... Jakub needs putting in a box with those families and explaining his views ...

[TheFamilyCat]

I can’t get over envisioning a doped up driver in Jakub’s crazed world seeing a hazard sort of 30-50 yards away from them in the road and simply being unable to react and plowing straight into it.

It’s properly bonkers

But the alternative is that they see the hazard, panic because they have anxiety and aren't sedated, hit the accelerator instead of the brake and plow into it at twice the speed.

It happens all the time.

[fidelcastro]

Ah, so it's potentially, sorry POTENTIALLY, now, is it?

Bonkers, absolutely bonkers.

What's your stance on benefits for the disabled?
I must have missed your earlier answer...

He still hasn't answered my simple question on what the opposite of a do-gooder is either!

Surprise surprise!

[martin_p]

The amount of benefits you can claim if you are only on a state pension makes up the vast majority of the difference

No it doesn’t.

[martin_p]

The moon is not made of green cheese unfortunately I have no evidence to support that statement

Think about why.

[houseboy]

The amount of people I know on long-term sick, who have never officially worked but are well enough for side hustles is absolutely mindblowing... A tiny fraction of that 2.5m will be genuinely too sick to work... You'd have to be very naive to believe that the whole 2.5m is genuine...

Also, regarding your comment "Lot of them are just waiting for their issues to be fixed, but can't because of the issues with the NHS"... Do you have the stats to prove that or have you just made that up?

I’m afraid you may have destroyed your own argument. By demanding ‘proof’ yet providing none for your own statement is not a great argument and what exactly is this ‘mind blowing’ mysterious number of people you know who are well enough to work but are on the sick? The demands for proofs on here has often baffled me but more so when the person demanding such proof provides nothing but an amorphous figure plucked out of the air.

[Nori1958]

I’m afraid you may have destroyed your own argument. By demanding ‘proof’ yet providing none for your own statement is not a great argument and what exactly is this ‘mind blowing’ mysterious number of people you know who are well enough to work but are on the sick? The demands for proofs on here has often baffled me but more so when the person demanding such proof provides nothing but an amorphous figure plucked out of the air.

Proof is difficult to provide in some cases its just personal experience
When I started work 50 yrs ago, anyone wanting to bend the system went off with a bad back, in those days it was a difficult ailment to prove or disprove, many people took earlier retirement, sick pensions etc
Medical science moved on, and bad backs were easier to diagnose, so the less honest started to claim mental illness, something they had seen had left them unable to return to work, very difficult to disprove, and gives a bad name to those with genuine problems
Do I have the numbers.... No
Do I know who they were.... Yes
Can I prove it on here.... Not to the acceptable forensic level some require, but it definitely happened.... In a national organisation.