RubyTex 1,957 Posted October 3, 2013 Report Share Posted October 3, 2013 Something needs to be done.... Theres guys been to war multiple times by the time they reach 25 whilst over a million people are sitting on their arse ... So what do you suggest, national service? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
dare 1,103 Posted October 3, 2013 Report Share Posted October 3, 2013 Mps should be willing to send their kids to fight when they agree to send troops to war IMO. Would also be good if mps have had to of done some service. All I see is well spoken snobs on the tele who don't live in the real world and talk out their arse. No disrespect to anyone in the army but I would never go fight an oil war meanwhile were loosing to extemists in our own country. Disgusting how the soldiers are given such little respect. Come back and have to sign on or go into hostels and wait for housing. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
whippet 99 2,613 Posted October 3, 2013 Report Share Posted October 3, 2013 I think they forget that people under the age of 25 could have a young family....... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
dare 1,103 Posted October 3, 2013 Report Share Posted October 3, 2013 Nothing wrong with going families at all. I do though know 2 birds who are so immature that they had a baby on purpose to keep their bf. immature n patheic if you ask me. Know another who admits she had a baby because she wanted to move out and just wanted her own family. Again nothing wrong with young families and you can't start forcing abortions. These types though are as bad as the 56quid a week crew. Why don't people want more. If I had a child i would move anywhere there is work and pick up dog shit for money if I had to. Anything to give that child a better life. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
wi11ow 2,657 Posted October 3, 2013 Report Share Posted October 3, 2013 the truth 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ratreeper 441 Posted October 3, 2013 Report Share Posted October 3, 2013 I think they forget that people under the age of 25 could have a young family....... I don't think you could even hint that they are in some way forced into that CHOICE. So why the f**k should I and every other taxpayer have to pay for other people's children? I can't understand why anyone thinks that is a fair system, the fact is that if you can't afford children then you shouldn't have them in the first place. It's just a part of life, I don't personally want children but I wouldn't mind a few more dogs, however I can't afford it and I wouldn't be able to twist the logic so much as to make it fair that others should pay my way for me. You really can't win on here, do a search and there's a dozen threads with probably the same people commenting that 'Britain is broken' because of the 'benefit society' etc. Now something is finally being done and Cameron is a traitor? Personally I think young people have a much harder time than the older generations, but it is the well-off retirees who own their own houses that get the most handouts. Again I think they earnt it over a lifetime, but how can we have a system that an older couple who spend their days at a golf club get the same benefits as a poor old widow who can't afford to heat her houses in winter? It just needs to be fairer, based on wealth and that would save more than the under 25's would but the thing is that younger people don't vote like the grays so nothing will be done! 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Malt 379 Posted October 3, 2013 Author Report Share Posted October 3, 2013 It tickles me when people keep bleating on about it being 'their money'.. As soon as the government takes it off you it ceases to be 'your money', that's now the tax system works.. You don't have a say about how they choose to spend it apart from putting your X in a box every 5 years... People need to wake up and start aiming their anger at the government instead of other sections of society. You got a problem with the government spending taxes on people on benefit? Fine, no problem with that but it's the government who are the ones in charge of giving the money out, get angry at them.. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
unlacedgecko 1,467 Posted October 3, 2013 Report Share Posted October 3, 2013 I think they forget that people under the age of 25 could have a young family....... I don't think you could even hint that they are in some way forced into that CHOICE. So why the f**k should I and every other taxpayer have to pay for other people's children? I can't understand why anyone thinks that is a fair system, the fact is that if you can't afford children then you shouldn't have them in the first place. It's just a part of life, I don't personally want children but I wouldn't mind a few more dogs, however I can't afford it and I wouldn't be able to twist the logic so much as to make it fair that others should pay my way for me. You really can't win on here, do a search and there's a dozen threads with probably the same people commenting that 'Britain is broken' because of the 'benefit society' etc. Now something is finally being done and Cameron is a traitor? Personally I think young people have a much harder time than the older generations, but it is the well-off retirees who own their own houses that get the most handouts. Again I think they earnt it over a lifetime, but how can we have a system that an older couple who spend their days at a golf club get the same benefits as a poor old widow who can't afford to heat her houses in winter? It just needs to be fairer, based on wealth and that would save more than the under 25's would but the thing is that younger people don't vote like the grays so nothing will be done! So you would advocate a system where people are penalised for success? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
scothunter 12,609 Posted October 3, 2013 Report Share Posted October 3, 2013 even the lottery are getting in on the act of bleeding the less fortunate lol dbl the price of a ticket , cause after all its them that fund the lotto. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
B.P.R 2,798 Posted October 3, 2013 Report Share Posted October 3, 2013 No matter what age you are.... you do whats needed to support your family.... and imo thats a job...... be it in macdonalds...cleaner...soldier.....etc.... I dont know what the answer is.... but benefits need to be cut to people who are just being lazy...and dont want to work.... 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
whippet 99 2,613 Posted October 3, 2013 Report Share Posted October 3, 2013 only the internet.................fook me ,..............a lad being made redundant trying to support his family the same as anybody and he not entitled to the same benefit...........bull shite , that aint fair.....that discrimination ..... 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
scothunter 12,609 Posted October 3, 2013 Report Share Posted October 3, 2013 oh its always the same, its all very easy to sit back and pass judgment,when alls going good for us and were not in that prediciment. 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ratreeper 441 Posted October 3, 2013 Report Share Posted October 3, 2013 I think they forget that people under the age of 25 could have a young family....... I don't think you could even hint that they are in some way forced into that CHOICE. So why the f**k should I and every other taxpayer have to pay for other people's children? I can't understand why anyone thinks that is a fair system, the fact is that if you can't afford children then you shouldn't have them in the first place. It's just a part of life, I don't personally want children but I wouldn't mind a few more dogs, however I can't afford it and I wouldn't be able to twist the logic so much as to make it fair that others should pay my way for me. You really can't win on here, do a search and there's a dozen threads with probably the same people commenting that 'Britain is broken' because of the 'benefit society' etc. Now something is finally being done and Cameron is a traitor? Personally I think young people have a much harder time than the older generations, but it is the well-off retirees who own their own houses that get the most handouts. Again I think they earnt it over a lifetime, but how can we have a system that an older couple who spend their days at a golf club get the same benefits as a poor old widow who can't afford to heat her houses in winter? It just needs to be fairer, based on wealth and that would save more than the under 25's would but the thing is that younger people don't vote like the grays so nothing will be done! So you would advocate a system where people are penalised for success? No, more like reserving benefits only for those who NEED it not just take it because they can. It's a funny system where someone who goes out and works like me can't and may never afford their own house, but if I had failed at school and knocked up a 16 year old I could have spent my life so far not paying any bills or lifting a finger to feed myself and family. I could spend all day and night hunting, laughing at the foolish people who spend all day in an office to support my lifestyle. So you tell me who is being penalised for success... 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
scothunter 12,609 Posted October 3, 2013 Report Share Posted October 3, 2013 I think they forget that people under the age of 25 could have a young family....... I don't think you could even hint that they are in some way forced into that CHOICE. So why the f**k should I and every other taxpayer have to pay for other people's children? I can't understand why anyone thinks that is a fair system, the fact is that if you can't afford children then you shouldn't have them in the first place. It's just a part of life, I don't personally want children but I wouldn't mind a few more dogs, however I can't afford it and I wouldn't be able to twist the logic so much as to make it fair that others should pay my way for me. You really can't win on here, do a search and there's a dozen threads with probably the same people commenting that 'Britain is broken' because of the 'benefit society' etc. Now something is finally being done and Cameron is a traitor? Personally I think young people have a much harder time than the older generations, but it is the well-off retirees who own their own houses that get the most handouts. Again I think they earnt it over a lifetime, but how can we have a system that an older couple who spend their days at a golf club get the same benefits as a poor old widow who can't afford to heat her houses in winter? It just needs to be fairer, based on wealth and that would save more than the under 25's would but the thing is that younger people don't vote like the grays so nothing will be done! So you would advocate a system where people are penalised for success? No, more like reserving benefits only for those who NEED it not just take it because they can. It's a funny system where someone who goes out and works like me can't and may never afford their own house, but if I had failed at school and knocked up a 16 year old I could have spent my life so far not paying any bills or lifting a finger to feed myself and family. I could spend all day and night hunting, laughing at the foolish people who spend all day in an office to support my lifestyle. So you tell me who is being penalised for success... aye BUT like has been said and posted on here many times. the benefits given to people in work,far out weighs the ones out of work. someone said on here yesterday, they should go out on there day off and pick up rubbish.like a lot have been preaching on here. "you shouldnt get free money,should do something for it".! family allowance, well if your kids are able enough they should go out at weekend at tidy up old folks garden for a couple hours. what are the politicians going to do for all the free money they get,and they get enough that would make solomon blush. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Ratreeper 441 Posted October 4, 2013 Report Share Posted October 4, 2013 I think they forget that people under the age of 25 could have a young family....... I don't think you could even hint that they are in some way forced into that CHOICE. So why the f**k should I and every other taxpayer have to pay for other people's children? I can't understand why anyone thinks that is a fair system, the fact is that if you can't afford children then you shouldn't have them in the first place. It's just a part of life, I don't personally want children but I wouldn't mind a few more dogs, however I can't afford it and I wouldn't be able to twist the logic so much as to make it fair that others should pay my way for me. You really can't win on here, do a search and there's a dozen threads with probably the same people commenting that 'Britain is broken' because of the 'benefit society' etc. Now something is finally being done and Cameron is a traitor? Personally I think young people have a much harder time than the older generations, but it is the well-off retirees who own their own houses that get the most handouts. Again I think they earnt it over a lifetime, but how can we have a system that an older couple who spend their days at a golf club get the same benefits as a poor old widow who can't afford to heat her houses in winter? It just needs to be fairer, based on wealth and that would save more than the under 25's would but the thing is that younger people don't vote like the grays so nothing will be done! So you would advocate a system where people are penalised for success? No, more like reserving benefits only for those who NEED it not just take it because they can. It's a funny system where someone who goes out and works like me can't and may never afford their own house, but if I had failed at school and knocked up a 16 year old I could have spent my life so far not paying any bills or lifting a finger to feed myself and family. I could spend all day and night hunting, laughing at the foolish people who spend all day in an office to support my lifestyle. So you tell me who is being penalised for success... aye BUT like has been said and posted on here many times. the benefits given to people in work,far out weighs the ones out of work. someone said on here yesterday, they should go out on there day off and pick up rubbish.like a lot have been preaching on here. "you shouldnt get free money,should do something for it".! family allowance, well if your kids are able enough they should go out at weekend at tidy up old folks garden for a couple hours. what are the politicians going to do for all the free money they get,and they get enough that would make solomon blush. I don't get any benefits for anything, if everyone did then we would all just pay less tax instead wouldn't we? But either way I don't see how that is in any way relevant to what the conversation was about, which is the unemployed. One doesn't justify the other and that has to be one of the most piss poor excuses for not improving a bad situation, because another situation is worse Litter picking is a good start, but the entire benefit system needs looking at imo because if you make the choice to believe in god and get married, then pop out a few kids then you are leaching money out of the system for no good reason, it's almost prejudice against single people. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.