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.

Isn't it?

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



Agreed.

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?

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

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/

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.

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.

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?

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?