That a certain amount of equity exists - why should a working person in Leeds who cannot afford to live in Adel have to support an employed individual who claims they have to live in an expensive area of the most expensive city in the country?

Why should someone save up all their life to buy a house so that it needs to be sold to provide for care in their old age when someone who has lived on benefits all their life gets this same care provided for free?

These are the real issues?

Perhaps we should have an upper limit on what any individual is expected to contribute?

Where do you suggest the employed who undertake menial jobs (at commensurately menial rates of pay), in large cities, especially the City of London, live? Or should they be bussed in and out each day? Maybe we could house them in large domitories and call them "houses for workers" or workhouses for short.

I would imagine the number of people who have "lived on benefits all their lives" and then gone on to state-funded residential care is too small to be calculated. Yet another example of a tory moron taking an extreme scenario that is unlikely to ever be played out

Workhouses - and you have the arrogance to talk about Tory Morons!!

You simply don't get it - benefits should be there to provide the minimum requirements not present an opportunity for those who don't work to have a better lifestyle than those who do. A person with a low pay job in Leeds or Bradford will live in Gipton, Manningham etc because that is all they can afford. Many will rent rooms - that is what I did when I first left home - which will not be subsidised. Does it matter -especially as many of these will have Philpottitous i.e. not looking for a job - whether they live in Leytonstone or Croydon?

There will be plenty of people who have lived in subsidised accommodation all their adult life that will end up in residential care at the end of it - why should anyone who has done without to buy a house have to use that equity to fund care that others get for free?

I think all of this is pretty rich come from someone whose contribution to society through income tax will be virtually zero!!

No it isn't.
The rich have far more disposable income then the poor do.
Surely even you can understand that what with them being RICH.

Yes and with that income they pay their 'fair share'.

They have the broadest shoulders and so pay the most. This is 'fair'.

To say they should pay even more is unfair.

Yet the poor are still poor and the rich are still rich.
Seems fair to me

No it isn't.
Who moves their money offshore to avoid/evade tax?
The poor?
The middling?
No, SOME of the rich... and many large companies.
You can produce stats all you like about which section of society pays the most but that just ignores my point about the avoiders and evaders.
You're obviously still a bit wet behind the ears but, take it from me, just vehemently saying words like "myth" and "clearly" doesn't prove your point.


"Extreme socialist type" ... don't make me laugh sonny, you don't even know what the word means.
Your straw man of "fair share is probably 100%" is a tiresome tactic, so please leave that kind of thing to those who can troll subtly.


Jeez, the old "accuse the other of your own transgression" technique, eh?
Can't you do better than that?

The reality of living on £55 per week

The reality of living on £55 per week

cod'ead wrote:The reality of living on £55 per week Collateral damage.

cod'ead wrote:The reality of living on £55 per week Collateral damage.