People evolve over time - it could be argued - taking your premise he was product of his upbringing i.e. his apparent selfishness - rather than the army. It is a much reasonable assumption to make that his ability live the way did on benefits influenced his lifestyle much more than anything that happened in the army.

Yes I agree this is an extreme case - but the idea that this a one off and abuse of the system is not a regular occurence should not be ignored either. I have myself highlighted a situation within my own in-laws, they were both convicted for a second time and are wearing tags!! They have split up - he has returned to his first wife and she is pregnant again to another man!!

Why do you think that is? Could it be anything to do with them having all the f******g money perhaps?

Don't know about the stat but its a fairly equitable system thats worked fine for many, many decades if not a century or so, its also fairly well known that the richer you are the more likely you are to employ someone to handle your tax affairs for you to open up many of the tax relief schemes that mere mortals are often unaware of, again, perfectly fair and equitable and no reason to feel sorry for the top 1% of earners, indeed within that top 1% will be some who are more than happy to pay a share of their income to help those who haven't been so lucky in life.

Give it over. He was a psycopath with no feelings of empathy or remorse. If he'd had any brain cells he's have been running RBS. The fact he was able to claim benefits has nothing to do with burning his f****g kids to death. He didn't want the other kids back for the child benefit, he wanted them back because he thought he owned them and he was too stupid to work out a clever way of doing it.

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 [iMail's[/i (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?

[urlhttp://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/22/manufacturing_figures/[/url

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.

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?

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?

[url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9974373/Welfare-reform-53-a-week...-You-do-the-maths.htmlThe reality of living on £55 per week[/url

Collateral damage.

You know things are bad when even the Torygraph is writing sympathetic articles.