Forked tongue?

Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Pages:
1
…
4
5
6
…
12

Forked tongue?
Topic Started: Oct 2 2014, 07:14 AM (3,882 Views)
RJD	Oct 2 2014, 07:14 AM Post #1
Prudence and Thrift Posts: 12,499 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Quote: Iain Duncan Smith’s disclosure that the teething problems have been resolved and that the Universal Credits system will be rolled out across the country ahead of the election was momentous. Many critics, not just on the Left, cheerfully predicted that Mr Duncan Smith’s welfare reforms would fail. They are now irreversible, and as a result Mr Cameron’s Coalition will be able to claim a place among Britain’s great reforming governments. Well considered the claims made in the lefty Press, bloggers and here one would think he has not a snowball in Hell's chance of achieving that objective. We will see if he meets his milestone, but he is correct in one claim and that is no future Gov. is going to unpick this system and as a consequence he will be able to claim he inflicted the reform welcomed by the vast majority, the next step for a new Gov. must be to make further inroads against those barriers to making work always a first choice.

Replies:
papasmurf	Oct 14 2014, 11:55 AM Post #161
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	RJD Oct 14 2014, 11:51 AM My claim is that the welfare reforms have a basis in morality, If that were the case RJD the Tories would have stopped the disaster is being caused by their "welfare reforms." The fact is they don't care about the damage being done one jot or iota. They have no morals.



Tytoalba	Oct 14 2014, 12:09 PM Post #162
Senior Member Posts: 7,586 Group: Members Member #36 Joined: Jun 29, 2014	RJD Oct 14 2014, 11:51 AM Tytoalba Oct 14 2014, 11:35 AM papasmurf Oct 13 2014, 12:09 PM RJD Oct 13 2014, 11:21 AM Firstly show the basis by which such welfare reforms are immoral? Tories don't have any morals RJD so I don't understand the question. Im a Tory party member Papa. raised a Christian with Christian values, and I think my morals are equal to your own, though my level of emotional involvement will never be the same as yours. To accuse people who are Tories of immorality is to take a very narrow view on life itself, and taking into acount the numbers who support them or are members of the party makes the suggestion that they lack morality, irrational. I just happen to think that individual good has to take second place to the common good, for without the one you cannot have the other. That does not mean that considertion , care and asistance should not be given to all those in need of it, but we know from experience that the level given will never meet the needs or expectations of all. I do not understand why you think morality can be weighed in such a way, surely it warrants some absoluteness? May be it should, and perhaps we should all aspire to that, but in real terms it is unacheivable, for not all people have the same views on morality, with it differing from person to person, race or religion or personal circumstnces. To practice the higest standards of morality means a great deal of individual sacrifice, and it is a rare person indeed that makes the sacrifice with other than disposable income, or the time they are prepared to give freely. None I know is going to sacrifice all to just a subsistance level to justify their own morality. Practical reality is the way to go IMO.



RJD	Oct 14 2014, 12:22 PM Post #163
Prudence and Thrift Posts: 12,499 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	But Ty, with the matter of welfare reform I claim that it is immoral for the State to design systems of welfare that discourage claimants from ever seeking employment. The well understood and established "welfare trap". We have been over the sums dozens of times and it cannot be right that the effective rate of income tax on any increases on net income on that obtained by way of welfare benefits should be 80%+. I would like to see a counter argument. It is also worth reminding that the IDS reforms have not rid us of the trap, but only reduced the hurdle.



Affa	Oct 14 2014, 12:30 PM Post #164
Senior Member Posts: 11,999 Group: Members Member #58 Joined: Jul 26, 2014	RJD Oct 14 2014, 12:22 PM But Ty, with the matter of welfare reform I claim that it is immoral for the State to design systems of welfare that discourage claimants from ever seeking employment. The well understood and established "welfare trap". We have been over the sums dozens of times and it cannot be right that the effective rate of income tax on any increases on net income on that obtained by way of welfare benefits should be 80%+. I would like to see a counter argument. It is also worth reminding that the IDS reforms have not rid us of the trap, but only reduced the hurdle. "welfare trap". It exists because working wages are too low. You are old enough to know that the average wage was more than enough to support a family - it no longer is. Welfare benefits are a 'means tested' calculation, and ID Smith has moved the goalposts, has altered the criteria for qualification, has deliberately increased hardship on GENUINE claimants. I do not focus on the morality of it, it serves no purpose. The focus is on why there is this complete refusal to accept that wages are too low - government's are elected to prevent this happening, not to facilitate it continuing.



Tytoalba	Oct 14 2014, 12:44 PM Post #165
Senior Member Posts: 7,586 Group: Members Member #36 Joined: Jun 29, 2014	RJD Oct 14 2014, 12:22 PM But Ty, with the matter of welfare reform I claim that it is immoral for the State to design systems of welfare that discourage claimants from ever seeking employment. The well understood and established "welfare trap". We have been over the sums dozens of times and it cannot be right that the effective rate of income tax on any increases on net income on that obtained by way of welfare benefits should be 80%+. I would like to see a counter argument. It is also worth reminding that the IDS reforms have not rid us of the trap, but only reduced the hurdle. I accept that RJD, but the bigest failure in the support, was giving so much of it in the first place. for it raised expectations that we now know cannot be maintained. Why make any efforts at all if the state will provide,? Now it is being reduced to a more affordable level, through necessity or as in the 'Bedroom tax' to free up more room for bigger families, it will raise the objections to change that it does. I get the annual fuel allowance, and free TV, but could manage without,and feel it should be removed or only given to the very elderly who suffer the most from the cold. Had it not been given in the first place I wouldnt be thinking about it. We know why it is maintained , because a harsh winter will cause cases of hypothermia, and even deaths, and no government could then stand the flak if that happened. Now they can say we give a generous fuel allowance and obsolve themselves of blame. No party can do anything unless it gets elected ,so all make decisions to that end.



papasmurf	Oct 14 2014, 12:54 PM Post #166
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Tytoalba Oct 14 2014, 12:44 PM in the 'Bedroom tax' to free up more room for bigger families, But us hasn't, and the government knew it would not because of their own impact assessment. 600000 people effected, 400000 of them disabled with no where smaller to move to, because the "spare bedroom" is needed for disability related purposes like storing kit, a disabled couple needing to sleep in different rooms or a room being needed for a sleepover carer. There is also nowhere smaller for people to move to.



papasmurf	Oct 14 2014, 12:55 PM Post #167
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Affa Oct 14 2014, 12:30 PM Welfare benefits are a 'means tested' calculation, and ID Smith has moved the goalposts, has altered the criteria for qualification, has deliberately increased hardship on GENUINE claimants. With the assistance of George Osborne.



Tytoalba	Oct 14 2014, 01:00 PM Post #168
Senior Member Posts: 7,586 Group: Members Member #36 Joined: Jun 29, 2014	Affa Oct 14 2014, 12:30 PM RJD Oct 14 2014, 12:22 PM But Ty, with the matter of welfare reform I claim that it is immoral for the State to design systems of welfare that discourage claimants from ever seeking employment. The well understood and established "welfare trap". We have been over the sums dozens of times and it cannot be right that the effective rate of income tax on any increases on net income on that obtained by way of welfare benefits should be 80%+. I would like to see a counter argument. It is also worth reminding that the IDS reforms have not rid us of the trap, but only reduced the hurdle. "welfare trap". It exists because working wages are too low. You are old enough to know that the average wage was more than enough to support a family - it no longer is. Welfare benefits are a 'means tested' calculation, and ID Smith has moved the goalposts, has altered the criteria for qualification, has deliberately increased hardship on GENUINE claimants. I do not focus on the morality of it, it serves no purpose. The focus is on why there is this complete refusal to accept that wages are too low - government's are elected to prevent this happening, not to facilitate it continuing. There is so much more to spend money on AFFA and so many things that are seen as necessities, when mostly they are just desirable. Is it necessities we should cater for or the desirables as well? I bought a cycle. with a vincent firfly engine attachment to tke me to work with a roller working off back wheel. Of course work is often further away , sometimes because we chose to live further away from the work place and therefore need transport which complicates what is a need or not.. My son chose to live in a more rural area ,but had a hour and a quarter drive to work each way every working day, an some travel much further. He knew someone who flew into London to work on a weekly basis from the continent.



Affa	Oct 14 2014, 01:06 PM Post #169
Senior Member Posts: 11,999 Group: Members Member #58 Joined: Jul 26, 2014	papasmurf Oct 14 2014, 12:54 PM Tytoalba Oct 14 2014, 12:44 PM in the 'Bedroom tax' to free up more room for bigger families, But us hasn't, and the government knew it would not because of their own impact assessment. 600000 people effected, 400000 of them disabled with no where smaller to move to, because the "spare bedroom" is needed for disability related purposes like storing kit, a disabled couple needing to sleep in different rooms or a room being needed for a sleepover carer. There is also nowhere smaller for people to move to. Grant Shapps declared “…there were 4 to 5 million families in that time with literally no roof over their head at all!”. He was telling that this policy would provide much needed housing. Apart from his figure of homeless being utterly despicable, neither has it freed up housing for the homeless.



ACH1967	Oct 14 2014, 01:30 PM Post #170
Senior Member Posts: 4,226 Group: Members Member #56 Joined: Jul 24, 2014	RJD Oct 14 2014, 12:22 PM But Ty, with the matter of welfare reform I claim that it is immoral for the State to design systems of welfare that discourage claimants from ever seeking employment. The well understood and established "welfare trap". We have been over the sums dozens of times and it cannot be right that the effective rate of income tax on any increases on net income on that obtained by way of welfare benefits should be 80%+. I would like to see a counter argument. It is also worth reminding that the IDS reforms have not rid us of the trap, but only reduced the hurdle. But isn't the only way to reduce this level of marginal taxation to reduce the benefits of those at this point and make their lives more miserable?



ACH1967	Oct 14 2014, 01:31 PM Post #171
Senior Member Posts: 4,226 Group: Members Member #56 Joined: Jul 24, 2014	Tytoalba Oct 14 2014, 01:00 PM Affa Oct 14 2014, 12:30 PM RJD Oct 14 2014, 12:22 PM But Ty, with the matter of welfare reform I claim that it is immoral for the State to design systems of welfare that discourage claimants from ever seeking employment. The well understood and established "welfare trap". We have been over the sums dozens of times and it cannot be right that the effective rate of income tax on any increases on net income on that obtained by way of welfare benefits should be 80%+. I would like to see a counter argument. It is also worth reminding that the IDS reforms have not rid us of the trap, but only reduced the hurdle. "welfare trap". It exists because working wages are too low. You are old enough to know that the average wage was more than enough to support a family - it no longer is. Welfare benefits are a 'means tested' calculation, and ID Smith has moved the goalposts, has altered the criteria for qualification, has deliberately increased hardship on GENUINE claimants. I do not focus on the morality of it, it serves no purpose. The focus is on why there is this complete refusal to accept that wages are too low - government's are elected to prevent this happening, not to facilitate it continuing. There is so much more to spend money on AFFA and so many things that are seen as necessities, when mostly they are just desirable. Is it necessities we should cater for or the desirables as well? I bought a cycle. with a vincent firfly engine attachment to tke me to work with a roller working off back wheel. Of course work is often further away , sometimes because we chose to live further away from the work place and therefore need transport which complicates what is a need or not.. My son chose to live in a more rural area ,but had a hour and a quarter drive to work each way every working day, an some travel much further. He knew someone who flew into London to work on a weekly basis from the continent. People may well live a certain distance from work because the hosuing is cheaper and the cost of commuting less. Like lots of things the situation and circumstances of many are complex and hence without simple sound bite solutions



RJD	Oct 14 2014, 04:03 PM Post #172
Prudence and Thrift Posts: 12,499 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	ACH1967 Oct 14 2014, 01:30 PM RJD Oct 14 2014, 12:22 PM But Ty, with the matter of welfare reform I claim that it is immoral for the State to design systems of welfare that discourage claimants from ever seeking employment. The well understood and established "welfare trap". We have been over the sums dozens of times and it cannot be right that the effective rate of income tax on any increases on net income on that obtained by way of welfare benefits should be 80%+. I would like to see a counter argument. It is also worth reminding that the IDS reforms have not rid us of the trap, but only reduced the hurdle. But isn't the only way to reduce this level of marginal taxation to reduce the benefits of those at this point and make their lives more miserable? Miserable is a subjective word. The point and formula has to be found such that for those fit and able a pension for life is not an option. Anyway my argument was a moral one, however, one could claim that whilst it is basically immoral for the State to trap individuals into a life of near poverty that the circumstances for many is such that no other option is plausible. A sensible pragmatic balance must be found, one which sits well with the rest of society especially those who pick up the costs.



C-too	Oct 14 2014, 04:22 PM Post #173
Honourable Member Posts: 17,686 Group: Members Member #49 Joined: Jul 12, 2014	Two things have stood out for me recently, unfortunately they didn't receive much publicity.. 1. The lowest paid are £300 pounds per year worse off than in 2008. 2. Top bosses received a 21% increase in income. 12% pay rise and the rest in shares. They do need to be protected from those greedy envious low paid 'nonners' in society. Edited by C-too, Oct 14 2014, 04:23 PM.



Stan Still	Oct 14 2014, 04:26 PM Post #174
Regular Member Posts: 1,705 Group: Members Member #23 Joined: Jun 28, 2014	disgruntled porker Oct 13 2014, 10:00 AM Stanley said: Quote: The rest of us kept on working to improve our lot despite your best effort to bring back the bad old days of strikes and huge wage claims that crippled the UK and made us the laughing stock of the world, time you realized that many people will never forgive or forget what the left did back then, try and work out why the Tories were in power for 18 years if you can. And pray tell, after these 18 years of milk and honey, and popular policies, why the country kicked them into touch for almost as long? And by the biggest landslide in the universe. Was it because the country thought they had done such a good job? No, people eventiually began to realise what the tories were all about, and didn't like what they saw. You errupt with joy about Labour losing last time, but the vote given to the Tories was far from convincing. They had to rely on the Spineless Party to let them have a go. Because the voters changed their minds which they are liable to do at any time they did at the last election otherwise Labour would still be in power, many are now changing their minds again hence the votes for UKIP I think they will do well next year I agree with you on the spineless party they are finished IMO, we need a tough Government to make tough hard decisions so that rules out Labour all they are good for is buying votes and censorship, the Tories are not tough enough either



C-too	Oct 14 2014, 04:39 PM Post #175
Honourable Member Posts: 17,686 Group: Members Member #49 Joined: Jul 12, 2014	Stan Still Oct 14 2014, 04:26 PM disgruntled porker Oct 13 2014, 10:00 AM Stanley said: Quote: The rest of us kept on working to improve our lot despite your best effort to bring back the bad old days of strikes and huge wage claims that crippled the UK and made us the laughing stock of the world, time you realized that many people will never forgive or forget what the left did back then, try and work out why the Tories were in power for 18 years if you can. And pray tell, after these 18 years of milk and honey, and popular policies, why the country kicked them into touch for almost as long? And by the biggest landslide in the universe. Was it because the country thought they had done such a good job? No, people eventiually began to realise what the tories were all about, and didn't like what they saw. You errupt with joy about Labour losing last time, but the vote given to the Tories was far from convincing. They had to rely on the Spineless Party to let them have a go. Because the voters changed their minds which they are liable to do at any time they did at the last election otherwise Labour would still be in power, many are now changing their minds again hence the votes for UKIP I think they will do well next year I agree with you on the spineless party they are finished IMO, we need a tough Government to make tough hard decisions so that rules out Labour all they are good for is buying votes and censorship, the Tories are not tough enough either The Tories were removed in 1979 because Blair at that time was unstoppable, and the media knew it. Otherwise the misery would have gone on and on, that would have been the choice of the over influential Tory media and the deceiving capability of Tory propaganda. NL were unseated by the same international financial meltdown that is still troubling western economies today. UKip are a right-wing nastiness in sheeps clothing, if you love your country then hope and pray that they are gone before they are able to do damage.



disgruntled porker	Oct 14 2014, 05:21 PM Post #176
Older than most people think I am. Posts: 1,945 Group: Members Member #31 Joined: Jun 28, 2014	RJD Oct 14 2014, 11:42 AM disgruntled porker Oct 14 2014, 10:46 AM RJD Oct 14 2014, 09:25 AM papasmurf Oct 14 2014, 08:21 AM Quoting limited to 4 levels deep Unsubstantiated emotional bull-shit of the first order. This is a debating forum, best try and prove ecologically with substantiation and cut out the ignorant emotional crap. I can understand Mr Pig making such claims, but a man with such a self professed high IQ and excellent grammar school o education, well you should know better. You demean yourself by association. Well I happend to have a very good Grammar school education too. I also have a honours degree. So put that in your pipe and smoke it you conceited old windbag. Well all that investment in education appears to have been wasted with you. You are a very nasty narrow minded person as far as I am concerned and I no longer see why I should be polite and tolerate your crude rude claims. I am not interested in your ignorant perceptions of me or anything only which claims you can substantiate. You may wish to wear your politics on your sleeve, but please do not expect any respect for doing so. Exactly my point. You are only interested in your own opinions and trying to belittle anyone who does not fall for your bluff and bluster of self superiorty. A much used tactic of those of a similar mindset to yourself. You are your own private little Tory conference, applauding only your own half truths and bullshit. Your arrogance does not impress me one iota.



Deleted User	Oct 14 2014, 05:51 PM Post #177
Deleted User	disgruntled porker Oct 14 2014, 05:21 PM RJD Oct 14 2014, 11:42 AM disgruntled porker Oct 14 2014, 10:46 AM RJD Oct 14 2014, 09:25 AM Quoting limited to 4 levels deep Well I happend to have a very good Grammar school education too. I also have a honours degree. So put that in your pipe and smoke it you conceited old windbag. Well all that investment in education appears to have been wasted with you. You are a very nasty narrow minded person as far as I am concerned and I no longer see why I should be polite and tolerate your crude rude claims. I am not interested in your ignorant perceptions of me or anything only which claims you can substantiate. You may wish to wear your politics on your sleeve, but please do not expect any respect for doing so. Exactly my point. You are only interested in your own opinions and trying to belittle anyone who does not fall for your bluff and bluster of self superiorty. A much used tactic of those of a similar mindset to yourself. You are your own private little Tory conference, applauding only your own half truths and bullshit. Your arrogance does not impress me one iota. I have no intention of provoking a squabble with you, but if you and a number of your fellow travellers stood back and looked at yourselves dispassionately, you would recognise every insulting characteristic you use to describe RJD could be levelled at you. Just because someone holds substantially different views to you does not by definition make them less intelligent, sincere, informed, educated or open minded than you. I grant you that some posters on both sides of the political divide seem to running with a low wattage bulb but their political conviction is not evidence of it.
Deleted User


papasmurf	Oct 14 2014, 06:17 PM Post #178
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Major Sinic Oct 14 2014, 05:51 PM Just because someone holds substantially different views to you does not by definition make them less intelligent, sincere, informed, educated or open minded than you. The problem with RJD is, he has the same problem as Iain Duncan Smith, he refuses to be informed.



disgruntled porker	Oct 14 2014, 06:55 PM Post #179
Older than most people think I am. Posts: 1,945 Group: Members Member #31 Joined: Jun 28, 2014	Major Sinic Oct 14 2014, 05:51 PM disgruntled porker Oct 14 2014, 05:21 PM RJD Oct 14 2014, 11:42 AM disgruntled porker Oct 14 2014, 10:46 AM Quoting limited to 4 levels deep Well all that investment in education appears to have been wasted with you. You are a very nasty narrow minded person as far as I am concerned and I no longer see why I should be polite and tolerate your crude rude claims. I am not interested in your ignorant perceptions of me or anything only which claims you can substantiate. You may wish to wear your politics on your sleeve, but please do not expect any respect for doing so. Exactly my point. You are only interested in your own opinions and trying to belittle anyone who does not fall for your bluff and bluster of self superiorty. A much used tactic of those of a similar mindset to yourself. You are your own private little Tory conference, applauding only your own half truths and bullshit. Your arrogance does not impress me one iota. I have no intention of provoking a squabble with you, but if you and a number of your fellow travellers stood back and looked at yourselves dispassionately, you would recognise every insulting characteristic you use to describe RJD could be levelled at you. Just because someone holds substantially different views to you does not by definition make them less intelligent, sincere, informed, educated or open minded than you. I grant you that some posters on both sides of the political divide seem to running with a low wattage bulb but their political conviction is not evidence of it. MS. Your second paragraph embodies exactly what I'm saying about ReinalD. What you are describing is his behaviour in a nutshell, not mine. When I first came on this forum, ReJinalD was one of the people I enjoyed tilting against. I considered him to be quite intelligent and worthy of debating with. Now all he does is resort to thinly veiled insults about the intelligence of people he have the audacity to question his sacrosanct opinions. Did you notice his little dig that he considered PS to be too intelligent, as he had grammar school education, to share the same opinions as me? It just proves has lack of ability to judge people doesn't it? Do you wonder that people take him to task when he makes such unfounded, insulting, insinuations? Edited by disgruntled porker, Oct 14 2014, 07:05 PM.



Steve K	Oct 14 2014, 07:09 PM Post #180
Once and future cynic Posts: 33,990 Group: Admins Member #20 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	papasmurf Oct 14 2014, 06:17 PM Major Sinic Oct 14 2014, 05:51 PM Just because someone holds substantially different views to you does not by definition make them less intelligent, sincere, informed, educated or open minded than you. The problem with RJD is, he has the same problem as Iain Duncan Smith, he refuses to be informed. OMG that is post of the day well hypocritical post of the day anyway. Do you ever look in a mirror PS?



Steve K	Oct 14 2014, 07:11 PM Post #181
Once and future cynic Posts: 33,990 Group: Admins Member #20 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	disgruntled porker Oct 14 2014, 06:55 PM MS. Your second paragraph embodies exactly what I'm saying about ReinalD. What you are describing is his behaviour in a nutshell, not mine. When I first came on this forum, ReJinalD was one of the people I enjoyed tilting against. I considered him to be quite intelligent and worthy of debating with. Now all he does is resort to thinly veiled insults about the intelligence of people he have the audacity to question his sacrosanct opinions. Did you notice his little dig that he considered PS to be too intelligent, as he had grammar school education, to share the same opinions as me? It just proves has lack of ability to judge people doesn't it? Do you wonder that people take him to task when he makes such unfounded, insulting, insinuations? tough luck Piggly Wiggly, only 2nd most hypocritical post of the day. There wasn't a prize anyway



papasmurf	Oct 14 2014, 07:16 PM Post #182
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Steve K Oct 14 2014, 07:09 PM OMG that is post of the day well hypocritical post of the day anyway. Do you ever look in a mirror PS? No it is not, RJD keeps making comments about please supply some evidence, then he never reads it. He just rants on despite being given the evidence disproving his "belief" time after time after time. IDS does exactly the same.



Steve K	Oct 14 2014, 07:36 PM Post #183
Once and future cynic Posts: 33,990 Group: Admins Member #20 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	papasmurf Oct 14 2014, 07:16 PM Steve K Oct 14 2014, 07:09 PM OMG that is post of the day well hypocritical post of the day anyway. Do you ever look in a mirror PS? No it is not, RJD keeps making comments about please supply some evidence, then he never reads it. He just rants on despite being given the evidence disproving his "belief" time after time after time. IDS does exactly the same. In your place I would stop digging



papasmurf	Oct 14 2014, 07:40 PM Post #184
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Steve K Oct 14 2014, 07:36 PM In your place I would stop digging I am not digging, merely commenting at RJD parroting the Tory HQ line with never an original thought he is being told porkies by Tory HQ. The "National Rollout" of Universal Credit being the latest one.



Steve K	Oct 14 2014, 08:02 PM Post #185
Once and future cynic Posts: 33,990 Group: Admins Member #20 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	papasmurf Oct 14 2014, 07:40 PM Steve K Oct 14 2014, 07:36 PM In your place I would stop digging I am not digging, merely commenting at RJD parroting the Tory HQ line with never an original thought he is being told porkies by Tory HQ. The "National Rollout" of Universal Credit being the latest one. PS your ability to misconstrue what people post or say is legendary. Why call an imagined kettle black.



Tigger	Oct 14 2014, 08:22 PM Post #186
Senior Member Posts: 20,106 Group: Members Member #18 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	RJD Oct 14 2014, 04:03 PM ACH1967 Oct 14 2014, 01:30 PM RJD Oct 14 2014, 12:22 PM But Ty, with the matter of welfare reform I claim that it is immoral for the State to design systems of welfare that discourage claimants from ever seeking employment. The well understood and established "welfare trap". We have been over the sums dozens of times and it cannot be right that the effective rate of income tax on any increases on net income on that obtained by way of welfare benefits should be 80%+. I would like to see a counter argument. It is also worth reminding that the IDS reforms have not rid us of the trap, but only reduced the hurdle. But isn't the only way to reduce this level of marginal taxation to reduce the benefits of those at this point and make their lives more miserable? Miserable is a subjective word. The point and formula has to be found such that for those fit and able a pension for life is not an option. Anyway my argument was a moral one, however, one could claim that whilst it is basically immoral for the State to trap individuals into a life of near poverty that the circumstances for many is such that no other option is plausible. A sensible pragmatic balance must be found, one which sits well with the rest of society especially those who pick up the costs. "Annual income twenty pounds annual expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen shillings and sixpence, result misery". That from Charles Dickens who wrote Lewis Carroll and the chocolate factory. And I went to a state school like you but chased girls and smoked behind the bike sheds instead of studying, never did me any harm though etc....



Steve K	Oct 14 2014, 08:32 PM Post #187
Once and future cynic Posts: 33,990 Group: Admins Member #20 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	You were lucky . . . .



Stan Still	Oct 14 2014, 08:58 PM Post #188
Regular Member Posts: 1,705 Group: Members Member #23 Joined: Jun 28, 2014	He was we never had a bike shed not that it mattered we could not afford a bike anyway, and you try telling the kids of today that, and they won't believe you



disgruntled porker	Oct 14 2014, 09:26 PM Post #189
Older than most people think I am. Posts: 1,945 Group: Members Member #31 Joined: Jun 28, 2014	Steve K Oct 14 2014, 07:11 PM disgruntled porker Oct 14 2014, 06:55 PM MS. Your second paragraph embodies exactly what I'm saying about ReinalD. What you are describing is his behaviour in a nutshell, not mine. When I first came on this forum, ReJinalD was one of the people I enjoyed tilting against. I considered him to be quite intelligent and worthy of debating with. Now all he does is resort to thinly veiled insults about the intelligence of people he have the audacity to question his sacrosanct opinions. Did you notice his little dig that he considered PS to be too intelligent, as he had grammar school education, to share the same opinions as me? It just proves has lack of ability to judge people doesn't it? Do you wonder that people take him to task when he makes such unfounded, insulting, insinuations? tough luck Piggly Wiggly, only 2nd most hypocritical post of the day. There wasn't a prize anyway How totally unexpected.



RJD	Oct 15 2014, 11:38 AM Post #190
Prudence and Thrift Posts: 12,499 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	disgruntled porker Oct 14 2014, 05:21 PM RJD Oct 14 2014, 11:42 AM disgruntled porker Oct 14 2014, 10:46 AM RJD Oct 14 2014, 09:25 AM Quoting limited to 4 levels deep Well I happend to have a very good Grammar school education too. I also have a honours degree. So put that in your pipe and smoke it you conceited old windbag. Well all that investment in education appears to have been wasted with you. You are a very nasty narrow minded person as far as I am concerned and I no longer see why I should be polite and tolerate your crude rude claims. I am not interested in your ignorant perceptions of me or anything only which claims you can substantiate. You may wish to wear your politics on your sleeve, but please do not expect any respect for doing so. Exactly my point. You are only interested in your own opinions and trying to belittle anyone who does not fall for your bluff and bluster of self superiorty. A much used tactic of those of a similar mindset to yourself. You are your own private little Tory conference, applauding only your own half truths and bullshit. Your arrogance does not impress me one iota. Not true I am only interest in exposing the vacuousness of your claims, nothing more. This is a debating forum after all.



RJD	Oct 15 2014, 11:44 AM Post #191
Prudence and Thrift Posts: 12,499 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	disgruntled porker Oct 14 2014, 09:26 PM Steve K Oct 14 2014, 07:11 PM disgruntled porker Oct 14 2014, 06:55 PM MS. Your second paragraph embodies exactly what I'm saying about ReinalD. What you are describing is his behaviour in a nutshell, not mine. When I first came on this forum, ReJinalD was one of the people I enjoyed tilting against. I considered him to be quite intelligent and worthy of debating with. Now all he does is resort to thinly veiled insults about the intelligence of people he have the audacity to question his sacrosanct opinions. Did you notice his little dig that he considered PS to be too intelligent, as he had grammar school education, to share the same opinions as me? It just proves has lack of ability to judge people doesn't it? Do you wonder that people take him to task when he makes such unfounded, insulting, insinuations? tough luck Piggly Wiggly, only 2nd most hypocritical post of the day. There wasn't a prize anyway How totally unexpected. Again you are wrong. Mr Smurf put himself up for a cockshy by proclaiming he was super intelligent with a genius level IQ as measured by Mensa. Your problem Mr Pig is that you make it a habit of being uninformed and now that is the most significant aspect of your postings. My intelligence, such as it was, was long depleted before I ever found this place, however, my surprise is to find my self in the company of many younger people in a worse situation than I find myself.



ACH1967	Oct 15 2014, 03:20 PM Post #192
Senior Member Posts: 4,226 Group: Members Member #56 Joined: Jul 24, 2014	RJD Oct 14 2014, 04:03 PM ACH1967 Oct 14 2014, 01:30 PM RJD Oct 14 2014, 12:22 PM But Ty, with the matter of welfare reform I claim that it is immoral for the State to design systems of welfare that discourage claimants from ever seeking employment. The well understood and established "welfare trap". We have been over the sums dozens of times and it cannot be right that the effective rate of income tax on any increases on net income on that obtained by way of welfare benefits should be 80%+. I would like to see a counter argument. It is also worth reminding that the IDS reforms have not rid us of the trap, but only reduced the hurdle. But isn't the only way to reduce this level of marginal taxation to reduce the benefits of those at this point and make their lives more miserable? Miserable is a subjective word. The point and formula has to be found such that for those fit and able a pension for life is not an option. Anyway my argument was a moral one, however, one could claim that whilst it is basically immoral for the State to trap individuals into a life of near poverty that the circumstances for many is such that no other option is plausible. A sensible pragmatic balance must be found, one which sits well with the rest of society especially those who pick up the costs. RJD: Miserable is a subjective word. The point and formula has to be found such that for those fit and able a pension for life is not an option. ACH. So you assume they would be happier with less money? RJD: Anyway my argument was a moral one, however, one could claim that whilst it is basically immoral for the State to trap individuals into a life of near poverty that the circumstances for many is such that no other option is plausible. A sensible pragmatic balance must be found, one which sits well with the rest of society especially those who pick up the costs. ACH: Either the state gives them less or the Private Sector offers higher wages. How else can they make more money. The Panorama programme last Monday is worth a watch. Although these peoples are working poor they still cost 28bn a year so still relevant to a degree. Still my main question still stands, how do you fix this without making peoples lives more difficult?



papasmurf	Oct 15 2014, 03:26 PM Post #193
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	RJD Oct 15 2014, 11:44 AM Mr Smurf put himself up for a cockshy by proclaiming he was super intelligent with a genius level IQ as measured by Mensa. No I didn't they were not Mensa tests. I have also commented many times that if IQ really did have much relevance there would not be so many very high IQ people doing mundane low paid jobs.



Tigger	Oct 15 2014, 07:09 PM Post #194
Senior Member Posts: 20,106 Group: Members Member #18 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	ACH1967 Oct 15 2014, 03:20 PM how do you fix this without making peoples lives more difficult? Stop the state and law propping up inflated asset prices so the country can actually afford itself again, too much smoke and mirrors in Britain and we can't keep paying for it indefinitely.



Affa	Oct 15 2014, 09:32 PM Post #195
Senior Member Posts: 11,999 Group: Members Member #58 Joined: Jul 26, 2014	Tigger Oct 15 2014, 07:09 PM ACH1967 Oct 15 2014, 03:20 PM how do you fix this without making peoples lives more difficult? Stop the state and law propping up inflated asset prices so the country can actually afford itself again, too much smoke and mirrors in Britain and we can't keep paying for it indefinitely. It does seem that all the government's efforts are to make the wealthy richer by far, and the masses poorer, and poorer. One might even call it an evil - it certainly appears that way. In the past I have called money, a God. It may be this place where that is explored?



Steve K	Oct 15 2014, 09:37 PM Post #196
Once and future cynic Posts: 33,990 Group: Admins Member #20 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	Well maybe you've forgotten the highest real terms increases in basic income tax thresholds while hardly increasing the higher tax rate threshold



Affa	Oct 15 2014, 10:23 PM Post #197
Senior Member Posts: 11,999 Group: Members Member #58 Joined: Jul 26, 2014	RJD Oct 15 2014, 11:44 AM disgruntled porker Oct 14 2014, 09:26 PM Steve K Oct 14 2014, 07:11 PM disgruntled porker Oct 14 2014, 06:55 PM MS. Your second paragraph embodies exactly what I'm saying about ReinalD. What you are describing is his behaviour in a nutshell, not mine. When I first came on this forum, ReJinalD was one of the people I enjoyed tilting against. I considered him to be quite intelligent and worthy of debating with. Now all he does is resort to thinly veiled insults about the intelligence of people he have the audacity to question his sacrosanct opinions. tough luck Piggly Wiggly, only 2nd most hypocritical post of the day. How totally unexpected. Again you are wrong. Mr Smurf put himself up for a cockshy by proclaiming he was super intelligent with a genius level IQ as measured by Mensa. Jody Marsh has a MENSA rating of 138 ...... it takes intelligence like that to know and understand that Cognitive ability does not assert infallibility. Having a belief that "I am always right" as some here exhibit isn't indicative of intelligence. Of course, I could be wrong about that, and I'm sure there are quite a few here only too prepared to prove me wrong. Edited by Affa, Oct 15 2014, 10:26 PM.



RJD	Oct 16 2014, 07:30 AM Post #198
Prudence and Thrift Posts: 12,499 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	papasmurf Oct 15 2014, 03:26 PM RJD Oct 15 2014, 11:44 AM Mr Smurf put himself up for a cockshy by proclaiming he was super intelligent with a genius level IQ as measured by Mensa. No I didn't they were not Mensa tests. I have also commented many times that if IQ really did have much relevance there would not be so many very high IQ people doing mundane low paid jobs. Really. If you wish to rephrase your claims wrt to your measured IQ please take this opportunity.



papasmurf	Oct 16 2014, 07:41 AM Post #199
Senior Member Posts: 17,280 Group: Members Member #13 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	RJD Oct 16 2014, 07:30 AM Really. If you wish to rephrase your claims wrt to your measured IQ please take this opportunity. I have made myself very clear on the subject of IQs RJD, it is you who insists a high IQ means something, I don't.



RJD	Oct 16 2014, 11:31 AM Post #200
Prudence and Thrift Posts: 12,499 Group: Members Member #9 Joined: Jun 27, 2014	papasmurf Oct 16 2014, 07:41 AM RJD Oct 16 2014, 07:30 AM Really. If you wish to rephrase your claims wrt to your measured IQ please take this opportunity. I have made myself very clear on the subject of IQs RJD, it is you who insists a high IQ means something, I don't. Might have been clear to you, but you certainly have confused others. I do not know how you could even be motivated to declare that you had such a high IQ. Why would any sensible person do such a thing?



1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)

Our users say it best: "A great way to make a forums for free and it is very reliable as well. Thank you Zetaboards." Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
…
4
5
6
…
12