Home Politics & Debate
Share your ideas and feedback to help us create a video for group chat! Complete our survey here to take part
Come and join our Support Circle, every Tuesday, 8 - 9:30pm! Anyone is welcome to join. Sign up here

We all pay your benefits

2»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yeah I just saw that on the news. I understand the need for security but....gah!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    had to facepalm a bit that she felt her kids were entitled to 2 hot meals a day.

    Most people for whatever reason don't have (nor do they need) 2 hot meals a day.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Doesn't mean she isn't entitled to give her kids 2 hot meals a day. I used to get 2 hot meals when i was at school, because we had the family meal in evenings and I was entitled to free meals at school. Its a bit weird having you're kids eating salad or sandwiches at tea time when you're having a hot meal.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That's not the point.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What is then? Should she have her parenting dictated by the state or national television? I think not! School meals leave a lot to be desired - often they aren't hot, or very edible, not nutritious. Ok what she gave them wasn't either, but that's probably due to her understanding of nutrition, money and her cooking skills
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Miss_Riot wrote: »
    What is then? Should she have her parenting dictated by the state or national television? I think not! School meals leave a lot to be desired - often they aren't hot, or very edible, not nutritious. Ok what she gave them wasn't either, but that's probably due to her understanding of nutrition, money and her cooking skills

    The point was she felt entitled to two hot meals a day. There's nothing wrong with two hot meals a day. But it's not a right.

    Can't help but feel with her spending on her pets as well, she just doesn't have her priorities right.

    But nobody is here to tell people how they need to live their lives, the problem is with the support system being misused. If you give support to someone in need, its natural to want them to use that support properly. Complaining about this, that and the other and not being able to live your life the way you would like, because you are not given enough, makes me wonder why so many other people understand the notion that if you want something, you have to go out and earn or find an income to get that.

    As I said, I've always had a 'trickle down' view, give people money when they need it - hope they spend it wisely, can't fix people who waste the support and their potential. But I'm beginning to feel that's naive.

    The issue raised in this program isn't that of 'strivers and shirkers', a rhetoric I wholly disagree with. The issue for me is actually - how many aren't fulfilling their part of the social contract? It's a non zero amount, and in light of the programme my giving people the benefit of the doubt has dimmed somewhat.


    Arctic - the Crown Estate pays an order of magnitude in revenues more than any royal costs us. They are technically pseudo-private property, they belong to the ruling monarch. If they went 'private' the loss in revenue would far outweigh the costs of support the royals. Unless of course we are suggesting that for some reason the government should take complete ownership of the Crown Estate and stop any payments?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The Crown Estate belongs to us. The freeloading Germans have It through our grace and nothing else. The Duchy of Cornwall does not but, as the Guardian pointed out not so long ago, Charles is a tax dodger.

    The royal family are parasites. Far more so than the stereotypical single mum who sprogs just to get a flat. We've paid more for Kate Middleton's fucking nursery than we'd pay in 20 years to a "benefit cheat"
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Wikipedia indicates that:
    In 1760 George III surrendered the revenue of the Crown Estate to HM Treasury, but in exchange he lost all responsibility for:
    the cost of the civil government
    the national debt accrued by previous monarchs, and
    his own personal debt.
    In return, he received an annual grant known as the Civil List.

    Ergo, if we stopped any annual grants and/or subsidies, surely we would have to give revenues of the royal estate back? No?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw a concise explanation
Sign In or Register to comment.