The UK benefits system

[furrball]

Same question - who decides and on what criteria?

You remove X and you provide Y..
Simple arithmetic, surely ?

You'll be pleased to know I don't vote

Yup, They're all lying scumfucks ( All hail the Hicks )

Nor do I - within reason - but this is not within reason, hasn't been in forever, and is going the wrong way.

Hrmm - I agree, but probably not for the same reason..
I don't think people should be *comfortable* on the dole - I think they should be supported, and catered to, but not to the level where they can afford luxuries.

Unless you think luxuries are a basic human right ?

( FYI - I'm also referring to me.. I've been a pisshead, an addict, and homeless.. )

I do believe contentment is the enemy of change..
And I also believe there are an immense number of people out there who are wasting their potential..
[ And you'd have to see the way things are over here to fully appreciate my perspective ]

 

[RLP]

I suspect you probably don't see how that is patronising either. Are you really saying that only people with specialist knowledge of economic theory - and can pass an exam on it - should be allowed to vote?

There should be some sort of test to pass to be able to vote.

Too many cretins stick an X in a box having no idea what the party they vote for actually represent. I overheard a simpleton at the last election complain she wanted to vote for Nick Griffin and he wasn't on her ballot sheet.

The country is full of fucktards. The idea of democracy is lost on them for the most part anyway and they engage more with X Factor voting.

Bring in a test for voting. I'd suggest that there are some socioeconomic groups that you could pretty much brush off as no hopers like the gypos, under 20's and women but I'm guessing such sentiment will kick up a shitstorm here, so let them just fail the test instead.

 

[Vurtual]

Your attitude is great, I apologize for being an asshole before. I disagreed with you but I was just rude about it, so im sorry.

Nice to see someone here has heard of piketty. ...

No problem - i'm sure i've been the same talking about these subjects (important frustrating and complex as they are). I haven't read piketty either just read some good reviews (and seen him on newsnight). Seeing as how you like piketty, how do you feel about marx? (seeing as some call piketty marxist). And have you read David Harvey?

...
What you were saying above to shambles about a questionnaire is very problematic (i know it's imaginary) - as in the media, there can be unseen assumptions and inherent bias in how issues are framed and worded, and what's left out (even unconsciously). The current accepted-by-governments-and-big-universities theories of economics (unbelievably still neoliberalism) are very much on their last legs - there's certainly no consensus on what the economic 'truth' is (eg piketty, krugman, stiglitz etc). The current govenrment would defnitely still fill such an imaginary questionnaire with assumptions based on the neoliberal doctrine which is wrong as far as i'm concerned. It would always be the case that whatever the current obvious accepted theories are they may become obviously wrong later.

That's the problem with mainstream economics - it bends with the wind (namely when goldman sachs gives your university millions, you propose theories that mean they make a killing; then they give you more millions - see 'Inside Job')

 

[sexNcandy]

They already are. Your suggestion simply exempts rich people from paying more than the cost of the occasional sandwich in terms of tax. Other baubles and essentials are available. But won't come close to covering income tax.



I suspect you probably don't see how that is patronising either. Are you really saying that only people with specialist knowledge of economic theory - and can pass an exam on it - should be allowed to vote?

And you also appear to be saying that economics as practised since such a thing was invented and then got a little too big for its boots somehow hasn't been horrendously harmful to society. Tell that to the people chained to their workstation - in actual chains - to keep prices down. Tell it to people jumping off rooftops and not even being allowed that escape cos Apple put up nets to catch them it happens so frequently. Tell it to everybody shat on to fund a corrupt system. Economics helps people who have degrees in economics. Or those whose parents did somewhere down the line. The rest of us pay for it all through exploitation, oppression and suppression. And being constantly told that if we just keep holding out it really will be different this time. This public bailout will be the last. We've made those mistakes so often we'd be fools to do it all over again. And again. And again. We would stay rich though so there is that to at least sweeten the pill. We'll even buy some mosquito nets and shit. Makes all the difference.

The whole thing is bullshit. We have the same stuff in the world and the same ways of utilising that stuff whatever stupid and shortsighted economic policy is in play. We can choose to make use of them any way we please. When little pieces of paper count for all there's something very wrong with it all. Incentive would be a bonus. Not crap. Actual incentive. Reasons to want to contribute cos you feel the benefit and can see it around you. That's not economics but it is human nature. What I think of as humanity anyway.

I suspect you have the wrong idea of what patronising means

I say > a super basic and easy test that anyone who takes the time to read a 2 page document would pass.

You understand > only people with specialist knowledge of economic theory would be able to vote

8( 8( 8(


As to the rest of your post... nothing but bollocks. A lot of talk and no substance behind it. Get if off your chest then.

 

[RLP]

There should be some sort of test to pass to be able to vote.

Too many cretins stick an X in a box having no idea what the party they vote for actually represent. I overheard a simpleton at the last election complain she wanted to vote for Nick Griffin and he wasn't on her ballot sheet.

The country is full of fucktards. The idea of democracy is lost on them for the most part anyway and they engage more with X Factor voting.

Bring in a test for voting. I'd suggest that there are some socioeconomic groups that you could pretty much brush off as no hopers like the gypos, under 20's and women but I'm guessing such sentiment will kick up a shitstorm here, so let them just fail the test instead.

Just to emphasize my point, newsnight has just gone around a working class area in Rotherham asking people who they were voting for and why.

One solitary bastard could answer why with any real idea, and even then it was poorly communicated.

Voting is too important to be given to anyone.

 

[Vurtual]

There should be some sort of test to pass to be able to vote...

Yeah, too much money and you can't vote

 

[RLP]

As long as we can buy others votes.

 

[RLP]

I'm sorry everyone, I can't do this anymore it feels dirty. I actually voted green in my postal vote. :D

 

[sexNcandy]

No problem - i'm sure i've been the same talking about these subjects (important frustrating and complex as they are). I haven't read piketty either just read some good reviews (and seen him on newsnight). Seeing as how you like piketty, how do you feel about marx? (seeing as some call piketty marxist). And have you read David Harvey?

...
What you were saying above to shambles about a questionnaire is very problematic (i know it's imaginary) - as in the media, there can be unseen assumptions and inherent bias in how issues are framed and worded, and what's left out (even unconsciously). The current accepted-by-governments-and-big-universities theories of economics (unbelievably still neoliberalism) are very much on their last legs - there's certainly no consensus on what the economic 'truth' is (eg piketty, krugman, stiglitz etc). The current govenrment would defnitely still fill such an imaginary questionnaire with assumptions based on the neoliberal doctrine which is wrong as far as i'm concerned. It would always be the case that whatever the current obvious accepted theories are they may become obviously wrong later.

That's the problem with mainstream economics - it bends with the wind (namely when goldman sachs gives your university millions, you propose theories that mean they make a killing; then they give you more millions - see 'Inside Job')

I like pikettys work but wouldn't go as far as supporting his idea of global taxation. Never read harvey, and I don't like marx or his work. I've had to study a lot of it and I think it is outdated and quite useless today. It is historically relevant and admittedly revolutionized a lot of things in its time, but I think his ideas could never work in reality.

I don't know about such comparisons, really. Piketty has denied being a marxist or even having read the capital, and from the reviews I had I don't really see a lot of relation.

And yea - it never would work in practice to have a test like that. It would certainly be distorted by many interests and end up being used for political manipulation. Still, I can't help but think that it is terrible for society that so many people are allowed to votes on issues about which they don't have the slightest clue. It's not even that big a problem in the UK really, but it's huge in under-developed societies where there are hundreds of millions of ignorant masses being manipulated by politicians and the media.

 

[Shambles]

You remove X and you provide Y..
Simple arithmetic, surely ?

Rather depends on what you are putting in place of the Xs and Ys, no?

Hrmm - I agree, but probably not for the same reason..
I don't think people should be *comfortable* on the dole - I think they should be supported, and catered to, but not to the level where they can afford luxuries.

If you read my posts in this thread I'm not exactly entirely in favour of any of the current benefits system. On general principle that enough to live, not enough to live like a king without contributing something beyond existence I would agree.

Bring in a test for voting. I'd suggest that there are some socioeconomic groups that you could pretty much brush off as no hopers like the gypos, under 20's and women but I'm guessing such sentiment will kick up a shitstorm here, so let them just fail the test instead.

I'm mostly tittering along with you but am drawing a line at that. It is a particular and personal bugbear of mine but is also downright racist. "Gypos" may have become a generic term for the underclass but it's far too close to its root word for comfort. I was engaged for several years to a gypsy lass - Romany, actual gypsy, not a gypo - and I can assure you "they" find it as offensive as if you were to be tossing about niggers and kikes. Not literally cos that would be an impressive feat of juggling but you know what I mean. It may be considered somehow acceptable in comparison but it ain't.

She was also a woman but was over 20 so one out of three is surely enough for a vote in the Euro elections, no?

I suspect you have the wrong idea of what patronising means

I don't. But if I did you're providing plenty of practical examples for me to wrap me lil head around eventually.

As it happens, I also know who Pikkety is - even a smidgen of his ideas - but also haven't read the book. It's easy not reading books but mentioning you are aware of their existence. Again, relevance is questionable but have at it clever folk

As long as we can buy others votes.

That's never been in question

 

[THECATINTHEHAT]

Socrates had it right over 2000 years ago, the proletariat should not be involved in government in any way.

 

[Shambles]

They're not anyway are they? Not really.

 

[Vurtual]

...Still, I can't help but think that it is terrible for society that so many people are allowed to votes on issues about which they don't have the slightest clue. It's not even that big a problem in the UK really, but it's huge in under-developed societies where there are hundreds of millions of ignorant masses being manipulated by politicians and the media.

But do you mean people who don't have a clue, or people who have different ideas to you about economics - if the mainstream can be wrong about (i think) neoliberalism or (i guess you think) keynesianism, maybe the 'mainstream' ideas i assume you think are obvious will turn out wrong (not quite sure what your ideas are though).

No, i didn't really see much marxism in piketty (he's basically a capitalist) - but i think you're wrong to say marx's ideas in capital couldn't work in reality; they're not those sort of ideas - they're economic analysis not politics (that was added later), though the analysis is certainly political - outdated certainly, but at the time it pissed all over capitalists' attempts to analyse their system (so they basically absorbed a lot of its sophistication over time); and the core of the analysis method (just to understand class relations as i described above) is still valid, though it needs updating (and has been - see harvey).

Though i think his analysis of capitalism is valuable, i don't think much of his predictive powers of proletarian revolution (or his trust in being able to analyse a 'real' dialectic process), and find political groups who got hung up on marxist dialectical theory are often batty (and marx would have probably run a mile). I wouldn't call myself a marxist (though neither did he).

 

[THECATINTHEHAT]

They're not anyway are they? Not really.

Yes they are, they keep voting the same people in. Precisely why they shouldn't be involved.

 

[sexNcandy]

I don't. But if I did you're providing plenty of practical examples for me to wrap me lil head around eventually.

As it happens, I also know who Pikkety is - even a smidgen of his ideas - but also haven't read the book. It's easy not reading books but mentioning you are aware of their existence. Again, relevance is questionable but have at it clever folk

No, you don't. Its an actual definition, it's not up for debate. And you keep using it wrong, so you don't.

And most people haven't read it, its 700 pages long and filled with statistical data. But i believe some reviews have done it justice, like the one I posted, which is quite long. So you don't have a point.

 

[sexNcandy]

Socrates had it right over 2000 years ago, the proletariat should not be involved in government in any way.

:rolleyes

 

[sexNcandy]

But do you mean people who don't have a clue, or people who have different ideas to you about economics - if the mainstream can be wrong about (i think) neoliberalism or (i guess you think) keynesianism, maybe the 'mainstream' ideas i assume you think are obvious will turn out wrong (not quite sure what your ideas are though).

No, i didn't really see much marxism in piketty (he's basically a capitalist) - but i think you're wrong to say marx's ideas in capital couldn't work in reality; they're not those sort of ideas - they're economic analysis not politics (that was added later), though the analysis is certainly political - outdated certainly, but at the time it pissed all over capitalists' attempts to analyse their system (so they basically absorbed a lot of its sophistication over time); and the core of the analysis method (just to understand class relations as i described above) is still valid, though it needs updating (and has been - see harvey).

Though i think his analysis of capitalism is valuable, i don't think much of his predictive powers of proletarian revolution (or his trust in being able to analyse a 'real' dialectic process), and find political groups who got hung up on marxist dialectical theory are often batty (and marx would have probably run a mile). I wouldn't call myself a marxist (though neither did he).

Hahahaha yea i agree, marx would run about ten miles in a minute if he came across any marxist.

I meant people who don't have a clue, people who don't even know how an election works or who's running. Some politician shows up with some freebies and tell them to vote for him and they do so he'll come again next time with more stuff.

 

[Shambles]

Yes they are, they keep voting the same people in. Precisely why they shouldn't be involved.

They don't actually vote the people in though. Not really. All that strategic shifting of constituency lines isn't done for the fun of it or to spread the good word of democratic power.

No, you don't. Its an actual definition, it's not up for debate. And you keep using it wrong, so you don't.

And most people haven't read it, its 700 pages long and filled with statistical data. But i believe some reviews have done it justice, like the one I posted, which is quite long. So you don't have a point.

patronize
ˈpatrənʌɪz/Submit
verb
gerund or present participle: patronising

1. treat with an apparent kindness which betrays a feeling of superiority.
"‘She's a good-hearted girl,’ he said in a patronizing voice"

synonyms: treat condescendingly, treat with condescension, condescend to, look down on, talk down to, put down, humiliate, treat like a child, treat as inferior, treat with disdain, treat scornfully/contemptuously, be snobbish to, look down one's nose at, condescending, supercilious, superior, imperious, haughty, lofty, lordly, magisterial, disdainful, scornful, contemptuous, cavalier, snobbish, pompous; informal: uppity, high and mighty, snooty, stuck-up, fancy-pants; informal: toffee-nosed

antonyms: friendly, humble

2. frequent (a shop, restaurant, or other establishment) as a customer.
"he's a denizen of flashy pubs patronized by the underworld"

synonyms: do business with, buy from, shop at, be a customer of, be a client of, bring trade/custom to, deal with, trade with; More

3. give financial or other support to (a person, organization, or cause).
"she patronizes worthy causes"

synonyms: sponsor, back, fund, finance, be a patron of, promote, further, foster, help, aid, assist, support, encourage, champion, protect

Seems more or less to say what I was meaning to me. Your provision of yet another practical example can but aid my comprehension of such a lofty concept though so thank you for all the effort on my education you've put in tonight

A long review?!? An actual long one?!? Fuck. I can't possibly compete with such in-depth knowledge of a subject

Y'know I may just be catching on with this whole patronisation bizniz. Lot to learn but progress is being made

 

[sexNcandy]

See, there you go again, mixing it up.

Most of the examples you claim are of me patronising you really aren't.

In this post you were sarcastic, openly so. Not patronising.

 

[THECATINTHEHAT]

:rolleyes

I'm not even joking.

The government should consist of the top academics in the relevant areas. The people are too stupid to know what's best for them, how else to you think we end up with a man that's got a 2:1 in history as chancellor?

The people keep voting and the people keep getting screwed. Democracy doesn't work.