Sweet Pete Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 I am strongly against tax evasion but at least a tax evader is making the effort to earn THEMSELVES a living, there are plenty of scumbags like this heifer who will be perpetual scroungers and without them we'd all be better off regardless of tax evasion or avoidance. Tax avoidance costs the UK economy far, far more than "benefit scroungers" do. sorry but companies using various tax holes to dodge or avoid tax does not excuse the fact she is a fat lazy scrounger who thinks the world owes her a living. she has kids to feed? you should maybe make sure you are in stable finacial posotion before you choose to spread your thunder thighs and reproduce in the first place hen. have sypathy for the children but not the woman and her half arsed excuses for the position she now finds herself in. You're getting dangerously close to eugenics territory there. It's not up to you to decide who has earned the right to start a family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross. Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 Tax avoidance costs the UK economy far, far more than "benefit scroungers" do. You're getting dangerously close to eugenics territory there. It's not up to you to decide who has earned the right to start a family. First point I was going to make, then couldn't be arsed. Second point, most people if pressed will favour Eugenics. They'll just pretend they think it's outrageous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever_blue Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 Tax avoidance costs the UK economy far, far more than "benefit scroungers" do. You're getting dangerously close to eugenics territory there. It's not up to you to decide who has earned the right to start a family. everyone has their right to start a family , most are sensible enough to wait untill they have a finaciall stability in their life though. the fact she then see's them as a reason to make an excuse about her lifestyle suggest to me their was not alot of planning took place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever_blue Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 Tax avoidance costs the UK economy far, far more than "benefit scroungers" do. again that still does not excuse the fact that the benefit scroungers who abuse the welfare system are scrounging b*****ds none the less Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hillonearth Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 Kick her in the pie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweet Pete Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 First point I was going to make, then couldn't be arsed. Second point, most people if pressed will favour Eugenics. They'll just pretend they think it's outrageous. That's a pretty bold statement. I've certainly never seen any evidence to back that up. everyone has their right to start a family , most are sensible enough to wait untill they have a finaciall stability in their life though. the fact she then see's them as a reason to make an excuse about her lifestyle suggest to me their was not alot of planning took place. Sometimes people have kids regardless of whether they're in a high income bracket or not. That's life. Let's look at this Daily Mail story for what it is, an exceptional case of someone thick being exploited for point and laugh kicks by newspaper editors who with nothing better to do and who crave web hits. The Daily Mail dream up or dig up these pieces purely to stir up controversy and drive web traffic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweet Pete Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 again that still does not excuse the fact that the benefit scroungers who abuse the welfare system are scrounging b*****ds none the less They are, sure, but they're also a tiny minority. Do some digging into the figures, you'll be amazed that behind the tabloid headlines the actual numbers, and their impact upon the system, is not so terrifying as the redtops would have you believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick_BCFC Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 I'd love to lick her out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever_blue Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 They are, sure, but they're also a tiny minority. Do some digging into the figures, you'll be amazed that behind the tabloid headlines the actual numbers, and their impact upon the system, is not so terrifying as the redtops would have you believe. again you are missing my point, I understand the majority of benefit receivers are genuinley in need of the system, some of my extended family need it due to various illnesses and disabilities they have picked up as they have got older despite working all through their adult life. christ I used it myself for 3 months when job searching after I left school. but their are benefit scroungers out there and in my eyes they are workshy, lazy arseholes no matter how much of a minority they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Nooka Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 Tax avoidance costs the UK economy far, far more than "benefit scroungers" do. You're getting dangerously close to eugenics territory there. It's not up to you to decide who has earned the right to start a family. It's not about which costs more, one contributes to the economy (albeit not as much as they should) the other doesn't. The BIB is hysterical nonsense, just because you might think people should be able to look after their own children before creating them means you are a some sort of genetic 'purist'? Responsibility is not a bad trait to have you know and I'm pretty sure that has nothing to do with genetics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross. Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 That's a pretty bold statement. I've certainly never seen any evidence to back that up. Hypothetical situation. You and the missus want children, but are unable to procreate through nature alone. You contact whoever the f*ck it is you contact in these situations, and they send you to some surgery somewhere. You're given the option of using the seed/eggs of 2 candidates in order to get the job done. The first is a former international athlete turned human rights activist with a sky high IQ, 7 figure bank balance, universally revered personality and flawless track record of being an all round sound c*nt. The second is a local ex lawyer who was struck off when found with a stash of child porn that would embarrass Gary Glitter. He is of no fixed abode, and is well known locally for his unfortunate aesthetics and general all round clatty wee bampot persona. Which would you choose and why? The example above is an extreme example of eugenics in work, but in human nature it is something people do unconsciously on a regular basis when selecting potential partners. There are countless things you take in without realising it that are used when deciding if it's worth a pump or not. (Un)Fortunately for me, alcohol renders my senses almost useless. It's not quite the same as the Nazis/Americans/British/Scandinavians trying to cross breed the perfect human, but it is still eugenics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomp my root Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 They are, sure, but they're also a tiny minority. Do some digging into the figures, you'll be amazed that behind the tabloid headlines the actual numbers, and their impact upon the system, is not so terrifying as the redtops would have you believe. I strongly suspect that you are right and please believe me when I say this, I'm not sticking up for that shitty rag the Mail but I have no problem with people like this burd being 'outed' as a sponger. She might need a bit of help to budget or whatever from someone at the council or CAB etc but to claim she needs more than the 20K and subsidised house is offensive to a lot of people who get by on similar amounts. The problem of tax avoidance is a different issue and for it to be cast up is a bit like one convicted criminal looking down his nose at another for doing a 'worse' crime. Ideally both spongers and tax avoiders will be getting sorted out for the good of all of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Buddie Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 sorry but companies using various tax holes to dodge or avoid tax does not excuse the fact she is a fat lazy scrounger who thinks the world owes her a living. she has kids to feed? you should maybe make sure you are in stable finacial posotion before you choose to spread your thunder thighs and reproduce in the first place hen. have sypathy for the children but not the woman and her half arsed excuses for the position she now finds herself in. Aye, but you don't see The Daily Mail or its classier Ugly Sisters like the Telegraph and the Times doing similar stories on Home Counties Tories or major commercial institutions who are serial tax dodgers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy85 Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Buddie Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 I strongly suspect that you are right and please believe me when I say this, I'm not sticking up for that shitty rag the Mail but I have no problem with people like this burd being 'outed' as a sponger. She might need a bit of help to budget or whatever from someone at the council or CAB etc but to claim she needs more than the 20K and subsidised house is offensive to a lot of people who get by on similar amounts. The problem of tax avoidance is a different issue and for it to be cast up is a bit like one convicted criminal looking down his nose at another for doing a 'worse' crime. Ideally both spongers and tax avoiders will be getting sorted out for the good of all of us. And that is a shitload of money from the benefits budget, 20 grand a year = c £26000 before deductions and say around £7000 worth of free rent, again £10000 before deductions, that's an annual salary of £36,000 for sittirng your (considerable) arse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Nooka Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 Hypothetical situation. You and the missus want children, but are unable to procreate through nature alone. You contact whoever the f*ck it is you contact in these situations, and they send you to some surgery somewhere. You're given the option of using the seed/eggs of 2 candidates in order to get the job done. The first is a former international athlete turned human rights activist with a sky high IQ, 7 figure bank balance, universally revered personality and flawless track record of being an all round sound c*nt. The second is a local ex lawyer who was struck off when found with a stash of child porn that would embarrass Gary Glitter. He is of no fixed abode, and is well known locally for his unfortunate aesthetics and general all round clatty wee bampot persona. Which would you choose and why? The example above is an extreme example of eugenics in work, but in human nature it is something people do unconsciously on a regular basis when selecting potential partners. There are countless things you take in without realising it that are used when deciding if it's worth a pump or not. (Un)Fortunately for me, alcohol renders my senses almost useless. It's not quite the same as the Nazis/Americans/British/Scandinavians trying to cross breed the perfect human, but it is still eugenics. You are basically describing natural selection/survival of the fittest, it's in our nature to want the best chance for our offspring/genes.....unless you're a dirty benefits scrounger of course! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross. Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 You are basically describing natural selection/survival of the fittest, it's in our nature to want the best chance for our offspring/genes.....unless you're a dirty benefits scrounger of course! Which is eugenics by any other name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Grass Is Greener. Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 I'm not too interested in the story but 10/10 for the thread title. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy Nooka Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 Which is eugenics by any other name. I wouldn't say so, eugenics is more like 'unnatural selection' to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forever_blue Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 Yup gettin 20 grand for doing f**k all and subsidised housing. Oh the oppression Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.