Why I hate this country!!!

[ewerk 29482]

Minimum wage needs to be about twice what it is now IMO. I'd be happier for the government to top up wages rather than pay out for people to do nothing.

 

Well that would help our balance of payments.

 

Pipe down Frenchie.

[Happy Face 29]

Haha you got shin pads for christmas? Might as well get nuts.

 

I got a Vectrex when i was 5. In your face.

 

[AgentAxeman 164]

I got a 6 Million Dollar man action doll and an Evil Knievel action bike set when i was 5. Good times............

[Monkeys Fist 41318]

Next year, Siobhan is saving to buy her boys a Thai Hooker and some heroin.

" I won't have my boys bullied and missing out when other peoples kids are growing up too fast. I have rights!"

Somewhere, a kitten is crying.

 

[ajax_andy 0]

Yes. This is EXACTLY why the country is so fucked. Well, it is if you get all your opinions and stories from the Sun/the Daily Mail. Because it was people on benefits who sent us into the recession, right?

 

A country built on debt

A country who would rather pay people not to work than work

A benefits system that allows people not to pay tax but still use all public services

 

3 very good reasons why we are in a recession, so yes people on benefits is one of the reasons we are in a recession. the only reason? no, but it certainly contributes

[ajax_andy 0]

Anyone else read the entire article searching for a NUFC reference?

 

She's Mike Ashleys sister

[toonotl 2828]

Next year, Siobhan is saving to buy her boys a Thai Hooker and some heroin.

" I won't have my boys bullied and missing out when other peoples kids are growing up too fast. I have rights!"

Somewhere, a kitten is crying.

 

Wake up! Me love you long time.

[Tom 14000]

She looks closer to 43 than 23.

[Meenzer 15111]

_{Back to the glory days of Northern Rock}

 

 

_{“People buying newly built houses will need a deposit of as little as 5 per cent under measures designed by the government to help unstick the housing market.”}

 

 

_{Financial Times, Nov 22}

_{What’s the story here?}

_{We need to go back to the height of the credit boom, four or five years ago. Banks were handing out mortgages without requiring a deposit. In the case of the most brilliantly managed banks, for example Northern Rock and HBOS, mortgages were offered with loan-to-value ratios of 125 per cent, in effect allowing house buyers to go deep into negative equity the day they collected the keys.}

 

_{Was that a problem?}

_{Yes, it was. Somebody in negative equity may be unable to move house without defaulting on the mortgage loan, which makes them a risky proposition for the bank, as well as trapping them in other ways – making it hard to move to find new work, for example. There’s also a fair case to be made that loose lending standards in the UK helped drive house prices up to absurd levels. If people tend to get carried away when they see rising house prices, which seems plausible enough, then their spending will be limited only by the giddy enthusiasm of the banks.}

_{Oh. Sounds bad.}

_{It’s good for elderly people who happen to move to smaller houses at just the right moment, and it’s good for presenters and producers of vacuous home-improvement pornography. But it’s bad news for anybody who owns less house than they’d ideally like – which is most of us, given how pokey British houses are – and it’s also bad news for the stability of the financial system. The crisis was triggered by similar loans in the US, not in the UK, but that doesn’t make overstretched UK loans a good idea.}

 

_{Right. So what’s the problem that the prime minister is trying to solve?}

_{It’s very simple: this unsavoury state of affairs stopped a few years ago, and David Cameron would like to kick-start it again.}

_{I’m sorry, I must have misheard you.}

_{That’s what I thought when I heard the policy being announced, but I am afraid it’s true. Such mortgages only made sense – for both bank and homebuyer – if you had (false) confidence that house prices would continue to rise forever. The government has noticed that banks have lost this confidence and now insist on substantial deposits as a cushion in case house prices fall. So it plans to throw the taxpayer guarantee in there – on top of the deposit cushion, the taxpayer is a kind of airbag. If prices fall and the buyer defaults on the loan, the taxpayer will absorb some of the impact.}

 

_{On what planet is this a good idea?}

_{Let’s be fair: more house building would be an excellent plan. It’s a contribution to the long-term wealth of the country; unlike manufacturing it cannot be offshored and provides plenty of employment, even from the young and the unskilled. And there aren’t nearly enough houses, which is another reason why prices are so high – relative to earnings they are still roughly at the level at the peak of the catastrophic late-1980s housing bubble. Private companies are building about 100,000 homes a year – low levels not seen since the 1920s. A few hundred thousand more houses each year at a time when prices are high and unemployment is also high would kill several birds with one stone.}

 

_But?

_{But this is surely the stupidest imaginable way to stimulate house building. There are three fundamental problems: prices look high, so banks don’t wish to be exposed to their likely fall by lending either to developers or to house buyers; the banking system itself is fragile, exacerbating the sense of caution; and above all, planning permission is hard to come by, so if you have the money to build a house the local council probably won’t let you. The government’s response is to try to prop up prices with the following proposition: lend money to people who should not be buying such expensive houses, and if things turn sour you can repossess the home, sell it at a loss and the taxpayer will see you right.}

 

_{What does the opposition think of this plan?}

_{They think it should be much bigger. Not nearly enough taxpayers’ money has been thrown into it, apparently. Without a more determined effort we’ll never get back to the aggressive lending of the glory days of Northern Rock.}

 

_{What happened to Northern Rock again?}

_{Let’s just say it’s gone to a better place.}

 

 

 

_{Utter fucking lunacy. Business goes on raking in the cash.}

 

For the sake of my blood pressure, I'll try to look on the bright side and say it's good to see what's been common sense for the last decade getting some kind of mainstream coverage at last. Not that it'll help.

Edited December 6, 2011 by Meenzer

[ewerk 29482]

Yes. This is EXACTLY why the country is so fucked. Well, it is if you get all your opinions and stories from the Sun/the Daily Mail. Because it was people on benefits who sent us into the recession, right?

 

A country built on debt - Nearly every major economy is built on debt. Had we not used debt then we would've been lagging behind every other country in the last fifteen years as far as GDP is concerned.

 

A country who would rather pay people not to work than work - Simply not true.

 

A benefits system that allows people not to pay tax but still use all public services - People on benefits should be allowed to use street lighting? The NHS? The education system?

 

3 very good reasons why we are in a recession, so yes people on benefits is one of the reasons we are in a recession. the only reason? no, but it certainly contributes

 

Firstly, we're not in a recession. But we will be if we slash benefits. Consumer spending would fall sharply.

[Dr Gloom 21287]

don't blame it on the bankers, don't blame it on the politicians, don't blame it on the regulators...blame it on the peasants

[Happy Face 29]

politicians, regulators

 

There's broken Britain.

 

Bankers and dole scroungers are exactly the same. They are out for number one and claim no differently. I don't expect either of them to self regulate.

 

Elected officials and Civil servants are the only people that deserve any abuse for allowing the situation we're currently in....whether you want to blame them for excessive benefits (in which case you'd be wrong) or over-relaxed regulation (in which case you'd be right).

[ajax_andy 0]

Yes. This is EXACTLY why the country is so fucked. Well, it is if you get all your opinions and stories from the Sun/the Daily Mail. Because it was people on benefits who sent us into the recession, right?

 

A country built on debt - Nearly every major economy is built on debt. Had we not used debt then we would've been lagging behind every other country in the last fifteen years as far as GDP is concerned.

 

A country who would rather pay people not to work than work - Simply not true.

 

A benefits system that allows people not to pay tax but still use all public services - People on benefits should be allowed to use street lighting? The NHS? The education system?

 

3 very good reasons why we are in a recession, so yes people on benefits is one of the reasons we are in a recession. the only reason? no, but it certainly contributes

 

Firstly, we're not in a recession. But we will be if we slash benefits. Consumer spending would fall sharply.

 

An economy built on giving people more debt than they can ever hope to pay off isn't a stable economy. Sensible lending would avoid the whole boom and bust scenario. Those who can't afford to borrow shouldn't be allowed any debt, those who can should be allowed an amount that is payable. I dont believe as a country we have taken great steps forward by allowing people to rack up so much debt they are either declaring themselves bankrupt or using debt management companies to pay off tiny amounts and having the rest wiped out.

 

Benefits are far too easy to come by in this country, too many people can choose not to work and live off the tax payer. they dont contribute to the public sectors they use, they dont contribute to society and they breed a level of lazyness that is passed on to their multiple offspring. Working class isn't a real class any more as what would have been working class is now a sub class of this called non working class.

 

The issue isn't whether people on benefits should be allowed to use public services/utilities... the issue is how many are allowed to just sit on their arses and claim benefits, use public services and not put a single penny back in to the system that they abuse. More people working = more tax = more money to be spent on public services. Instead we have people not working, claiming benefits and then using the public services they pay nothing in to, thus stretching the system to breaking point.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

politicians, regulators

 

There's broken Britain.

 

Bankers and dole scroungers are exactly the same. They are out for number one and claim no differently. I don't expect either of them to self regulate.

 

Elected officials and Civil servants are the only people that deserve any abuse for allowing the situation we're currently in....whether you want to blame them for excessive benefits (in which case you'd be wrong) or over-relaxed regulation (in which case you'd be right).

 

To be fair, dole scroungers regularly go to regulatory committees which are shown on television

 

 

[Park Life 71]

If we paid more women to stay at home and bring up families society would be better for it. Bam!

[Dr Gloom 21287]

a girl i grew up with gave up work to adopt a child and get back on benefits. she hated her job and felt she would rather raise a second child as a single mother. she argued she would be doing a more valuable job, arguab;ly a more difficult job, but one which she enjoyed more. i'm not sure if her actual job paid more or less than she'd get on benefits.

 

controversial or not? is she a benefit scrounger or someone using the system in the right way?

[Park Life 71]

a girl i grew up with gave up work to adopt a child and get back on benefits. she hated her job and felt she would rather raise a second child as a single mother. she argued she would be doing a more valuable job, arguab;ly a more difficult job, but one which she enjoyed more. i'm not sure if her actual job paid more or less than she'd get on benefits.

 

controversial or not? is she a benefit scrounger or someone using the system in the right way?

 

Bringing up children in a loving and caring environment is far bigger service to the future of society than doing some crackass job and drinking yersel under the table every weekend on Pionot fukin Grigio or whateve these birds drink these days.

 

Half the problem is this rigged game where both parents have to work for the family to keep a roof over their heads and so on...This imo is one of the main reasons Britain is fucked up.

Edited December 6, 2011 by Park Life

[DEADMAN 0]

this is why some benefits need curbing i bet theres nowt wrong with em either

[Kid Dynamite 6816]

Tbf there are a lot of other cases I would have put before herself as to why the country is in a mess. She earns around the same as me in a week and gets to spend it at home with her kids. She wouldn't be right in the head to take less cash and pay child care while she was at work. At least her debt is going on her kids where I doubt a lot of other families is

[sniffer 0]

What would happen if everybody said fuck it, I can't be arsed to work and pay taxes anymore. I'll stay at home like this sponging fuckling parasite and get paid for doing nothing.

[Park Life 71]

What would happen if everybody said fuck it, I can't be arsed to work and pay taxes anymore. I'll stay at home like this sponging fuckling parasite and get paid for doing nothing.

 

Nuffink.

[Monroe Transfer 0]

What would happen if everybody said fuck it, I can't be arsed to work and pay taxes anymore. I'll stay at home like this sponging fuckling parasite and get paid for doing nothing.

 

Why don't you give it a try?

[Asprilla 96]

Minimum wage needs to be about twice what it is now IMO. I'd be happier for the government to top up wages rather than pay out for people to do nothing.

 

Well that would help our balance of payments.

 

Pipe down Frenchie.

 

 

It's a loss leader though innit? You get whole families where nobody works, they have more kids and those kids don't work. In some ways I can't blame them. If the choice is a shit job for shit money or, no job for the same money, then where's the incentive?

 

We need to make people feel that work is actually worthwhile.

[ewerk 29482]

The problem is that there would be no jobs for people to get as companies would abandon the UK in their droves for cheaper labour elsewhere.

[PaddockLad 16507]

Minimum wage needs to be about twice what it is now IMO. I'd be happier for the government to top up wages rather than pay out for people to do nothing.

 

Well that would help our balance of payments.

 

Pipe down Frenchie.

 

 

It's a loss leader though innit? You get whole families where nobody works, they have more kids and those kids don't work. In some ways I can't blame them. If the choice is a shit job for shit money or, no job for the same money, then where's the incentive?

 

We need to make people feel that work is actually worthwhile.

 

Years ago you could put your moderately-uninterested-in-school 16 year old council house dweller into an apprenticeship......now, around 20 odd years after the virtual end of the industries which employed the vast majorty of them, the few apprentices which are/were required nowadays have been replaced by semi skilled Poles. Same with huge armies of girls working on factory production lines to any great extent.

 

No point complaining about about "benefit culture" because its here to stay and that won't change as the jobs aren't here any more. We dont make anything. Huge amounts of jobs you dont need experiance for are part time minimum wage. This is partly a result of the current financial dire straits we're in, but mostly down to the huge pool of cheap labour that big busuiness wanted and which the last Labour government delivered for them. And China. And India. Watch Brazil as well in the next few years too. This country to a large extent has lost its reason for existing.