If you're an unemployed waster then you should have a vasectomy!!!

[sirlee66]

Ben Bradley, an MP, wrote in a blogpost, 6 years ago, that the country would be soon “drowning in a vast sea of unemployed wasters” if workless families had four or five children while others limited themselves to one or two.
This is what he said:

''It’s horrendous that there are families out there that can make vastly more than the average wage, (or in some cases more than a bloody good wage) just because they have 10 kids. Sorry but how many children you have is a choice; if you can’t afford them, stop having them! Vasectomies are free.

There are hundreds of families in the UK who earn over £60,000 in benefits without lifting a finger because they have so many kids (and for the rest of us that’s a wage of over £90,000 before tax!).

People have to take responsibility for their own lives, and if they are struggling but working hard to help themselves then they should get help. But if they choose to have 10 kids they should take responsibility for that choice and look after them, not expect everyone else to foot the bill!

Families who have never worked a day in their lives having 4 or 5 kids and the rest of us having 1 or 2 means it’s not long before we’re drowning in a vast sea of unemployed wasters that we pay to keep!''

So What to do you think? Do you agree with Ben Bradley or do you think he is being unreasonable?

The rich. There is no need to make poor people scrabble for scraps,. this is still a wealthy nation.

This is a problem lefties don't seem to be able to understand and it's the reason why we'll all be in deep shit if Corbyn gets in.

The rich and their money are the most highly mobile in the world. Other countries are crying out for them and their money to go there. They and their money would leave the country the day after a Corbyn victory. This isn't 1950. They don't need to be here, they can do everything they need to do business wise from a boat off the Bahamas just as well as the City of London.

If you want evidence of that have a look at Francoise Hollande's 75% tax. 2.5 million people left France to avoid that tax. Even more dropped their wages to avoid it. It had tiny returns (€260 million) but it's stilting effect on the economy cost billions so it actually lost a hell of a lot more money than it gained and was dropped relatively quickly along with Hollande.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/31/france-drops-75percent-supertax

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/31/france-drops-75percent-supertax

And their businesses will leave too. They don't need to be here to do business here. So their businesses would go and jobs would go and investment would dry up. Banks which make up a huge chunk of our economy would drop us like a hot stone.

So maybe you move onto the people who are earning £100k rather than the millionaires? Sorry, none left! They had skills so they've emigrated with the companies who want their skills.

And of course because the rich and wealthy have gone all the services they use will close down too, gyms, restaurants, garages, car dealerships, estate agents, importation companies, construction and freight companies will all be hit.

So then you'll have to move on to the public sector where they'll say 'But we got you in, you can't tax us too much'!

And of course everybody else will be getting all those lovely benefits so we'll all be fine right? You have a public sector and everyone else just gets benefits!

But the problem is, nothing will be coming in to fund it. The private sector will be dead. So we'll have to borrow and borrow and our credit rating will go down and it will cost us more to borrow and then we'll struggle to repay, so those benefits will be cut to the bone and inflation will go crazy. And our credit rating will go down even further and it will cost us even more to borrow.

And then we won't be able to repay. So then we won't have any more money coming into the country at all. We won't be able to import food or produce energy. And all those lovely benefits will stop as will the nice public sector pay packets. And we'll be Venezuela.

And how will we get out of that situation? Well if we're lucky we will find someone who will bail us out. But in return they will demand the kind of austerity that would make the current governments cuts look like the lap of luxury.

If this is wrong I'd love to hear of a country where socialism has worked and led to Utopia. Because it fails every fucking time. And along with economic chaos it always brings oppression on a huge scale.

Trickle down doesn't happen. The countries where the wealthy are offshoring their money do not benefit from it. UK taxation and state support needs to be fairer than what it is now. Why are we so determined to make every average worker poor just to allow wealthy to become even wealthier? Less inequality, more hope and support for the non-wealthy amongst us.

Don’t know if anyone has posted this already, but feel this is apt...

Key myths about benefits
'There are generations of workless, work-shy families'
Among households with two or more generations of working age, there are only 0.3 per cent where neither generation has worked.
'Benefits are too generous'
For the vast majority of families, taking a paid job would leave them significantly better off than receiving benefits.
'Spending on benefits is out of control'
Total benefit spending in 2011-12 accounted for 10.4 per cent of national income – lower than in the mid-1980s (11 per cent) and mid-1990s (12 per cent), despite the latest economic recession.
'The benefit bill is high because of cheats and fraudsters'
In 2011-12 just 0.7 per cent of the benefits bill was overpaid due to fraud – £1 billion compared with £70 billion lost through illegal tax evasion
'Most claimants are sitting at home on benefits for years'
Fewer than half of jobseeker’s allowance claimants claim for more than 13 weeks, and fewer than 10 per cent for more than a year.
'Many people choose to claim disability benefits rather than work'
Many employment and support allowance claimants have low employability in areas of few jobs. They may not be completely incapable of work, but they are certainly penalised by a labour market that has no place for them.
'Most benefit spending goes on the unemployed'
Out-of-work benefits account for under a quarter of all benefits spending. The biggest part – 53 per cent – actually goes to pensioners.
'The number of people claiming out-of-work benefits is increasing year on year'
In 1995, two years after the peak of the last recession, 17 per cent of people aged 16–64 were claiming an out-of-work benefit: by 2008 this was 11 per cent, and the 2008 recession only increased it to 12 per cent.
'We are spending vast amounts on huge families with hordes of children'
Families with more than five children account for just 1 per cent of out-of-work benefit claims. 91 per cent of benefit-claiming households have three or fewer children.
'The benefits system encourages couples to split up'
The DWP's own research has concluded that 'there is no consistent and robust evidence to support claims that the welfare system has a significant impact upon family structure'.
'Work is always the best route out of poverty'
Most children and working-age adults in poverty live in working, not workless, households. Low pay is a significant cause of poverty, with a fifth of workers paid less than a 'living wage'.

Thanks gluteus, but facts won't change the minds of those determined to jump off a cliff.

Tis a shame.

I despair with our newspapers and tv programmes.

I’ve never known such a divide, as there seems to be now

Why are we so determined to make every average worker poor just to allow wealthy to become even wealthier?

Because we haven't found an efficient way to change it yet (well we have actually, the last time this much wealth was concentrated with so few people globally that problem was solved by WW2, but I don't think a WW is an acceptable solution for anybody).

Trickle down doesn't work, I agree. But Socialism is even more inefficient. It's not just a matter of offshore havens. When France introduced the 75% tax the French relocated to the U.K., Belgium, the US, Australia, Russia.

We are a globalised society and the rich have the money to move and are welcomed with open arms. Saying 'tax the rich' as a solution to all problems is just stupid. Because it ignores the fact that the rich just leave then you can't tax them at all!

This isn't the 60s or 70s where people were forced to stay here because they couldn't connect with the people they needed to make money outside London. They can go to any developed country in the world and it won't make a blind bit of difference to them except for better weather.

Trickle down doesn't happen. The countries where the wealthy are offshoring their money do not benefit from it. UK taxation and state support needs to be fairer than what it is now. Why are we so determined to make every average worker poor just to allow wealthy to become even wealthier?

Not sure what the answer is as Socialism doesn’t work given the state of Venezuela. Extreme socialism also doesn’t work seeing as the Soviet Union collapsed.

But what we have now is not working either. It would be dangerous to keep going the same way even though we can see everything crumbling around us. Something has got to change. The poor have nothing to give, most of us the rest of us are already struggling, more so with every year. Why are we in this situation even though no rich person or company has left the country due to taxation? Extreme socialism may not work but we desperately need to take a few steps to the left. You can call it centrist or moderate politics if you wish but it still requires a move to the left of where we are now.

brownliverspot, I can't agree that moving anywhere to the left as things stand is a good idea. Mainly because of their position on immigration. We all know it's going to go up massively under any left wing party. We have hugely suppressed wages (except for at the top, where the rich benefit as they can pay lower wages and keep more for themselves), hugely expensive housing in short supply and really overstretched public services.

The left wing used to be anti large scale migration because of the detrimental effect on the working classes but that all changed with Blair.

I'm afraid until we go back to a left wing party which is prepared to back tough immigration policies, we're fucked.

Add to that, given that mass migration is the most unpopular policy a government could have, if a left wing party was actually prepared to stand up and say they would do that, they'd probably sweep the board.

But anyway, besides that, it's ridiculous to say 'we need a little shift to the left, therefore I'm going to vote for an extreme left wing party and make things much worse than they are just because I don't like the status quo'.

As I said earlier, that's like saying the solution to having a verucca is cutting off your foot and bleeding to death because at least you won't have a verucca anymore.

Again, this comparison between the UK and Venezuela is suspect. If you look at developing post-colonial nations whose economies are based on natural resources, you find many problems. The UK has institutions: probably the world's best research universities, a stable democratic government, a strong rule of law, a free press, a rationalised and varied economy, functioning infrastructure and actually a mild climate with few conditions for catastrophic natural events.

It would be much better to compare us with Scandinavian countries, or with Germany and France. A future where we end up chopping sugarcane is hard to imagine.

I will make a prediction, since we keep getting drawn towards speculation (when there are so many things today - now - which need addressing). If a Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour wins the next election, not much will change. Not nearly as much as needs changing. Our parliamentary system is sluggish, our civil service slow and moderate, our press quick to condemn and our courts running along nicely in the 1930s. The nature of British politics constrains. Oswald Mosley was not feared, but mocked. For the most part we just get up every morning and go to work, there will be no revolution in Britain.

Brexit itself will cause no immediate calamity. We soldier on, not with dreams of revolution, but with the desire for a postage stamp garden, a car with no dents, a week in a damp resort once a year and a chance to sneer at someone's tattoo. Parking angers us.

But what we are looking is a continued and gradual economic polarisation of society. We are seeing it specifically in countries like Britain and in the US, nations that have peaked, who once had a standard of living raised by unique circumstance. Not in a downward spiral, but in maintenance mode.

Our choice is whether we want to see that polarisation continue or whether we think we can make a society possible where people can live lives, not of day-to-day fear and pain, but of contentment and safety.

And if we are talking of the future, we are not slaves to fate, we can Make Our Future. It can absolutely be what we want it to be.

Again, this comparison between the UK and Venezuela is suspect.

Venezuela is a very good comparison because it is the only country which has practised the sort of hardline socialism Corbyn is offering.

It would be much better to compare us with Scandinavian countries, or with Germany and France

Sorry, that's absolutely laughable. It's not true and you know it. For a start, none of those countries are even bloody socialist!

Norway has a centre right Conservative government. It also has a tiny population and the world's biggest national wealth fund ($915 billion - $1.8 billion per citizen). Suggesting we could be like Norway is an utter joke. I'm not sure what the name of the number Jeremy would have to match up for us to have similar wealth is actually called. But in figures it is 1,262,700,000,000,000,000,000.

So unless Jeremy really is Jesus and can do the miracle of the loaves and the fishes with a £50 on a much bigger scale that is an absolutely ludicrous comparison.

Denmark similarly is also centre right with an oil and gas rich economy. So not even socialist and with a wealth source we can't recreate on the same scale with our large population.

On to Sweden. Sweden has a left wing government but they don't describe themselves as socialist. Sweden also has a tiny population and low levels of debt. Sweden has a much higher level of wealth inequality than the UK interestingly enough. But the main point - Sweden has a lot of natural resources and an established and developed manufacturing and export economy We don't have that and it's almost impossible to see how one would develop under Corbyn when huge levels of investment would be needed and currently globally there are far more attractive places to invest with more chance of success than a newly socialist Britain with an 80% service economy all of which is likely to be pulled abroad, and where the government will impose punitive taxes.

So that's Scandinavia out. Most of it isn't socialist and what is isn't possible for us to duplicate.

France is not socialist. It has a centrist government. It had a socialist president for 5 years before that but his socialist policies which resembled Corbyn's (like the 75% tax rate) failed dismally damaged the economy badly and had to be dropped.

Germany just isn't socialist and has had a centre right government for years.

So using those countries as comparisons for what Jeremy can achieve through socialism is patent nonsense.

This future you are promising is a pipe dream based on lies. And you know it.

And we have an 80% SERVICES economy.

Services are mobile. They don't depend on heavy machinery or big factories. They can and will leave when faced with heavy taxation.

Good luck creating Utopia with only 20% of the economy left.

You should change your slogan to #makeourfutureshit

Again, this comparison between the UK and Venezuela is suspect.

Again, you are comparing to this fictional future UK.

As it stands now the structures of the UK bear a much closer resemblance to to those nations than to Venezuela. Short of butchery, perhaps the plague, there is no way, even if Jeremy was in fact Jesus, that Britain could be transformed into Venezuela within the five years he would have to work his dark miracles.

Nationalising railways is not a gullag. An investment bank is not a politburo. Building green houses is not a vanguard. Proper NHS funding is not revolutionary, it just makes plain sense.

They can and will leave when faced with heavy taxation

Again, as another poster pointed out above - other nations have higher tax rates, and they have not turned into Venezuela.

Join with us Elton, come home.

Venezuela is a very good comparison because it is the only country which has practised the sort of hardline socialism Corbyn is offering

I know sod all,about economics but you don’t need a degree in it to understand that the starting point of the U K and Venezuela are millions of miles apart. Neither am I a fan of Corbyn’s particular brand of politics but there is no doubt something needs to shift in this country and he’s all we’ve got at the moment.

As it stands now the structures of the UK bear a much closer resemblance to to those nations than to Venezuela.

But those nations haven't tried Jeremy's 'tax the rich' nonsense on service economies with low rates of unionisation. So I don't know why you're using them as examples his policies can be successful. They haven't tried them and they have very, very different economies. Wittering on about 'institutions' like the law, universities and the press is also completely bloody irrelevant when it's the ECONOMY which is central to the reasons why it won't work. And yes, we are similar to Venezuela in that sense because in both senses Socialism was imposed on an economy which just couldn't support it.

Again, as another poster pointed out above - other nations have higher tax rates, and they have not turned into Venezuela.

Tax rates are complex and I'm not sure what rates in which countries you're referring to. But no countries have successfully implemented the 'tax the rich', 'punish big business' policies Jeremy is promoting successfully. The burden tends to be more evenly spread. And it certainly hadn't worked in an economy as service based as ours.

Join with us Elton, come home.

I'd rather shove wasps up my arse.

So, makeourfuture - what do you think would be a fair level of benefit for out-of-work people? 100% of average earnings? More? John McDonnell said that people were "rich" if they earned over £80K. (Hastily changed from £70K when it was pointed out that this would include many public sector workers, including bog standard MPs) .If you tax these earners at 50%, say, would that be acceptable?

And should people have the absolute right to opt out of work long term because they choose to do so ?

And should people have the absolute right to opt out of work long term because they choose to do so ?

If I can look into my crystal ball, I think the nature of work will change. We have seen many changes already in the last century. Even the last decade.

Our task now is to figure out how to make sure that a large section of the population is not left disadvantaged - this leads eventually to disruption. Or curtailment of freedom and progress.

Class-based genocide is not progress. Not by any definition. We must as a species regain our self-esteem.

Surely other nations have higher taxes full stop?

And certainly better pay.

My cousins in Europe are all able to afford rents and cost of living without any top ups required. Even those in more average jobs can still afford to live.

The amount of tax they pay is higher and businesses pay their fair share....unlike in the UK.

Many places do better than we do with a socialist approach to ensure nobody is left behind. As a result their health and social outcomes are streets ahead of us in the UK who follow a "each to his own" and "I'm alright Jack so sod the rest of you" philosophy.

Surely other nations have higher taxes full stop?

And certainly better pay.

Yes, but slightly higher taxes across the board. Not a massively heavy top tax rate and heavy for everyone else. Pay does come into it too. Raises taxes at the top end raises the problem of flight of wealth. But at the lower end and middle there is the problem that raising taxes would mean working people simply couldn't afford to live anymore. Somebody earning £40k in London would be taxed as middle class but certainly wouldn't have anything like a middle class lifestyle but would still be taxed more losing essentials. Cost of living in the U.K. is definitely a reason why raising taxes is hard in places other than the top.

My cousins in Europe are all able to afford rents and cost of living without any top ups required. Even those in more average jobs can still afford to live.

Have you seen the population density of England? 407 per square km, it goes up to over 5,000 per sq km in London. Of course housing is expensive when we are so densely populated. And we are becoming more densely populated so it's going to get worse. Building enough houses to keep up with immigration alone would be hard to achieve, let alone creating a surplus to drive down prices.

Our population density in England is the worst in Europe, so of course our housing is the most expensive. Socialism won't change that unless they destroy the economy enough lots of people leave.

The amount of tax they pay is higher and businesses pay their fair share....unlike in the UK.

That's a very simplistic statement and not strictly true. It's well known in the EU companies register in the place with the most favourable tax regime and pay their tax there rather than where they do most of their business.

Many places do better than we do with a socialist approach to ensure nobody is left behind.

No they don't. Name one place where socialism has worked. You can't because they don't exist. Incidentally, these European countries with wonderful health systems - they're mainly provided by the private sector with just a bit by the state. So our apparently broken NHS is much more socialist than theirs.

ginger All you have to do is report an employer to the state DOL. The disability discrimination laws here are what they should be and the one thing I admire here is the attitude taken towards people who break the law. No one would dare allow the wrong cladding to be used because they would be in jail. Companies pay their taxes, with Amazon under a lot of pressure to cough up and cases of evasion result in lengthy jail terms. The UK these days is operating like it's the Wild West. It's insane that only one person was found guilty of fixing the libor rates. The fact the authorities could only round up six people shows just how useless the U.K. is with these cases.

I suspect you're living in a different US. Or wearing rose-coloured glasses. Or again, lucky. The real US is not the best example of corporate responsibiity.

Elton it doesn't have to be full blown socialism, even just a moderate, centrist approach to whatever the hell the government thinks it's doing at the moment would be a huge improvement. The fact is that almost everyone is struggling at the moment apart from the very lucky wealthy and healthy ones. UK is a rich country so why are the poverty levels growing? We have to change direction but as I said of course there are those who like how things are now. I was under the impression you weren't one of them? You say labour isn't the answer but neither are the tories as has become painfully clear. I say labour is the best alternative there is at the moment.

even just a moderate, centrist approach to whatever the hell the government thinks it's doing at the moment would be a huge improvement

Absolutely. This government is doing nothing. They have no plans. Nothing. It is a vacuum.

Well cuts for the sick and poor and aged.

But no sense that improvement is even possible.

The answer is, of course, that their lot is doing just fine.

ginger I live here and have continued to work while having 3DC. Couldn't have achieved that in the UK. I have suffered from discrimination and lost my job after my first DC was born. I was hired seven months pregnant and yes I took an 8 week leave but management offered that I could take up to 6 months leave. I looked to go back and go after my old employer who had discriminated against me. I reported them to the DOL who completed their own investigation. The company is under review for a 10 year period. They received a $2m fine and were required to change their employment practices. It's a far better result than me suing them for discrimination.