Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Saede Riordan]

I believe there's a bell curve that exists wherein it becomes more and more difficult to survive on one's own the fewer people they have helping them. An individual will have a harder time then a tribe. The curve goes the other direction too, wherein if you have too many people, the societal structure breaks down and even though you're in a crowd, you're still on your own for most purposes. I'm not sure if a study on this has been done, but that is my hypothesis about how that chart would look on average, though it would likely vary from country to country. Having a more homogenized country would alleviate this somewhat, since the people you encounter would be more relatable on average, but the problem is still there. Essentially, any civilization where the number of people exceeds the Dunbar Number is going to have issues, unless  social/cultural groups smaller then the Dunbar number can be created and maintained within that society (ala clans in the minmatar republic)

[Wanoah]

I want to return to the problem of unemployment.

Currently, in the UK, there is a concerted effort from the Conservative Party to attack the poor. I'm not sure why I just said "currently" because the Tories always attack the poor. It's kinda what they're for. Anyway, people generally tend to get all Daily Mail about benefit scroungers. Personally, I see this as a classic misdirection attempt. "Yes, we and our friends are screwing you for billions, but LOOK! That single mother is getting a free house to do nothing but sit on her arse all day! LOOK AT THE CHAVS! STEALING YOUR MONEY!"

And yes, I do fucking hate the freeloaders getting my money for nothing. It's difficult not to feel resentment.

Perspective, though, is king. We spend ~£9bn a year on income support. Another ~£17bn on housing benefit. That's a lot of money. And yes, some of that is going to conniving cheating assholes who intend to get as much as they can for nowt. You know what though? I'd rather pay several million people to sit at home and watch daytime TV than let Vodafone get away with not paying their £6bn of dodged taxes. I'd rather pay scrounging wasters a few quid a week than let all those fine British companies and those marvellous friends of George Osborne and his old school tie cronies in power get away with robbing us of £95bn a year of taxes. If these people only paid their taxes, all benefit payments are paid for, with change left over to fund the police, schools and about half our defence budget. If they only paid the taxes they are supposed to, we could all stop paying VAT or National Insurance and still have the same level of government funding.

So, yeah, when people start to point the finger at the poor, the insignificant and the powerless, you have to ask yourself why. Because Chardonnay getting a few quid a week to feed her kids is nothing when compared to Sir Philip Green's free £300m. Cancer on society, indeed.

[Jade Constantine]

I want to return to the problem of unemployment.

Currently, in the UK, there is a concerted effort from the Conservative Party to attack the poor. I'm not sure why I just said "currently" because the Tories always attack the poor. It's kinda what they're for. Anyway, people generally tend to get all Daily Mail about benefit scroungers. Personally, I see this as a classic misdirection attempt. "Yes, we and our friends are screwing you for billions, but LOOK! That single mother is getting a free house to do nothing but sit on her arse all day! LOOK AT THE CHAVS! STEALING YOUR MONEY!"

And yes, I do fucking hate the freeloaders getting my money for nothing. It's difficult not to feel resentment.

Perspective, though, is king. We spend ~£9bn a year on income support. Another ~£17bn on housing benefit. That's a lot of money. And yes, some of that is going to conniving cheating assholes who intend to get as much as they can for nowt. You know what though? I'd rather pay several million people to sit at home and watch daytime TV than let Vodafone get away with not paying their £6bn of dodged taxes. I'd rather pay scrounging wasters a few quid a week than let all those fine British companies and those marvellous friends of George Osborne and his old school tie cronies in power get away with robbing us of £95bn a year of taxes. If these people only paid their taxes, all benefit payments are paid for, with change left over to fund the police, schools and about half our defence budget. If they only paid the taxes they are supposed to, we could all stop paying VAT or National Insurance and still have the same level of government funding.

So, yeah, when people start to point the finger at the poor, the insignificant and the powerless, you have to ask yourself why. Because Chardonnay getting a few quid a week to feed her kids is nothing when compared to Sir Philip Green's free £300m. Cancer on society, indeed.

Add to that the fact that a big majority of the money we end up giving to people on welfare comes directly back into the financial system through subsistence expenses, locally-bought provisions and yes ... beer, and its not so bad really. All in all I prefer to live in a country where the poorest can afford to live in a flat and go drinking with their mates every now and then than in a country where the only thing the poorest can aspire to is robbing me of my wallet or breaking into houses to steal big-screen televisions.

When I was younger I worked in Florida for a couple of years and listened to quite a lot of crazy right-wing anti-poor hate speech and saw how America had "solved" the problem with gated communities, ghettos and armed police keeping the peasants away from the beautiful people. It was fucking surreal tbh - one of my old bosses used to drive around in a 4x4 with a handgun in a door holster through fear of getting car-jacked on the way to work but still insisted that the system was working. I told him about my walking commutes in south london and he thought I was crazy.
 
But yeah - broad point I agree completely with Wanoah - you want to see the true benefit scroungers you need to look at the real benefits and the six figure salary corp directors doing 2 hours a week on boards and paying less tax than a schoolteacher struggling to pay the mortgage.

Tax going to poorest on benefits? -> well that's basically a transaction between society and its poorest that says "here have enough to live on and don't mug me bro." (on the implicit understanding that police state, prisons, oppression and "tough sentencing" is simply more costly in the long run).

Tax going to rich fucking bankers to squirrel away in off shore savings accounts (and donations to the tory party) - that's the stuff I resent and those are the people who can fucking leave the country for all I care and find a less enlightened regime to go parasite themselves inside.

Probably should explain a little there:

Somebody on benefits (income + housing benefit) can push £8000 per year. If that person can work sure they are stealing from the system.

Somebody cheating the tax system through various loopholes can easily save themselves many times that amount. They are also stealing from the system.

It offends me also that our media puts the focus on the former above the latter.

 

 

[Kala]

I want to return to the problem of unemployment.

and have a rant  <3

I did agree with everything you said there, and on the topic of misdirection I'm trying not to get all riled and go off on a tangent on the whole "cash in hand jobs are morally wrong" thing. As going after labourers is really where the big money is.  Hypocrites. (and I don't feel that's an ad hominem attack when it's true. Boris Johnson and Nick Clegg pay their servants tradesmen in cash) When can we get rid of our government again?  Oh yeah, this thread is about American politics >.>

[Vikarion]

Tax going to poorest on benefits? -> well that's basically a transaction between society and its poorest that says "here have enough to live on and don't mug me bro." (on the implicit understanding that police state, prisons, oppression and "tough sentencing" is simply more costly in the long run).

Here in America, they mug you anyway.   

[Casiella]

You mean, other than the fact that violent crime decreased in the US last year and has actually been decreasing since the mid to late 90s?

I have never understood why this doesn't get more attention. Our overall violent crime rate is a third of what it was when I was in college - not that we don't have a lot more work to do, but there's something positive to note there that you won't see if you just watch your local news or whatever.

[Vikarion]

You mean, other than the fact that violent crime decreased in the US last year and has actually been decreasing since the mid to late 90s?

I have never understood why this doesn't get more attention. Our overall violent crime rate is a third of what it was when I was in college - not that we don't have a lot more work to do, but there's something positive to note there that you won't see if you just watch your local news or whatever.

Actually, there's a pretty convincing argument that the drop in crime is because we are killing all the poor people. Specifically, we're killing them before they are born, via abortion, and also by contraception. I'm for both of those, by the way. However, there doesn't seem to be an inverse correlation between providing welfare benefits and the rate of crime. There may, however, be a regular correlation.

I hate quoting from the CATO Institute, because I find think-tanks to be too biased for my uses, however, the quotes and data sources in this article are fairly relevant: http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-wc67.html

Please note that I'm not endorsing the views of the author of the article.

[Casiella]

I've heard about that correlation before and I don't think it translates well into causation. That is, claiming that increased contraception usage means that somehow fewer people will be born and take up crime doesn't seem to be borne out from the data (or common sense). For example, don't birth rates usually correspond inversely with household income? Have we seen a decrease in poverty, anywhere?

I don't think "welfare" as a concept necessarily affects crime, mostly because that concept on its own is not quantifiable. But we can certainly test whether certain types or levels of welfare programs have effects and then look at the results to see whether we can draw any useful conclusions from them (cf. confounding factors and the like).

[Syylara/Yaansu]

I want to return to the problem of unemployment.

Currently, in the UK, there is a concerted effort from the Conservative Party to attack the poor. I'm not sure why I just said "currently" because the Tories always attack the poor. It's kinda what they're for. Anyway, people generally tend to get all Daily Mail about benefit scroungers. Personally, I see this as a classic misdirection attempt. "Yes, we and our friends are screwing you for billions, but LOOK! That single mother is getting a free house to do nothing but sit on her arse all day! LOOK AT THE CHAVS! STEALING YOUR MONEY!"

And yes, I do fucking hate the freeloaders getting my money for nothing. It's difficult not to feel resentment.

Perspective, though, is king. We spend ~£9bn a year on income support. Another ~£17bn on housing benefit. That's a lot of money. And yes, some of that is going to conniving cheating assholes who intend to get as much as they can for nowt. You know what though? I'd rather pay several million people to sit at home and watch daytime TV than let Vodafone get away with not paying their £6bn of dodged taxes. I'd rather pay scrounging wasters a few quid a week than let all those fine British companies and those marvellous friends of George Osborne and his old school tie cronies in power get away with robbing us of £95bn a year of taxes. If these people only paid their taxes, all benefit payments are paid for, with change left over to fund the police, schools and about half our defence budget. If they only paid the taxes they are supposed to, we could all stop paying VAT or National Insurance and still have the same level of government funding.

So, yeah, when people start to point the finger at the poor, the insignificant and the powerless, you have to ask yourself why. Because Chardonnay getting a few quid a week to feed her kids is nothing when compared to Sir Philip Green's free £300m. Cancer on society, indeed.

Same situation here in the states.  We have a tax code that has allowed some of the most obscenely profitable corporations to manage to pay no taxes or absurdly end up with a net tax surplus (making more money in subsidies and benefits than they owe in taxes).  We gave money away to banks at no interest and then they turned around and bought government bonds (essentially the very ones we put out to raise the money) which we pay back in interest.

The mantra heard a lot here is that "47% of people don't pay taxes" which is an utter farce.  47% of people make so little money that they are exempt from income tax, this is true.  However, they still have payroll taxes (Social Security and medicare) as well as State and local taxes, where applicable.  Then there's sales tax and property taxes, various service fees, there's additional excise taxes on gasoline, etc.  As a percentage of income, the bottom quintile actually pay a higher percentage of their earnings than those at the top.

The Economic Policy Institute, the Congressional Budget Office and even Moody's Analytics all have studies that show the 2 most stimulative forms of government spending are food stamps and unemployment benefits (providing $1.73 and $1.64 in economic activity for every dollar spent, respectively).  But when you point out such realities, you immediately face the ignorant chorus shouting at you for being a dirty, wealth re-distributing socialist!

Meanwhile, the proposals to cut the highest income tax rates, extend the record low rates on capital gains and continue subsidies for the most profitable businesses on the planet are rationalized as encouraging the "job creators" to hire more.  Never mind that only 2% of small business owners earnings are in the top 2 brackets or that there is no correlation between capital gains tax rates and overall employment trends.  Any worthwhile economist will tell you that a business does not hire a new worker until demand rises such that the marginal revenue of their added productivity exceeds the marginal cost of their employment.  How they expect that to happen when we have reached a point where the vast majority of people have no disposable income seems to escape them.

As the saying goes, never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

[Tiberious Thessalonia]

Just so peeps can have the chart I think hes sourcing there.

[Louella Dougans]

some context:

I work for the parks & gardens service of a local authority, in a mostly urban environment. My specific work area is a public park, that is ~30 acres in size.

What I encounter on a daily basis, is:
Young children unable/unwilling to play in the swing park, because of the broken vodka bottles, the hypo needles, the used condoms, the damaged play equipment.
Older children unable/unwilling to play on the football pitches, because of the glass shards.
Pensioners unwilling to enter the park after late afternoon, because the council stops working at ~4pm, and they don't feel comfortable.
People unwilling to walk their dog in the park, because of vet bills for cut paws, because of glass shards.

There were hundreds of shrubs planted, that were all torn out and thrown around.
There were dozens of trees planted, that were all snapped in half.
There were several flower beds planted, that were trampled.
There were several benches installed, that were broken and lit on fire.

These problems, are all caused by a tiny, tiny number of people that ruin things for thousands more.
And the problem causers, are the same people that do not want a job, and are content to live off benefits.



It's not all grim, there was a charity football tournament last weekend, that had a good turnout of people. However, many of those people are uncomfortable about visiting the park outside of there being an event like that on. Because of the actions of a handful.

People stop and talk to me, and say things like "I don't know why the council bothers, they'll just get vandalised" and "it's heartbreaking seeing stuff like this" and "scum, the lot of them" and so on and so forth.

The positive mental health benefits of green open spaces are vast, but because of the actions of people that refuse to work, refuse to contribute to society, something that should be making thousands of people happy, instead makes them depressed. And that poisons the whole community, makes less people interested in life.

Also, tax dodgers are also poisonous to society.

[Wanoah]

These problems, are all caused by a tiny, tiny number of people that ruin things for thousands more.
And the problem causers, are the same people that do not want a job, and are content to live off benefits.

Most crimes in any given area can be attributed to a small number of people. The police generally know exactly who they are. Despite left-leaning tendencies, I'm not such a handwringing liberal that I wouldn't advocate a hard line on the persistent scumbags. I'd ditch them all on a remote uninhabited island and leave them to it. Worked out ok in Australia, right?

Still, there's another tiny group of people that cause us far more problems than some low-IQ shitehawks shitting on their own doorsteps. They're the people that have bought up most of the media outlets to serve their own agenda. They're the ones that have the politicians in their pockets to push their own agenda. They're the ones that have marginalised democracy while helping themselves to ever greater slices of the pie. Personally, I would kill them all and take their stuff.

[Casiella]

I don't think anyone here is saying that vandals should go unpunished, Louella. What we're saying is that we should focus on the people committing crimes and not punishing poor people for being poor. Both our countries have pretty terrible records on that count, and we should be fixing that rather than making it worse.

[Syylara/Yaansu]

I don't think anyone here is saying that vandals should go unpunished, Louella. What we're saying is that we should focus on the people committing crimes and not punishing poor people for being poor. Both our countries have pretty terrible records on that count, and we should be fixing that rather than making it worse.

Plus, if we're going to punish people who commit crimes that detrimentally effect society/our communities, let's get serious and include the white-collar criminals, too.  The impacts of their crimes often lead to much greater suffering over a much wider area.

[Saede Riordan]

And the problem causers, are the same people that do not want a job, and are content to live off benefits.

Provide evidence of this being the case?