The poor spend all the money. Isn’t it obvious?

[Brennan]

In a couple of weeks, the economy will be put right.Because at last cuts such as the “bedroom tax” and universal tax credit come in, so we’ll finally get some money back off the richest people in this country –the poor. Any glance at our society makes it obvious who’s run up all the debts; the poor, that’s who, swanning around in charity shop cardigans and galavanting on shopping expeditions like the women in Sex and the City, squealing “Hey let’s go to Poundland and buy a dishcloth”, in ways the rich can barely dream of.

The rich have to pay for the poor’s avarice, with many currency speculators at Price Waterhouse having to take on extra work to make ends meet. They’ve barely finished destabilising the yen when they take two buses to a cleaning job, polishing a bedsit in Tower Hamlets. Many CEOs find their salary runs out and live on cat food until their bonus arrives, and 40 per cent of the board at the Royal Bank of Scotland are now on the game.

This is mainstream economics, that the poor are richer than the rich. Modern politicians must see a film on Comic Relief about starving children in Somalia and cry: “What a tragedy. Is it any wonder Africa’s in a pickle while the extravagant pigs flaunt their mosquitoes like that?” Then they call the number on the screen and pledge to help out the village by shutting down their well.

It’s an imaginative approach, because less qualified types might imagine the banking crisis may have been caused, in some part, by bankers. But it takes a trained mind to understand that the people who robbed us are the poor. If a government minister stormed into a bank in the middle of an armed robbery, he’d yell: “There are the robbers; those bastards lying on the floor tied up and snivelling that they don’t want to die. And someone help out this man, the poor chap’s trying to carry a sack AND a sawn-off shotgun, he’ll pull a muscle.”

It’s a tricky argument to pull off, that the poor caused the debt so they should pay it back. Maybe that’s why most weeks there are stories in certain newspapers about a woman with 45 kids on benefits, who then bought a giraffe and now that’s on benefits but she said it was cramped so the council has put it up in the Shard, and two of the kids have got Compulsive Potting Disorder so they’ve been given a snooker table but she couldn’t be referee because she’s allergic to white gloves so the mayor has to do it, otherwise he’d be put in jail by Europe.

Then they quietly drop the story when it emerges that the reporter missed out the detail that although it did happen, it was in a dream he had while suffering from food poisoning.

So it’s replaced with an article about a man on invalidity benefit who turned out to be secretly competing in triathlon tournaments in his loft, and there’s a woman who hasn’t worked since 1975 who receives so much in housing benefitthat she pays Martin Amis to fill in her claim forms for more money. And they’ll print an extract that starts: “You ask why I have attended no job interview in 38 years and I can only weep the tears of a fallen angel, reach to the constellations and ask that you, dear assessor, replete in your cruddy crude crudeness, be spared the dodgy knee I’ve had all that time. Time. Whatever, whenever, whoever my succulent sobriquet, that may be. Oh, and I need a new fridge.”

Iain Duncan Smith will raise the case in parliament, until it turns out it was made up on a website called “People On Benefits Are Aliens From Jupiter – FACT!!!” and it is never mentioned again.

Then they turn to immigrants, and this time all politicians agree we can’t carry on as we are, paying all these benefits to them because we’re about to run out of everything. If he was to glance at his own department’s figures, Duncan Smith would see that 6.6 per cent of immigrants claim benefits, compared with 16.6 per cent of non-immigrants. Which goes to show that he doesn’t have time to look at figures because he’s a very busy man given that he’s working, and anyone who receives benefits who quotes a statistic correctly should have their money cut since they’ve been arsing about looking at numbers when they should be trying to get work.


At least they’re attacking the poor, though, who caused the mess in the first place. Because the banking system, as we know, was ruined by the residents of a tower block in Toxteth. In league with a woman from Sunderland on invalidity benefit with chronic back pain, they lent vast sums to international investors at the bottom of a stairwell by the bins, with not a thought for the damage caused to the global financial system. So now they’re being turfed out of their house for having a spare room for their kids. That’ll teach them.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...nd-all-the-money-isnt-it-obvious-8553643.html

 

[carlos21]

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...nd-all-the-money-isnt-it-obvious-8553643.html

i agree there mate country is on is backside mate.

 

[Bluenose1995]

Country is on its arse due to years of mis management, and a Government not having the balls to radicalise the nations ideology until that happens we will continue to nose dive into Cyprus where Barusso will have your pensions.

 

[Mrk]

In terms of tax, the "poor" are better off since 2010 and the "rich" are worse off:

 

[carlos21]

In terms of tax, the "poor" are better off since 2010 and the "rich" are worse off:

great post mrk,

 

[Bruce Wayne]

In terms of tax, the "poor" are better off since 2010 and the "rich" are worse off:

As we've seen with the immigration threads, seldom do facts get in the way of rants (or poor attempts at satire).

 

[chicoazul]

In terms of tax, the "poor" are better off since 2010 and the "rich" are worse off:

Honestly do you believe that the poor are better off?

 

[chicoazul]

As we've seen with the immigration threads, seldom do facts get in the way of rants (or poor attempts at satire).

Throwing a few right wing charts around doesn't really change the fact that most of my family and mates are struggling for employment and therefore money right now mate.

It just shows a couple of things:

1 - Ignorance
2 - That you're a Tory
3 - That you like charts

 

[Brennan]

In terms of tax, the "poor" are better off since 2010 and the "rich" are worse off:

As we've seen with the immigration threads, seldom do facts get in the way of rants (or poor attempts at satire).

Of course, because the fact that the income tax on low earners has been decreased totally makes up for the massive increase in actual cost of living along with cuts to benefits and ridiculous things like the bedroom tax.

'Facts'.

 

[Mrk]

Honestly do you believe that the poor are better off?

In terms of tax, yes.

If you take everything into account (tax cuts, benefit cuts/reforms and inflation) it's hard to quantify because unlike tax literally every person/family receives different amounts of benefits, so in the broader sense some will be worse off and some will be better off.

 

[Brennan]

In terms of tax, yes.

If you take everything into account (tax cuts, benefit cuts/reforms and inflation) it's hard to quantify because unlike tax literally every person/family receives different amounts of benefits, so in the broader sense some will be worse off and some will be better off.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/nov/22/poorest-families-worse-universal-credit

Poorest 400,000 families worse off under universal credit, finds report

Chartered Institute of Housing says lone-parent households, those on minimum wage and officially in poverty will lose out

Tax is one aspect of a very complex situation.

 

[chicoazul]

In terms of tax, yes.

If you take everything into account (tax cuts, benefit cuts/reforms and inflation) it's hard to quantify because unlike tax literally every person/family receives different amounts of benefits, so in the broader sense some will be worse off and some will be better off.

Fantastic.

 

[Brennan]

Fantastic.

There is something truly scary about people saying the working classes are better off because they pay less tax on work that they struggle to find in the first place.

 

[Mrk]

Of course, because the fact that the income tax on low earners has been decreased totally makes up for the massive increase in actual cost of living along with cuts to benefits and ridiculous things like the bedroom tax.

'Facts'.

It will differ depending on many different factors, some "poor" will be marginally better off and some will be worse off.

And the 'Bedroom Tax' was first introduced by Labour in 2008 so it can't be that bad... right?

 

[chicoazul]

It will differ depending on many different factors, some "poor" will be marginally better off and some will be worse off.

And the 'Bedroom Tax' was first introduced by Labour in 2008 so it can't be that bad... right?

So you're basing this poor effort at right wing apologism on this concession?

Open your eyes mate, things are not rosy at the moment for most.