Let's end this 'dole is too much' stuff

Lockstep

Zaylee Rough Vanity wrote: »

The state should not benifit from the hard work, or luck, of parents. You are looking for comunism... not good. My parents are pretty wealthy, with various differant properties, I might benifit from that some day but not relying on it. The state should have very little claim on their wealth, regardless of what they want to do with it.

Did you read through the thread?

Kickoutthejams wrote:

I'm not an advocate of a 100% inheritance tax rate, but am wondering why someone who claims the rich are only there because of hard work can be against such a tax. Surely it would level the playing field and ensure a more genuine meritocracy.

Also, check out what communism actually means. It involves a lot more than inheritance tax. ANd I'm sorry to inform you that the state already benefits from the hard work and luck of parents; the more they make the more they pay in taxes.

Zaylee Rough Vanity wrote: »

Free education? You are not from Ireland, are you? If so you are dillusioned.

There has never been free education in Ireland...

I'm literally at a loss for words here. What does where someone is from have to do with..well anything.
Secondary school fees were abolished in the 1960s and third level fees in 1996.
Unless you wish to start an argument on semantics and claim "they are not free; they are paid by taxation", you were aware of what I meant.

Also, you used the word "disillusioned" incorrectly. But I get what you mean so it's ok.

Lockstep

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

You seem to enjoy malienating my words to suit you purpose pal.

How exactly am I?
You keep going off on rants about welfare bums without explaining how an abolition of inheritance encourages this.

I'll give you one reason, a personal one.

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

If I thought the fruits of my labours and effort would not go to my family, but to pack of wasters who would piss it up against the gable end of "Jack's Oooirish Bar" I would light my Zippo and conflagerate the fookin lot.

Why are there hundreds and thousands of non nationals here working away?

Because the lazy people who would rather roam around in pyjamas all day didn't want them,that's why.

Thats what Maurice Ahearn said this morning, and much as I dislike the guy, he is right.

So; let them burn their money then. Or give it away to charity or whatever.
But if you wish to claim the wealthy deserve their money then surely you would be opposed to people coming into cash based purely on their parents efforts; they've done nothing to deserve it.

FlutterinBantam

I really don't think you understand the concept of the family unit in Irish Constitutional law.:rolleyes:

You are starting to annoy me now.

The_Conductor

Confab wrote: »

...with a simple chart from the OECD.



Image tags... bah humbug.

Do you have any graph that compares all benefits available- rather than the headline max dole available for a single person (and more up to date). Many of those that look significantly better than Ireland are max rates that slide downwards rapidly depending on the length of time unemployed. Also- there really should be a significant monetary distinction between UA and UB- its really unfair that someone who has had the misfortune to loose their job and has been paying all their taxes is lumped into the same category as someone who is long term unemployed and not interested in seeking work (even if there was work available).

The lack of a distinction between UA and UB- is the same way the government do not distinguish between the contributory OAP, and the non-contributory means tested OAP. Its deeply unfair on those who have made sizeable contributions and find their neighbour who hasn't given a toss- has exactly the same rights as they.

The_Conductor

delllat wrote: »

the dole is here to stay for life no matter what so everyone should just stop going on about it

every country has its share of spongers,ours are just better paid than most

The dole itself is one issue- the myriad of other ancilliary benefits- which can in some cases be a multiple of the core dole payment- is an entirely different matter.

Yes- every country has spongers- the normal way they are dealt with is on a sliding scale- the longer they have been unemployed and cannot show they are making a genuine effort to seek employment (be it attending retraining schemes, formal education or interview feedback from reputable companies from interviews they have attended)- the less their dole is. In some EU countries is slides all the way to zero.

FlutterinBantam

smccarrick wrote: »

The dole itself is one issue- the myriad of other ancilliary benefits- which can in some cases be a multiple of the core dole payment- is an entirely different matter.

Yes- every country has spongers- the normal way they are dealt with is on a sliding scale- the longer they have been unemployed and cannot show they are making a genuine effort to seek employment (be it attending retraining schemes, formal education or interview feedback from reputable companies from interviews they have attended)- the less their dole is. In some EU countries is slides all the way to zero.

And that's the way it should be here.

The_Conductor

ronbyrne2005 wrote: »

ALso the unemplyed professionals could be employed at 500 euro a week to investigate long term dole claims that are suspicisious, spy on those claiming disability, watch to see if any claiming dole are working illegally etc.

The DSFA have inspectors and investigators doing this full time. Why do you imagine that unemployed professionals (of unknown profession) would put themselves in a very dangerous and thankless job such as this? @ 500 a week- many of them would rather work in McDonalds (as evidenced by the applications thus far received for vacancies at McDonalds Maynooth due to open in a few weeks time).

If you suspect someone if fiddling the system- report them. Simple as.

The_Conductor

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Why?

We have free education in the country, they might as well avail of it.

We have free fees. There is a big difference between free fees and free education. At the moment the reason being given for the mediocracy Irish institutions such as TCD and UCD are languishing in- is because they cannot reflect the cost associated with providing courses in fees other than for non-EU students (which is also why the majority of places in Medicine, Veterinary science and some other courses- are predominantly populated by non-EU students).

Free fees does not equate with free education- and the cost associated to the person partaking of the particular course- is only one element of the cost associated with supplying the 'free fees' to them......

The_Conductor

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Would you be in favour of a prohibition on inheritance?
Surely this would ensure that there is more of a meritocracy and ensures that people don't benefit purely because of their parents.

It would not ensure a meritocracy. It would encourage parents to invest in their children- be it by paying for expensive education and opportunities that they might not be in a position to otherwise partake in. People would see that there was precious little point in having anything left at the end of their lives. We've been there- how do you think the Irish state ended up with many of the old landlord estates in public hands? You have to accept that there is a law of unintended consequences.

FlutterinBantam

Keep going S, you have his commie ass on the ropes

The_Conductor

delllat wrote: »

he isnt ,they both have bills to pay :rolleyes:

Why should the person who has toiled hard and paid considerable sums to the government by way of all the levies, taxes etc- be treated in the same manner as a wastrel who really couldn't give a toss?

That both sets of people have bills to pay- is wholly irrelevant.

In short- you want the taxpayer to shoulder the burden of providing for the future of everyone- irrespective of the contribution that person has made as a member of the taxpaying public in the past?

It is not cruel or unusual punishment to suggest people who are capable of working- should be forced to work for their dole- and I don't mean pithy jobs created to keep them off the streets (or on the streets cleaning them......)

It is also not a stretch of the imagination- to pay a premium to those who have recently lost their jobs- based on the number of stamps paid (for arguments sake in the last 10 years)- or that the person who has toiled for 40 years, deserves significant recognition of this- over and above the person claiming the means tested OAP......

What do you want- Ireland to declare itself as a socialist state?

FlutterinBantam

Yep, that's what he wants S.That's what he wants sho' 'nuff.

The_Conductor

kickoutthejams wrote: »

After steadily handing out CVs, I got a job from an application I sent out in April.
Slightly above minimum wage.

I was walking by the Galway Dole office one morning and was staggered by the queue of people outside. People in suits, elderly folk, farmers etc. I was just lucky enough that I live with my parents so wasn't compelled to sign on.

How does this sit with the 'meritocracy' you are advocating vis-a-vis inheritance rights? Its fine to rely on Mammy and Daddy- while they are alive- but let the state have the lot after they're gone?

kickoutthejams wrote: »

A couple of good ideas might be "earn to learn" schemes where you recieve welfare while retraining.
Or providing graduates with the dole while they undertake internships given how important experience is.

It used to be the case that accommodation and food was sufficient for intern graduates- with the expectation that greater riches lay down the road. Why do you think every junior doctor is willing to put up with being treated like **** by both patients and nurses- and do consistent 120 hour+ weeks- its the expectation of better conditions down the road. In the current climate- you would be proving 'indefinite' internships for graduates and others.......

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Anyone notice how many of those who claim the dole should be cut are those saying "if I were unemployed.../if I was on the dole..."

Nope.

I think the dole should be cut.
I think other social welfare benefits should be severly curtailed.
I think the minimum wage should be slashed.
I think price controls should be reintroduced to the supermarkets.
I think the tax system should be overhauled- no credits etc- you pay 15% on the first 10k, 20% on the next 10%, 25% on the next 10k- go up all the way up to 70% or so. Get rid of all the stupid levies etc- have a plain and simple tax code that you don't need to be a mathematics whizz to understand- but have everyone pay- on an upwards sliding scale. Structure social welfare entitlements- so its in people's best interests to be working (or actively seeking work).

Its not evil to suggest people have to be realistic. I also think the dire straits we are now in- are an excellent opportunity to dismantle the current system in full- and replace it with a structure far easier to understand and implement.

The_Conductor

Seaneh wrote: »

WTF?

Is this ture?

You can't volunteer while on the dole?

That's a ****ing joke!

You have to be 'actively seeking employment' to qualify for the dole. If you are not available to work- you are not entitled to claim the dole. What needs to happen is a massive increase in the CE schemes- structured in such a way as to better help the person find gainful employment when economic conditions do improve.

Particular emphasis should be put on young males who left school early to take part in the construction industry- and who are now at the forefront of the unemployment increases. Some manner of getting these people to complete their formal education (be it the leaving cert or higher education) has to be found.

The_Conductor

delllat wrote: »

the unemplpoyed dont want to work for their dole though
,I know a few doleheads and they have very comfortable lives, can go to the gym ,swimming pool,sauna ,cinema,shopping ,library or just relax in the park with a can of beer and a spliff

therexs no way theyre going to clean graffiti instead of that

if you were getting 300+ a week for doing that would you complain ?

I very much doubt this is the case. A family of two, both working on the average industrial wage, with a normal sized mortgage, cannot afford any of this- so its highly unlikely social welfare recipients can......

Spudmonkey

smccarrick wrote: »

I very much doubt this is the case. A family of two, both working on the average industrial wage, with a normal sized mortgage, cannot afford any of this- so its highly unlikely social welfare recipients can......

Absolutely someone could. I'm living at home at the moment and I'd be able to do all that on 150 a week, in fact thats probably all I'm spending at the moment!! (If even)

I have to say I don't agree with inheritance tax, giving an example of two families, one who saves all their money through the years and buys an nice house, the other who wastes their money and has nothing to leave to their kids! Both these have paid their taxes all their lives! I don't see why the kids of the more careful family should have to be penalised for having the luck to be born to more sensible parents where are the other couple may have squandered theirs!!

Besides the answer is not to keep taxing taxing taxing! It's about making cuts, making people more preductive and weening out the layabouts!!

irish_bob

Spudmonkey wrote: »

Absolutely someone could. I'm living at home at the moment and I'd be able to do all that on 150 a week, in fact thats probably all I'm spending at the moment!! (If even)

I have to say I don't agree with inheritance tax, giving an example of two families, one who saves all their money through the years and buys an nice house, the other who wastes their money and has nothing to leave to their kids! Both these have paid their taxes all their lives! I don't see why the kids of the more careful family should have to be penalised for having the luck to be born to more sensible parents where are the other couple may have squandered theirs!!

Besides the answer is not to keep taxing taxing taxing! It's about making cuts, making people more preductive and weening out the layabouts!!

no normal person would want to punish success , successfull people naturally want to see thier children benfit from thier success , why should the state be thier main chosen beneficiary

FlutterinBantam

irish_bob wrote: »

no normal person would want to punish success , successfull people naturally want to see thier children benfit from thier success , why should the state be thier main chosen beneficiary

Commies do Bob, they want to stifle enterprise, have the masses trudging around with just enough to survive and the state in control of everything.

Only others would be lazy gimps who want to go through life dossing and know right well that they will never be able to leave a tosser to their family, because they pissed it up against the wall or gave it to Paddy Power.

Spudmonkey

I don't know who said communism works (I think someone did a few posts back). No it doesn't. It stifles creative ideas, gives people nothing to work for and it probably causes more crime than it iradicates!

Lockstep

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

I really don't think you understand the concept of the family unit in Irish Constitutional law.:rolleyes:

You are starting to annoy me now.

I don't think you do either.
The family section makes no reference to inheritance.

smccarrick wrote: »

We have free fees. There is a big difference between free fees and free education. At the moment the reason being given for the mediocracy Irish institutions such as TCD and UCD are languishing in- is because they cannot reflect the cost associated with providing courses in fees other than for non-EU students (which is also why the majority of places in Medicine, Veterinary science and some other courses- are predominantly populated by non-EU students).

Free fees does not equate with free education- and the cost associated to the person partaking of the particular course- is only one element of the cost associated with supplying the 'free fees' to them......

I assumed it would be obvious what I was referring to; if you wish to argue on semantics feel free. It usually gets trotted outn sooner or later.

I'd disagree that we are somehow "Languishing"; NUIG for example is doing major EU work on stem cell research.

smccarrick wrote: »

It would not ensure a meritocracy. It would encourage parents to invest in their children- be it by paying for expensive education and opportunities that they might not be in a position to otherwise partake in. People would see that there was precious little point in having anything left at the end of their lives. We've been there- how do you think the Irish state ended up with many of the old landlord estates in public hands? You have to accept that there is a law of unintended consequences.

Did you notice the way I said "more of a meritocracy" rather than "it would be a meritocracy"?
They are already likely to be paying for private education, grinds etc. You seem to think this doesn't happen already.
The idea being that the children would be unable to rely on a windfall from their parents to make their way in the world. Any wealth they'd acquire would be more likely to be their own from work etc.

smccarrick wrote: »

How does this sit with the 'meritocracy' you are advocating vis-a-vis inheritance rights? Its fine to rely on Mammy and Daddy- while they are alive- but let the state have the lot after they're gone?

Yes it's fine to rely on Mummy and Daddy because they are not in control of the wealth their parents have; if you wish to claim that the rich work for their cash, then it would be more logical to believe in an end to inheritance. While they are dependants they are not the ones with the wealth.

I did also say it could be put in things like charity etc. Just not giving it to the kids.

smccarrick wrote: »

It used to be the case that accommodation and food was sufficient for intern graduates- with the expectation that greater riches lay down the road. Why do you think every junior doctor is willing to put up with being treated like **** by both patients and nurses- and do consistent 120 hour+ weeks- its the expectation of better conditions down the road. In the current climate- you would be proving 'indefinite' internships for graduates and others.......

No; I've been out looking for work since April and every job wanted experience to varying degrees (far more than when I was looking for work before). Experience is even more necessary than ever. Allowing people to undertake internships for experience while maintaining their dole would give them the experience needed to help secure a job.
How is this providing indefinate internships?

smccarrick wrote: »

Nope.

See posts by Seaneh and Spudmonkey (dunno if I'm able to quote other posters in a debate with someone else)

Spudmonkey wrote: »

I have to say I don't agree with inheritance tax, giving an example of two families, one who saves all their money through the years and buys an nice house, the other who wastes their money and has nothing to leave to their kids! Both these have paid their taxes all their lives! I don't see why the kids of the more careful family should have to be penalised for having the luck to be born to more sensible parents where are the other couple may have squandered theirs!!

Ah but the idea is that the wealthy are somehow deserving of their money. How does an event as random as who you are born to make you deserving?

They are not being penalised; they had the benefits while they were alive. It just means the kids cannot avail of it.



For the record folks, I don't agree to a 100% inheritance tax. I'm just curious as to how someone can claim the rich worked hard and are deserving of their cash when one can be wealthy by the fact they had rich parents.

Spudmonkey

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Ah but the idea is that the wealthy are somehow deserving of their money. How does an event as random as who you are born to make you deserving?

They are not being penalised; they had the benefits while they were alive. It just means the kids cannot avail of it.

For the record folks, I don't agree to a 100% inheritance tax. I'm just curious as to how someone can claim the rich worked hard and are deserving of their cash when one can be wealthy by the fact they had rich parents.

Maybe in the case of developers who I suppose didn't earn their money honestly, they rode the system and have landed us all in the ****

I'm talking in the case of a couple who leave the family home to their only child or something. The reason I say this is cause of a woman who was caring for her parents in their later years, and had to pay X amount when receiving the house (Can't remember how much!), she had to pay the money up front and had to sell the house (well tried to cause she wasn't able to). So the amount she paid to the state was a far higher percentage than what the house was worth....

I heard this on the radio, sorry for using an example with sparse details...

thebullkf

Spudmonkey wrote: »

Absolutely someone could. I'm living at home at the moment and I'd be able to do all that on 150 a week, in fact thats probably all I'm spending at the moment!! (If even)

I have to say I don't agree with inheritance tax, giving an example of two families, one who saves all their money through the years and buys an nice house, the other who wastes their money and has nothing to leave to their kids! Both these have paid their taxes all their lives! I don't see why the kids of the more careful family should have to be penalised for having the luck to be born to more sensible parents where are the other couple may have squandered theirs!!

Besides the answer is not to keep taxing taxing taxing! It's about making cuts, making people more preductive and weening out the layabouts!!

i'm sorry but you're a fool.




enjoy living at home.... pretty apt moniker.:rolleyes:

FlutterinBantam

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I don't think you do either.
The family section makes no reference to inheritance.


I assumed it would be obvious what I was referring to; if you wish to argue on semantics feel free. It usually gets trotted outn sooner or later.

I'd disagree that we are somehow "Languishing"; NUIG for example is doing major EU work on stem cell research.


Did you notice the way I said "more of a meritocracy" rather than "it would be a meritocracy"?
They are already likely to be paying for private education, grinds etc. You seem to think this doesn't happen already.
The idea being that the children would be unable to rely on a windfall from their parents to make their way in the world. Any wealth they'd acquire would be more likely to be their own from work etc.


Yes it's fine to rely on Mummy and Daddy because they are not in control of the wealth their parents have; if you wish to claim that the rich work for their cash, then it would be more logical to believe in an end to inheritance. While they are dependants they are not the ones with the wealth.

I did also say it could be put in things like charity etc. Just not giving it to the kids.



No; I've been out looking for work since April and every job wanted experience to varying degrees (far more than when I was looking for work before). Experience is even more necessary than ever. Allowing people to undertake internships for experience while maintaining their dole would give them the experience needed to help secure a job.
How is this providing indefinate internships?


See posts by Seaneh and Spudmonkey (dunno if I'm able to quote other posters in a debate with someone else)




Ah but the idea is that the wealthy are somehow deserving of their money. How does an event as random as who you are born to make you deserving?

They are not being penalised; they had the benefits while they were alive. It just means the kids cannot avail of it.



For the record folks, I don't agree to a 100% inheritance tax. I'm just curious as to how someone can claim the rich worked hard and are deserving of their cash when one can be wealthy by the fact they had rich parents.

he heh buddy, just keep churning out the socialist shíte .

You don't fool me pal, and by the looks of ,not too many other people either.

Your best bet is DUB_MOW one way;)

The_Conductor

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I don't think you do either.
The family section makes no reference to inheritance.

Several other sections of the constitution do.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I assumed it would be obvious what I was referring to; if you wish to argue on semantics feel free. It usually gets trotted outn sooner or later.

Free fees does not equate to free education- and the introduction of free fees in 1996 has not in any manner changed the demographic groups attending third level education in Ireland. It was a watershed in the inability of Irish students to attend medicine, veterinary science and other courses- as thee are viewed by 3rd level authorities as the one cash-cow area they can continue to generate income from- as oppossed to cross subsidising the humanities with income generated in science and engineering faculties (as per the Presidents Fund in UCD).

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I'd disagree that we are somehow "Languishing"; NUIG for example is doing major EU work on stem cell research.

One area of research. We're also at the forefront with France in oncology treatments. We generate less research funds per student head on average than any other EU country- including Greece and France (the two other laggards).

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Did you notice the way I said "more of a meritocracy" rather than "it would be a meritocracy"?
They are already likely to be paying for private education, grinds etc. You seem to think this doesn't happen already.
The idea being that the children would be unable to rely on a windfall from their parents to make their way in the world. Any wealth they'd acquire would be more likely to be their own from work etc.

You're the one who was bitching about me using semantics?
I do not think that parents do not pay to give their children every opportunity possible in life- the point that I was making is that were people to think they could not pass an inheritance to the next generation on their demise, they would simply invest in those people during their lifetime instead (as does happen to a certain extent- only it would be far more blatant.......)

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Yes it's fine to rely on Mummy and Daddy because they are not in control of the wealth their parents have; if you wish to claim that the rich work for their cash, then it would be more logical to believe in an end to inheritance. While they are dependants they are not the ones with the wealth.

So- you believe in 'more of a meritocracy' yet- by your own admission- its fine to rely on Mummy and Daddy to help you out, when you need it. There are many people out there without the benefit of having a mother and father in a position to assist them when they find themselves in troubled times. I never made any insinuation whatsoever as to whether the rich work for their cash or not- you claim they don't. Its an argument I haven't partaken in, despite your best efforts to draw me in.....

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I did also say it could be put in things like charity etc. Just not giving it to the kids.

Ooohhh- so they have some say in how they spend their money? I thought you wanted to take it away from them in punitive taxation? Whos to say what constitutes a charity- we have literally thousands of genuine registered charities in the country.......

kickoutthejams wrote: »

No; I've been out looking for work since April and every job wanted experience to varying degrees (far more than when I was looking for work before). Experience is even more necessary than ever. Allowing people to undertake internships for experience while maintaining their dole would give them the experience needed to help secure a job. How is this providing indefinate internships?

You propose paying people to undertake internships. Traditionally an internship is seen as a manner of providing an extension to the vocational education scheme- not an end to the employment crisis. The fact of the matter is an internship is a means of helping people gain a degree of experience and competency in a particular area. At present- there is no employment out there at the other side of internships- short of sending people on revolving internships- you will not give people gainful employment out of this- at present- you will equip them to put them in a better once conditions improve.

The argument of the government paying to undertake an internship- is at odds with what an internship is understood to be. If you parents are capable of supporting you (as you claim they are at present) to sit at home- why not support you to undertake an internship?

kickoutthejams wrote: »

See posts by Seaneh and Spudmonkey (dunno if I'm able to quote other posters in a debate with someone else)

Yes. Your point?

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Ah but the idea is that the wealthy are somehow deserving of their money. How does an event as random as who you are born to make you deserving?

You are the only one debating whether they are 'deserving' of their wealth.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

They are not being penalised; they had the benefits while they were alive. It just means the kids cannot avail of it.

(sound of Shane hitting head against brick wall.......) Fine- the only way of doing what you are suggesting without a total break down in society is to implement communism. If they can only enjoy it throughout their life- is amazing how 15 year olds could all of a sudden command EUR1000 an hour babysitting their kid siblings...... there are a myriad holes in your little theory- other than implementing the central control of communism........

kickoutthejams wrote: »

For the record folks, I don't agree to a 100% inheritance tax. I'm just curious as to how someone can claim the rich worked hard and are deserving of their cash when one can be wealthy by the fact they had rich parents.

Just because someone has/had wealthy parents does not make them inherently bad people- nor does it mean they haven't had to work their arses off. Its the middle classes who are most keen on maximising wealth transfer between the generations- contrary to popular beliefs- sure you can point at Peaches Geldoff, Paris Hilton and a few other spoilt brats- but they are the exception rather than the norm. You seem to have a particular chip on your shoulder about this- is there some history that you're not detailing?

S.

Lockstep

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

he heh buddy, just keep churning out the socialist shíte .

I've already explained this.
Repeatedly.
You don't seem to understand what socialism/communism entail.

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

You don't fool me pal, and by the looks of ,not too many other people either.

Doesn't bother me man, you've yet to make an argument.

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Your best bet is DUB_MOW one way;)

I'm not a communist and inheritance tax =/= communism.
But don't let that get in the way of your shaky logic.

Can you try and outline your points? So far you haven't done so beyond;
1)Accusing me of communism (without realising that communism is an entire system and goes beyond inheritance tax)
2)Claiming that inheritance tax means welfare dependance (without explaining the correlation)
3)Bringing in the Irish Constitution (without realizing that the sections relating to the family say nothing about inheritance)

I'm guessing your response will be;
Hehehehe
Get real communist.

Nodin

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Yep, that's what he wants S.That's what he wants sho' 'nuff.

Are you going to make a point soon, or is the cheerleader routine set to continue?

tatabubbly

I got a job, minimal wage, under the amount of dole each week for meself but i love the idea of actually earning...

The dole money just goes round in circles, people get it and spend it as soon as they get it

Nodin

smccarrick wrote: »

It is not cruel or unusual punishment to suggest people who are capable of working- should be forced to work for their dole- and I don't mean pithy jobs created to keep them off the streets (or on the streets cleaning them......)

.....thus effectively making them state employees and expanding the public sector, while depriving others of full time jobs doing the same tasks.

FlutterinBantam

Buddy, I wouldn't waste my logic on some person who believes that a person who works hard all his or her life doesn't deserve to leave the fruits of their labour to their family.

Or that the aforesaid family doesn't deserve to reap the said rewards.

Do I really have to spell it out so simply for you.

Where were you educated?

Havana:cool:

Nodin

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

he heh buddy, just keep churning out the socialist shíte .

You don't fool me pal, and by the looks of ,not too many other people either.

Your best bet is DUB_MOW one way;)

Russia is Communist again? Christ I must have been pissed to miss that one....