The BBC

so a benefit is the same as a tax? not heard that one before, marcello.

At what point do you stop defining people as "genuinely in need"? At the moment it's £50,000. Could the money going to people earning £40,000 not be better spent on the poorest? How about people earning £30,000? Surely those earning nothing need the money more? Repeat until it's like legal aid and virtually abolished. The "savings" are never passed on to those in need, either way.

No. But they should be, in the same way as there should be peace on Earth and mutual understanding.

Because then you go back into "what about the middle classes then?" and before long you've argued yourself into being a Tory.

But it's the Tories that seem keen on having this means-tested..

Does that alone make it wrong to do so?

Do you not think they might have an ulterior motive for wanting to stop people being given things as a basic right of citizenship?

Would you support wealthier people being barred from claiming unemployment benefits if they have savings, or being made to pay for NHS treatment?

It sounds to me like you're very keen on supporting wealthier people.

It's a couple of quid a week from each taxpayer that isn't getting spent on Trident. All of that money goes straight back into the economy, regardless of whether it's spent in Sloane Street or Green Street. Just as I'd never dream of telling an unemployed person how to spend their benefits, I'd never tell a middle-class mum how to spend hers.

But if it were child benefit, it wouldn't be "her" money. It would be the Government's money. If funds are set aside for a specific purpose and the recipients are using it for another purpose then that is, technically speaking, fraud.

w/e about wealthier people getting child benefit. Socialism is a bit more than just being all boo to rich people.

Again you seem to be eager to defend rich people.

It sounds to me like you're very keen on supporting wealthier people.

i don't doubt this, but i also think it probably doesn't sound/read like this to anyone else reading this thread

If you support redistribution and inequalities of income being reduced as much as is practical, there isn't a contradiction with universal benefits.

You cannot have a "universal benefit" because not everybody is equal.

If you assume that they are, then there is no reasonw why we could not simply say, to hell with it, let's abolish income tax altogether, keep (and spend) everything you earn, and we'll all get on splendidly, like in the Lebanon.

sp: "reason"

You cannot have a "universal benefit" because not everybody is equal.

Why not?

If you assume that they are

Why would I do that? That would be demented.

tbh if doing away with universal child benefit was the worst thing this government did things would be pretty sweet tho

that argument makes absolutely no sense, Marcello.

The fundamental point isn't about supporting "rich people" it's about making it more difficult to erode the rights of everyone else, but that should be pretty obvious.

xp
maybe you would next like to suggest that hospital visits be means-tested "because not everybody is equal"

marcello is this like when you said the royal mail should be privatised because a package of yours took too long to arrive?

The other thing about Child Benefit was to promote actually having kids, which is why my parents didn't get any until they had their 2nd child.

also it's money that (in most cases) goes directly to the mother, not to the household, which can be incredibly important.

Well yes, because then the affluent mother can spend it on herself.

Otherwise you have to say that you're on the side of the affluent neoliberal middle classes and it's all right for public money to go towards subsidising toys and luxuries rather than spending it where it is needed (as in other areas of modern life).

oh my days, god save us from the UNDESERVING MOTHERS who spend public money on TOYS

it's nice that you would rather refuse public money to women because you suspect them of immoral spending habits - they are, after all, so frivolous and awful - than consider that women in ostensibly affluent households can often be completely cut off from control over the finances they need to support themselves and their children.

i'm sure you would also like the fuel allowance to not be a universal benefit, because an old person in a house that is expensive on paper should just sell up and go into a home.

If it's subtext you're looking for, I can help you.

What would you say is your favourite book?

I mean, public money goes towards subsidising toys and luxuries pretty much all of the time? Why are you so eager to jump on it when it's, specifically, women?

What would you say is your favourite book?

tell me about your fav book marcello

I don't actually need an answer to that question; I have, after all, known you on ilx for ten years

marcello, just make up a book and attribute it to me so you can get to the terribly ~damning~ riposte you've thought up.

Do you know the reason why you didn't just tell me what your favourite book was?

If the affluent mother is married to a controlling bastard...

My Favourite book was "The Bridge" by Ian Banks.

I thangyew.

oops, missed an important i in the name there.

Yep, that's a good one.

Suzy xp: the affluent mother should throw the controlling bastard out of the house but as with Lawson/Saatchi it's still happening the other way, much too often.

Back to Steve Voice again..

ugh awful man. What is it with rich UK or UK-based guys who go around like medieval feudal lieges, expecting everyone else (including wife/partner and children) to be serfs?

My favourite book is Animal Farm, the animals on the farm have a revolution and drive out the farmer and the other humans, but then the pigs who are the most intelligent become like the humans and the other animals even worse off than before makes u think

xpost was tempted to say it wsa the drugs, but..

If you read Chas Saatchi's Standard column (which I note he continues to write and get published) before he moved on (or was moved on) to talking about weird photomontages, he was obsessing about crack, heroin and the Dignitas Clinic, so much so I'm surprised he doesn't have a loyalty card.

lex, lex, lex

i don't want have to ask the mods to intervene in order to prevent your relentless ad-hom attacks. i'll ask you nicely to stop.

ps i have not been arguing itt, one doesnt argue with a group tantrum tbh

darragh your non sequitur arguments are so fucking basic, as are your ~arch~ ripostes

― lex pretend, Friday, 12 July 2013 10:39 (2 days ago)

this isnt ad hominem

i watched this programme

what's gonna happen to dr who?

ah it's the snide non-engagement across a couple of threads nakh, it's pure bullying, it's right back to the bad old days if we don't nip it in the bud imo