The value of money has dropped by two thirds in 30 years

[mashman]

trouble is I like me new ipad , ( built under the current system ) and if i start hugging trees with a new way of looking at things. I dont get me Ipad , and that sux

If the ipad was completely made from sustainable components, so much so, that the more ipad I make the better is is for the environment ( compost for example ) we still have the problems of putting the things together ( people or robots ). What reward do they get for their effort?

Finally greed , this is ( i kind of think ) is hard wired into our brains ( 2 beers one 500ml one 1.5 litre , same price ,,,?)

If we could socially engineer tree hugging hippies whose goal in life , social orgasm was to increase the harmony between earth and us in an egalitarian communistic environment .....could it work? ....not sure , all it would take is for one person to alter his way of doing thing to slightly enhance his own , and bingo off we go again.

So while I rail against what is happening, I cant see any other alternatives due to our history as humans.

Me to. Although if they could make an iSung (fapple and samdung) out of sustainable components and easily upgradeable (never know, there may be a really valid reason for us to need a personal device that could perform quantum calculations) then no doubt it would be useful and it would be made on that basis. The developer in me can see huge benefits and positives in a single platform. Get robots to make 'em. Why waste human effort on that which you can automate? Gives us more time to play. Why is it that tree huggers are seen as folk that want to head back to the days of cart and horse? Anyhoo, perhaps people would find their own reward in what they do. Don't you get such satisfaction from the work you've chosen?

I agree and disagree with the greed thing. Yes in that there is something innate about it. Dunno if it's some form of genetic memory or just innate. But there's also a huge amount of culture/environmental impact on whether greed is a persons overriding trait. I don't think it is for the majority... but we're most derifinitely fucked over by those who are. We can respond in any way we choose irrespective of our past and irrespective of our overriding traits and our environment and the situation at hand will guide that decision.

Socially engineer tree hugging hippies? Educate kids properly and show them a different way of life and they'll follow it as they know no better. Yup that's the easy part. Meantime, perhaps offering the adults an alternative that solves "all" of the big issues of the day will be enough to change a few perceptions in regards to how we can exist. I do think that that is possible, but without offering the alternative and without discussing it at a national level, what would be the point? Tis a bit like asset sales in that way. Most don't want it, but they get it anyway. As for it taking 1 person to take us back to a financial system, would enough people vote for it? If in 1000 years we've fucked up along the way, then it's a possibility.

So whilst I rail against the current system, I see an alternative that is not only viable, but it is a necessity for our future. Stop looking backwards and start looking forwards. If the world was a software project it would be Novopay. If saner heads prevailed, the system would be rewritten from the bottom up and for the future and not the past. Cooperate or die.

[mashman]

Fuckin ridiculous... and this is deemed as ok .

[blue rider]

Fuckin ridiculous... and this is deemed as ok .

Surely if those lazy fucks would have not under performed, worked harder, been bigger arse kissers and boot lickers, louder yes sayers they would still have a job and pay taxes.

So yes,it is deemed ok and acceptable by mane. Cause you see, being poor is a choice, Loosing your job is cause one is lazy, and happiness is expensive, and who the fuck needs three meals a day and a heater running in winter, don't cha know, tv, phone and a fridge are luxuries that one should not have when on social welfare....so what they might have paid taxes previously.

and all those that applaud, deep down are shit scared of the day it will happen to them.

[mashman]

Surely if those lazy fucks would have not under performed, worked harder, been bigger arse kissers and boot lickers, louder yes sayers they would still have a job and pay taxes.

So yes,it is deemed ok and acceptable by mane. Cause you see, being poor is a choice, Loosing your job is cause one is lazy, and happiness is expensive, and who the fuck needs three meals a day and a heater running in winter, don't cha know, tv, phone and a fridge are luxuries that one should not have when on social welfare....so what they might have paid taxes previously.

and all those that applaud, deep down are shit scared of the day it will happen to them.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand cannot bling you yet again. I'm stunned that humanity has made it so far with so many lazy useless fuckers engineering their own demise. Rulez iz rulez.

[Ocean1]

Duncan Smith was asked if he could live on £53 a week, the amount one caller claimed he had left to live on following cuts to his housing benefit. “If I had to, I would,” came the reply. It was later revealed that the caller lived on £156 a week

The true face of poverty in modern Britain is as far removed from the sponger lifestyle of “shameless” Mick Philpott, who raked in £100,000 a year on state benefits and was jailed for life this week for killing six of his 17 children in a house fire, as it is from Duncan Smith’s comfortable Buckinghamshire home.

[blue rider]

you forgot a smily for this paragraph

Life on £55 a week is no stunt for Debbie Garrity. It is laid out in painstaking detail in separate labelled compartments of a plastic box she keeps next to her armchair. Gas £5, Water £4, Bus Pass £12.50, Food £10. Inside a newly labelled section – Bedroom Tax – is a crisp £10 note, which means she has had to halve her shopping budget. In the Social Fund section, there is nothing at all.
“Sometimes I would like to saw a pound in half to make it go further,” says the 45-year-old, who has a 2:1 BSE degree in health and social care and worked full-time for decades before losing her job several months ago.

what would you use on this one?

[Ocean1]

you forgot a smily for this paragraph

Life on £55 a week is no stunt for Debbie Garrity. It is laid out in painstaking detail in separate labelled compartments of a plastic box she keeps next to her armchair. Gas £5, Water £4, Bus Pass £12.50, Food £10. Inside a newly labelled section – Bedroom Tax – is a crisp £10 note, which means she has had to halve her shopping budget. In the Social Fund section, there is nothing at all.
“Sometimes I would like to saw a pound in half to make it go further,” says the 45-year-old, who has a 2:1 BSE degree in health and social care and worked full-time for decades before losing her job several months ago.

what would you use on this one?

Without knowing what choices she made to get there I'd refrain from comment.

As for your reference to taxpayers blaming those on the dole for thier plight; rather than biting that hand I'd be looking to pin the blame on the Mick Philpots in the system.

[mashman]

Do you know why the caller gets 153 quid a week and not the 53 quid the other caller gets?

With the legislation being out in place, IDS is just maiming millions of people, living in a mansion and claiming off of the state... so you're right, they have more similarities than the media credits them with.

[blue rider]

Without knowing what choices she made to get there I'd refrain from comment.

As for your reference to taxpayers blaming those on the dole for thier plight; rather than biting that hand I'd be looking to pin the blame on the Mick Philpots in the system.

1. she is not responsible for Mich Philpots and the likes. She should not be suffering for his choices, and people like this tosser are in the minority.
2. She was fulltime employed untill she lost her job, which means she actually contributed to the system, and should now be entitled to some back pay or else we can go screw the system and become world wide a non tax paying libertarian wet dream in which only the strongest survive. I do hope that you have enough money to survive such a society.

However, i have highlighted some of thechoices she made, she worked in the food industry, she then worked and studied, then she worked some more untill she got laid off. She now has not found a job and is on social welfare to which she contributed while in gainful employment.

However she might just was an underperfoming lazy under educated person that is solely responsible for her own demise and should be trown into the ditches to die like a dog.


Garrity grew up in the Northumberland town of Rothbury and moved to Newcastle about 25 years ago for work.
“I’ve always worked,” she says. “My whole family has a strong work ethic. My dad was a bricklayer and my mum worked in lots of part‑time jobs. At first, I trained to be a chef and worked in the Lake District. I started washing dishes and worked my way up.”
After moving to Newcastle, she combined chef work with a job in the social-care sector and studying for a degree with the Open University. “When I was 32, I was working about 70 hours a week,” she says. “I did a BSE in health and social care and got a 2:1. My plan is to go and do a master’s and then work with people who have disabilities.”
She is reluctant to discuss personal details, but after her marriage ended a decade ago, she moved into a rented house. Two years ago, her landlord sold the house. No longer able to afford to rent privately, she moved into her current two-bedroom council flat, despite having asked for a one-bedroom home. After losing her full-time job in the health and social sector a few months ago, she was forced to contact the housing charity, Crisis. She currently receives an employment support allowance of £71 a week, which goes on council and now bedroom tax, as well as housing benefit of £61 a week, which goes straight on rent. “I’ve been waiting to hear back on a few voluntary posts,” she says. “But there are very few jobs out there.”

well you could stay, bootstrap yourself up and move, but consider this

She continues: “The thing that I miss most is driving my car and being able to go where I want, when I choose. I last had a car two years ago, but I couldn’t afford one now.

mabye she should be spending less on food?
"I’m fortunate that I know how to cook. I try to eat healthily, and have worked out how to cook a meal for 75p.
“I only eat one meal a day. I go to cheap shops and find the cheapest deals; I look for anything for 10p or 20p. I never buy vegetables unless they are reduced. I’ve just bought a packet of reduced parsnips, though, so it will be nice to do something with those. I don’t buy red meat – I would love a rare rump steak one of these days.”

maybe she should just look for cheep entertainment and jobs......

Much of Garrity’s time is spent walking. She wanders through the rundown Sixties housing estate to use the public library and welfare office (which stands next to a derelict working men’s club) to study and look for jobs, or just to keep out of her flat. When she can afford it, she takes the bus into the city and uses the university library. “It can be very, very isolating,” she says. “You need to keep trying to have a purpose to your day.”

All of this should help you to make your mind up about this person.....however for some reason you remind me more and more of this



exterminate....exterminate....exterminate.....

[Genestho]

levi strauss made 23 % ,from 1970 to 1980 , how does that compare withthe housing market. Housing isnt the be all and end all , its what the banks are happy to lend on ,,,,

Stephen

Oh I'm not saying that mortgages are the be all and end all, at all.

My point is; that they're do-able for anyone and money in the bank, just as they've always been! Somehow people's thinking has lost its way.

This comment: "Well doesn't equity beat giving your money to a landlord? Rent money is dead money - you're paying some-one else's mortgage or retirement plan, off! Sound clever? A Mortgage is money in the bank if you pay the bills and make good decisions." was made to OO6's comment of:

"who the fuck WANTS a mortgage? Most want to own a property and the way the system is structured the only way to do that is via a mortgage. The mortgage is the down side, the trial of fire so to speak"

It's a trial of fire if you decide for your first home you want to lend 90% of 600k (as an example) which is plain stoopid economics. Same as giving your rent money away for a lifetime

My first home was a cheap POS that only had the foundations, 1/4 acre section, the 3 bay garage/workshop and the roof going for it until 2 years of manual work was applied, and I had to commute to work, the area wasn't flash. But the equity was fabulous, same with the next home and the next. No over extensions.

The average man hasn't the nouse nor the motivation or courage to do a levi strauss, there are other options, it's a matter of not over extending no matter what you do to get ahead, even saving in a climate where you're pissing into the wind is better than over extending. Keep debts low - End of.

[Brian d marge]

Oh I'm not saying that mortgages are the be all and end all, at all.

My point is; that they're do-able for anyone and money in the bank, just as they've always been! Somehow people's thinking has lost its way.

This comment: "Well doesn't equity beat giving your money to a landlord? Rent money is dead money - you're paying some-one else's mortgage or retirement plan, off! Sound clever? A Mortgage is money in the bank if you pay the bills and make good decisions." was made to OO6's comment of:

"who the fuck WANTS a mortgage? Most want to own a property and the way the system is structured the only way to do that is via a mortgage. The mortgage is the down side, the trial of fire so to speak"

It's a trial of fire if you decide for your first home you want to lend 90% of 600k (as an example) which is plain stoopid economics. Same as giving your rent money away for a lifetime

My first home was a cheap POS that only had the foundations, 1/4 acre section, the 3 bay garage/workshop and the roof going for it until 2 years of manual work was applied, and I had to commute to work, the area wasn't flash. But the equity was fabulous, same with the next home and the next. No over extensions.

The average man hasn't the nouse nor the motivation or courage to do a levi strauss, there are other options, it's a matter of not over extending no matter what you do to get ahead, even saving in a climate where you're pissing into the wind is better than over extending. Keep debts low - End of.

Poor government money getting bludgers who do fk all for the country and pay no tax ,,blah blah

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indu...ry-of-Tiwai-Pt


Dont need em ( bloody wogs)

Stephen

[Ocean1]

1. she is not responsible for Mich Philpots and the likes. She should not be suffering for his choices, and people like this tosser are in the minority.

The taxpayer's not repsonsible for Mich Philpot either, and yet they're not only having to pay for them but are expected to pay again for the more worthy cases his payments should have gone to in the first place. And it only takes a minority of them to totally fuck the budget for more worthy cases.

2. She was fulltime employed untill she lost her job, which means she actually contributed to the system, and should now be entitled to some back pay or else we can go screw the system and become world wide a non tax paying libertarian wet dream in which only the strongest survive. I do hope that you have enough money to survive such a society.

What are you trying to prove? That she's worthy of my charity? I'd need to know a damned sight more than that about her, and I don't give money to people I don't know. That she's worthy of more cash from her government? That's a purely subjective call, I don't personally think you can institutionalise charity but given that it's there I'd certainly have different rules in place to control who gets what. No doubt you would also.

You'd also no doubt expect the budget to be somewhat larger. Which, interestingly enough is exactly the same rationale that caused many of the recipients of that budget to be in the position they're in. The ultimate criteria for who gets what is the original one, and the further you deviate from that the less feasible the system becomes. In the long run society's income, and therefore it's budget for ALL social services depends on value contributed by those who work harder than they need to in order to provide it. and they're a diminishing resource, as you've pointed out.

So rather than blame the taxpayer for not contributing enough to keep every non-contributor fed and housed why not accept that the budget's not limitless and draw up a set of rules that work with what you've got? Legions of social services managers before you have failed, apparently, but good luck.

[Ocean1]

Do you know why the caller gets 153 quid a week and not the 53 quid the other caller gets?

With the legislation being out in place, IDS is just maiming millions of people, living in a mansion and claiming off of the state... so you're right, they have more similarities than the media credits them with.

I've got no idea what you're talking about.

[mashman]

I've got no idea what you're talking about.

In which case...

And it only takes a minority of them to totally fuck the budget for more worthy cases

And it only takes one of the below to totally fuck the budget for more worthy cases.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indu...ry-of-Tiwai-Pt

But they're making an effort even though they're a drain? and a big drain by the looks of things. Sounds vaguely familiar.

[blue rider]

The taxpayer's not repsonsible for Mich Philpot either, and yet they're not only having to pay for them but are expected to pay again for the more worthy cases his payments should have gone to in the first place. And it only takes a minority of them to totally fuck the budget for more worthy cases.



What are you trying to prove? That she's worthy of my charity? I'd need to know a damned sight more than that about her, and I don't give money to people I don't know. That she's worthy of more cash from her government? That's a purely subjective call, I don't personally think you can institutionalise charity but given that it's there I'd certainly have different rules in place to control who gets what. No doubt you would also.

You'd also no doubt expect the budget to be somewhat larger. Which, interestingly enough is exactly the same rationale that caused many of the recipients of that budget to be in the position they're in. The ultimate criteria for who gets what is the original one, and the further you deviate from that the less feasible the system becomes. In the long run society's income, and therefore it's budget for ALL social services depends on value contributed by those who work harder than they need to in order to provide it. and they're a diminishing resource, as you've pointed out.

So rather than blame the taxpayer for not contributing enough to keep every non-contributor fed and housed why not accept that the budget's not limitless and draw up a set of rules that work with what you've got? Legions of social services managers before you have failed, apparently, but good luck.

mate,. I don't blame the tax payer, currently i am a tax payer, and that lady mentioned has been a taxpayer.....

so you don't like giving money to people you don't know, in that case you should stop paying taxes, because giving it to the government is precisely that.

other than that, ..you seem unhappy, greedy, selfish, and really really just a simply unpleasant character.

I really really hope that you will never ever in you life need a helping hand, because with you attitude you must be too proud for hand outs and should expect everyone to treat you like you so easily treat others.