If it wasn’t for the poor

This topic remended me of this image, the guy on the left is anyone below the 60th percentile, and the guy on the right anyone in the 60th to 95th percentile. The guy in the middle is the right wing press/ most of the top 5%.

1674473741573.png
 
I really had to do a double take, as I am included. My state pension pension is a bit over £10K; I pay around £9.5K tax.

I'm getting out more than I currently put in 😀

Who writes this stuff and, more to the point, who is taken in by it?
 
Andy_W said:
The top 1% would probably have easier lives, face much less wrath, not have fear of crime etc if the system was fairer, this would probably help them much, much more than an extra 20% in their account, especially when they won't ever use 90% of their account.
Click to expand...
Totally agree with this.

As things continue to get worse the top 1% are going to have to spend more and more on private security to keep the wolf from the door.

It really is a win win for everyone to share out the vast amount of wealth in society in a more equitable manner.
 
Zoophonic said:
Indeed I suspect most of the Daily Mail pensioner readership are in receipt of private pensions but topped up by the state pension. Would they be happy to give that up? Not likely.
Click to expand...
I have a private pension after working just short of 50 years with most of them being in the NHS.
I would be due my old age pension this month but like millions now have to wait due to changes in pensions by this government.
Why on earth would I be happy to give that pension up . Its hardly something for nothing.
 
Muttley said:
I'm gobsmacked at that.

50% of households require state support and THAT is their take on it. Utterly disgusting.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. Not a lack of decent policies to help the poor or opportunity creation, or failings across government. Just 53% are scroungers while the rich fund it all.

Not surprised at all from this toilet paper of a newspaper.
 
Blf said:
I have a private pension after working just short of 50 years with most of them being in the NHS.
I would be due my old age pension this month but like millions now have to wait due to changes in pensions by this government.
Why on earth would I be happy to give that pension up . Its hardly something for nothing.
Click to expand...
He's not saying you should be.

Just pointing out that a lot of people this article is aimed at (given the demographics of your average daily Heil reader) are probably in that 53%.

If those same people are then outraged by the article (which is the point of it) they should ask themselves the question whether they should give up their pension? And if the answer is no, then they maybe shouldn't be so outraged by the article after all.
 
Colgates_shaving_foam said:
Totally agree with this.

As things continue to get worse the top 1% are going to have to spend more and more on private security to keep the wolf from the door.

It really is a win win for everyone to share out the vast amount of wealth in society in a more equitable manner.
Click to expand...
They never get it though, they don't have many problems (not compatible anyway), but most of the problems they do have to deal with are because they have to rely on so much, from people who get completely abused.

Having run a business and worked in quite a few, if you just pay staff more, and more than others in their trade, then you get so much more back. It's a cracking investment. Actually, end up with much less absenteeism, and easier to schedule works, end up much more efficient. End up with more free time between works to carry out the tasks which would otherwise mount up, and lead to later production issues. I hear loads of construction companies whinge about apprentices being unreliable when they're paying them about £5 an hour. It's the same as shops employing Christmas temps, paying them next to nothing, in the most busy time period, and with zero chance of being kept on after Christmas. What do these "businesses" expect?

There will be tons of rich folk who get their lives turned upside down by train strikes etc. The first-class seat is pointless if the train doesn't run. Private healthcare is all well and good for the guy, his wife and his kid, but it won't help when his parent needs an ambulance, or he gets a problem not covered by private healthcare. He won't get any flu tablets and might struggle to get anti-biotics if everyone is forced to go to work when they're sick, so end up passing illness onto others, completely wrecking the systems and resources. Everyone needs a taxi after a night out (or a tube in London or whatever), and rich people get just as cold as old folk, when there's less drivers willing to put up with the crap, for less pay. He'll be waiting at the bar longer/ for his food too, when there's less staff to serve him. Everyone gets stuck in traffic, and that's more common and longer when construction has recruitment issues, as nobody wants to work their nuts off, labouring, out in the rain and mud for £10 an hour.
 
Last edited:
In the UK, where the tory government (and their RW media) lourd that we have high levels of employment....we have increasing poverty and more people relying on state assistance.

That says everything about this binfire of a governments economic strategy.
 
25.5% (17.55 million) of the people in this country are children whose families are entitled to child benefit.

18.6% (12.8 million) of the people in this country qualify for a State Pension

21.4% (14.6 million) of the people in this country are registered disabled by doing a simple calculation based on children and pensioners as a population percentage that means that approximately 12% (8.2 million) people over 16 but under 65 are entitled to state help for disability.

This means that 65.5% of the population are quite rightly receiving state benefits based on age or health, this is an inconvenient reality that the rabid right wing try very hard to sweep under the carpet so that those who are claiming in work or unemployment benefits can be put under full scrutiny and blamed for the abominable state the country is currently in.
 
Muttley said:
The enduring lie portraying the rich and mega rich as "wealth creators" when in reality they are "wealth hoarders" hoarding money in offshore bank accounts and dodging tax. They are the true leeches on society adding nothing not some poor nurses trying to feed their kids.
Click to expand...

Even worse than that are the ‘wealth inheritors’
Rees Mogg et al who would be on their knees had it not been for parents/grand parents.

Me for PM - when you die whatever you have left: houses, mansions: land: cash, the fricking lot…… goes back to the state.
 
festa5 said:
If those same people are then outraged by the article (which is the point of it) they should ask themselves the question whether they should give up their pension? And if the answer is no, then they maybe shouldn't be so outraged by the article after all.
Click to expand...

Exactly! I was trying to highlight this, but failed.

My Venn diagrams seem to have crossed - well off pensioner; need to be outraged at those who "take out more than they currently put in"; (oops) take out more than I put in.

Of course I could reduce by one the subject of my outrage by not taking my state pension, or asking them to reduce it below the (income) tax I pay.

Being a Daily Mail reader must do your head when you actually think about what you're reading.
 
Mind Boggling how deluded these people are.

The idea of the social contract is surely that when the chips are down the rich pick up the slack but make hay when the sun shines, yet every single time the poop hits the fan they get massive windfalls. Bailed out from the 2008 financial crash, pocketed a fortune over Covid. Pulling everyone's pants down over the war in Ukraine.

The problem is that people just go "Oh well. What can you do?" every time. Even a revolution will see the poor screwed over again.
 
festa5 said:
He's not saying you should be.

Just pointing out that a lot of people this article is aimed at (given the demographics of your average daily Heil reader) are probably in that 53%.

If those same people are then outraged by the article (which is the point of it) they should ask themselves the question whether they should give up their pension? And if the answer is no, then they maybe shouldn't be so outraged by the article after all.
Click to expand...
The state pension is not a benefit. its paid for by your national insurance, taken from wages, which you have earned over your working life.
 
Transitarmy said:
The state pension is not a benefit. its paid for by your national insurance, taken from wages, which you have earned over your working life.
Click to expand...

Did you mean to reply to me? I've not said it's a benefit anywhere (although think it's technically classed as one?).

I don't disagree with your statement, but I'm not sure what point you're making, if it was directed at me!
 
festa5 said:
Did you mean to reply to me? I've not said it's a benefit anywhere (although think it's technically classed as one?).

I don't disagree with your statement, but I'm not sure what point you're making, if it was directed at me!
Click to expand...
Sorry , I replied to the wrong post
 
Hoolio said:
Why should they give up their state pensions?
Click to expand...
I think it was more a question than a request.

Basically pointing out the anomaly of people supporting a cut in govt welfare whilst receiving that very thing in the form of a pension.

Say that the pension was means tested? Anecdotally there must be a few who are in receipt of the state pension who would like to see a reduced welfare bill. Maybe this is one way of doing it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top