Brexit - Leave or Remain poll

There's many things to take from the welfare breakdown but the real surprise is how little goes to those out of work. You'd think they were given the vast majority of that money given the relentless focus on benefit scroungers whereas the truth is that, scrounged or not, they actually receive very little in total of the money spent.

The real shocker is the amount spent in tax credits which top-up low pay and so is, in effect, a disincentive to employers to pay a fair wage, and the other is housing benefit which, in effect, fuels rent inflation in the private rental sector. The Tories have long argued that receiving benefits disempowers the individual and it would appear to be true. It is also true that employers and those who rent them somewhere to live do extremely nicely out of it - but they never get called scroungers, do they?

There's vast swathes of this country where people in work who should be able to pay their own way simply cannot.

Lord Biro wrote:

Frank's on his pension bashing steed again.

I'm not bashing anybody. I don't begrudge anybody, pensioner or otherwise, having the money they require to eke out a frugal existence. Just pointing out where (some of) our taxes get spent and that, interestingly, when everything else is being cut the pension bill grows. It's the polar opposite of government policy regarding higher education.

I was only joshing Frank, which is why I deleted my post.
Welfare, as opposed to warfare, is an interesting subject.
Funnily enough the state got into it by mistake, and it has had several different guises over the centuries, with headlines such as work houses and common land.
Obviously everyone has to live and eat, and in the old days much of that was achieved by utilising the common land. Of course, the greedy gentle folk decided they wanted said land and resources for themselves. So, they stole it and the rest  became history.
So, if anyone is a bit upset at the welfare bill, look no further than the big landowners.Which of course, isn't that much different today, given that much housing benefit goes to landowners, not tennants. And a hugely inflated rigged housing market it is too. But that's another story.

An interesting small experiment is going on at the moment in the Netherlands. Interesting stuff.

Actually all housing benefit goes directly to landlords now. The renters never even see it.

Which is pedantry, I admit, because I think we're largely singing from the same hymnsheet here.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Actually all housing benefit goes directly to landlords now. The renters never even see it.

Which is pedantry, I admit, because I think we're largely singing from the same hymnsheet here.

Actually Frank, it's the other way round. The huge majority of HB goes to the tenant first, and then into the landlord's hands.

But we are singing in harmony, I'm sure.

Don't think it does anymore. Is anybody here receiving housing benefit so we can clear this one up?

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Don't think it does anymore. Is anybody here receiving housing benefit so we can clear this one up?

No great surprise that you would be wrong on this like you are about just about everything else.

I remember well the halcyon days when I got the rent paid directly to me, then they decided it would be better for their clients to get my money, that was shortly before I stopped renting to benefits scroungers.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I do love it when complete muppets post 'facts' to try and make their pathetic point and use something which is so wrong it is laughable.

The graphic shows "Contributions to the EU budget" in 2014/15 to be "3.7 billion" when the OBR's estimate of a net contribution in 2014/15 to have risen from £8.5 billion to £9.1 billion, the actual pink book figure will as always turn out to be higher than that still.

So Franny is over £5 billion out with his 'fact', he should go work for the EUSSR, their latest budget showed they paid out £4 billion but don't know to whom, that's ok though because they also gave £6 billion to people they know should not have had it at all.

Oh, and "Overseas aid" £8.8 billion?

The official figure was £11.7 billion, but what is £3 billion eh, not proper money is it?

He is fond of 'facts' backing up the CBI as well, doesn't mention the £800,000 they got in funding from the EU though does he?

The CBI put out a claim that every household would be £3,000 a year worse off after Brexit, it turned out they got that figure by selectively trawling existing studies, as usual they did no real work themselves. The House of Commons Library reviewed he same subject but a tad more comprehensively, they found that 50% of reports suggested we should be better off following Brexit, another 40% showed it was likely to be a wash with little or no change, a mere 10% actually showed households being worse off, surprise, surprise, the CBI found all their sources in that 10% and ignored the other 90%.

"Lies, damn lies and Franny/CBI lies".

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Don't think it does anymore. Is anybody here receiving housing benefit so we can clear this one up?

My girlfriend gets housing benefit and it goes to her, although the tenant can ask the council to pay it automatically to the landlord if they want to.

Lord Tisdale wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Don't think it does anymore. Is anybody here receiving housing benefit so we can clear this one up?

No great surprise that you would be wrong on this like you are about just about everything else.

I remember well the halcyon days when I got the rent paid directly to me, then they decided it would be better for their clients to get my money, that was shortly before I stopped renting to benefits scroungers.

Not everyone on benefits is a scrounger, my partner can hardly walk yet we have an an ongoing appeal ( over 2 years at present ) to get the proper benefits she deserves.

Indeed. One of the main reasons for paying direct to tenants was to stop a great deal of "landlords" defrauding the state with ghost lettings. In exceptional circumstances the tenant can ask to have the rent paid direct to the landlord.  
All facts are subject to those who produce them, including the above Brexit bot waffle. Brexit bot states facts back up his position shock. The mother of all studies  

In the budget today, we will be subjected to yet another incanted list  of made up numbers and impossible targets to suit the ideology of the priest of the day. The biggest falsehood will be how huge money pouring into his mates' pockets through HS2, Hinkley, yet more huge house building company gimmes etc will not be spending at all. It all depends on who makes the rules and who waves the stick.

Lord Biro wrote:

Indeed. One of the main reasons for paying direct to tenants was to stop a great deal of "landlords" defrauding the state with ghost lettings.

As opposed to paying the tenant direct who then decides to spend it on other things.

The landlord then has a costly procedure to evict the tenant.

Your one sided view is so typical of your narrow mind.

There are two sides to every story.

The truth is there is no easy solution because corrupt people on both sides of the issue f**k it up for the honest tenants and landlords.

Rollo Tomasi wrote:

The truth is there is no easy solution because corrupt people on both sides of the issue f**k it up for the honest.

And there you have the the World in microcosm.

Lord Biro wrote:

Hey, the Belgians couldn't even shout over the border to the French to warn them of the gun running for the Paris horror massacres.

Perhaps they weren't allowed to without the agreement of the other 27 'member states'  

Seriously though, it's somewhat ironic that the Home of the EU, Brussels, appears to be a hotbed of islamic extremism/terrorism..........they're sprouting up all over the city.  COYG!

Lord Tisdale wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I do love it when complete muppets post 'facts' to try and make their pathetic point and use something which is so wrong it is laughable.

The graphic shows "Contributions to the EU budget" in 2014/15 to be "3.7 billion" when the OBR's estimate of a net contribution in 2014/15 to have risen from £8.5 billion to £9.1 billion, the actual pink book figure will as always turn out to be higher than that still.

So Franny is over £5 billion out with his 'fact', he should go work for the EUSSR, their latest budget showed they paid out £4 billion but don't know to whom, that's ok though because they also gave £6 billion to people they know should not have had it at all.

Oh, and "Overseas aid" £8.8 billion?

The official figure was £11.7 billion, but what is £3 billion eh, not proper money is it?

He is fond of 'facts' backing up the CBI as well, doesn't mention the £800,000 they got in funding from the EU though does he?

The CBI put out a claim that every household would be £3,000 a year worse off after Brexit, it turned out they got that figure by selectively trawling existing studies, as usual they did no real work themselves. The House of Commons Library reviewed he same subject but a tad more comprehensively, they found that 50% of reports suggested we should be better off following Brexit, another 40% showed it was likely to be a wash with little or no change, a mere 10% actually showed households being worse off, surprise, surprise, the CBI found all their sources in that 10% and ignored the other 90%.

"Lies, damn lies and Franny/CBI lies".

I did not make any of this up.

If you look closely you'll see that these are official HMT figures. I'm sorry if you don't like them but there's not much I can do about that.

If they are lies they aren't my lies. Perhaps you could source your contradictory data so that we could assess its pertinence?

Being so willfully ignorant of simple facts that all can see does you no favours at all. If you can be so wildly wrong when it is all laid out in front of you then it seriously undermines any credence your posts might have - if they had any to start with.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Lord Tisdale wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I do love it when complete muppets post 'facts' to try and make their pathetic point and use something which is so wrong it is laughable.

The graphic shows "Contributions to the EU budget" in 2014/15 to be "3.7 billion" when the OBR's estimate of a net contribution in 2014/15 to have risen from £8.5 billion to £9.1 billion, the actual pink book figure will as always turn out to be higher than that still.

So Franny is over £5 billion out with his 'fact', he should go work for the EUSSR, their latest budget showed they paid out £4 billion but don't know to whom, that's ok though because they also gave £6 billion to people they know should not have had it at all.

Oh, and "Overseas aid" £8.8 billion?

The official figure was £11.7 billion, but what is £3 billion eh, not proper money is it?

He is fond of 'facts' backing up the CBI as well, doesn't mention the £800,000 they got in funding from the EU though does he?

The CBI put out a claim that every household would be £3,000 a year worse off after Brexit, it turned out they got that figure by selectively trawling existing studies, as usual they did no real work themselves. The House of Commons Library reviewed he same subject but a tad more comprehensively, they found that 50% of reports suggested we should be better off following Brexit, another 40% showed it was likely to be a wash with little or no change, a mere 10% actually showed households being worse off, surprise, surprise, the CBI found all their sources in that 10% and ignored the other 90%.

"Lies, damn lies and Franny/CBI lies".

I did not make any of this up.

If you look closely you'll see that these are official HMT figures. I'm sorry if you don't like them but there's not much I can do about that.

If they are lies they aren't my lies. Perhaps you could source your contradictory data so that we could assess its pertinence?

Being so willfully ignorant of simple facts that all can see does you no favours at all. If you can be so wildly wrong when it is all laid out in front of you then it seriously undermines any credence your posts might have - if they had any to start with.

You're a knob Franny who obviously knows nothing at all about the subject, if you did you would have known at first sight that the figures for Aid and the EU were miles out, ps. I didn't have to look it up because unlike you I have actually done a bit of research for myself.

They are not official HMT figures, unless HMT is short for a bunch of away with the fairies loonies who can't count.

I know not about the other figures displayed but experience has taught me that people who are wrong about important things tend to be wrong about most everything else, I would therefore suggest that your banal witterings about the benefits bill and austerity are probably just more bull poo based on another false premise.

I am not going to "source" you figures just like I would not "source" you a calendar to prove today was Wednesday, this is basic information which you should have at your finger tips if you want to argue seriously about this important issue.

Information is power, that is why Nigey can keep on spouting the £50 million a day to the EU figure and nobody ever comes back and knocks it down. We are obliged to pay around £50 million a day, Nigey doesn't lie, we don't pay that because we have an abatement, not a forking "rebate", that's something else that bugs the crap out of me, then we receive around £4.5 billion back so the Welshies can carrying on shagging sheep and the Cornish can do whatever it is they do. In 2014/15 that left us with a net contribution which the OBR estimated would be £8.5 billion, not £3.7 billion per your idiotic attempt to lie to everybody, surprising really when you are so keen on "fullfact", they published th £8.5 billion figure on their website, I guess you only see what you want to see. Unfortunately shortly afterwards the OBR changed their minds and increased their estimate to £9.1 billion, in about two years from now the pink book will come out, that will show the actual audited figure which, as a general rule, usually turns out to be quite a bit bigger as the two faced Juankers in Brussels always manage to shaft the Posh Boys who are supposed to look after our interests.

I don't mind people who hold differing views to mine, what I don't like is people who tell lies to try and influence others.

Rollo Tomasi wrote:

Lord Biro wrote:

Indeed. One of the main reasons for paying direct to tenants was to stop a great deal of "landlords" defrauding the state with ghost lettings.

As opposed to paying the tenant direct who then decides to spend it on other things.

The landlord then has a costly procedure to evict the tenant.

Your one sided view is so typical of your narrow mind.

There are two sides to every story.

The truth is there is no easy solution because corrupt people on both sides of the issue f**k it up for the honest tenants and landlords.

Tell me about it, 14 months it took me to get one useless slag out of one of my houses, then after I had spent a lump of time and money putting the house back in order the council only had the gall to come and ask me to take another of their misfits, I of course told them to fork orf and left it empty until I found a proper tenant with a proper job, not an easy task nowadays.

Lord Tis is either a complete blithering idiot, a troll or both. There can be no doubt whatsoever about it.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Lord Tis is either a complete blithering idiot, a troll or both. There can be no doubt whatsoever about it.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I can read what it says moron, I just have the basic intelligence to know that it is wrong.

You on the other hand don't appear to have a fecking clue.

You didn't get the graphic form a HMT document, some miserable little tome that you read published it and you, being bereft of any knowledge of the subject, posted the drivel so that others might believe your pro EU Bullsh1t.

You are not only stupid but disingenuous.

Rollo Tomasi wrote:

Lord Biro wrote:

Indeed. One of the main reasons for paying direct to tenants was to stop a great deal of "landlords" defrauding the state with ghost lettings.

As opposed to paying the tenant direct who then decides to spend it on other things.

The landlord then has a costly procedure to evict the tenant.

Your one sided view is so typical of your narrow mind.

There are two sides to every story.

The truth is there is no easy solution because corrupt people on both sides of the issue f**k it up for the honest tenants and landlords.

Like most folk, I have friends and family who are house owners, tenants, landlords, hoteliers, even holiday letters. I think I know a thing or two about both sides of the coin. A brother of mine has had terrible trouble with tenants in the past, and not always those on benefits. It is not the duty of the state to be bad debt insurers, despite many landlords wanting a nanny state.

Things get debated on here. It's not my job to painstakingly illustrate both sides. We've got you to do that, Rollo .
The trouble is I keep racking up the yellow cards and the other side never get one. "I only get shit refs "

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Another nice chart for you Franny but you won't like the figures on this one.

Amsterdamage wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Another nice chart for you Franny but you won't like the figures on this one.

Come on Hammy, let's not stoop as low as Franny by posting either erroneous or out of date rubbish, especially when it is as hard to read as that one.

Suffice it to say that we have been net contributors in 42 out of the 43 years we have been in the EUSSR and that Franny's hero, Tony Blair, is responsible for that contribution being £7 billion more than it would have been under Maggie's deal.

The £3bn figure is bull pure and simple. Didn't see Agriculture mentioned at all. we paid more than £3bn to the eu in 1979.

Well, I've got something to add here. Just what is wrong in being a net contributor to the EU ? And it can help stop millions chasing around the planet looking for a decent living. Cornwall, for example, will have easily been a net recipient over the period.
Wherever peace and the odd note of harmony exist, there is always redistribution of monies to counteract the worst results of unbridled law of the jungle. That's how it works. Sometimes flood up, sometimes trickle down. Very rarely, flood down, like after a war to stop the returning troops from roasting the ruling squatters.
If you don't believe in that, you don't believe in civilised peaceable society. The UK is supposedly the 5th largest planetary economy after Mars and can afford to spread a bit around. It's called balance, and is something that has gone awry of late in Middle Earth, with yet another possible war if we're not careful.
Get real.

Lord Tisdale wrote:

Amsterdamage wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Another nice chart for you Franny but you won't like the figures on this one.

Come on Hammy, let's not stoop as low as Franny by posting either erroneous or out of date rubbish, especially when it is as hard to read as that one.

Suffice it to say that we have been net contributors in 42 out of the 43 years we have been in the EUSSR and that Franny's hero, Tony Blair, is responsible for that contribution being £7 billion more than it would have been under Maggie's deal.

More trollolling.

(That's trolling with a deliberate LOL in it.)