In a fit of rage, I tweeted:
Welfare works. Oh yeah: http://bit.ly/cPoHAI <-- read that and see if you don't want to strangle some fucking bleeding heart cocksniffer.
Some fucknut piped up out of the blue:
@obotheclown did YOU read it? Honestly, your depth of understanding is as thin as your 'irreverent libertarian' schtick.
I was frankly rather baffled by this. So I asked him what he meant. His reply came forth:
@obotheclown oh sorry. I thought you impugned the welfare state by implying that everyone on benefits was intentionally opting for a 1/2
@obotheclown handout instead of earning their own money. Nice straw man douchebag. Does the shitty thinking come on with the make-up? 2/2
He then went on to add:
@obotheclown uh-uh. You keep up the great contributions to libertarian thought. We all wait with bated breath.
Well, frankly I was baffled. Where had I even intimated such a thing?
Au cuntriare, twat, I think most dole bludgers are too fucking lazy to do any such thing. What fucks me off is that anyone can defend a dole system whereby it's to your benefit to earn less so you can butt-fuck the taxpayer for the difference and then some.
I actually admire Carpsio's brother's initiative for looking at a fucked system and gaming it like that, but crucially, isn't it a fucking condemnation of the system that it pays you more to earn less?
Seriously, who, in that situation, looking at it rationally, would not say: fuck the work for a game of soldiers. Instead of being motivated to work myself out of "poverty", let me sit on my hands and have more money?
And the fault here is not that of the entirely rational dole bludger. The fault is in the system and the cunts that defend it and say it needs more money.
So, Mr Ficklin, don't make stupid fucking assumptions about what is pissing me off.
If you're happy to defend a system that encourages people not to work by penalising them when they do and rewarding them when they don't, you're a fucking idiot. But if you agree that punishing people for taking care of their own and rewarding them for sitting on their hands is stupid, then you're a step closer to being a libertarian.
13 comments:
"Who in their right mind would..."
- Well, I would. I like to work. In fact, if I've got nothing to do I go look for something do.
But I know what you mean and I share your misgivings about the way the system works.
What makes me sad is that there really are people in desperate need. Not lazy, not scammers - just dealt a lousy hand and struggling to play it. We could give those genuine cases so much more and really get them back on track if so much money wasn't leeched by liars and cheats.
The welfare state was meant to be something which would give people who'd fallen on hard times a little respite, compassion and assistance. Some have turned it into a career path. That's what's wrong.
"Who in their right mind would..."
- Well, I would. I like to work. In fact, if I've got nothing to do I go look for something do.
But I know what you mean and I share your misgivings about the way the system works.
What makes me sad is that there really are people in desperate need. Not lazy, not scammers - just dealt a lousy hand and struggling to play it. We could give those genuine cases so much more and really get them back on track if so much money wasn't leeched by liars and cheats.
The welfare state was meant to be something which would give people who'd fallen on hard times a little respite, compassion and assistance. Some have turned it into a career path. That's what's wrong.
I suspect he's messed up the sums. I'm aware as any Tebbit that there are *really really fucking stupid* marginal tax rates (greater than 50%, lower than 100%) in the system, but if it's genuinely worthwhile getting paid GBP13k than GBP22k for the same work, then I'm the sodding Pope.
(and I've never worked for the Nazis or molested any kids, so I'm fairly sure I'm not.)
I reckon it's down to housing benefit. People are screaming because the ConDems want to limit it to £400 a week.
Now I'm a half-decent wage and I've never been able to afford a place that costs £400 a week. If your rent is "even" "just" £400 a week, that's £20,800 per annum, which more than makes up the £9,000 salary sacrifice.
Why was it easy for Steve and not for you, Obo? Since you're still putting your argument together ex post facto, I'll quote from Steve until you're ready.
"...there really are people in desperate need. Not lazy, not scammers - just dealt a lousy hand and struggling to play it. We could give those genuine cases so much more and really get them back on track if so much money wasn't leeched by liars and cheats."
The problem with your original tweet linking to the story about the dishonest benefits cheat is that it made clear you are incapable of differentiating between the merit of the need for/value of the system, and those who dishonestly take advantage of it. You used the case of a guy scamming the system to attack the system, not the guy. That's why I called it a straw man argument. I assume you don't like banning all bladed articles because some people use them for nefarious purposes? Of course you don't, you're a good libertarian.
But thanks for the mention.
Cunt.
"there really are people in desperate need. Not lazy, not scammers - just dealt a lousy hand and struggling to play it."
And where, pray tell, did I deny this?
You really are a wilful tool, you know that? Libertarians do not deny that there are people who need helping hand sometimes, they just do no think that an incompetent, spendthrift state is the way to help them.
Moron.
John B,
No disrespect, but you are one of the 'surprisees' that I blogged about.
The less you earn, the more, (depending on number of sprogs), tax credits you get. The more tax credits you get, the more this triggers other benefits such as rent rebates/council tax rebates/free school dinners for the sprogs etc etc.
It really is that simple.
It's got fuck all to do with paying income tax.
Excellent post, Obo. Massively dealt with Thicklin's inadequate logic on this subject. Quite why he even showed up to defend himself in the bare face of the facts in front of him is beyond comprehension.
Still, though, it's nearly silly season and it's always good to knock about with some easy meat until the conference season starts and the coalition begin to trip up.
Good work, lad.
"The more tax credits you get, the more this triggers other benefits such as rent rebates/council tax rebates/free school dinners for the sprogs etc etc."
This entitlement to a range of - quite valuable - benefits is commonly called a "munter card" in yokel Devon. It took me years to understand what it meant!
"You used the case of a guy scamming the system to attack the system, not the guy. That's why I called it a straw man argument."
No, you called it a straw man argument because you don't know what at straw man is!
Obo is right to attack the system. The system incentivises bad behaviour and sloth. It should not.
"I assume you don't like banning all bladed articles because some people use them for nefarious purposes? Of course you don't, you're a good libertarian. "
Your parallel would be to ban the concept of welfare in any form because of this example, which is not the case here.
Grief, there is no end to the misinterpretations and projections people are prepared to go to try and make their point.
OK, I admit it. I was wrong on this topic. Furthermore, I am a stupid socialist cunt. Fellate me, my socialist masters. Fellate me!
Squawk! Anyone seen my camel?!
JDFicklin is indeed a cunt. Why? Because he disagrees with me. Therefore he is a cunt. However, he disagrees with Obnoxio too. I think Obnoxio is a cunt. So I'm not sure if the two balance each other out in cuntishness. Perhaps it just makes me a cunt.
Squa-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-awk!
Post a Comment