Russell Brand

[doodab]

And which tree will the "living wage" be coming from?

You really haven't paid any attention at all have you? Go back and find where I used the term, read what I wrote, then come back here and make some ******* sense for a change.

[Platypus]

An outcome less likely than winning the lottery. But definitely nothing to do with luck. Anyone could do it, if only they could be bothered.

As I read this thread, this seems to be a pivotal moment wherein you recognise that very point.

I'll be the first to admit that I've balanced my life between hard work and taking it easy. As a result I'm not a millionaire, this is due to the choices I've made, the choice not to devote every hour and every fibre of my being to working to become rich. I could have, but I didn't. To a greater or lesser extent I think most people do that. Yet you seem to be grouching that the less driven less than super-hard-working, or even the lazy, deserve a share of the pie once someone else has made the pie for them.

[doodab]

1. education
2. welfare
3. priviliged left wing pric*s with an axe to grind

Not necessarily in that order

I would happily do away with the vast majority of welfare. However, as I explained earlier, most welfare recipients are actually in work. Clearly there are jobs there that need doing and people are willing to do them, but they don't pay enough for people to live on. How do you propose to solve that conundrum?

[DodgyAgent]

I would happily do away with the vast majority of welfare. However, as I explained earlier, most welfare recipients are actually in work. Clearly there are jobs there that need doing and people are willing to do them, but they don't pay enough for people to live on. How do you propose to solve that conundrum?

You do not seem to be making any point. All you are doing is whingeing and whining about everyone's entitlement. The general point here that seems to be beyond the scope of the pea like molecule you have substituted for a brain is that the more determined and hard working people are the richer they can be.

[doodab]

As I read this thread, this seems to be a pivotal moment wherein you recognise that very point.

Er no, it's sarcasm.

[DodgyAgent]

Er no, it's sarcasm.

Good job you told us

[doodab]

Good job you told us

Oh do **** off you pointless trolling little ****. You have absolutely nothing of value to add at all do you? Much like the rest of your existence.

[doodab]

You do not seem to be making any point. All you are doing is whingeing and whining about everyone's entitlement. The general point here that seems to be beyond the scope of the pea like molecule you have substituted for a brain is that the more determined and hard working people are the richer they can be.

Why don't you try answering the question instead of being a ****. How would you solve the problem? You can say you would just let people starve if you want. It's certainly an option.

[DodgyAgent]

Oh do **** off you pointless trolling little ****. You have absolutely nothing of value to add at all do you? Much like the rest of your existence.

I take value, I don't add it.

[doodab]

By need to live do you mean just enough food, shelter and water to survive? If not, how much more?

I think it would be down to society to determine what constitutes a minimum acceptable standard of living, probably using the same concepts of "fair" I was talking about earlier.