I have problems with hard black or white definitions. Life is multicoloured and shaded
I think my issue with this fellows (reported ?) bragging is that he's effectively saying that he doesn't contribute and he's fine.
Good for him, but it's a very selfish attitude tbh.
Our society works by people being prepared to contribute when they are employed or of sufficient funds.
That's it in a nutshell for me. I am so very glad that our society is prepared to help individuals and families when the need arises.
Tax dodgers, of any scope; small or the huge million pounder debtors, are effectively refusing to contribute to the common funds that are accessible to all who live here who are in need of assistance.
I'd hate to see us back in the days when folk had to virtually beg for charitable help when needed. Thank everyone who pays, we don't have workhouses any more, we don't have the destitute refused full medical help.
Assistance given should be done with quiet respect and clear guidelines.
Problem there though is that some who would scrounge start to demand support as a 'right' for life, instead of a benefit to be used when in need for a period of time.
I said before that we aren't good at explaining the system, that we don't teach it clearly enough. I think that still holds true, and I wonder if this fellow even considered how his actions would be regarded in that light and not just as an, "I don't need money", kind of boast.
The present economic climate means that there are a great many who would genuinely be prepared to work, who cannot find employment, and many who are working for such low wages that they can't contribute. There's none of them scroungers or parasites by the definitions given by folks here; simply fellow countrymen in need for the present.
As for the living without cash fellow; I might not like the message he's supposed to have encouraged re no taxes paid, but I would defend his right to state his case.
Civilised
No ?
cheers,
Toddy
