Scrounger

First topic message reminder :

5th May 2014

Some people say this is a typical scrounger.

This thread is for the benefit of our foreign posters who don't understand our English use of the word scrounger - it doesn't mean all people on benefits - read below to understand it better.

Partying in rowdy bars, downing shots and pints of beer and gleefully clutching a bottle of pink champagne ... these are the holiday snaps of White Dee, one of the stars of controversial TV show Benefits Street.

Dee, whose real name is Deirdre Kelly, claims to be too depressed to go to work and lives off benefits as a result.

Yet here she is living the life of a party girl on an all-expenses-paid, mid-week trip to Magaluf in Majorca.

The mother of two was invited on the four-day holiday by another of her agent’s clients, an American singer.

She was seen drinking a £500 bottle of Moet and lounging around at a private pool party before going on a bar crawl, where she downed copious amounts of alcohol.





Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2620144/Benefits-Street-star-White-Dee-state-handouts-depressed-knocks-shots-beer-day-party-holiday.html#ixzz30qNI3zHr

I don't think JD has any idea what clinical depression is. It's not just feeling miserable like many people do on Monday morning when they have to go to work. It's a whole collection of symptoms, or a whole syndrome if you like. In fact, I might go as far as to say that it's the other symptoms which make people depressed.

Raggamuffin wrote:I don't think JD has any idea what clinical depression is. It's not just feeling miserable like many people do on Monday morning when they have to go to work. It's a whole collection of symptoms, or a whole syndrome if you like. In fact, I might go as far as to say that it's the other symptoms which make people depressed.

Oh right.

Joy Division wrote:

sphinx wrote:

You dont fucking get it do you?

Yes people on benefits are allowed to go on holiday but people with crippling depression severe enough to prevent working simply do not get the luxury of having enough of a break from it to be able to go on holiday.

She is not being judged and hounded because she is on benefits she is being judged and hounded because she is making a mockery of all the people who really do have depression and who will never go on holiday like the pictures while they have the condition because the condition does not let them.

I have lost friends and relatives to depression and have lived in close proximity to it and the party pictures are slap in the face.

I don't want to bet anything from you or your ilk, so you can stick trying justify your attacks on people on benefits just like you are...
Notice you rubbish other people's situation regards to their illness but throw a flakey when people rubbish the Fybnromyalgia which you say you have.

So to your bigoted and twisted opinions...no, I won't listen to them, so you can shove them right back up your arse.

She's not being bigoted, she's telling it like it is. It's you who is mocking those who suffer from real clinical depression by trivialising it.

Joy Division wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I don't think JD has any idea what clinical depression is. It's not just feeling miserable like many people do on Monday morning when they have to go to work. It's a whole collection of symptoms, or a whole syndrome if you like. In fact, I might go as far as to say that it's the other symptoms which make people depressed.

Oh right.

Yes, I am right.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


I don't want to bet anything from you or your ilk, so you can stick trying justify your attacks on people on benefits just like you are...
Notice you rubbish other people's situation regards to their illness but throw a flakey when people rubbish the Fybnromyalgia which you say you have.

So to your bigoted and twisted opinions...no, I won't listen to them, so you can shove them right back up your arse.

She's not being bigoted, she's telling it like it is. It's you who is mocking those who suffer from real clinical depression by trivialising it.

What a pathetic piece of attempted reverse psychology there, you don't live inside that lassies head and see her day in and out at every time of the day and night , by seeing this one picture where her moods have lifted, you decided for her she was more than fine and shouldn't be on benefits.

The usuals as usual.  

Raggamuffin wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


Oh right.

Yes, I am right.

No, your anything but right.

Joy Division wrote:

sphinx wrote:

You dont fucking get it do you?

Yes people on benefits are allowed to go on holiday but people with crippling depression severe enough to prevent working simply do not get the luxury of having enough of a break from it to be able to go on holiday.

She is not being judged and hounded because she is on benefits she is being judged and hounded because she is making a mockery of all the people who really do have depression and who will never go on holiday like the pictures while they have the condition because the condition does not let them.

I have lost friends and relatives to depression and have lived in close proximity to it and the party pictures are slap in the face.

I don't want to bet anything from you or your ilk, so you can stick trying justify your attacks on people on benefits just like you are...
Notice you rubbish other people's situation regards to their illness but throw a flakey when people rubbish the Fybnromyalgia which you say you have.

So to your bigoted and twisted opinions...no, I won't listen to them, so you can shove them right back up your arse.

You are the one focusing on benefits JD.

Depression does not give you a holiday - you dont get to choose "oh I have been invited away for a few days so I will be OK for those days". The worlds greatest party can be going on right outside, and you can be the guest of honour, and you will lie on your bed and stare at the ceiling.

It does not make the blindest bit of difference if you are on benefits or have just won the biggest lottery prize ever - you wont care and it wont matter. It makes no difference if you have 50p or £50 million in the bank - you still wont get out of bed and go and buy food.

You think I am rubbishing peoples conditions it is a shame phil left and keith isnt here because then you could ask him about the holidays they take from the depression where they go out to invited parties and have fun.

Joy Division wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

She's not being bigoted, she's telling it like it is. It's you who is mocking those who suffer from real clinical depression by trivialising it.

What a pathetic piece of  attempted reverse  psychology there, you don't live inside that lassies head and see her day in and out at every time of the day and night , by seeing this one picture where her moods have lifted, you decided for her she was more than fine and shouldn't be on benefits.

The usuals as usual.  

If her mood has lifted then she's fit for work. Why can you not understand that? Do you have any idea why some people with clinical depression cannot work? It's because they can't function, they can hardly get out of bed never mind go out and do a job. They would not be able to go on holiday in that manner.

The system is not there for people to decide that they're too fed up to work, it's there to look after people who literally can't work.

Joy Division wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

She's not being bigoted, she's telling it like it is. It's you who is mocking those who suffer from real clinical depression by trivialising it.

What a pathetic piece of  attempted reverse  psychology there, you don't live inside that lassies head and see her day in and out at every time of the day and night , by seeing this one picture where her moods have lifted, you decided for her she was more than fine and shouldn't be on benefits.

The usuals as usual.  

JD I have never known anyone with depression who is so perfectly able to time their mood lifts to the times they are on holiday and can have fun.

Known enough times when holiday for depressed person meant hours trying to get them out of their room and the odd visit to the local A&E but them as life and times of the party just never ever happened.

I think this conversation reveals why some people are so defensive of some people on benefits - they think that being pissed off for a while is a good reason to live off the tax payers.

JD clearly has no idea what he's talking about.

Raggamuffin wrote:I think this conversation reveals why some people are so defensive of some people on benefits - they think that being pissed off for a while is a good reason to live off the tax payers.

JD clearly has no idea what he's talking about.

I mean to be fair facilities to help people with depression stay in or get back to work are crap - and the government would achieve far more if it introduced schemes to help those declared unfit to get back into work with supported funding for employers to offer full flexitime and proper treatment support (not repeat prescriptions for anti depressants). One of the biggest reasons people with moderate mental health issues are found unfit for work is because quite simply employers will not touch them to an extent not even seen with physical illnesses.

I don't understand the mentality of people who get so upset about some people being on benefits; why they seem to think work is such a terrible thing.

Ben_Reilly wrote:I don't understand the mentality of people who get so upset about some people being on benefits; why they seem to think work is such a terrible thing.

Well lets imagine you are working hard every day to earn wages. A chunk of those wages is taken in tax. That tax is used to provide money for your neighbour who could work but makes no effort to.

Now lets imagine you both have girl friends. Both your girlfriends become pregnant.

Your neighbour is then provided with a larger home and is paid even more money. You are not.

Your children start school. Your neighbours child is provided with free food. Your child is not. Your neighbour gets extra financial help with uniform. You do not. There is a school trip. Your neighbours child gets to go on it free of charge. Your child does not go because you cannot afford the fee.

The problem is not so much people being on benefits as such - it is people being better off on benefits.

Ben_Reilly wrote:I don't understand the mentality of people who get so upset about some people being on benefits; why they seem to think work is such a terrible thing.

You don't see anything wrong with people who are capable of working being paid by the taxpayers to sit around whilst those who work and pay tax have to actually get up and go and earn money?

There's no hope for you.   

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:I don't understand the mentality of people who get so upset about some people being on benefits; why they seem to think work is such a terrible thing.

You don't see anything wrong with people who are capable of working being paid by the taxpayers to sit around whilst those who work and pay tax have to actually get up and go and earn money?

There's no hope for you.   

No, I think benefits should be there for those who need them, not to be abused.

What I don't understand is why so many of those who hate those on benefits also seem to loathe work so much.

sphinx wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I think this conversation reveals why some people are so defensive of some people on benefits - they think that being pissed off for a while is a good reason to live off the tax payers.

JD clearly has no idea what he's talking about.

I mean to be fair facilities to help people with depression stay in or get back to work are crap - and the government would achieve far more if it introduced schemes to help those declared unfit to get back into work with supported funding for employers to offer full flexitime and proper treatment support (not repeat prescriptions for anti depressants).  One of the biggest reasons people with moderate mental health issues are found unfit for work is because quite simply employers will not touch them to an extent not even seen with physical illnesses.

Maybe, although I wouldn't knock repeat prescriptions. Drugs for depression get a bad press but they are extremely useful for many people.

I agree that anyone with a history of depression might run into problems because some employers might not want to risk employing them in case they go off sick. These health forms people have to fill in don't help.

sphinx wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:I don't understand the mentality of people who get so upset about some people being on benefits; why they seem to think work is such a terrible thing.

Well lets imagine you are working hard every day to earn wages.  A chunk of those wages is taken in tax.  That tax is used to provide money for your neighbour who could work but makes no effort to.

Now lets imagine you both have girl friends.  Both your girlfriends become pregnant.

Your neighbour is then provided with a larger home and is paid even more money.  You are not.

Your children start school.  Your neighbours child is provided with free food.  Your child is not.  Your neighbour gets extra financial help with uniform.  You do not.  There is a school trip.  Your neighbours child gets to go on it free of charge.  Your child does not go because you cannot afford the fee.

The problem is not so much people being on benefits as such - it is people being better off on benefits.

But surely my life is better as a fully employed person even if I'm not getting as much money, because of the intrinsic value of work? Why despise people because they don't have to work, if work is such a good influence on your life?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You don't see anything wrong with people who are capable of working being paid by the taxpayers to sit around whilst those who work and pay tax have to actually get up and go and earn money?

There's no hope for you.   

No, I think benefits should be there for those who need them, not to be abused.

What I don't understand is why so many of those who hate those on benefits also seem to loathe work so much.

What makes you think those who hate people on benefits loath work?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You don't see anything wrong with people who are capable of working being paid by the taxpayers to sit around whilst those who work and pay tax have to actually get up and go and earn money?

There's no hope for you.   

No, I think benefits should be there for those who need them, not to be abused.

What I don't understand is why so many of those who hate those on benefits also seem to loathe work so much.

You obviously don't have a job where you spend hours commuting, or one where you have to sit in a little cubicle all day being abused on the phone.   

sphinx wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You don't see anything wrong with people who are capable of working being paid by the taxpayers to sit around whilst those who work and pay tax have to actually get up and go and earn money?

There's no hope for you.   

No, I think benefits should be there for those who need them, not to be abused.

What I don't understand is why so many of those who hate those on benefits also seem to loathe work so much.

What makes you think those who hate people on benefits loath work?

They seem quite jealous of those who don't have to work.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

sphinx wrote:

What makes you think those who hate people on benefits loath work?

They seem quite jealous of those who don't have to work.

Well a lot of people don't actually love their jobs - believe it or not.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Well lets imagine you are working hard every day to earn wages.  A chunk of those wages is taken in tax.  That tax is used to provide money for your neighbour who could work but makes no effort to.

Now lets imagine you both have girl friends.  Both your girlfriends become pregnant.

Your neighbour is then provided with a larger home and is paid even more money.  You are not.

Your children start school.  Your neighbours child is provided with free food.  Your child is not.  Your neighbour gets extra financial help with uniform.  You do not.  There is a school trip.  Your neighbours child gets to go on it free of charge.  Your child does not go because you cannot afford the fee.

The problem is not so much people being on benefits as such - it is people being better off on benefits.

But surely my life is better as a fully employed person even if I'm not getting as much money, because of the intrinsic value of work? Why despise people because they don't have to work, if work is such a good influence on your life?

Intrinsic value or not of work (and I have in the past worked when financially better off not working) it is bloody galling to see those who do not work getting things you would like but cannot afford.

I mean to go back to the OP there are an awful lot of people who work who would love to go on holiday to Magalufe but who quite simply cannot afford it and are not going to get taken there for nothing.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Well lets imagine you are working hard every day to earn wages.  A chunk of those wages is taken in tax.  That tax is used to provide money for your neighbour who could work but makes no effort to.

Now lets imagine you both have girl friends.  Both your girlfriends become pregnant.

Your neighbour is then provided with a larger home and is paid even more money.  You are not.

Your children start school.  Your neighbours child is provided with free food.  Your child is not.  Your neighbour gets extra financial help with uniform.  You do not.  There is a school trip.  Your neighbours child gets to go on it free of charge.  Your child does not go because you cannot afford the fee.

The problem is not so much people being on benefits as such - it is people being better off on benefits.

But surely my life is better as a fully employed person even if I'm not getting as much money, because of the intrinsic value of work? Why despise people because they don't have to work, if work is such a good influence on your life?

Agreed.

I can't understand all this pathetic resentment and it's boring aswell as bigoted.

I don't receive benefit but I don't resent or even think about who are,it's not something I concern myself with.

No, but we hear the right wing talk all the time about the value of hard work -- then cry because not everyone has to do it. It's either a good thing that makes you a better person, so you should be glad you have a job, or it's a horrible punishment for a human being to go through and nobody should have to do it. Which is it?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

sphinx wrote:

What makes you think those who hate people on benefits loath work?

They seem quite jealous of those who don't have to work.

Well I dont know about the US but in the UK many people have to work bloody hard at jobs they do not like doing to earn money and they would dearly love to not have to do those jobs but do not have that choice because they are not prepared to tell lies.

sphinx wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

But surely my life is better as a fully employed person even if I'm not getting as much money, because of the intrinsic value of work? Why despise people because they don't have to work, if work is such a good influence on your life?

Intrinsic value or not of work (and I have in the past worked when financially better off not working) it is bloody galling to see those who do not work getting things you would like but cannot afford.

I mean to go back to the OP there are an awful lot of people who work who would love to go on holiday to Magalufe but who quite simply cannot afford it and are not going to get taken there for nothing.

I think that if someone doesn't work but lives off their own money or inherited money or whatever, people might be a bit envious but only in a good-natured way. That's very different to paying tax so that some people can sit around doing what they like all day on benefits.

And as far as not being able to afford holidays, etc., I'll never be able to afford the things that are enjoyed by people who inherited millions of dollars and have never had to work. Should I spend my days posting bashing comments about them here?

sphinx wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

But surely my life is better as a fully employed person even if I'm not getting as much money, because of the intrinsic value of work? Why despise people because they don't have to work, if work is such a good influence on your life?

Intrinsic value or not of work (and I have in the past worked when financially better off not working) it is bloody galling to see those who do not work getting things you would like but cannot afford.

I mean to go back to the OP there are an awful lot of people who work who would love to go on holiday to Magalufe but who quite simply cannot afford it and are not going to get taken there for nothing.

This is simply not true.
The benefits people get are a pittance and if your wages are not enough you should blame the government for your low wage and not getting what you deserve,NOT those on benefits.Its not their fault that your wage is unsatisfactory.

Ben_Reilly wrote:No, but we hear the right wing talk all the time about the value of hard work -- then cry because not everyone has to do it. It's either a good thing that makes you a better person, so you should be glad you have a job, or it's a horrible punishment for a human being to go through and nobody should have to do it. Which is it?

It depends on the job obviously.

Ben_Reilly wrote:And as far as not being able to afford holidays, etc., I'll never be able to afford the things that are enjoyed by people who inherited millions of dollars and have never had to work. Should I spend my days posting bashing comments about them here?

Yes   

I'm kidding lol.Only people of a certain resentful mindset do things like that.

If people on means tested benefits get income from another source, or a gift of money from another source, they should declare it and then the benefits should be cut by that amount.

Ben_Reilly wrote:No, but we hear the right wing talk all the time about the value of hard work -- then cry because not everyone has to do it. It's either a good thing that makes you a better person, so you should be glad you have a job, or it's a horrible punishment for a human being to go through and nobody should have to do it. Which is it?

You are over simplifying.

Try it this way - if every person who could work did work then the tax burden on all would be lower and every worker would get higher rewards.

Often the value in hard work is subject to everyone doing it - if 7 people work hard and 3 people do nothing but all get similar financial rewards the intrinsic value of the work is diminished.

Ben_Reilly wrote:And as far as not being able to afford holidays, etc., I'll never be able to afford the things that are enjoyed by people who inherited millions of dollars and have never had to work. Should I spend my days posting bashing comments about them here?

No, because they're not doing it on your money that you've paid in taxes.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:No, but we hear the right wing talk all the time about the value of hard work -- then cry because not everyone has to do it. It's either a good thing that makes you a better person, so you should be glad you have a job, or it's a horrible punishment for a human being to go through and nobody should have to do it. Which is it?

It depends on the job obviously.

So maybe an interesting point to discuss would be, do employers provide enough meaningful, rewarding work? Maybe more people would get off benefits if work didn't simply suck so bad?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:And as far as not being able to afford holidays, etc., I'll never be able to afford the things that are enjoyed by people who inherited millions of dollars and have never had to work. Should I spend my days posting bashing comments about them here?

No, because they're not doing it on your money that you've paid in taxes.

I'm American, less than 10 cents of every dollar I spend in tax goes to help the needy. I'm trying to change that, actually, so our poor can get some real help in this country.

sphinx wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:No, but we hear the right wing talk all the time about the value of hard work -- then cry because not everyone has to do it. It's either a good thing that makes you a better person, so you should be glad you have a job, or it's a horrible punishment for a human being to go through and nobody should have to do it. Which is it?

You are over simplifying.

Try it this way - if every person who could work did work then the tax burden on all would be lower and every worker would get higher rewards.

Often the value in hard work is subject to everyone doing it - if 7 people work hard and 3 people do nothing but all get similar financial rewards the intrinsic value of the work is diminished.

Are there enough jobs to manage that scenario?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It depends on the job obviously.

So maybe an interesting point to discuss would be, do employers provide enough meaningful, rewarding work? Maybe more people would get off benefits if work didn't simply suck so bad?

Now that's an extremely good question. I have said before that many jobs suck these days because they're too repetitive, or the boss is a twat, or whatever. Jobs should be fun IMO, but sadly many employers don't agree.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It depends on the job obviously.

So maybe an interesting point to discuss would be, do employers provide enough meaningful, rewarding work? Maybe more people would get off benefits if work didn't simply suck so bad?

Work isn't mean to be meaningful and rewarding though is it,i thought it was just to pay the bills.

Obviously there are people who have always wanted to pursue a dream job i.e a vet and have trained all their life and become one,that's different though,a profession rather than a job.

People on benefits for the most part want to be working.Most people who can't work would love to get a job,there simply isn't enough about in the current climate.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No, because they're not doing it on your money that you've paid in taxes.

I'm American, less than 10 cents of every dollar I spend in tax goes to help the needy. I'm trying to change that, actually, so our poor can get some real help in this country.

OK. I have two jobs, and when I pay tax I can't help feeling that I spent quite a bit of time working for nothing because of the tax. That's fine because I'm benefiting from taxes too I suppose, but I don't want to work for nothing in order for someone else to sit around when they could work.

FluffyBunny wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Intrinsic value or not of work (and I have in the past worked when financially better off not working) it is bloody galling to see those who do not work getting things you would like but cannot afford.

I mean to go back to the OP there are an awful lot of people who work who would love to go on holiday to Magalufe but who quite simply cannot afford it and are not going to get taken there for nothing.

This is simply not true.
The benefits people get are a pittance and if your wages are not enough you should blame the government for your low wage and not getting  what you deserve,NOT those on benefits.Its not their fault that your wage is unsatisfactory.

Actually take down pay is partially affected by people claiming benefits fraudulently (again nobody is attacking those with good reason to claim)

The more people who claim fraudulently the higher the taxes the lower the wages.

As for blaming the government for low wages unless they are the ones paying (in which case it comes from taxation again) the government does not have direct control - the employers and the market does. The government can make decisions which affect the market - like for example allowing unskilled immigrants in which means every employer is spoiled for choice and can offer lower wages, or adding "green subsidies" which drive up production costs making products less competitive on the world stage and reducing demand which means employers have less jobs to offer. The government cannot force higher wages - because of inflation. Have a look at the gap between highest and lowest paid and what happened when minimum wage came in. Minimum wage was supposed to be the government forcing employers to pay more but the effect in spending power was that the lowest paid got paid less because the higher paid could and did take higher pay increases.

The only possible direct way a government could affect wages would be getting rid of minimum wage and introducing a wage link so that the highest paid in any organization could only earn a certain multiple of the wage of the lowest paid.

Interesting points in the past two posts. I believe it was Marx who argued that employers have too great a tendency to turn labor into beasts of burden, who are unconnected to the success or failure of their venture and can't see any difference their work makes in the world. Part of that is attitude, of course, but I think simply the act of including employees at more levels of decision making could be a big help.

You say nobody's attacking legit claimants, sphinx, but I know of at least one poster here who's always writing "Stop benefits!"

Ben_Reilly wrote:Interesting points in the past two posts. I believe it was Marx who argued that employers have too great a tendency to turn labor into beasts of burden, who are unconnected to the success or failure of their venture and can't see any difference their work makes in the world. Part of that is attitude, of course, but I think simply the act of including employees at more levels of decision making could be a big help.

Yes! Give people a real interest in the work they do. So many people don't even know what their company does in any detail. They don't know why they're doing something half the time - they're just told to do it. Having fun workmates helps too, so a good social environment would help.

Ben_Reilly wrote:You say nobody's attacking legit claimants, sphinx, but I know of at least one poster here who's always writing "Stop benefits!"

Well address that person instead of lumping everyone together.   

sphinx wrote:

FluffyBunny wrote:

This is simply not true.
The benefits people get are a pittance and if your wages are not enough you should blame the government for your low wage and not getting  what you deserve,NOT those on benefits.Its not their fault that your wage is unsatisfactory.

Actually take down pay is partially affected by people claiming benefits fraudulently (again nobody is attacking those with good reason to claim)

The more people who claim fraudulently the higher the taxes the lower the wages.

As for blaming the government for low wages unless they are the ones paying (in which case it comes from taxation again) the government does not have direct control - the employers and the market does.   The government can make decisions which affect the market - like for example allowing unskilled immigrants in which means every employer is spoiled for choice and can offer lower wages, or adding "green subsidies" which drive up production costs making products less competitive on the world stage and reducing demand which means employers have less jobs to offer.  The government cannot force higher wages - because of inflation.  Have a look at the gap between highest and lowest paid and what happened when minimum wage came in.  Minimum wage was supposed to be the government forcing employers to pay more but the effect in spending power was that the lowest paid got paid less because the higher paid could and did take higher pay increases.

The only possible direct way a government could affect wages would be getting rid of minimum wage and introducing a wage link so that the highest paid in any organization could only earn a certain multiple of the wage of the lowest paid.

I accept what you're saying Sphinx but according to the government's own figures only 1% of benefit claimants are frauds,so the overwhelmingly majority are genuinely entitled.

Also,I don't agree with the minimum wage going simply because then employers really would force those in menial jobs to work for nowt

The reason the pay has froze in this country was due to the collapse in the economy brought about by the greedy and callous bankers yet no one seems to have a pop at them.The bankers that should have been sacked but continue to pay themselves generous bonuses.

Benefit fraud isn't just people claiming whilst they have a job, or inventing some kind of disability. It could include people who could get a job if they tried harder, or they could work because their disability allows them to, or it's under control. I think some people don't report improvements in their condition enough.

Ben_Reilly wrote:You say nobody's attacking legit claimants, sphinx, but I know of at least one poster here who's always writing "Stop benefits!"

Will you not reveal whom for the benefit of relative newcomers?  

Ben_Reilly wrote:

sphinx wrote:

You are over simplifying.

Try it this way - if every person who could work did work then the tax burden on all would be lower and every worker would get higher rewards.

Often the value in hard work is subject to everyone doing it - if 7 people work hard and 3 people do nothing but all get similar financial rewards the intrinsic value of the work is diminished.

Are there enough jobs to manage that scenario?

Difficult question to answer in the UK at the moment because so many entry level jobs are taken by higher qualified immigrants.

I have suggested elsewhere that the whole unemployment system in the UK and probably other countries needs a total overhaul and re-evaluation to the point of making the very concept of unemployed obsolete. I would have local councils take responsibility for all those currently out of work by providing them with minimum wage work. At the same time as complaints about people out of work when they could work we have lots of work not being done because we cannot afford to pay people - take the public park just up the road from me. It really needs mowing every 2 weeks in summer - and currently gets done every 6 weeks if we are lucky. Litter picking, graffiti cleaning, shopping for the housebound, reading to the disadvantaged, the list of things that could do with being done but are not done by anybody either employed or voluntarily goes on and on and on. Why the hell not put the entire unemployment budget (including the costs of wages, buildings, heating, equipment etc etc) towards guaranteeing 30 hours of minimum wage work in all those not done areas ?

FluffyBunny wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Actually take down pay is partially affected by people claiming benefits fraudulently (again nobody is attacking those with good reason to claim)

The more people who claim fraudulently the higher the taxes the lower the wages.

As for blaming the government for low wages unless they are the ones paying (in which case it comes from taxation again) the government does not have direct control - the employers and the market does.   The government can make decisions which affect the market - like for example allowing unskilled immigrants in which means every employer is spoiled for choice and can offer lower wages, or adding "green subsidies" which drive up production costs making products less competitive on the world stage and reducing demand which means employers have less jobs to offer.  The government cannot force higher wages - because of inflation.  Have a look at the gap between highest and lowest paid and what happened when minimum wage came in.  Minimum wage was supposed to be the government forcing employers to pay more but the effect in spending power was that the lowest paid got paid less because the higher paid could and did take higher pay increases.

The only possible direct way a government could affect wages would be getting rid of minimum wage and introducing a wage link so that the highest paid in any organization could only earn a certain multiple of the wage of the lowest paid.

I accept what you're saying Sphinx but according to the government's own figures only 1% of benefit claimants are frauds,so the overwhelmingly majority are genuinely entitled.

Also,I don't agree with the minimum wage going simply because then employers really would force those in menial jobs to work for nowt

The reason the pay has froze in this country was due to the collapse in the economy brought about by the greedy and callous bankers yet no one seems to have a pop at them.The bankers that should have been sacked but continue to pay themselves generous bonuses.

I only stated get rid of minimum wage as one half of the suggestion - it would only be done with the introduction of linked wages so if the employer wants menial work done for nowt then the employer gets nowt. If the employer wants a £million a week they have to pay the menial £50,000 a week.

I would suggest working with a multiple of 20 as in the example above - but the actual multiple could be worked out scientifically.

Raggamuffin wrote:Benefit fraud isn't just people claiming whilst they have a job, or inventing some kind of disability. It could include people who could get a job if they tried harder, or they could work because their disability allows them to, or it's under control. I think some people don't report improvements in their condition enough.

To be fair a lot of that is the systems fault - there is no allowance in it at the moment (Universal Credit does address the problem much better) for variability. I have times when I could work and times when I most definitely could not. If I managed to get over the problem of finding an employer who would take on someone with no idea from one day to the next whether they can work the next day I would really struggle with benefits as I could not claim and stop claiming and re claim and stop again. It is bad enough for fully fit job seekers for whom it can take 6 weeks for each new claim to be processed (say a guy does a week agency work signs on for a week, does a week signs on for a week, etc) which means they rapidly reach the point of having no actual money as they wait for the benefits for the weeks they did not work but for those with health problems 13 weeks is optimistic when having to make a new claim.

I mean if someone reports an improvement and gets moved to JSA - then 2 weeks or even 2 months later they get worse again their JSA stops and they can be waiting weeks for ESA to start again. In the meantime their confidence is rock bottom and they are quite simply scared of how they are going to manage. This is why I cannot understand why people are picking universal credit to pieces - it allows people to move into work gradually knowing they have a safe income if it doesnt work out.