Originally posted by der schwarze RitterYou are making the assumption that these people aren't looking for work. True, some of them may not, but the majority probably are. Benefits are a "safety net", there to make sure that neither those that are unemployed, nor their kids, starve to death. Perhaps you think that allowing the poor to starve to death is an acceptable way to reduce unemployment figures?
All right, I will get the ball rolling: How does it benefit the government to dissuade people from bettering themselves by looking for work? It seems to me that it would be far better for citizens, as well as the purse of the exchequer, if they were self-supporting and in the job market rather receiving “benefits.”
1 edit
The post that was quoted here has been removedIt's my one personal gripe with the system.
I was living in a council house, working to pay my rent, council tax, and bills. I had no furniture because i couldn't afford to buy it and i wasn't prepared to get into debt, and the junkies a few doors up got their drugs for free, there grass cut by the council (you had to be there), their rent paid and grants for anything they wanted....and what did i get ? Red letters when i lost my job for a few weeks.....dispicable.
That being said, i still believe that the safety net should be there for those prepared to work.
The post that was quoted here has been removedThat figure of 5.2 million includes people who are carers and lone parents and cannot work for money because they've got the full time job of looking after someone. According to a written answer there are 2,766,200 people claiming incapacity benefit or severe disability allowance (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm060307/text/60307w32.htm) so he's double counted.
The articles main points are pretty effectively refuted in this document http://www.tuc.org.uk/welfare/tuc-11277-f0.cfm
Incidentally, there is no evidence of wide scale fraud in Incapacity Benefit. The 2001 DWP Benefit Review of Incapacity Benefit found that the number of fraudulent cases in their sample was so low they couldn't produce a reliable (central) figure for fraud rates, they could produce an upper bound of £19 million which means that less than 0.5% of IB cases were fraudulent so millions really is out. This is in comparison to the NAO's estimates of 5% of spending in income support is fraudulent and 9% for JSA.
Attempting to force ill people to work will not stop them being ill, it will just make them iller or dead.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtThe system you described already failed in the Worker's Paradise to the east of you.
The thing is that the unemployed wouldn't suddenly start getting jobs if there were no benefits - they'd become greater burdens on their families, starve to death, or turn to crime. So you might save some money from one budget, but the insurance companies aren't going to be happy, and the economy would contract to the tune of £100,000,000 a week. The pe ...[text shortened]... t something like: "From each according to their ability to each according to their need."