Originally posted by scottishinnzTry this one: Pay a man to not work and he won't.
You 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?
2 edits
Originally posted by mtthwAccording to what I've been reading in the Times and Reason, between 5 million and 5.4 million receive "benefits." What is the source of your figure?
A bit of an exaggeration, I'd have said. There are less than three million who get it at all, so to say "millions are on the scam" is way over the top.
Please disregard -- I just caught up in the thread.
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterOut of an entire population of less than £60 million? Don't think so.
According to what I've been reading in the Times and Reason, between 5 million and 5.4 million receive "benefits." What is the source of your figure?
Please disregard -- I just caught up in the thread.
Do you have a source for your £5million+ claim?
Originally posted by RedmikeThis was printed in the Times story: “Although the Chancellor often boasts about his record on unemployment, there are 5.4 million people of working age who are out of work and living on benefits.”
Out of an entire population of less than £60 million? Don't think so.
Do you have a source for your £5million+ claim?
Originally posted by twhiteheadI think it is unfeasible. People in the West have grown too accustomed to expecting the government to solve their every problem, no matter how small. Moreover, with the advent of cheap travel and the mass migration of the world’s poor to Europe and North America, the values of Western Civilization have become so adulterated that those nations will be forever changed…for the worst.
Does anyone think it would be feasible to create a company / business / govt dept that could employ in some useful way all people on welfare. That is, at least make people show up for work somewhere and do something in return for the free handout.
1 edit
Originally posted by RedmikeThe figure of 5.4 million includes lone parents (747,000) and full time carers receiving a carers allowance (360,000 according to Sicilian Smaug's reference from a page ago). There are about 5 million carers, one million of which provide more than 50 hours of care per week (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=347) so only 1/10th of them are getting any help which is a disgrace.
Apologies - I missed that you were quoting the original story.
This seems high to me, but I'll see if I can come up with anything else.
The article Sicilian Smaug quoted a page ago quotes a similar figure (5.2 million) and counts people in receipt of severe disability allowance and IB (incapacity benefit) seperately - despite the fact that the two benefits were effectively merged in 2001! Lazy hacks who want to peddle a line can't be bothered not to overcount.
There are 2.7 million in receipt of IB/SDA (see my last post for a reference), 850,000 in receipt of JSA, and 747,000 lone parents. I can't find an independent figure for the number of people receiving benefits as carers, but many of them are in poor health themselves and many do some form of work other than caring for their relative/spouse/friend (http://www.carersuk.org/Newsandcampaigns/makeWORKwork/Evidencefromthecensus).
This reference has some figures on lone parents: http://www.rbs.com/media03.asp?id=MEDIA_CENTRE/PRESS_RELEASES/2003/AUGUST/26_ONE_PARENT_FAMILIES
Basically just like the Tories went far too far with privatization (look at the railways now), New Labour are are going too far with benefit reform (or removal) and attacking the most vulnerable. Taking away people's benefits will not "get them back into work" - do you (not you RedMike, I'm addressing this to the people arguing for the removal of benefits from the old, the weak and the ill) really think someone who, for example, has had a stroke in the last 6 months should be left to fend for themselves? Someone caring for someone for 50+ hours a week simply cannot do a job on top of that. If the benefits system is dismantled the way some here are arguing for it will kill people.
Originally posted by shavixmir2.7 million receive Invalidity Benefit which pays up to£78.50 per week in addition to housing benefit, remission of Council Tax, and other perks.
If you're on benefits in Britain (single male) you receive 57 pounds a week for food and if between 0 pounds and 60 pounds for housing benefit.
Now, unless you really, really, really enjoy fish-fingers and chips everynight, this isn't a lot of money to live off.
Besides this, when you are on benefits there is intensive counselling to get you back to ...[text shortened]... ork with a minimum of work force, then a lot more people would be employed, wouldn't they?
Those receiving £57 a week Unemploynent Benefit are expected to find work but many are quite content to remain idle.
That jobs are available is evidenced by the fact that thousands of immingrants annually find work within days of arriving in the UK.
As to employment in a non-capitalist ( communist) society, the standard of living is much lower for the vast majority, as witness Soviet Russia, since the maxim is equal deprivation and misery for all, except of course for the rulers.
Originally posted by scipio2Perks? I notice you use language designed to make life on benefits sound appealing. Do you really think that someone who has had a heart attack should be made to work? Do you think people on incap want to be ill?
2.7 million receive Invalidity Benefit which pays up to£78.50 per week in addition to housing benefit, remission of Council Tax, and other perks.
Those receiving £57 a week Unemploynent Benefit are expected to find work but many are quite content to remain idle.
That jobs are available is evidenced by the fact that thousands of immingrants annually find ...[text shortened]... ussia, since the maxim is equal deprivation and misery for all, except of course for the rulers.
This really is quite simple - Employers don't want to employ people who are ill, they don't make good workers for some really obvious reasons. What ill people need to do is get better (where possible) and then they will be able to find work, and will want to. Forcing people off IB won't do any good to them, they will just become more ill or dead, and employers won't thank you for the flood of applications they'll get from people unfit for the job.
I think that expecting people who are unwell to survive on less than £78.50 pw (after housing costs have been paid) is disgraceful, they should get at least twice that.