1 edit
Originally posted by DeepThoughtIt has been estimated that at least half of those on Invalidity Benefit are 'swinging the lead', and have been allowed to get away with it owing to the laxity and inefficiency of the Labour Government for which they will inevitably vote next time round.
Perks? 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?
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 rea w (after housing costs have been paid) is disgraceful, they should get at least twice that.
Originally posted by scipio2Singing the Lead? What exactly does that mean, and who made that estimate of "one half"? If you mean fraudulant claims the 2001 DWP benefit review of Incapactity Benefit (IB) showed a negligable rate of fraud.
It has been estimated that at least half of those on Invalidity Benefit are 'swinging the lead', and have been allowed to get away with it owing to the laxity and inefficiency of the Labour Government for which they will inevitably vote next time round.
New claims for IB have dropped since 1997, so it is in fact largely the fault of Thatcher that IB claims doubled since 1979 - this really isn't something you can blame on Labour (see the TUC reference I gave above). The largest single group on IB are those with some form of psyciatric illness. It appears that this is the group largely being targetted. While they might be able to work from the point of view of primary job skills (typing or programming or whatever), their secondary job skills (reliability etc.) are severely diminished, and they really simply can't cope with the kinds of pressures you get at work. This is just an attempt to cut their benefits by £20 per week.
Quite a lot of people who are on IB would welcome paid work (incidentally many do work in the voluntary sector), but the problem with depression is that when it hits you don't turn up to work for a week and this doesn't do anyone any good. Encouraging people to do voluntary work is perfectly reasonable, there may be theraputic benefits and it can't do their CV (resume) any harm, but forcing people who have mental health problems into jobs is just going to cause all sorts of problems for them, their new employers, and the NHS (assuming it still exists) when it has to pick up the pieces after suicide attempts and self-harming, or when they get a physical illness because they are unable to both hold down a job and look after themselves properly.
The gutter press and some politicians have introduced a narrative of benefit wasters, which isn't supported by the facts, and which you are unquestioningly following.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtSheer nonsense.
Singing the Lead? What exactly does that mean, and who made that estimate of "one half"? If you mean fraudulant claims the 2001 DWP benefit review of Incapactity Benefit (IB) showed a negligable rate of fraud.
New claims for IB have dropped since 1997, so it is in fact largely the fault of Thatcher that IB claims doubled since 1979 - this really isn ...[text shortened]... asters, which isn't supported by the facts, and which you are unquestioningly following.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI think we as society are often too quick to judge those not of acceptable norms as not fit for a job. A mentally retarded person may not make millions of dollars, but they can often hold a successful job in a restaurant cleaning tables, doing light office work, and other things. Just because someone is not perfect, does not mean they're not capable. I think we short change ourselves as a society when we excuse the mentally handicapped from the labor system. Some will never interact in society in a normal way, but many can and will.
Singing the Lead? What exactly does that mean, and who made that estimate of "one half"? If you mean fraudulant claims the 2001 DWP benefit review of Incapactity Benefit (IB) showed a negligable rate of fraud.
New claims for IB have dropped since 1997, so it is in fact largely the fault of Thatcher that IB claims doubled since 1979 - this really isn ...[text shortened]... asters, which isn't supported by the facts, and which you are unquestioningly following.
Originally posted by DoctorDaraI was talking about people with mental health problems like scizophrenia (can't be bothered to check the spelling) and depression, not with the type of disability you are referring to, and I strongly question the terms you are using to describe them. Basically I agree, but as I said in my post, encouraging people who can do something to contribute is one thing, forcing them off benefits an into a job when they can't cope with the various pressures the rest of us face is another.
I think we as society are often too quick to judge those not of acceptable norms as not fit for a job. A mentally retarded person may not make millions of dollars, but they can often hold a successful job in a restaurant cleaning tables, doing light office work, and other things. Just because someone is not perfect, does not mean they're not capable. I th ...[text shortened]... m the labor system. Some will never interact in society in a normal way, but many can and will.
3 edits
Originally posted by DeepThoughtNot necessarily at you Deep Thought but,
Ok then, prove what I have said is sheer nonsense. Refute all the statisics I've quoted and demonstrate that in fact there are 1 million wasters getting free money. I'm sure you can't.
my god...who cares? It's not like they're getting TONNES of cash and living a luxurious life. Their life is pitiful. They live from tiny cheque to tiny cheque. Their homes are in bad shape. They have little to nothing of value that anyone else would want.
You want to talk about free money going to people that don't deserve it? Why not go after the BILLIONS spent on corporate welfare? This is tax money, YOUR money, that goes to corporations to pay for things the corporation should be paying for.
Stop harping on the poor people. They have hardly anything as it is.
Originally posted by DoctorDaraI like it, the number of utterly unemployable helpless people is very small, there are people with all sorts of disabilities out-performing many of those without disabilities. Including depression, which can be debilitating but you can sit at home and say "oh whoah is me" or you can go to work and say "oh whoah is me" the difference being independance versus dependance, which can only be helpful in such situations.
I think we as society are often too quick to judge those not of acceptable norms as not fit for a job. A mentally retarded person may not make millions of dollars, but they can often hold a successful job in a restaurant cleaning tables, doing light office work, and other things. Just because someone is not perfect, does not mean they're not capable. I th ...[text shortened]... m the labor system. Some will never interact in society in a normal way, but many can and will.
Originally posted by uzlessThe separation of state and business is as important as the separation of state and charity.
Not necessarily at you Deep Thought but,
my god...who cares? It's not like they're getting TONNES of cash and living a luxurious life. Their life is pitiful. They live from tiny cheque to tiny cheque. Their homes are in bad shape. They have little to nothing of value that anyone else would want.
You want to talk about free money going to people tha ...[text shortened]... hould be paying for.
Stop harping on the poor people. They have hardly anything as it is.
Because one happen, that makes another right? the logic of a 5 year old.
Originally posted by WajomaI think what Uzless is saying is that the handouts to business are more of a drain on the ubiquetous tax payer than the social security budget. I don't know if that has any basis in truth, as it takes ages to track down these statistics (I put several hours work into the various posts I made, largely trying to find decent figures for this stuff and cross-checking) but there are a number of benefits businesses get which you don't see the tabloids moaning about, and the rate of corporation tax non-payment is breathtaking (again I haven't researched this so I may be wrong). So I don't think you can attack Uzless on the grounds that you did, as he was pointing out hypocracy, rather than saying that benefit fraud is justified on the grounds that companies do something similar. It is also not clear to me that he is wrong on the grounds that you say he is - after all if the rich and powerful can get away with something should the poor and powerless not also be able to?
The separation of state and business is as important as the separation of state and charity.
Because one happen, that makes another right? the logic of a 5 year old.
btw. What do you mean by "the separation of state and charity"?
Originally posted by scottishinnzWhat has 5 year-olds going down mines 150 years ago (although I think that even here you are indulging in fantasy) got to do with paying idlers not to work now?
Yeah, those pesky children. I mean they should be out getting themselves jobs - lazy slobs. I bet you were down the mine by age 5, right?
😞
Originally posted by scipio2Was wondering that myself, der scwharze ritters' post specifically said a man, next thing the watermelon is off into space to be with his ideas.
What has 5 year-olds going down mines 150 years ago (although I think that even here you are indulging in fantasy) got to do with paying idlers not to work now?
Originally posted by scipio2The 1891 factory act raised the age that children could be sent to work from 10 to 11. So it really isn't an indulgence in fantasy. The state supporting those unable to work due to illness is part of the apparatus which prevents unscrupulous employers from exploiting the weak, take one thing away and it becomes easier for them to do it. If a lone parent becomes ill then without these benefits the child is the only person left who can provide for the two of them, so it means they'll work whether it's illegal to employ them or not.
What has 5 year-olds going down mines 150 years ago (although I think that even here you are indulging in fantasy) got to do with paying idlers not to work now?
Again you have called those on benefits idlers. All the evidence shows that the vast majority of those on incapacity benefit are genuinely unable to work but you insist on continuing to use language you presumeably picked up from the Daily Mail. You know that you can't demonstrate the correctness of your position with logic or statistical analysis; so you repeat emotive terms like "idler" in the hope that that will outweigh the evidence your opponents provide.