big_dave wrote:How frequent it happens does not mean that welfare = welfare fraud.

You may have misinterpreted what I meant. I didn't mean welfare fraud is automatic once a person is on it, just that whenever there's a program of sorts that deals with money, fraud is inevitable. Insurance, or what have you.

Skronk wrote:

big_dave wrote:How frequent it happens does not mean that welfare = welfare fraud.

You may have misinterpreted what I meant. I didn't mean welfare fraud is automatic once a person is on it, just that whenever there's a program of sorts that deals with money, fraud is inevitable. Insurance, or what have you.

And this means that forced labour as a condition for welfare is a good idea?

All areas of society have cheats. People can be puffed up about poor cheats because they seem to enjoy imagining an invisible thread running from their paycheque into breast the pocket of The Artful Dodger, through which the government can divert pennies.

It is like people who don't give the homeless money, "because they might spend it on booze and drugs". Boo fucking hoo.

big_dave wrote:And this means that forced labour as a condition for welfare is a good idea?

Go back and read my posts on the first page. You'll see I voted crap, and I've said why I'm against forced labor of any kind.

Here:

Skronk wrote:This proposed plan is nothing but busy work. It's a sad sign that in order to receive a welfare check, the government feels the need to step in and coerce labor from it's citizens. This looks like another temporary, half-assed solution to an ongoing problem, when wages are still stagnating.

big_dave wrote:All areas of society have cheats. People can be puffed up about poor cheats because they seem to enjoy imagining an invisible thread running from their paycheque into breast the pocket of The Artful Dodger, through which the government can divert pennies.

I've been railing against people that cheat the welfare system, not the ones that have legitimate reasons for being on it.

big_dave wrote:It is like people who don't give the homeless money, "because they might spend it on booze and drugs". Boo fucking hoo.

Haha, that's rich. I've given money to the homeless on a few occasions. You keep trying to put words and phrases into my mouth, and yet you haven't got anything to back it up. No posts, nothing.

You really think I've got something against the poor, or those on welfare, when I've never said anything to that effect.

So, OK. You agree with me and you were being contrary for the sake of the internet. Problem solved. There is no need to be prickly.

What was I being a "contrarian" about exactly? The issue of fraud in the welfare system, or?

chairman_hall wrote:Dude, not to get all Scargill here. But you're from the North East, so am I. Some of my family were coal miners from County Durham, and we all know what happened to the coal mining villages don't we?

What about them?

What about them? That was twenty years ago which is why I said 'in recent times'

Fact is as far as I can see, these days, if you are on the dole for two years its cause you want to be. No-one has yet presented an example to dispute that.

To re-translate that it means you want to do fuck all while you live off everyone else.

Now to me there should be some form of social contract which we buy into which states, if you can avoid it, then you shouldn't try and live off everyone else.
I am not saying (and haven't once said that I recall) that I think all benefit claimants (of which I was once one) are criminals and fraudsters. What I am saying is there's got to be a strong case that many who have spent two years on it are taking the piss.
I know from my own associations that many many people claim benefit cause they can't be arsed working and claim disability allowance when there is fuck all wrong with them.
It's bad form and it should be stopped if it can be. I have no idea if this is the right way to go about it. I suspect not.

Now this doesn't mean that I think benefit claimants or even benefit cheats are the worst of society. As I have said I am well aware that corporations and politicians are all corrupt and much more worthy of my ire.
However the 'I don't give a fuck about society I'm just looking out for me' attitude at the bottom is just depressing and frustrating and it gets my goat more than it should cause I'm closer to the bottom than the top - so I see it more.

I'll ask again if anyone is aware of anyone who's been on the dole for more than two years who didn't want to be?

And I'll ask - if someone decides to live their life having working people pay them a living fee (and let's not forget their council tax and their housing benefit etc etc etc) without wanting or looking for work do you think they are being fair to society at large?

or not?

big_dave wrote:It is like people who don't give the homeless money, "because they might spend it on booze and drugs". Boo fucking hoo.

I don't give the homeless money because they might spend it on booze and drugs.

Who are you boo hooing for?

And I do quite like Little Britain - at least the first two series then it got a bit tired and I got sick of people saying the catchphrases. I also think I might have got you on this one - did you say this cause Andy (or Lou) is not really disabled?

If not I really haven't a clue how it's relevant and if so it's not too relevant anyway because this Cameron initiative isn't about disabled folk.

But you carry on amusing yerself.

Earwicker wrote:Fact is as far as I can see, these days, if you are on the dole for two years its cause you want to be. No-one has yet presented an example to dispute that.

I work with plenty of people who have been on benefit for over two years, who can't work because they are incapacitated and/or they have childcare commitments. People who would love the chance to work.

big_dave wrote:These weren't picturesque Park Keeper/Dustbin Man type manual jobs or cheery community fare, but stuff like shelf stacker or telesales. I do not benefit from this sort of 'customer service', in fact it barely needs to be performed at all. Not wishing to belittle those that take the jobs, but those jobs are needless exploitation and they are crap.

Are you genuinely suggesting that every adult in this country should have the option of no-strings dole/housing benefit if they so choose, rather than being forced into jobs they don't fancy?

This seems incredible to me. How would you pay for this?

How would you find a person work who has had a change of heart after 25 years of dole and decided that they wish to work, although they have not once in their adult lives experienced employment?

chairman_hall wrote:I work as a benefit advisor of sorts and I can match tenfold any story of multi-generational dole-sucking families with families on or below subsistence level benefits struggling to pay rent and have eviction orders, multiple debts, refugee families living on thin air.

You're probably correct, but I don't see how that changes the fact that there are also tens (hundreds?) of thousands on the dole who have chosen to be. I don't understand why anybody would support this leeching of state funds. I have no problem with my taxes going to help the needy, I have a massive problem with my taxes going to pay for the lazy/greedy.

Cranius wrote:There's also a presumption that those on welfare don't contribute meaningfully to society, but I wonder how many actually do jobs that aren't usually categorised as gainful employment, such as caring for the sick and elderly.

They'd be on carers allowance, carers premium and income support, not job seekers etc.

If Cameron's plan is intented to prolongue solidarity (and I see how an issue like welfare-fraud is a menace to solidarity, though certainly no more than tax-evation, a practice which is often strangely and smuggly condoned), it seems fuck ill-advised. I can only see it leading to a situation of false competition in the job marked ("half jobs" getting in the way of real jobs) and thus automatically to a climate of greater disparagement among the lower classes, all the while catering to the employer side of the spectrum.

An ideal world for a Tory, I guess.

CRAP.