Benefits crackdown

[rickiethecat]

I would like to know how people on this thread can tell the difference, just by looking, between people who are *workshy criminal scum* and people who have major mental, neurological or learning disabilities which severely impair the capacity of someone to do a full time job.

 

Even if an employer is not an ignorant bigot like so many 'normal' people on this forum, and gives a mentally disabled person a job, that person will still need support, and extra time off due to episodes of their illness. Most employers will steer clear of that, and most ill people will risk being thrown back into the more severe and life threatening form of their condition.

 

The government proposals have soft and fluffy promises of extra support for those who need it, but as anyone who has experience of the acute end of mental illness knows, there is no adequate health service or support to begin with, never mind extra help for work.

 

Now you say people should physically attack those they deem 'workshy' even though most people would be totally incapable of identifying who is 'mad' and who is 'bad'. Most people of the type so common in this part of the world think the two groups are the same. The troglodyte faction of Sheffield Forum and all its sociopathic cohorts are actively stirring for a lynch mob mentality, that the multiple thousands of mentally ill and learning disabled who have been abandoned by the system, are fair targets for full blown scapegoating.

 

And don't give me the phoney crap about 'genuine cases' because people who get fascistic about benefit cheats can't tell the difference and don't want to. They simply want a dustbin for the most vile and base of human instincts.

 

There are many reasons to get angry about the state of the country, but targeting the most vulnerable sections for punishment simply advertises your own moral depravity.

 

It's funny how most so called mental illnesses miraculously disappear when claimants are threatened with having their disabled benefits withdrawn. Recent studies have shown that 7 out of 10 disability benefit claimants have been proved to be fit for work.

[Mister M]

Frankly, I don't. The original comment on this thread was about the money lost to the government through tax avoidance, not through tax evasion. Tax avoidance is entirely legal, and consists of nothing more than reducing your liability to the minimum the law requires. I've never met anyone who does not do that.

 

Tax evasion, which is illegal, costs the country considerably less than benefit fraud.

 

Are you sure about this HN?

The article by a member of the Treasury Select Committee suggests otherwise - I've posted a link to it below

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/16/tax-havens-benefits-fraud

[bluevan]

Ive never been on benefits but i have friends that have or still are and instead of saying lets kick them all off and make them all work, when there clearly isnt enough jobs, Lets just cut back the rate of pay, Its obviously too much and making it too easy for them to sit on their a**e all day, They go out drinking and live good lives on benefits ( people i know of) So obviously there getting too much money, cut it back make it more difficult for them to survive, give them a reason to want to work, a need, My vile brother-in-law has been on the dole over 3 yrs, they dont make him do courses or have interviews? He goes in , says hes looked for work, signs his card and goes back to the pub , its a joke

[donuticus]

It's funny how most so called mental illnesses miraculously disappear when claimants are threatened with having their disabled benefits withdrawn. Recent studies have shown that 7 out of 10 disability benefit claimants have been proved to be fit for work.

 

Any chance of a source to go with that?

 

Also how many of those had their benefit reinstated when they appealed?

[Halibut]

It's funny how most so called mental illnesses miraculously disappear when claimants are threatened with having their disabled benefits withdrawn. Recent studies have shown that 7 out of 10 disability benefit claimants have been proved to be fit for work.

 

What's your evidence for that claim - or are you making it up?

[Stan Tamudo]

Any chance of a source to go with that?

 

Also how many of those had their benefit reinstated when they appealed?

 

You might get a response tomorrow morning, rickythecat is one of a number of right wingers on here that only post between 9-5 Monday to Friday.

[teddie]

I understand all parents have appointments to attend with their children and fetch things etc. But having a child with a disability makes this harder to do. Children who have austism often dont understand danger so things like crossing a road and looking both ways to make sure its clear doesn't enter their head as a danger!

 

I do not know if working parents get a car, but I presume there would be something like this available for them if needed. (not too sure on this though) so you might be right on that but my argument is that just because a child doesn't have a 'obvious' disability to some doesn't mean they have got one. People shouldn't judge people and instead try and understand the illness/disability first. I wonder how many people would cope or deal with some of these if they had too.

 

The car is to help parents with the child as it can already be hard enough for them.

 

The boy gets on the bus from the bus stop, from where everyone goes to work or school, it isn't a specialized bus or anything, just like him mum or I go shopping on. You seem to think I am against the family? I'm not, all her children are considerate, it isn't the kids fault they all have different dads he is a lovely boy, he came round and shovelled the snow from my mums path without anyone asking, you wouldn't find a nicer young lad anywhere. The point I was making and still am, is why does he need benefits when he can live an almost normal life. Christ we all have problems, but we deal with them, simply because we have to. The benefit system should be there for people who need it, not from what they can simply take from it because well, they can!

[Mister M]

You might get a response tomorrow morning, rickythecat is one of a number of right wingers on here that only post between 9-5 Monday to Friday.

 

You mean the ones that moan about idle folk who sit on their buts watching Jeremy Kyle?

[Mr Prime]

Frankly, I don't. The original comment on this thread was about the money lost to the government through tax avoidance, not through tax evasion. Tax avoidance is entirely legal, and consists of nothing more than reducing your liability to the minimum the law requires. I've never met anyone who does not do that.

 

Tax evasion, which is illegal, costs the country considerably less than benefit fraud.

 

Cut the bull son, you were being pedantic.

 

As for the second part I think that is bull too, I remember figures for benefit fraud being dwarfed by tax evasion. Where? I can't remember, the Economist, New Statesman, Guardian, Independent or Times. Could have been any one of them.

[manofstrad]

But if we are not careful, this could turn into a witchhunt.Yes there are dodgers, but also plenty of people who are too ill to work, and you cannot always tell.

 

You can't always tell, that is true. But what about those who reckon to be ill but are online all day and still receive benefits!!? If they are well enough to chat on FB or SF all day, they are well enough to work online.