26 Jul 06
1 edit
Originally posted by VargHmm, you seem peculiarly confused - I haven't denied they existed at all.
The tabloids obviously do love to feature stories of scroungers - are you denying they exist?
However, even the tabloids don't say that [b]all benefits claimants are scroungers. Perhaps you are extrapolating what they are saying in your own mind?[/b]
As for your second point, it's completely nugatory since the tabloids (like quite a few of the right-wingers in this thread) operate on the basis of anecdote, imputation and unverifiable claims. When you state that "many" of the long-term unemployed are uninterested in finding work, do you have a specific figure in mind, or are you making windows into men's souls?
26 Jul 06
Originally posted by AmauroteLook, you make claims without cites as well:
Hmm, you seem peculiarly confused - I haven't denied they existed at all.
As for your second point, it's completely nugatory since the tabloids (like quite a few of the right-wingers in this thread) operate on the basis of anecdote, imputation and unverifiable claims. When you state that "many" of the long-term unemployed are uninterested in finding work, do you have a specific figure in mind, or are you making windows into men's souls?
"It's naturally very convenient for the right to neglect to mention this fact as they libel every other claimant as a scrounger, vagabond or welfare queen, but the reality is very different".
Where are your figures?
I can't point to a website if that's what you mean.
The tabloids tell individual stories (which may be true or exaggerated on an individual basis), and try to imply that it's widespread.
It might not be as big a problem as the tabloids (or "the right" if you prefer) want to make out, but you seem unconcerned by this theft (I assume you pay taxes, right?).
26 Jul 06
Originally posted by VargI've already provided figures for the number of people not claiming benefit, which would indicate that your idea that "most" or "many" (again, you don't specify a figure, so your predicate is pretty dubious) claimants are wasters with no interest in working is dubious to say the least. If you can't back your argument up with solid stats, it disappears up its own fundament.
Look, you make claims without cites as well:
"It's naturally very convenient for the right to neglect to mention this fact as they libel every other claimant as a scrounger, vagabond or welfare queen, but the reality is very different".
Where are your figures?
I can't point to a website if that's what you mean.
The tabloids tell individual stories (which ...[text shortened]... nt to make out, but you seem unconcerned by this theft (I assume you pay taxes, right?).
As for being "unconcerned by this theft", again, you don't seem to see the distinction between accepting the existence of benefit fraud and rejecting the slander that the welfare state has created an army of charvers. Serious welfare fraud is endemic to housing benefit, for example, and allied to wage-exploitation - if you type in "cleaners", "welfare" and "fraud" into a few search engines, you'll need a few bundles of A4 to print out all the details.
26 Jul 06
Originally posted by Wheelyok, now i feel like a scrounger ... i'd LOVE to have breakfast in the bahamas every second week ...
Although this seems more logical I'm not sure it is. Starvation is absolute but poverty IS relative. If you have a roof over your head and enough food in your belly but nothing else and yet live in a society where everyone else has all mod cons, champagne breakfasts and holiday in the Bahamas every second week then all the problems of poverty apply to you, even though you are fed well enough.
26 Jul 06
Originally posted by Redmikebased on UN absolute measures, what is the poverty rate in the UK now?
Not really - you'd need to have less than 60% of the median number of gold rolls royces.
I think these kind of relative measures can help a bit, but they really only measure relative poverty.
There are, I think, UN measures of absolute poverty, based on dollars per day income, I think.
I guess it depends what you are trying to measure.
Relative p ...[text shortened]... blish to what extent people are being left behind, whatever the wealth of a particular country.
26 Jul 06
I agree with Varg about the smoking thing. Why should the hard working people pay tax to fund people on the sick to buy cigarettes. That aint gonna make them better.
There is a woman lives next door to me. She claims the sick for depression - she a stable of cash cleaning jobs. She is neither wealthy or happy but it doesn't mean that the state should fund her life.
She needs to get out get a job, some money and self respect.
27 Jul 06
Originally posted by AmauroteI'm not sure how the figures of the amount of unclaimed benefit relates to this discussion at all.
I've already provided figures for the number of people not claiming benefit, which would indicate that your idea that "most" or "many" (again, you don't specify a figure, so your predicate is pretty dubious) claimants are wasters with no interest in working is dubious to say the least. If you can't back your argument up with solid stats, it disappears up it ...[text shortened]... w search engines, you'll need a few bundles of A4 to print out all the details.
We are talking about long-term unemployed and you come up with the fact that £7billion of benefits were unclaimed. Where is the link between the two?
I claimed that "many" long term unemployed have no interest in finding a job. The only person in this thread who used the word "most" was you, so stop putting words in my mouth. The Government and the DWP acknowledges there is a problem with long-term unemployed.
Here's a stat: as of Feb 2005, 42.4% of Income Support claimants had been claiming for more than 5 years.
The DWP also knows that in certain areas a culture exists where getting a job after leaving school is not the norm.
The point of my creating this thread is that unemployment benefit should support people until they find work, not indefinitely.
27 Jul 06
Originally posted by zeeblebotI'd imagine that it is extremely low, if not practically zero, as the UN measurement criteria would be based on the standards of the poorest countries.
based on UN absolute measures, what is the poverty rate in the UK now?
I don't even know if anyone has measured it, as you can't really compare the relative poverty we find in Western countries with the sort of absolute poverty we find in the '3rd world'.
27 Jul 06
Originally posted by RedmikeWhatever the level there is no reason why any one, other than the severely disabled, should not work his/her way out of it instead of demanding free corn.
I'd imagine that it is extremely low, if not practically zero, as the UN measurement criteria would be based on the standards of the poorest countries.
I don't even know if anyone has measured it, as you can't really compare the relative poverty we find in Western countries with the sort of absolute poverty we find in the '3rd world'.
27 Jul 06
4 edits
Originally posted by VargNo we weren't - your very first post introduced a broad and discursive series of points about the welfare system and its alleged effects on society, and you focused at least one-third of even that post on disability benefit. A series of predictable innuendoes and anecdotes appeared implying that benefits feed the laziness of the poor, and in that context I introduced a concrete stat directly contradicting that assertion. The germanity of it is not in question.
I'm not sure how the figures of the amount of unclaimed benefit relates to this discussion at all.
We are talking about long-term unemployed and you come up with the fact that £7billion of benefits were unclaimed. Where is the link between the two?
Originally posted by Varg
I claimed that "many" long term unemployed have no interest in finding a job. The only person in this thread who used the word "most" was you, so stop putting words in my mouth
Dear oh dear, do you ever read your own posts?
Cf.
when I was unemployed, the primary objective of most of my associates was to get on disability benefits
Originally posted by Varg
Here's a stat: as of Feb 2005, 42.4% of Income Support claimants had been claiming for more than 5 years.
That's great - but since Jobseekers' Allowance is the basis of unemployment claims, not Income Support, and you say this thread is all about the issue of the long-term unemployed, I'm really not sure where you're going with this. What percentrage of JSA claimants have been claiming for more than five years? Take a look at table two here for more details:
http://www.kirkleespartnership.org/publications/pictureofkirklees/ClaimantUnemployment.pdf
I don't think it does much more than refute your claim, but you may want to dispute the source.
Originally posted by Varg
The point of my creating this thread is that unemployment benefit should support people until they find work, not indefinitely.
Does anyone really dispute this? I don't see anyone here advocating that the employed receive jobseekers' allowance.
27 Jul 06
1 edit
No we weren't - your very first post introduced a broad and discursive series of points about the welfare system and its alleged effects on society, and you focused at least one-third of even that post on disability benefit. A series of predictable innuendoes and anecdotes appeared implying that benefits feed the laziness of the poor
Okay, stop right there. You read my post and extrapolated what you thought I was saying based on what you have read before in tabloids, etc.
"when I was unemployed, the primary objective of most of my associates was to get on disability benefits"
Very true. By associates I meant just that. Friends who were also on the dole and people I got to know at the job centre. Are you telling me this isn't true?
That's great - but since Jobseekers' Allowance is the basis of unemployment claims, not Income Support
Income support is also for unemployed. I couldn't find figures for JSA at the DWP.
Your table shows nothing, by the way - the home office cheats the figures by sticking people on a New Deal scheme. When they return to the dole, they are treated as new claimants!
Does anyone really dispute this? I don't see anyone here advocating that the employed receive jobseekers' allowance.
Then why are you persisting in disagreeing with me?
Everyone else seems to acknowledge their is a problem with long term unemployed except you. The inescapable conclusion is that "scroungers" are part of the problem.
27 Jul 06
1 edit
Originally posted by VargNot at all - the innuendo is pretty clear. Most, many, truckloads - I'm still not seeing any evidence that benefits are promoting the kind of behaviours you're talking about, and the trend of long-term unemployment over the lat few years doesn't support your case at all.
[/i]
Okay, stop right there. You read my post and extrapolated what you thought I was saying based on what you have read before in tabloids, etc.
Originally posted by Varg
[/i]
Very true. By associates I meant just that. Friends who were also on the dole and people I got to know at the job centre. Are you telling me this isn't true?[/i]
No, I'm saying that the insinuation you're making is irrelevant. I know a lot of people (myself amongst them) who refrained from claiming JSA the moment they became unemployed - out of a deluded sense of pride. Does an anecdotal subset constitute proof positive either way? Absolutely not.
Originally posted by Varg
[/i]
Income support is also for unemployed. I couldn't find figures for JSA at the DWP.[/i]
If you think all unemployed people claim income support, your argument has even more serious problems than I originally thought. JS actually replaced income support as the key benefit for the unemployed many years ago - try going into a jobcentre and asking for income support and watch the expressions on the faces of the staff.
Originally posted by Varg
[/i]Your table shows nothing, by the way - the home office cheats the figures by sticking people on a New Deal scheme. When they return to the dole, they are treated as new claimants![/i]
Firstly, the dole isn't JSA; secondly, only last year the DWP recorded a percentile rise in New Deal trainees going into work of over 4%, despite the inclusion of a new category which subsumed some of the old figures. Denouncing the New Deal as some kind of sham isn't going to help your argument any, because the figures demonstrate that at some level it actually works.
Originally posted by Varg
[/i]
Then why are you persisting in disagreeing with me?
Everyone else seems to acknowledge their is a problem with long term unemployed except you. The inescapable conclusion is that "scroungers" are part of the problem.
You missed the joke...I said no-one would disagree with your predicate that only the unemployed should claim unemployment benefits (which is a bit like saying that only the dead should have permission to putrefy) - why you think this is synonymous with thinking that scrounging is a serious problem in an era of full employment is something only you can answer.