The reason why I hate The Abusers of the System

[bben46]

I am on the verge of shutting this one down as it is getting far off topic.

Please - Keep it on topic and refrain from personal attacks as well. I don't like banning people, but will if necessary.

Bben46, Moderator

[Aonghus]

In a possibly futile attempt to bring the discussion back on topic. (And with apologies to all for my part in the near descent into madness.) I would like to put forth a modest proposal to help curb the recognized abuses of the system.

 

I would first like to postulate that there is no way to eliminate abuse in 100% of the cases. As long as someone is passing something out for free, there will be someone else who seeks to take advantage of the situation for their personal gain beyond the scope of the original charity.

 

What if, however, we decided to do something to eliminate the "free" part of the equation? (I know this has been tried with the "all able bodied must work provision" some states have put in place, and an earlier commenter remarked on how this situation failed her.)

 

What if we declared that, as a condition of receiving state assistance, one surrendered ones right to vote when one did so?

 

After all, one of the recognized standards of adulthood is the ability to support oneself, and we don't allow children to vote.

[Aurielius]

In a possibly futile attempt to bring the discussion back on topic. (And with apologies to all for my part in the near descent into madness.) I would like to put forth a modest proposal to help curb the recognized abuses of the system.

 

I would first like to postulate that there is no way to eliminate abuse in 100% of the cases. As long as someone is passing something out for free, there will be someone else who seeks to take advantage of the situation for their personal gain beyond the scope of the original charity.

 

What if, however, we decided to do something to eliminate the "free" part of the equation? (I know this has been tried with the "all able bodied must work provision" some states have put in place, and an earlier commenter remarked on how this situation failed her.)

 

What if we declared that, as a condition of receiving state assistance, one surrendered ones right to vote when one did so?

 

After all, one of the recognized standards of adulthood is the ability to support oneself, and we don't allow children to vote.

Impracticable concept which would require a Constitutional amendment and if we use the ERA as a yardstick which has been in process for more than 30 years and still no closer to the requirements than it was a decade ago.

EDIT: As a matter of principle I am not in favor of disenfranchising anyone.

Edited September 22, 2011 by Aurielius

[ginnyfizz]

What if we declared that, as a condition of receiving state assistance, one surrendered ones right to vote when one did so?

 

After all, one of the recognized standards of adulthood is the ability to support oneself, and we don't allow children to vote.

 

Absolutely NO WAY. I object in the strongest possible terms to disenfranchising people who have fallen on hard times, not necessarily through any fault of their own.

In some parts of the world people who are in prison, who have committed crimes, often heinous ones, are allowed to vote.

Are we then to classify all people who claim any kind of state benefits as lower than the vilest criminal?

 

I have seen all sides of the story. I worked on a Welfare to Work programme and I saw both people who had, as my Dad would say "fallen out with work at an early age" with no intention of working again if they could possibly avoid it, and on the other hand, I also saw people who had worked hard most of their lives and seen the industries they worked in disappear, and whose skills were not up to date. I saw people who had been bypassed by the educational system and were barely literate because no-one had bothered with them before. The latter two categories I would say were unfortunate, NOT idle, NOT scroungers.

 

Notice, I said worked. I am currently on notice of redundancy and in four weeks time will be out of a job, unless I am successful with any of my current applications. I too have worked all my life, I am highly literate and skilled, but I have health conditions that limit the kind of work that I can do. So if I want to continue to eat, I am going to have to sign on for benefit once my notice is up.

 

Should my Government attempt to disenfranchise me, watch how fast they end up at the European Court Of Human Rights!

[SpellAndShield]

In a possibly futile attempt to bring the discussion back on topic. (And with apologies to all for my part in the near descent into madness.) I would like to put forth a modest proposal to help curb the recognized abuses of the system.

 

I would first like to postulate that there is no way to eliminate abuse in 100% of the cases. As long as someone is passing something out for free, there will be someone else who seeks to take advantage of the situation for their personal gain beyond the scope of the original charity.

 

What if, however, we decided to do something to eliminate the "free" part of the equation? (I know this has been tried with the "all able bodied must work provision" some states have put in place, and an earlier commenter remarked on how this situation failed her.)

 

What if we declared that, as a condition of receiving state assistance, one surrendered ones right to vote when one did so?

 

After all, one of the recognized standards of adulthood is the ability to support oneself, and we don't allow children to vote.

 

Wealth redistribution is simply theft sanctioned and hallowed by the government. There might be extreme cases where people literally cannot work for one reason or another but taking care of those people should be the project of charities, family and friends, not the government. I have been totally broke before and I found options other than taking someone else's money; there are always better options than welfare.

[marharth]

In a possibly futile attempt to bring the discussion back on topic. (And with apologies to all for my part in the near descent into madness.) I would like to put forth a modest proposal to help curb the recognized abuses of the system.

 

I would first like to postulate that there is no way to eliminate abuse in 100% of the cases. As long as someone is passing something out for free, there will be someone else who seeks to take advantage of the situation for their personal gain beyond the scope of the original charity.

 

What if, however, we decided to do something to eliminate the "free" part of the equation? (I know this has been tried with the "all able bodied must work provision" some states have put in place, and an earlier commenter remarked on how this situation failed her.)

 

What if we declared that, as a condition of receiving state assistance, one surrendered ones right to vote when one did so?

 

After all, one of the recognized standards of adulthood is the ability to support oneself, and we don't allow children to vote.

 

Wealth redistribution is simply theft sanctioned and hallowed by the government. There might be extreme cases where people literally cannot work for one reason or another but taking care of those people should be the project of charities, family and friends, not the government. I have been totally broke before and I found options other than taking someone else's money; there are always better options than welfare.

You do know that tax cuts on certain groups are a form of welfare right? Just putting that out there.

 

What if you don't have friends or family willing to help? What if charities don't want to help you? Charity can refuse service if they feel like it. Some people do not have better options.

 

What is the governments job again? Maybe if I could hear a definition of that from you we could discuss this easier.

 

Also on the voting thing, what Aurielius said.

[ginnyfizz]

there are always better options than welfare.

 

Well I'd certainly like to hear what they are. I'm applying for probably twenty jobs per day myself, but let me tell everyone, it isn't that easy. We have a recession on. And here in the UK, the massive culture of youth worship makes for a huge bias against older workers. I am among thousands made redundant at the same time. Starting your own business - not really going to fly (see recession) and in most cases you would have to get the banks to lend money (which they are reluctant to do at the moment).

 

I have paid National Insurance contributions since I left college and rarely have I claimed anything from the Government, despite having been made redundant at least half a dozen times, I have always got another job. Until now. I am now 50, that makes my parents in their 80's, and on pensions themselves, so what they can do is limited. The way the system works in the UK, if I sign on for benefit I will get a small amount of money per week, plus credits of National Insurance contributions towards my pension. I will not get anything for housing (See living with parents). I also have disabilities (rheumatoid arthritis and asthma), which mean some kinds of work are not possible. But I will NOT sign on for Disability benefits (More money) because I feel I can do SOME work. After all, I have for the last many years.

 

Everyoe knows that I am of conservative views, but having worked in the Welfare to Work business myself, it has made me aware that although there are certainly scroungers who abuse the system, there are other sides to the story, and there are many people on the unemployed register who are genuinely unfortunate. I had guys and gals who had worked and paid their taxes for 30 years on my caseload, as well as the never worked and never going to brigade.

 

So I feel that this debate should not lead people to take such extreme views. I have never heard anything so objectionable yet as the idea of disenfranchising the unemployed and classifying them as lower than criminals. Fortunately, in the USA you would require an amendment to the Constitution, which would be unlikely I hope to happen,in the UK it would never get through the Commons. Not to mention it would be struck down by the judiciary on the grounds of any kind of discrimination you care to mention.

[SpellAndShield]

In a possibly futile attempt to bring the discussion back on topic. (And with apologies to all for my part in the near descent into madness.) I would like to put forth a modest proposal to help curb the recognized abuses of the system.

 

I would first like to postulate that there is no way to eliminate abuse in 100% of the cases. As long as someone is passing something out for free, there will be someone else who seeks to take advantage of the situation for their personal gain beyond the scope of the original charity.

 

What if, however, we decided to do something to eliminate the "free" part of the equation? (I know this has been tried with the "all able bodied must work provision" some states have put in place, and an earlier commenter remarked on how this situation failed her.)

 

What if we declared that, as a condition of receiving state assistance, one surrendered ones right to vote when one did so?

 

After all, one of the recognized standards of adulthood is the ability to support oneself, and we don't allow children to vote.

 

Wealth redistribution is simply theft sanctioned and hallowed by the government. There might be extreme cases where people literally cannot work for one reason or another but taking care of those people should be the project of charities, family and friends, not the government. I have been totally broke before and I found options other than taking someone else's money; there are always better options than welfare.

You do know that tax cuts on certain groups are a form of welfare right? Just putting that out there.

 

What if you don't have friends or family willing to help? What if charities don't want to help you? Charity can refuse service if they feel like it. Some people do not have better options.

 

What is the governments job again? Maybe if I could hear a definition of that from you we could discuss this easier.

 

Also on the voting thing, what Aurielius said.

 

Everyone should be paying lower taxes. I am not advocating the class warfare style tax cuts, just lower them and get rid of them as best as one can. If you have no other options I am reluctant to believe no charity or any other organisation will help, even so, you are taking someone else's money without their consent, that is simply a form of violence; in a moral society, every action that takes place between people should be voluntary,

[marharth]

In a possibly futile attempt to bring the discussion back on topic. (And with apologies to all for my part in the near descent into madness.) I would like to put forth a modest proposal to help curb the recognized abuses of the system.

 

I would first like to postulate that there is no way to eliminate abuse in 100% of the cases. As long as someone is passing something out for free, there will be someone else who seeks to take advantage of the situation for their personal gain beyond the scope of the original charity.

 

What if, however, we decided to do something to eliminate the "free" part of the equation? (I know this has been tried with the "all able bodied must work provision" some states have put in place, and an earlier commenter remarked on how this situation failed her.)

 

What if we declared that, as a condition of receiving state assistance, one surrendered ones right to vote when one did so?

 

After all, one of the recognized standards of adulthood is the ability to support oneself, and we don't allow children to vote.

 

Wealth redistribution is simply theft sanctioned and hallowed by the government. There might be extreme cases where people literally cannot work for one reason or another but taking care of those people should be the project of charities, family and friends, not the government. I have been totally broke before and I found options other than taking someone else's money; there are always better options than welfare.

You do know that tax cuts on certain groups are a form of welfare right? Just putting that out there.

 

What if you don't have friends or family willing to help? What if charities don't want to help you? Charity can refuse service if they feel like it. Some people do not have better options.

 

What is the governments job again? Maybe if I could hear a definition of that from you we could discuss this easier.

 

Also on the voting thing, what Aurielius said.

 

Everyone should be paying lower taxes. I am not advocating the class warfare style tax cuts, just lower them and get rid of them as best as one can. If you have no other options I am reluctant to believe no charity or any other organisation will help, even so, you are taking someone else's money without their consent, that is simply a form of violence; in a moral society, every action that takes place between people should be voluntary,

To get this correct, your saying forced taxation is immoral and we can have a government run with taxation being voluntary?

[ginnyfizz]

If you have no other options I am reluctant to believe no charity or any other organisation will help, even so, you are taking someone else's money without their consent, that is simply a form of violence; in a moral society, every action that takes place between people should be voluntary,

 

Well they won't help. And in Britain we pay Income Tax AND National Insurance contributions when we are working - compulsory when you earn above the threshold (which is pretty low, so it includes most working people). These are paid to the Government for assorted purposes, including against the day when we might need help. Therefore there should be no guilt in someone who has worked all their life and suddenly finds themself on the scrap heap making a claim. After all, it could be argued that in Britain, where I come from, many of our traditional industries have gone abroad due to a combination of government policies and the asinine actions of some of the militant trade unions (Scargill, you know I mean you!). The unemployed are sometimes so because of the actions of others. I am shortly to be unemployed due to political tinkering by the Government.

 

It's pretty outrageous suggesting that claimants are taking money without consent and are committing acts of violence. It's not only a generalisation, but according to UK law, imputing a crime to someone without foundation is also a specific defamation. And it is certainly without foundation when people have, as described above, paid their dues to society for years before being put out of work.

 

Please, can we avoid using such outrageous and sweeping statements, and recognise that not all claimants are scroungers?

After all, I am just listening to the lunchtime news which tells me that the FTSE has just headed on down below 5000. PM David Cameron is trying to shake some sense into the Eurozone. But it's rather looking like there are going to be a whole lot more claimants soon when companies start going belly up.