The reason why I hate The Abusers of the System

[greywaste]

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.

 

This tangent that things have gone off on is a completely different kettle of fish altogether. While it may still be called 'welfare', receiving something that you have paid for isn't welfare as it's being defined in this thread let alone abuse.

It's also why Marharths ridiculous statement about tax 'cuts' being welfare is just silly. Tax rebates on the other hand, assuming they are over 100% of the tax you actually paid - then that could potentially be called welfare.

[marharth]

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.

 

This tangent that things have gone off on is a completely different kettle of fish altogether. While it may still be called 'welfare', receiving something that you have paid for isn't welfare as it's being defined in this thread let alone abuse.

It's also why Marharths ridiculous statement about tax 'cuts' being welfare is just silly. Tax rebates on the other hand, assuming they are over 100% of the tax you actually paid - then that could potentially be called welfare.

Your saving certain people money by giving them tax cuts. It is a form of welfare.

[greywaste]

 

It's also why Marharths ridiculous statement about tax 'cuts' being welfare is just silly. Tax rebates on the other hand, assuming they are over 100% of the tax you actually paid - then that could potentially be called welfare.

Your saving certain people money by giving them tax cuts. It is a form of welfare.

Seriously... How is taking less money from someone than usual welfare?... Only in todays world :facepalm:

 

Regardless, this is off topic, want to argue about it further then you can PM me or something.

 

@Ginny : I was meaning to say that the thread was heading off on a tangent and that you shouldn't have had to justify using the system in the exact way that it was intended to be used, when the thread is about the abuse of the system.

[marharth]

Seriously... How is taking less money from someone than usual welfare?... Only in todays world :facepalm:

 

Regardless, this is off topic, want to argue about it further then you can PM me or something.

Meh, ill PM you then.

 

Has anyone proposed a real idea to stop people from abusing the system? What about making people have more advanced identification to get into programs?

[greywaste]

Seriously... How is taking less money from someone than usual welfare?... Only in todays world :facepalm:

 

Regardless, this is off topic, want to argue about it further then you can PM me or something.

What about making people have more advanced identification to get into programs?

That's actually a good idea - problem is though you'll have the privacy and 'ooman rights' crew on your case.

[ginnyfizz]

@Ginny : I was meaning to say that the thread was heading off on a tangent and that you shouldn't have had to justify using the system in the exact way that it was intended to be used, when the thread is about the abuse of the system.

 

NP, that's what I thought you meant, you have recognised that the system was there to be used as an emergency, rather than an alternative lifestyle, is the way I look at it.

[SpellAndShield]

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.

 

Well, the UK is in some ways more of a police state than the US, cameras everywhere, no real free speech, etc. I live in the UK and have had plenty of British friends who could have gone on the dole but sought their fortunes elsewhere and have done well. The system is too far gone as it is and will eventually implode (probably first in the US) so it is just a matter of time, maybe then real changes will take place in the US, no idea what will happen in the UK.

[ginnyfizz]

Would you like to elaborate on this?

 

"British friends who could have gone on the dole but sought their fortunes elsewhere and have done well. "

 

Well good for them, but the opportunity to go and seek your fortune elsewhere isn't open to everyone. Not everyone CAN up sticks and go abroad to a different country, not everyone has the kind of transferable skills, not to mention language skills, to allow them to do that. I for example, do have those skills, but I have two other compelling reasons I can't do that - my own precarious health and the fact that I am a carer for my mother. You would find that a lot of people have genuine reasons such as that, which means it really is not as simple as just seeking your fortune elsewhere.

 

If you claim out of work benefits, in the majority of cases it means that you have no choice but to do so - hell's bells, I can barely exist on the dole, but once my redundancy payment runs out, I certainly will have to. For one thing I have to be able to buy my monstrous amount of medication, without which I would have no chance of being fit enough for work. But it's not a lifestyle choice.

 

As greywaste has done, so should we all be making the distinction between those who use the system as intended and those who abuse it.

 

I also feel, with the greatest respect, that whether or not the UK is a police state has no relevance to this particular debate.

[SpellAndShield]

Would you like to elaborate on this?

 

"British friends who could have gone on the dole but sought their fortunes elsewhere and have done well. "

 

Well good for them, but the opportunity to go and seek your fortune elsewhere isn't open to everyone. Not everyone CAN up sticks and go abroad to a different country, not everyone has the kind of transferable skills, not to mention language skills, to allow them to do that. I for example, do have those skills, but I have two other compelling reasons I can't do that - my own precarious health and the fact that I am a carer for my mother. You would find that a lot of people have genuine reasons such as that, which means it really is not as simple as just seeking your fortune elsewhere.

 

If you claim out of work benefits, in the majority of cases it means that you have no choice but to do so - hell's bells, I can barely exist on the dole, but once my redundancy payment runs out, I certainly will have to. For one thing I have to be able to buy my monstrous amount of medication, without which I would have no chance of being fit enough for work. But it's not a lifestyle choice.

 

As greywaste has done, so should we all be making the distinction between those who use the system as intended and those who abuse it.

 

I also feel, with the greatest respect, that whether or not the UK is a police state has no relevance to this particular debate.

 

At the end of the day, why should other people you don't even know know pay for your situation or anyone else's for that matter? If they volunteered that is fine but otherwise I don't see how it is feasable.

[SpellAndShield]

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.

 

This tangent that things have gone off on is a completely different kettle of fish altogether. While it may still be called 'welfare', receiving something that you have paid for isn't welfare as it's being defined in this thread let alone abuse.

It's also why Marharths ridiculous statement about tax 'cuts' being welfare is just silly. Tax rebates on the other hand, assuming they are over 100% of the tax you actually paid - then that could potentially be called welfare.

Your saving certain people money by giving them tax cuts. It is a form of welfare.

 

Sorry, that is ridiculous. People have a right to keep what they earn, the more they keep, the more just it is and how is letting people keep more of the money they have worked for welfare? Ridiculous.