I dont see why being born here should make any difference. Being born here should entitle you to a British passport and nothing else. plenty of people with British passports milking the system. give me a hard working immigrant over a scrounging native any day.
It's a cliche, but old George must be spinning in his grave
- Thread starter Geometer
- Start date
Sponsored Links
E
EddieM
how much do you think an unemployed single person gets then?
Who said anything about the problem being unemployed single people? Once they start dropping sprogs like it's going out of fashion there's a much higher rate of dole, priority housing, child benefit, housing benefit, free prescriptions, free this, free that.
My boss doesn't care how many kids I've got, I get paid the same for the job I do regardless and have to take responsibility for my own choices about what I can and can't afford to do. So why should a whole load of scroungers get a bumper pay rise at my expense, in return for further polluting the gene pool?
And conny, anyone in work who wants to change of jobs has to do their job seeking AS WELL as doing their 40 hours a week. I'm only suggesting that scroungers be made to prove how long they've spent looking for work in a given week, and make that up to a decent working week with street sweeping or whatever - but it's not compulsory, they don't have to work at all if they don't want a hand out.
My boss doesn't care how many kids I've got, I get paid the same for the job I do regardless and have to take responsibility for my own choices about what I can and can't afford to do. So why should a whole load of scroungers get a bumper pay rise at my expense, in return for further polluting the gene pool?
And conny, anyone in work who wants to change of jobs has to do their job seeking AS WELL as doing their 40 hours a week. I'm only suggesting that scroungers be made to prove how long they've spent looking for work in a given week, and make that up to a decent working week with street sweeping or whatever - but it's not compulsory, they don't have to work at all if they don't want a hand out.
My sister has progressive MS and sits in her chair (having been hoisted into it) or her bed staring into space and shaking. She is non-compis-mentis. So, obviously, she received a letter yesterday (signed off by Ian Duncan Smith) telling her that she had to attend an interview to determine what work she might be capable of doing with a likely further interview with jobseeker; failure to attend leading to a loss in her incapacity benefits and income support which pays my brother in law as a carer. Taking her to these interviews will involve either specialist Taxis or possibly an ambulance and will thus involve some jobsworth asking questions and my sister dribbling and maybe grunting randomly.
You'd have thought that there would be a database somewhere that would prevent this sort of pointless debacle from taking place.
Don't blame the government, blame the hundreds of thousands (some estimates say 500k) who deliberately screw the system.
Governments are incompetent, always have been, always will be, nature of the beast. Next time you hear of someone screwing the system, remember it's people like your sister they are stealing from, not the government.
As to the OP
“the core mandatory requirement to give evidence of spending a whopping 35 hours per week doing Jobsearch activities, with non-compliance leading to loss of welfare payments”
So they will be asked to do what they are supposed to be doing, in return for money?
And I am supposed to feel bad about this, my employer expects me to work the agreed hours for my money?
Sponsored Links
D
Deleted member 174758
Aha, so in order to reduce unemployment in the UK we're outsourcing IT jobs to the USA?.......
Of coourse in order to accommodate these people spending 35 hours a week we'll either have to massively increase the size of Job Centres to accommodate all the computers required, or give phone lines and computers to those who don't have them - in other words most of the people on the lowest incomes. Priceless!
I do so hope that for your sake you end up out of work and unemployed for a while. You might learn a thing or two about life that you patently don't know now. I'm not supporting those who milk the state, but if I ever need it I do expect the state to provide a basic safety net for me, after all I've paid a lot into the system over many years.
[quote =I do so hope that for your sake you end up out of work and unemployed for a while. You might learn a thing or two about life that you patently don't know now. I'm not supporting those who milk the state, but if I ever need it I do expect the state to provide a basic safety net for me, after all I've paid a lot into the system over many years.[/quote]
I wouldn't expect too much if my own experience was anything to go by. In March 2009 the firm I had worked at for 20+ years went into administration. My partner had also worked there for 5 years. Firstly we were told we had not paid enough NI contributions to qualify wrong provided P60 to prove otherwise. Then told to claim as a couple not individually - wrong we were both entitled to claim as individuals (difference is about £40 pw which is a lot when you have no money)
I actually then got a short term contract working for JCP and I can assure you it's 100% a numbers game with the real help and support (financial and otherwise) only directed at the long term unemployed. I hope I NEVER see the inside of a Job Centre again. Having said that I don't see where the DWP will get the manpower, working hours or motivation to really monitor and enforce the proposed new legislation.
I wouldn't expect too much if my own experience was anything to go by. In March 2009 the firm I had worked at for 20+ years went into administration. My partner had also worked there for 5 years. Firstly we were told we had not paid enough NI contributions to qualify wrong provided P60 to prove otherwise. Then told to claim as a couple not individually - wrong we were both entitled to claim as individuals (difference is about £40 pw which is a lot when you have no money)
I actually then got a short term contract working for JCP and I can assure you it's 100% a numbers game with the real help and support (financial and otherwise) only directed at the long term unemployed. I hope I NEVER see the inside of a Job Centre again. Having said that I don't see where the DWP will get the manpower, working hours or motivation to really monitor and enforce the proposed new legislation.
D
Deleted member 174758
I don't. In 40-odd years of work I've needed them just 3 times, fortunately, but at least they are there
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2004
- Messages
- 42,742
- Reaction score
- 2,634
- Country
How will removing the ends of the earth help?
Oh, please.
DWP statistics: "For 2011/12 (preliminary), it is estimated that 2.0 per cent of total benefit expenditure was overpaid due to fraud and error. This is down from the 2010/11 level of 2.1 per cent. "
http://statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd2/index.php?page=fraud_error
I can't find any figures for the number of fraudulent claims, but if you dig around in the documents linked from that page, you'll find that approximately 1/3 of that overspend is due to fraud, a little over 1/3 is due to customer error, and a little under 1/3 is due to official error; so, Benefit fraud accounts for less than 1% of the total Benefits spend.
To suggest that half a million people are making fraudulent claims is preposterous. To suggest that DWP staff are so inept that they're letting half a million people get away with fraudulent claims is even more preposterous.
I wouldn't disagree with you. I have no more sympathy for those who deliberately set out to fleece the system than anybody else, but let's keep a sense of proportion; they are a tiny minority, and their impact on the Benefits bill is minimal.
So how much are you getting paid for that then? I bet it's a lot more than £8K a year.
Fair comment, but I suspect the reality will be rather different. Universal Jobmatch, along with Universal Credit, are both part of the Goverment's plan to completely digitise the welfare system over the next 2 - 3 years. If it's successful I predict that, within 2 years of its initiation, Job Centres will become redundant. Thousands of experienced front-line staff will lose their jobs to be replaced, at best, by a receptionist, a security guard and a bank of computers, at worst, nothing at all; the Human element to the welfare system will be all but eliminated, and the only Human contact any claimant will have will be with underpaid, inexperienced staff manning a remote call-centre; and millions of people will be forced to rely for their Benefits on the smooth running of a vast, complex, Government IT system - a class of entity not noted for its reliability or robustness.
It's a train wreck waiting to happen.
Fun with statistics.
The above figure is that which they can prove, I know people who are fudging the system, but as far as "the system" knows are genuine.
Whilst none of use can prove how high fruad is, do you really believe it's only 2%?
Ultimately the people who try and screw the system are responsible for the government clampdowns, it doesnt matter which party is in charge, the only result you will ever get is to ignore the issue or to go in with size 12s
The 500k figure is those estimate "fit to work" currently signed of as unfit.
Sure there may be some margin for error there, but 30% found fit to work in error, nah, clearly a lot of those 30% played the "ohh me back" card.
The population increased by 10%, and those on benifits by +200%.
Hmmm.....
Sorry, but why does that matter.
Are you saying those people on low wage are then not obliged to fulfil their agreed obligations with their employer?
You get paid to look for a job, so you spend your time looking for a job, seems reasonable.
you don't lose any time, if you had a job you spend the time working instead of looking for it.
So you are against the changes, because A might lead to Z.
It might, but something has to change about the current admin set-up, money spent on admin, is money not spent on welfare.
Aaron, your view is that the unemployed should work by sweeping the streets for 40 hours a week or spend 35 hours a week looking for a job in order to get benefits. Given the fact that those in work are supposed to be paid a minimum wage of £6.19 for an adult in their 20's this would equate to having to pay them £247 odd a week for street sweepers or £216 for those looking for work over 35 hours. No idea what an unemployed person actually gets in benefits but I can't see it being this much. And bear in mind, anyone on the minimum wage will probably be able to get some form of benefits as well as their wage.
D
Deleted member 174758
Jobseekers allowance: 16 to 24 - up to £56.25; 25 and over - up to £71.00
A king's ransom, methinks!
Sponsored Links
