[Piprod01]

(Original post by Iron Lady)
Depends what they're studying.

If they use valuable money for alcohol, it shows they do not respect the taxpayer.

I doubt that the majority of money went to alcohol, and given the parental income needed to claim, it's not a wise spend. But I think it's better them spend it on entertainment than leaving school and claiming JSA, or stacking shelves because they wanted some money to socialise. The problem is one of social mobility.

[tehforum]

(Original post by prog2djent)
http://www.benefitfraud.org.uk/total...aud/index.html

I can't find it.

[prog2djent]

(Original post by tehforum)
I can't find it.

I got it wrong, I meant 18 haha

[tehforum]

(Original post by prog2djent)
I got it wrong, I meant 18 haha

In Lambeth, use of voice recognition software identified over 18% of claimants as benefit cheats.

Your use of selective evidence is appalling.

[Astronomical]

In the North East I'd say over 50%.

[prog2djent]

(Original post by tehforum)
In Lambeth, use of voice recognition software identified over 18% of claimants as benefit cheats.

Your use of selective evidence is appalling.

K.

[concubine]

I have no idea, but somewhere around 5% seems about right.



The way it's talked about in the media and by politicians is absurd. The fact is that the vast majority of people claiming things like job seekers would much rather be in work and providing for themselves.

[ufo2012]

(Original post by Piprod01)
Some people just have an odd view of it all. You know, the,"I BET YOU HAVE A PLASMA TV!!!" crowd.

Are people on benefits or benefit scroungers not allowed to have a 60" (or bigger) Plasma TV?

After all, they need to be ready for the digital switchover just like everyone else.

[Aspiringlawstudent]

(Original post by zaliack)
For a law student, you have seriously failed to understand the definition of theft. For the most part, I hate having to claim child tax credits to help feed my daughter. I'd love to be able to have a great paying job, sadly I've got to finish university first. But when I read posts like yours, it makes me happy knowing that I'm annoying people who don't understand what taxation is for

There is a difference between knowing what something is for and liking what it is for.

If you read the information I linked to, you will understand what I mean.

[NR09]

36.84%

[Aspiringlawstudent]

(Original post by MagicNMedicine)
Don't pay your council tax then, if you're a good lawyer you should be able to win your case in court and maybe get the government to pay you damages for attempted theft.

You understand there is a difference between what I am outlining in my post and what is currently the situation, right?

My point is that if someone on the street came up to you and said 'give me 40% of your income or I will lock you in a dungeon' (or otherwise deprive you of your liberty), you would have no problem, one assumes, in calling that theft. Put aside legal intricacies and think of what theft is in its purest sense; taking something away that does not being to you without the consent of the person it does belong to. Surely we can agree that is what theft is in essence?

My question is, why would you think the same activity less criminal when it is the government that does it? My argument is predicated upon the assertion that government is illegitimate because people have natural rights that spring not from law but from nature; ie that people deserve to live and own and exchange property on a voluntary basis. All of this is also tempered by adherence to the non-coercive axiom; the principle that it is always wrong to use force, except in self defence - you can only use force when someone is using force against you.

Governments are institutions that claim a monopoly on the legal use of force within a certain locality. They are allowed to use force, for some reason, without adhering to the non-coercive axiom. I think this is wrong.

If you read the text I linked to in my original post. I think you will understand my approach much more.

[abbie-here]

(Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
100%.

Whatever their reason, they are stealing from other people.

Taxation is theft. The fact that government perpetrates it rather than a hooligan on the street corner makes it no more acceptable.

Read 'For a New Liberty' by Murray Rothbard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_a_New_Liberty

Here is the entire text: http://www.mises.org/rothbard/foranewlb.pdf

So, if you suddenly become unable to work or became redundant or simply couldn't find a job, wouldn't you claim benefits? How would you survive?

[abbie-here]

(Original post by Astronomical)
In the North East I'd say over 50%.

Why in the North East?

[Supportive mum]

Not as many as the Daily Mail try to make their 'readers' believe.

[Chumbaniya]

It's funny how some people believe being on JSA automatically makes you a lazy scumbag, and yet the number of people on JSA is very strongly linked to the health of the economy and the number of jobs available. But I guess they're all so lazy they refused to apply for all those suitable jobs that don't exist, right full-time students who have never held full time jobs?

[Aspiringlawstudent]

(Original post by abbie-here)
So, if you suddenly become unable to work or became redundant or simply couldn't find a job, wouldn't you claim benefits? How would you survive?

A smart person would not work without saving some of their money for a situation like that.

Valuable people also typically don't find it incredibly hard to find work if they are willing to take literally anything to avoid starving. I would wager anyone with a 2:1 in a respectable discipline who was a mentally competent and polite individual with good punctuality and a strong work ethic could get a job within a day in London. Maybe not one they'd like, but they could get one that would stop them starving.

If you are unable to work, my policy is that nature should be allowed to take its course. If someone wishes to support you, that is absolutely fine. But to force people to support you I think is absolutely wrong and a complete violation of their natural rights.

I presume you wouldn't force someone to give up their job to physically care for someone?

If that is the case, why is it appropriate to take their money without their consent to support someone?

My policy is that both are a violation of natural rights, whereas doing nothing to interfere in the life of someone (be it malevolent interference or benevolent interference) is not a violation of natural rights; I don't believe people have the right to expect people to come to their aid.

If we disagree in this area it is unlikely I can convince you, but what I would say is have a quick read of the text I linked to and it may explain a great deal of what I am trying to articulate.

[Astronomical]

(Original post by abbie-here)
Why in the North East?

Because that's where I live? Most people I know who are on benefits are claiming them fraudulently... be it single-parent benefits and yet living with a partner, or be it "unfit to work" benefits for a bad back and yet able to do patio-fitting, bricklaying, motorbiking, etc. when they want to, or be it jobseeker benefits when they have a job. It's an epidemic up here in the North East.

[Astronomical]

Also, I don't think people realise just how kind the government in this country is.

In both of the other countries I have lived, Czech Republic and Poland, the government is FAR less generous with handing out money. In Poland for instance, once you lose your job/quit, you get the equivalent to jobseeker benefits for 3 months, and then you're on your own. I remember it being similar in the Czech Republic but I don't think it was quite as harsh. Having said that, the tax system them is very different, and much fairer I might add.

[joefoxon]

(Original post by Iron Lady)
I doubt anyone would be jealous of those who did get EMA. LOL.

Believe me, they were! They just thought it was free money, which they just wanted for their social life, when there were people that actually needed the money.

[Tensei]

Neg Me? LoL

It is true, if you look hard enough and also work hard enough you will find work. It is just most people are lazy and think handing a few C.Vs out and going to the Job Center will do the trick. If you do not have the skills you learn!

It may be very difficult but it is achievable