[abbie-here]

(Original post by Astronomical)
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.

I live here too and don't know one person who fraudulently claims benefits.

[Piprod01]

(Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
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.

So what about young people thrown out by their parents? Maybe they're a little dull and without an education (maybe their parents couldn't afford it) or like many homeless, they are LGBT. These things would make it difficult to get a job, and it's unrealistic to think they could survive with little or no assistance.

Charity is needed, but somehow I think the people who ignore the social contract and refuse to pay back into society aren't the sort of people willing to help the downtrodden, the sick and the homeless.

Being poor is not something you can blame the poor for. Maybe you just don't see the problem because it wouldn't affect you, but "anyone with a 2:1 in a respectable discipline" in such a system you are advocating will have been born privileged. It might be easy for children of the rich to live comfortably, but that ignores everyone else.

[RibenaRockstar]

(Original post by Piprod01)
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.

But what about all the (in theory) well off students who have to spend hours stacking shelves to have a social life? Just because my parents are well off doesn't mean they give me any money.

[Piprod01]

(Original post by RibenaRockstar)
But what about all the (in theory) well off students who have to spend hours stacking shelves to have a social life? Just because my parents are well off doesn't mean they give me any money.

Are they likely to just drop out of school because of that, though? Usually there would be some pressure from their parents to continue, because they realise from experience the benefits. I don't think that is a widespread problem, and children from better off parents are likely to get things extra which aren't necessarily beer or hard cash.

[OU Student]

Does the "100% of people claiming benefits are scroungers" include the carer who looks after their disabled partner 24/7, doesn't get a break, gets hassle from social services (I know a few who this has happened to) and gets no outside help?

Those people are savings the government billions each year. They get around £58 a week in benefits. The cost of care 24/7 is £3000 a week.

[Dhaal_Chawal]

No idea, but I don't think it's that many compared to how many think it is.

[Ray Bradbury]

Re: What percentage of people on benefits are scroungers?


I don't know. But I do know that on the Govs own figures alone , more is left unclaimed than is fiddled.

Whereas 15 times as much is fiddled in taxes.

(No I don't have them to hand, look them up yourself lazy arse )

[Huz]

how can people make a rough estimate on percentages. funny lol

[sarahthegemini]

FFS, why is it that there is so much judgement on people that claim benefits? Some people need them These kinda threads are ****ing ridiculous because it just goes to show how so many people look down their noses at people that recieve benefits. If it was 'common knowledge' that most benefit claimants are scroungers then the whole system would be axed. A few articles in The Sun or the Daily Mail doesn't represent the whole population of those that claim.