Derwent wrote:That's not really a fair comparison though, as many working people get benefits too. For example, a person with say 2 or 3 children who is working will not need to earn anywhere near £36,000 gross to have a net income more than the cap once you factor in other things like Child Benefit, Working Tax Credit, Child Tax Credit etc
I agree with your general point BTW, just think that the figures are a bit misleading.
That is true and its a truth that the propaganda machine don't want you to realise as the target for the public ire is supposed to be the shirkers, those idle, lazy good-for-nothing, haven't worked in three generations (another lie for which they were reprimanded), benefits claimants who are earning the equivalent of £36k EASILY without actually having to get out of bed all day.
The claim was that in the test area 8000 people have moved from unemployment into work as a result of having their benefits capped at £500, the obvious implication being that when you strangle the benefits to these horrible shirking people then this and this alone is what gets them off their idle arses to find a job that will pay them more than £500 a week net.
And then when the head of one of the councils in the test area mentions actual stats that show nothing of the sorts we are told that they are lies perpetrated by someone with an agenda against the coalition cuts and in any case if IDS thinks that it is so then it must be, no arguments.
Someday everything is gonna be different, when I paint my masterpiece ---------------------------------------------------------- Online art gallery, selling original landscape artwork ---------------------------------------------------------- JerryChicken - The Blog ----------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by JerryChicken on Tue Jul 16, 2013 7:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Joined: Nov 23 2009 Posts: 12749 Location: The Hamptons of East Yorkshire
Mintball wrote:Quite.
There's long been an issue that successive governments have refused to tackle of, say, seasonal workers not being able to easily sign on when that job has finished.
And didn't Boy George recently state that you now have to wait a week before being able to sign back on? So Vic Meldrew offers 2 weeks work to the recently signed off applicant. He then has to support himself for a week with no dosh. Then when signed on how many more weeks before he actually gets his first payment again? Not worth a w@nk really is it?
Joined: May 25 2002 Posts: 37704 Location: Zummerzet, where the zoider apples grow
JerryChicken wrote:I think you've answered your own question right there, if I was totally honest and in the same situation then I would possibly do the same and I think you possibly would too - it should be possible to "switch" between work and support on as regular a basis as required, as you say temporary employment is the way we are all heading.
Strange thing is, in the days of the old unemployment exchange and "the dole" when it was all done with paper forms and biros you could do just that.
They also never counted weekend work (civil servants were all Monday to Friday wallahs), so a semi-pro RL player could sign on Monday to Friday, play the weekend and pocket the match (hopefully winning) pay without penalty
The older I get, the better I was
Advice is what we seek when we already know the answer - but wish we didn't
I'd rather have a full bottle in front of me than a full-frontal lobotomy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ kirkstaller wrote: "All DNA shows is that we have a common creator."
cod'ead wrote: "I have just snotted weissbier all over my keyboard & screen"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "No amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin." - Aneurin Bevan
OK so its a blog post on an internet news media site, its a personal opinion, but it raises some good points which most would recognise, mainly that the British public are led, with a ring through their noses, willingly by news reportage that is far from neutral, increasingly does not even report the truth or at the least will manipulate the truth to point the story in a different direction, and that the likes of the Daily Mail news reporting web site is at best hypocritical in its approach to females, (condescending doesn't actually describe their attitude enough).
OK so its a blog post on an internet news media site, its a personal opinion, but it raises some good points which most would recognise, mainly that the British public are led, with a ring through their noses, willingly by news reportage that is far from neutral, increasingly does not even report the truth or at the least will manipulate the truth to point the story in a different direction, and that the likes of the Daily Mail news reporting web site is at best hypocritical in its approach to females, (condescending doesn't actually describe their attitude enough).
Someday everything is gonna be different, when I paint my masterpiece ---------------------------------------------------------- Online art gallery, selling original landscape artwork ---------------------------------------------------------- JerryChicken - The Blog ----------------------------------------------------------
No doubt IDS will simply "beleive they are untrue" and magically, they will be
The older I get, the better I was
Advice is what we seek when we already know the answer - but wish we didn't
I'd rather have a full bottle in front of me than a full-frontal lobotomy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ kirkstaller wrote: "All DNA shows is that we have a common creator."
cod'ead wrote: "I have just snotted weissbier all over my keyboard & screen"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "No amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin." - Aneurin Bevan
Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:The poll was a stupid poll asking people to guess numbers about things which they will know next to nothing about.
The fact that the numbers were spectacularly wrong is all the fault of The Sun, The Mail and the Tories, obviously.
I'm just glad The Sin Bin is free from media sensationalism and bias.
These type of articles are just desperate. A narrow band of left wingers know that they are in a minority on issues such as welfare reform so they point to things like this and say 'the public are too dumb to understand', implying that they are right and the whole rest of the population is wrong. It really is see through.
Ajw71 wrote:These type of articles are just desperate. A narrow band of left wingers know that they are in a minority on issues such as welfare reform so they point to things like this and say 'the public are too dumb to understand', implying that they are right and the whole rest of the population is wrong. It really is see through.
You stole that quote from Ian Duncan Smith - he used those exact words on Monday when describing statistics that showed that his "Squeezing welfare gets people off their arses and back to work" numbers were a figment of his imagination (he certainly didn't reference any official stats whereas the contradictory stats were referenced).
Keep swallowing the hype, The Sun is counting on you in 2015.
Unless they change their support again.
Someday everything is gonna be different, when I paint my masterpiece ---------------------------------------------------------- Online art gallery, selling original landscape artwork ---------------------------------------------------------- JerryChicken - The Blog ----------------------------------------------------------
DaveO wrote:I think we'd know if it was 24%. The newspapers would be queuing up to expose them as they egg on the cuts agenda.
My understanding was the 0.7% is the governments own estimate as to the level of fraudulent claims and the fact it is the governments own estimate is VERY important as you would think it would formulate policy based on its own statistics. .
Fair enough I'd miss read it and didn't realise it was an estimate.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 72 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
