claiming Benefits, by those who dont care...

[David Johnson]

Yup.

Its that ole music hall song "It's the rich what gets the money and it's the poor what gets the blame"

It's as true now as it ever was. Keep the masses deluded. it's much easier to keep the wheels of bandit capitalism oiled that way. Get them singing along to some asinine, X factor song and slagging off the unemployed (pillocks who aren't making the effort to live the dream), whilst their pocket is picked by an investment banker or two and a bunch of tax avoiders.

Don't use your brain, people, it will only hurt in the end!

Of course, the fact that it is many of our news corporations who are doing the tax avoidance e.g. News International which means that corporate tax avoidance is not the hottest topic in the Sun, but hey, find a Muslim radical on the dole and bingo, front cover for days!

Cheers
D

[Deano!]

Well I think they cured Repetitive Strain Injury by removing compensation payments for it. 'Stress' is still pretty popular amongst people who have very easy boring jobs.

[max_tranmere]

I am still of the view that tax avoidance/evasion costs less than people unnecessarily on Benefits. There are areas of British cities that are amongst the best located regions ON EARTH for jobs - places like Bermondsey in London (literally in the shadow of The City, next to Docklands, and moments from the West End) yet 70% of the people in that large area of London are on Benefit. I saw the local MP, Simon Hughes, quote this figure on TV. How can that be by anything other than choice? I am sure large chunks of the population taking money from the State unnecessarily is more expense overall than people like Ronnie Wood buying a house in Ireland to avoid paying British taxes, and others like him, who do similar. I have noted that it has been stated here that some large corporations avoid taxes here, but all their staff who work here, and there will be thousands of them, will all pay taxes here. To may avoid Corporation Tax, I dont know what the rules are on getting around that - and avoiding it is something I condemn - but I still hold the view that unnecessarily taking money from the State is more expensive to the nation.

[max_tranmere]

You either have a system of massive State subsidy, or you don't and then there are less jobs and more Welfare dependancy. When most working-class people's homes were owned by the State, prior to the 1980s, and when Governments pumped loads of money into failing sectors of industry, then there was more work for people (but the taxpayer subsidised a lot of it) and there was a lot of State housing. Now, if you are largely unemployable, there is less chance of you being able to work compared to the pre-Thatcher era, and also if you are on your uppers and the State has to support you it will cost them a lot more money to pay your rent on a privately owned flat than it used to when paying to keep you in some local authority owned council property. Swings and roundabouts I guess. Either the State pays money to enable you to cost the State less money (increasing your chances of working when you are largely unskilled, useless, and unemployable) and supports you if you can't (by cheaper rental money paid - but the property is owned by the State anyway and costing money in subsidy). It costs whatever happens.

[max_tranmere]

To the other commentors - lots of interesting comments there.

[David Johnson]

Max
As usual you seem totally unable to come up with any links to support your posts. So its a bit like listening to a bloke at the bar going on and on into his pint. I guess this is how it should be. This is an Internet forum's main purpose.

"but I still hold the view that unnecessarily taking money from the State is more expensive to the nation"

I have given you a link in the earlier post which states that corporate tax avoidance, never mind tax evasion is estimated at around 25 billion a year.

I have also given you some details about benefit fraud. By the nature of the game these tend to be estimates rather than precise figures.

All you provide is "yet 70% of the people in that large area of London are on Benefit. I saw the local MP, Simon Hughes, quote this figure on TV."

So what percentage of that is unnecessary? How does the 70% breakdown etc etc? What are the benefits Hughes was referring to - child allowance, housing benefit, jobseekers, disability etc etc.

You know, Max, a few facts!!

D

[max_tranmere]

I can't find a link online that quotes what Simon Hughes says, but I dont see how seeing it in writing online makes it something more valid than seeing Hughes saying it on TV. I genuinely saw it, he said 70% of the people in that area, Bermondsey, were on Benefit. He was talking about people not working and getting Benefit instead, some would be pensioners but the vast majority are people of working age who sit back and take money instead of working - in an area located right in the heart of where all the work is. I can't think of many American or European cities that have a square mile of residential area literally in the shadow of the financial district, the West End (or downtown area), the Financial district Mark II (Docklands) yet 7 in 10 people 'can not get a job'. Seems like they are choosing not to work to me. I dont know how else it can be interpreted.

[David Johnson]

"I genuinely saw it, he said 70% of the people in that area, Bermondsey, were on Benefit. He was talking about people not working and getting Benefit instead, some would be pensioners but the vast majority are people of working age who sit back and take money instead of working"

Priceless, Max, this is classic, befuddled thinking. The questions that need to be asked, hence my request for a link so we can see the detail of Hughes speech are:

1. What are the figures throughout the country? Taking the example of a very poor area and extrapolating the position to the entire country is nonsense. Its a bit like arguing that since house prices in Kensington are sky high, everyone in Britain who owns a house must be a millionaire.

2. You bleat on about unnecessarily obtaining benefits. Define unnecessary precisely?

3. At least 20% of the UK population is of pensionable age. Many of the benefits paid to pensioners are to complement their pension pittance. Is this unnecessary or would you prefer that , without charity or family help, they just died quietly behind their net curtains?

4. What sort of benefits are we talking about precisely, "disability, job seekers, housing benefit, child benefit?

5. Of the 70% how many are long term benefit receivers? Given that this is the worst recession since the 1930's unemployment goes up as well as down!

"yet 7 in 10 people 'can not get a job. Seems like they are choosing not to work to me. I dont know how else it can be interpreted."

As a moments thought would show Max, the above sentence is complete bilge. You start out by quoting that 70% are on benefits, then mention that this figure includes pensioners who are 20% of the population anyway. I assume you are not criticising old age pensioners for being workshy?

I look forward to your detailed answers to the questions above. If you are going to respond to my post, please provide some detailed replies to my questions rather than this vague, nonsensical crap.

D

[Guilbert]

Worth reading to see how far people go to "fiddle the benefits system" (and how much you can get away with)

[max_tranmere]

David, we'll have to just disagree on this one.