The demonisation of the social security system

[David Johnson]

"I said forcing 440,000 people into work would mean at the very least 440,000 not claiming dole"

If that is the totality of your insight into my post, I will leave you to ramble on to yourself.

[Essex Lad]

Ooh Dave patronise me some more, pretty please...

[David Johnson]

"How can there be no financial benefit in people not signing on? They pay tax and National Insurance, their employer pays National Insurance. They spend their money on stuff which bolsters the economy, etc etc."

Good Grief man, can't you understand the simplest of arguments?

1. 440,00 long term unemployed (often referred to by the GOVERNMENT as "scroungers", go into work. Of course that brings a financial benefit to the country in terms of what they spend.

2. However, by the GOVERNMENT overwhelmingly concentrating on what THEY regard as "scroungers" it ignores the fact that there are umpteen people on average chasing work who the GOVERNMENT would probably admit if pushed are "non-scroungers". So the benefit that is accrued to the state in taxes paid is the same whether scroungers or non-scroungers fill the jobs.

3. SO what we have is not so much a "scroungers" problem as the government bang on about , but a jobs problem. And there is no financial benefit to the GOVERNMENT in forcing what they regard as scroungers into work as opposed to seeing the jobs filled by non-scroungers.

There, can't explain it any simpler for you without drawing pictures. I have done my bit. THat is your lot from me on this thread.

[Dave Wells]

A more realistic figure of people out of work (i.e not only claiming benefits) is probably 7.6 million a very informed friend who works in the DWP told me.

[Dave Wells]

My point being that I also know some mothers and indeed fathers who would love to go back to work after their children have now entered the school system but there simply aren't any jobs or not enough to go round ! If people are working the economy will get better because people will have money to spend. Austerity CANNOT work, it is self defeating and has no use ! All it does is destroy life's.

[Essex Lad]

David Johnson wrote:

> "How can there be no financial benefit in people not signing
> on? They pay tax and National Insurance, their employer pays
> National Insurance. They spend their money on stuff which
> bolsters the economy, etc etc."
>
> Good Grief man, can't you understand the simplest of arguments?
>
> 1. 440,00 long term unemployed (often referred to by the
> GOVERNMENT as "scroungers", go into work. Of course that brings
> a financial benefit to the country in terms of what they spend.
>
> 2. However, by the GOVERNMENT overwhelmingly concentrating on
> what THEY regard as "scroungers" it ignores the fact that there
> are umpteen people on average chasing work who the GOVERNMENT
> would probably admit if pushed are "non-scroungers". So the
> benefit that is accrued to the state in taxes paid is the same
> whether scroungers or non-scroungers fill the jobs.
>
> 3. SO what we have is not so much a "scroungers" problem as the
> government bang on about , but a jobs problem. And there is no
> financial benefit to the GOVERNMENT in forcing what they regard
> as scroungers into work as opposed to seeing the jobs filled by
> non-scroungers.
>
> There, can't explain it any simpler for you without drawing
> pictures. I have done my bit. THat is your lot from me on
> this thread.

Good grief man, you don't half talk bollocks at times. If 440,000 fewer people are signing on then that is a benefit to society ? you seem to be the one obsessed by "scroungers" and "non-scroungers". I haven't used that term and I don't recall any Government ministers saying that either...

What does it matter who fills the jobs as long as 440,000 fewer people are signing on?

[Gentleman]

But as long as the lives destroyed aren't the ones who vote for your party your onto a winner.

[Essex Lad]

David Johnson wrote:

> "How can there be no financial benefit in people not signing
> on? They pay tax and National Insurance, their employer pays
> National Insurance. They spend their money on stuff which
> bolsters the economy, etc etc."
>
> Good Grief man, can't you understand the simplest of arguments?
>
> 1. 440,00 long term unemployed (often referred to by the
> GOVERNMENT as "scroungers", go into work.
>
Which newspaper between 2010 and this month has most often used the word scroungers? Daily Express? No Daily Mail? Not even close. It is The Guardian ? seems that IF the government is referring to scroungers, it is only following the left-wing lead of Britain's worst newspaper.

[David Johnson]

"IF the government is referring to scroungers, it is only following the left-wing lead of Britain's worst newspaper."

Interesting concept. The government's language is set by the Guardian!

The bottom line is that, irrespective of the word used, the government is trying to demonise the unemployed with, for example, Osborne's story about one person going to work and their next door neighbour is still in bed with curtains drawn - skivers and strivers.

What matters is the government's determination to use division as a way of reducing the opposition to their policies e.g. setting private sector against public sector workers, those of working age against old age pensioners and the employed against the unemployed.

[Essex Lad]

David Johnson wrote:

> "IF the government is referring to scroungers, it is only
> following the left-wing lead of Britain's worst newspaper."
>
> Interesting concept. The government's language is set by the
> Guardian!
>
Wow ? the master of sarcasm cannot recognise sarcasm...