Road rules1 min ago
Dealing With Scroungers
51 Answers
The overwhelming majority of benefit claimants live in poverty, are treated unfairly, and need support not condemnation.
The government quite correctly insist that people are better off in work to escape poverty.
But, unemployment may be at an all time low, not surprising since there are so many temporary jobs about, and zero hour contracts.
So where are all the jobs that the benefit claimants should be applying for?
Yet there remains a very tiny number of people whose lifestyle choice is to reject work, and live on benefits.
Without being controversial or argumentatative, how should we deal with shirkers and scroungers?
The government quite correctly insist that people are better off in work to escape poverty.
But, unemployment may be at an all time low, not surprising since there are so many temporary jobs about, and zero hour contracts.
So where are all the jobs that the benefit claimants should be applying for?
Yet there remains a very tiny number of people whose lifestyle choice is to reject work, and live on benefits.
Without being controversial or argumentatative, how should we deal with shirkers and scroungers?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Theland. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The very clever and wily benefit cheats are hard to weed out, they tend to have things sewn up tight - we here about the big cases when they are discovered but not the smaller ones.
Many on benefits struggle but get by, some are perhaps in a poorer shape for all sorts of reasons - maybe they had debt before they became unemployed.
People comment on what they see around them , I look out of my window and may wonder why a particular youngish person isn't working, but I don't leap to a conclusion about them.
Many on benefits struggle but get by, some are perhaps in a poorer shape for all sorts of reasons - maybe they had debt before they became unemployed.
People comment on what they see around them , I look out of my window and may wonder why a particular youngish person isn't working, but I don't leap to a conclusion about them.
>>> "unemployment may be at an all time low"
Where are you getting your figures from, Theland? Even if we ignore two world wars and National Service (when unemployment figures were artificially low because so many men were in the armed forces), unemployment (expressed as the percentage of the available workforce without work) was far lower in the 1960s and early 1970s than it is today:
https:/
Regrettably though, there's no simple answer to your question about how to deal with 'shirkers and scroungers'. Attempts to do so (such as tightening up the tests for people claiming disability benefits) have a nasty habit of harming genuine claimants but leaving those who know how to 'play the system' totally unaffected.
Further, while the idea that such people should be 'forced to work' seems, on the face of it, to be a good one, it ignores the fact that no employer in their right mind is going to offer a job to someone who clearly has absolutely no interest in doing the job properly.
There are also 'borderline cases', such as people who are in receipt of benefits through some form of addiction. A neighbour of mine had an alcohol addiction, resulting in him receiving benefits. I met him coming out of the local JobCentre at 9.30am, stinking of whisky. (Who the hell would offer him a job in that condition?). As someone with an 'illness' it seemed perfectly right to me that he was getting support (especially as he had three kids) but, equally, knowing that he was making no attempt whatsoever to address his addiction, I felt annoyed that he was being allowed to 'scrounge' without limit. (That meeting was a long time ago. His kids have now grown up but he's still living off the state and clearly has no intention of doing otherwise).
As I've indicated in that example, the problem is complicated by the fact that cutting off a claimant's benefits can often harm perfectly innocent people (such as their children) who genuinely need help. So, while politicians (and newspaper editors) like to grasp at simplistic solutions, there isn't really an easy answer to the question you've posed. Perhaps if more people reported those who are blatantly fiddling the system to the authorities we might end up with fewer 'scroungers'?
Where are you getting your figures from, Theland? Even if we ignore two world wars and National Service (when unemployment figures were artificially low because so many men were in the armed forces), unemployment (expressed as the percentage of the available workforce without work) was far lower in the 1960s and early 1970s than it is today:
https:/
Regrettably though, there's no simple answer to your question about how to deal with 'shirkers and scroungers'. Attempts to do so (such as tightening up the tests for people claiming disability benefits) have a nasty habit of harming genuine claimants but leaving those who know how to 'play the system' totally unaffected.
Further, while the idea that such people should be 'forced to work' seems, on the face of it, to be a good one, it ignores the fact that no employer in their right mind is going to offer a job to someone who clearly has absolutely no interest in doing the job properly.
There are also 'borderline cases', such as people who are in receipt of benefits through some form of addiction. A neighbour of mine had an alcohol addiction, resulting in him receiving benefits. I met him coming out of the local JobCentre at 9.30am, stinking of whisky. (Who the hell would offer him a job in that condition?). As someone with an 'illness' it seemed perfectly right to me that he was getting support (especially as he had three kids) but, equally, knowing that he was making no attempt whatsoever to address his addiction, I felt annoyed that he was being allowed to 'scrounge' without limit. (That meeting was a long time ago. His kids have now grown up but he's still living off the state and clearly has no intention of doing otherwise).
As I've indicated in that example, the problem is complicated by the fact that cutting off a claimant's benefits can often harm perfectly innocent people (such as their children) who genuinely need help. So, while politicians (and newspaper editors) like to grasp at simplistic solutions, there isn't really an easy answer to the question you've posed. Perhaps if more people reported those who are blatantly fiddling the system to the authorities we might end up with fewer 'scroungers'?
"The overwhelming majority of benefit claimants live in poverty" that is not correct.
There are about twenty million claimants including thirteen million State Pensioners. There are about 1.9 million pensioners in poverty.
This means that even if every other claimant were in poverty, that would still be fewer than 50% in total.
There are about twenty million claimants including thirteen million State Pensioners. There are about 1.9 million pensioners in poverty.
This means that even if every other claimant were in poverty, that would still be fewer than 50% in total.
-- answer removed --
i have been out of work for some time now, and that was due to redundancy and the death of Mr Em shortly afterwards, then having ultimately three significant breakdowns over the last number of years i feel that i am justified in claiming what i do. Sadly i am being chased by the DWP to return to work, which has brought back on my panic attacks, they are anxiety led and i can do without them to be honest, don't know why i am posting this but some of us did work.
Latest Posts
News2 mins ago
ChatterBank4 mins ago
Crosswords6 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles10 mins ago
Business & Finance11 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.