FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > benefits 2
benefits 2
Jump to: Newest in thread
" I can live with private only and then not have any say or opinion on state charity. But only if I do not have to pay into it But I am not given the choice to opt out. Instead, I end up funding both. One because I am forced to, the other because I want to receive better than merely basic level of pension, inadequate medical care, etc. " Of course people should support themselves but that will never and has never worked for all, hence the formation of the NHS. The NHS has been around longer than the twenty years you have been here. That simply means that since its very beginnings it has been built, all of it, hospitals, health centres, carparks, laboratory's - each and ever brick and nail of it. The very antibiotics that you received, may have even saved your life, had a journey from discovery to development, testing and finally into you. To receive them you visited a doctor, be that a local surgery or hospital, the doctor made a diagnoses, ordered blood tests. Appointments were made, the very NHS infrastructure from receptionist, phylabotanist to the person inputting your results onto the computer, the phone call/letter giving you the results the cleaners and other staff essential for its upkeep were paid for by generations of people, not just since your arrival. Your posts have ignored them all, its entire history, meaningless, to be abused and discarded, unless you need antibiotics. Your personal payments over twenty years didn't pay for your treatment and medication, that's an inconvenient fact. No wonder people are now voting ukip, with attitudes like yours being openly displayed, peoples attitudes towards immigration are set to become an even more serious problem. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"so how would this work then ...lets do a scenario ...you are in a bad RTA and unconcious ...the emergency services arrive and take you to hospital and start treatment ...flashes up on their system that you are not NHS and not eligible for treatment ...what happens next ? " they sort you out, then charge you, which would be covered by private insurance | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"so how would this work then ...lets do a scenario ...you are in a bad RTA and unconcious ...the emergency services arrive and take you to hospital and start treatment ...flashes up on their system that you are not NHS and not eligible for treatment ...what happens next ? " Would you be entitled to use the emergency services? Or would the private insurance just pick up the cost but you would need to claim after the event? I can see it working and it would certainly create jobs to administer the system or issuing itemised bills etc | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Private healthcare is fine for those who can afford it without insurance (not many), but when you have an ongoing medical condition, the insurance companies pile on the premium costs. Also, a large number of private hospitals are not set up to deal with emergencies and send their patients to the NHS to be treated. The NHS is something we all pay for and all use at some time and should be supported by us all." As long as the people with private health insurance didn't feel they were entitled to be treated before NHS patients if they'd opted out of paying contributions in the normal way I think it is worth considering but the admin would be huge and quite costly. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do people assume by paying for private health care they get better treatment or just queue jump and pay through the nose for the same treatment NHS patients get in a better hospital with better food and lodgings? The consultants will be the same ones treating everyone. They do their private work on top of the NHS work. My dad had his treatment and was told the private patients are what keeps the place running. Same hospital,same staff,private ward." It's often speed. I've paid (not via insurance) for a minor surgery before. I would have waited around 6 months on the NHS, it was something that wasn't affecting my health but was really affecting my confidence. Going private I had it done within 2 weeks. Everyone benefited really, because me being prepared to pay freed up a slot for someone who wasn't. I've never understood criticising people for going private. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do people assume by paying for private health care they get better treatment or just queue jump and pay through the nose for the same treatment NHS patients get in a better hospital with better food and lodgings? The consultants will be the same ones treating everyone. They do their private work on top of the NHS work. My dad had his treatment and was told the private patients are what keeps the place running. Same hospital,same staff,private ward." Speed convenience great food and better surroundings all carried out by the same NHS doctors. In terms of nursing care I would say the same as I have experienced great care at the hands of the NHS and the same privately. My Dad pays for my insurance so I'm happy to go private as it obviously costs me nothing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" ...what happens next ? they sort you out, then charge you, which would be covered by private insurance" but if the hospital has no beds available and an nhs patient arrives ...what then ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" ...what happens next ? they sort you out, then charge you, which would be covered by private insurance but if the hospital has no beds available and an nhs patient arrives ...what then ?" Lethal injection then into the incinerator. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do people assume by paying for private health care they get better treatment or just queue jump and pay through the nose for the same treatment NHS patients get in a better hospital with better food and lodgings? The consultants will be the same ones treating everyone. They do their private work on top of the NHS work. My dad had his treatment and was told the private patients are what keeps the place running. Same hospital,same staff,private ward. It's often speed. I've paid (not via insurance) for a minor surgery before. I would have waited around 6 months on the NHS, it was something that wasn't affecting my health but was really affecting my confidence. Going private I had it done within 2 weeks. Everyone benefited really, because me being prepared to pay freed up a slot for someone who wasn't. I've never understood criticising people for going private. " I'm all for people paying privately to get off the nhs waiting list,if they can afford it. They don't get preferential treatment,just get it done quicker and in a nicer hospital. Saying that,I had a referral to a clinic and one month later was being operated on. I was very surprised at how quickly it all happened. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" ...what happens next ? they sort you out, then charge you, which would be covered by private insurance but if the hospital has no beds available and an nhs patient arrives ...what then ? Lethal injection then into the incinerator. " I would assume there would be private wards for private only patients. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" ...what happens next ? they sort you out, then charge you, which would be covered by private insurance but if the hospital has no beds available and an nhs patient arrives ...what then ? Lethal injection then into the incinerator. I would assume there would be private wards for private only patients. " Oh , what about just sticking your finger in the wound and giving it a wiggle. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do people assume by paying for private health care they get better treatment or just queue jump and pay through the nose for the same treatment NHS patients get in a better hospital with better food and lodgings? The consultants will be the same ones treating everyone. They do their private work on top of the NHS work. My dad had his treatment and was told the private patients are what keeps the place running. Same hospital,same staff,private ward. It's often speed. I've paid (not via insurance) for a minor surgery before. I would have waited around 6 months on the NHS, it was something that wasn't affecting my health but was really affecting my confidence. Going private I had it done within 2 weeks. Everyone benefited really, because me being prepared to pay freed up a slot for someone who wasn't. I've never understood criticising people for going private. I'm all for people paying privately to get off the nhs waiting list,if they can afford it. They don't get preferential treatment,just get it done quicker and in a nicer hospital. Saying that,I had a referral to a clinic and one month later was being operated on. I was very surprised at how quickly it all happened. " If I could have had this done in a month I'd have saved myself a grand and waited. But the difference between 2 weeks and 6 months made it worth paying for! And the convenience of being able to have more influence over when the appointments were, I could actually express a preference rather than wait for a letter to come in the post for an appointment I can't go to because of work, then have to start the whole thing again. That's worth paying for to me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" ...what happens next ? they sort you out, then charge you, which would be covered by private insurance but if the hospital has no beds available and an nhs patient arrives ...what then ? Lethal injection then into the incinerator. " An incinerator that powers the nhs hospital, like st mary's at sidcup.....win win  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"so how would this work then ...lets do a scenario ...you are in a bad RTA and unconcious ...the emergency services arrive and take you to hospital and start treatment ...flashes up on their system that you are not NHS and not eligible for treatment ...what happens next ? they sort you out, then charge you, which would be covered by private insurance" So basically you opt out but still get tge best of both worlds? Is that not a bit selfish? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" they sort you out, then charge you, which would be covered by private insurance So basically you opt out but still get tge best of both worlds? Is that not a bit selfish? I think that's how they think it would work ...still use NHS GP surgery's and paramedics and laboratories etc etc " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I went private 18 months ago, was in within two weeks, chauffer driven to the private hospital and back and even chose what time slot I wanted. I freed up an NHS place " I have private heath care as well for me and my children it was the only way I could get an operation for my daughter 18 years we waited and still nothing so I went private I still have to pay into the NHS though, personally I think there should be an opt out system, if you don't use it why pay into it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“I am paying into a private pension scheme back home. I pay close to 40% of my net income into that and then once a year, obtain a refund on the tax I have paid on that income. Isn't that what you do?”" In which case you are receiving a state benefit in the form of a tax refund. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I went private 18 months ago, was in within two weeks, chauffer driven to the private hospital and back and even chose what time slot I wanted. I freed up an NHS place I have private heath care as well for me and my children it was the only way I could get an operation for my daughter 18 years we waited and still nothing so I went private I still have to pay into the NHS though, personally I think there should be an opt out system, if you don't use it why pay into it" I don't have private healthcare I just paid the £6500 I'm having my next op private as well | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I went private 18 months ago, was in within two weeks, chauffer driven to the private hospital and back and even chose what time slot I wanted. I freed up an NHS place I have private heath care as well for me and my children it was the only way I could get an operation for my daughter 18 years we waited and still nothing so I went private I still have to pay into the NHS though, personally I think there should be an opt out system, if you don't use it why pay into it" Are you happy to pay for the fire brigade if you haven't called them out either? or school's budget if you don't have children? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That's great ...so you would pay privately to see a gp and paramedics ..it sounds like the way forward to me ...all these people opting out of the NHS should free our doctors surgery's up no end" I wouldn't opted out, I get so many benefits from the NHS, but if I can afford to go private for an op I might have to wait a year for then I will | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Josie said I can live with private only and then not have any say or opinion on state charity. But only if I do not have to pay into it But I am not given the choice to opt out. Instead, I end up funding both. One because I am forced to, the other because I want to receive better than merely basic level of pension, inadequate medical care, etc. Of course people should support themselves but that will never and has never worked for all, hence the formation of the NHS. The NHS has been around longer than the twenty years you have been here. That simply means that since its very beginnings it has been built, all of it, hospitals, health centres, carparks, laboratory's - each and ever brick and nail of it. The very antibiotics that you received, may have even saved your life, had a journey from discovery to development, testing and finally into you. To receive them you visited a doctor, be that a local surgery or hospital, the doctor made a diagnoses, ordered blood tests. Appointments were made, the very NHS infrastructure from receptionist, phylabotanist to the person inputting your results onto the computer, the phone call/letter giving you the results the cleaners and other staff essential for its upkeep were paid for by generations of people, not just since your arrival. Your posts have ignored them all, its entire history, meaningless, to be abused and discarded, unless you need antibiotics. Your personal payments over twenty years didn't pay for your treatment and medication, that's an inconvenient fact. No wonder people are now voting ukip, with attitudes like yours being openly displayed, peoples attitudes towards immigration are set to become an even more serious problem. " But all that has to be paid for when I visit a private GP in my area too. I do that sometimes as my NHS GP can only sometimes give me an appointment during working hours and during working hours, I am working, even if I have a mild infection The private GP charges me £150 for a 20 minute consultation and the medication resulting from such a consultation generally costs me less than £100 Seems to me that in relation to private medical care, the NHS is very costly and inefficient, but still I have no choice but to keep on paying into that as well | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I went private 18 months ago, was in within two weeks, chauffer driven to the private hospital and back and even chose what time slot I wanted. I freed up an NHS place I have private heath care as well for me and my children it was the only way I could get an operation for my daughter 18 years we waited and still nothing so I went private I still have to pay into the NHS though, personally I think there should be an opt out system, if you don't use it why pay into it Are you happy to pay for the fire brigade if you haven't called them out either? or school's budget if you don't have children?" You never know when you may need the fire brigade so of course I'm happy to pay for that because I may need them one day, fingers crossed I won't but I know I will never use a NHS hospital, why would I pay every month into a private care plan and go to an NHS hospital? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I went private 18 months ago, was in within two weeks, chauffer driven to the private hospital and back and even chose what time slot I wanted. I freed up an NHS place I have private heath care as well for me and my children it was the only way I could get an operation for my daughter 18 years we waited and still nothing so I went private I still have to pay into the NHS though, personally I think there should be an opt out system, if you don't use it why pay into it Are you happy to pay for the fire brigade if you haven't called them out either? or school's budget if you don't have children? You never know when you may need the fire brigade so of course I'm happy to pay for that because I may need them one day, fingers crossed I won't but I know I will never use a NHS hospital, why would I pay every month into a private care plan and go to an NHS hospital?"what if you get run over or have another kind of serious accident or your children do. Don't think the ambulances give you a choice of which hospital you go to when your half dead. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I went private 18 months ago, was in within two weeks, chauffer driven to the private hospital and back and even chose what time slot I wanted. I freed up an NHS place I have private heath care as well for me and my children it was the only way I could get an operation for my daughter 18 years we waited and still nothing so I went private I still have to pay into the NHS though, personally I think there should be an opt out system, if you don't use it why pay into it Are you happy to pay for the fire brigade if you haven't called them out either? or school's budget if you don't have children? You never know when you may need the fire brigade so of course I'm happy to pay for that because I may need them one day, fingers crossed I won't but I know I will never use a NHS hospital, why would I pay every month into a private care plan and go to an NHS hospital?". If you scrapped the NHS those private plans that use nhs facilities would cost more than you could afford unless you make a 100k a year. Take a look at America where even people in very good jobs can't afford health care unless their company provides it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I went private 18 months ago, was in within two weeks, chauffer driven to the private hospital and back and even chose what time slot I wanted. I freed up an NHS place I have private heath care as well for me and my children it was the only way I could get an operation for my daughter 18 years we waited and still nothing so I went private I still have to pay into the NHS though, personally I think there should be an opt out system, if you don't use it why pay into it Are you happy to pay for the fire brigade if you haven't called them out either? or school's budget if you don't have children? You never know when you may need the fire brigade so of course I'm happy to pay for that because I may need them one day, fingers crossed I won't but I know I will never use a NHS hospital, why would I pay every month into a private care plan and go to an NHS hospital?"But there are plenty of people who help you go about your life who do use the NHS | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do people assume by paying for private health care they get better treatment or just queue jump and pay through the nose for the same treatment NHS patients get in a better hospital with better food and lodgings? The consultants will be the same ones treating everyone. They do their private work on top of the NHS work. My dad had his treatment and was told the private patients are what keeps the place running. Same hospital,same staff,private ward." True But as I said above the went private to get my daughter an operation, it wasn't a life saving operation so wasn't a priority for the NHS but it was a life changing operating, for her it was the difference between walking unaided or not so I went private Tell me one parent which wouldn't do the same for their child | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Josie said - “I am paying into a private pension scheme back home. I pay close to 40% of my net income into that and then once a year, obtain a refund on the tax I have paid on that income. Isn't that what you do?” In which case you are receiving a state benefit in the form of a tax refund." No, I am not. I am simply not paying for my pension twice And I am still funding other people's state pension, Employment Support Allowance, NHS funding, Housing benefit, Child Care, etc, etc, etc. What I get in return is that my refuse gets collected every fortnight and I have the privilege of driving around potholes | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Do people assume by paying for private health care they get better treatment or just queue jump and pay through the nose for the same treatment NHS patients get in a better hospital with better food and lodgings? The consultants will be the same ones treating everyone. They do their private work on top of the NHS work. My dad had his treatment and was told the private patients are what keeps the place running. Same hospital,same staff,private ward. True But as I said above the went private to get my daughter an operation, it wasn't a life saving operation so wasn't a priority for the NHS but it was a life changing operating, for her it was the difference between walking unaided or not so I went private Tell me one parent which wouldn't do the same for their child " No ones going to criticise you for that are they, I don't think anyone's said they have a problem with private healthcare, but saying "I don't use it so why should I pay for it" is at best a bit mean and at worst I'm okay fuck the rest of you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Josie said - “I am paying into a private pension scheme back home. I pay close to 40% of my net income into that and then once a year, obtain a refund on the tax I have paid on that income. Isn't that what you do?” In which case you are receiving a state benefit in the form of a tax refund. No, I am not. I am simply not paying for my pension twice And I am still funding other people's state pension, Employment Support Allowance, NHS funding, Housing benefit, Child Care, etc, etc, etc. What I get in return is that my refuse gets collected every fortnight and I have the privilege of driving around potholes" . Why don't you go live on a island in the pacific where you live on your own and keep all your money and wallow in your self satisfaction of supporting nobody! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the benefits system is a wonderful thing and should be there to support those who through no fault of their own are out of work or can't work. The lazy and the feckless who hide behind made up illnesses and the like should simply not get benefits at all. Let them rot in the gutter. " 
These services, when funded by all, become fair. When funded by only some for the long-term unemployed, the lazy, the wok-shy, the unskilled, become unfair
There are people who have been unemployed for 6+ months. Heck, there are people who have been unemployed for 6+ years. If I can find another job, twice, within 3 months of being made redundant, what is stopping them?
Excuses, excuses, excuses .....
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Josie said - “I am paying into a private pension scheme back home. I pay close to 40% of my net income into that and then once a year, obtain a refund on the tax I have paid on that income. Isn't that what you do?” In which case you are receiving a state benefit in the form of a tax refund. No, I am not. I am simply not paying for my pension twice And I am still funding other people's state pension, Employment Support Allowance, NHS funding, Housing benefit, Child Care, etc, etc, etc. What I get in return is that my refuse gets collected every fortnight and I have the privilege of driving around potholes. Why don't you go live on a island in the pacific where you live on your own and keep all your money and wallow in your self satisfaction of supporting nobody!" They don't have swinger's clubs there, state-funded or otherwise | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Russia, Dubai, Singapore, USA, Columbia. There's dozens of non socialist low taxation counties, why moan about living in one..... Your free to leave anytime you like." So are you. Then there will be one less mouth for me to feed  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I went private 18 months ago, was in within two weeks, chauffer driven to the private hospital and back and even chose what time slot I wanted. I freed up an NHS place I have private heath care as well for me and my children it was the only way I could get an operation for my daughter 18 years we waited and still nothing so I went private I still have to pay into the NHS though, personally I think there should be an opt out system, if you don't use it why pay into it Are you happy to pay for the fire brigade if you haven't called them out either? or school's budget if you don't have children? You never know when you may need the fire brigade so of course I'm happy to pay for that because I may need them one day, fingers crossed I won't but I know I will never use a NHS hospital, why would I pay every month into a private care plan and go to an NHS hospital?.
If you scrapped the NHS those private plans that use nhs facilities would cost more than you could afford unless you make a 100k a year.
Take a look at America where even people in very good jobs can't afford health care unless their company provides it?"Who will fund the NHS if the employed opted out? Where did you think the funding materialises from? I think the issue will be how the long-term unemployed will receive medical treatment, not how the employed will receive medical treatment Companies provide Private Medical Insurance as part of the remuneration package. It is not a 'hand-out', like benefits are | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Josie said - “I am paying into a private pension scheme back home. I pay close to 40% of my net income into that and then once a year, obtain a refund on the tax I have paid on that income. Isn't that what you do?” In which case you are receiving a state benefit in the form of a tax refund. No, I am not. I am simply not paying for my pension twice And I am still funding other people's state pension, Employment Support Allowance, NHS funding, Housing benefit, Child Care, etc, etc, etc. What I get in return is that my refuse gets collected every fortnight and I have the privilege of driving around potholes" I think you;ll find your refuse and most roads come out of local authority budgets not your tax | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Russia, Dubai, Singapore, USA, Columbia. There's dozens of non socialist low taxation counties, why moan about living in one..... Your free to leave anytime you like. So are you. Then there will be one less mouth for me to feed "Your money is more likely going towards allowing the inland revenue to give tax breaks to big business, rather than feeding a fellow human being. But hey I guess the corporations create jobs and thats whats important right? Spend spend, consume consume? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I went private 18 months ago, was in within two weeks, chauffer driven to the private hospital and back and even chose what time slot I wanted. I freed up an NHS place I have private heath care as well for me and my children it was the only way I could get an operation for my daughter 18 years we waited and still nothing so I went private I still have to pay into the NHS though, personally I think there should be an opt out system, if you don't use it why pay into it Are you happy to pay for the fire brigade if you haven't called them out either? or school's budget if you don't have children? You never know when you may need the fire brigade so of course I'm happy to pay for that because I may need them one day, fingers crossed I won't but I know I will never use a NHS hospital, why would I pay every month into a private care plan and go to an NHS hospital?.
If you scrapped the NHS those private plans that use nhs facilities would cost more than you could afford unless you make a 100k a year.
Take a look at America where even people in very good jobs can't afford health care unless their company provides it?
Who will fund the NHS if the employed opted out? Where did you think the funding materialises from?
I think the issue will be how the long-term unemployed will receive medical treatment, not how the employed will receive medical treatment
Companies provide Private Medical Insurance as part of the remuneration package. It is not a 'hand-out', like benefits are"Does your private healthcare cover procedures like anal bleaching? Should check it out. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Josie said - “I am paying into a private pension scheme back home. I pay close to 40% of my net income into that and then once a year, obtain a refund on the tax I have paid on that income. Isn't that what you do?” In which case you are receiving a state benefit in the form of a tax refund. No, I am not. I am simply not paying for my pension twice And I am still funding other people's state pension, Employment Support Allowance, NHS funding, Housing benefit, Child Care, etc, etc, etc. What I get in return is that my refuse gets collected every fortnight and I have the privilege of driving around potholes I think you;ll find your refuse and most roads come out of local authority budgets not your tax "Yes, my Council Tax, which is something else I have to pay and my refuse gets collected 26 times times a year. Almost £100 per binful seems a bit excessive to me | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I went private 18 months ago, was in within two weeks, chauffer driven to the private hospital and back and even chose what time slot I wanted. I freed up an NHS place I have private heath care as well for me and my children it was the only way I could get an operation for my daughter 18 years we waited and still nothing so I went private I still have to pay into the NHS though, personally I think there should be an opt out system, if you don't use it why pay into it Are you happy to pay for the fire brigade if you haven't called them out either? or school's budget if you don't have children? You never know when you may need the fire brigade so of course I'm happy to pay for that because I may need them one day, fingers crossed I won't but I know I will never use a NHS hospital, why would I pay every month into a private care plan and go to an NHS hospital?.
If you scrapped the NHS those private plans that use nhs facilities would cost more than you could afford unless you make a 100k a year.
Take a look at America where even people in very good jobs can't afford health care unless their company provides it?
Who will fund the NHS if the employed opted out? Where did you think the funding materialises from?
I think the issue will be how the long-term unemployed will receive medical treatment, not how the employed will receive medical treatment
Companies provide Private Medical Insurance as part of the remuneration package. It is not a 'hand-out', like benefits are
Does your private healthcare cover procedures like anal bleaching? Should check it out. "Does yours? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think the issue will be how the long-term unemployed will receive medical treatment, not how the employed will receive medical treatment Companies provide Private Medical Insurance as part of the remuneration package. It is not a 'hand-out', like benefits are" Since when has paying "National Insurance" for over 35 years,then claiming benefits because your to sick to work been a hand out. If thats the case then any claim made against an Insurance policy is simply a "hand out" as you put it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Russia, Dubai, Singapore, USA, Columbia. There's dozens of non socialist low taxation counties, why moan about living in one..... Your free to leave anytime you like. So are you. Then there will be one less mouth for me to feed
Your money is more likely going towards allowing the inland revenue to give tax breaks to big business, rather than feeding a fellow human being. But hey I guess the corporations create jobs and thats whats important right? Spend spend, consume consume? "How about, work, work, save, save, plan, plan instead of laze, laze, and live off others. Must reach a point where one must become immune to feeling any shame; just a feeling of entitlement remains | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Yes, my Council Tax, which is something else I have to pay and my refuse gets collected 26 times times a year. Almost £100 per binful seems a bit excessive to me "Of every pound you spend in council tax, around 35p goes on adult social care and 15p on children's social care. Refuse collection you're talking at most 8p. This is why people don't feel they get much for their council tax, because broken down like that, they don't. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Josie said - “I am paying into a private pension scheme back home. I pay close to 40% of my net income into that and then once a year, obtain a refund on the tax I have paid on that income. Isn't that what you do?” In which case you are receiving a state benefit in the form of a tax refund. No, I am not. I am simply not paying for my pension twice And I am still funding other people's state pension, Employment Support Allowance, NHS funding, Housing benefit, Child Care, etc, etc, etc. What I get in return is that my refuse gets collected every fortnight and I have the privilege of driving around potholes" No you are claiming a tax refund on 40% of your net income. If you bought booze with that 40% you would not be allowed to claim a tax rebate but because you choose to buy a private pension scheme you are entitled to a benifit called a tax rebate. Hoist with one's own petard comes to mind. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Who will fund the NHS if the employed opted out? Where did you think the funding materialises from? I think the issue will be how the long-term unemployed will receive medical treatment, not how the employed will receive medical treatment Companies provide Private Medical Insurance as part of the remuneration package. It is not a 'hand-out', like benefits are Does your private healthcare cover procedures like anal bleaching? Should check it out. Does yours? "If I needed it I'd pay for it the same as I paid for my boobs. Honestly now you can't think the way you do, well you can it's your choice but educate yourself on exactly how much things cost. You're not single handedly supporting the entire welfare state, if you had an itemised breakdown of exactly what your income tax pays for I don't think you'd moan as much about the things you're moaning about. You don't mind paying foreign aid or paying for EU membership? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Josie said - Yes, my Council Tax, which is something else I have to pay and my refuse gets collected 26 times times a year. Almost £100 per binful seems a bit excessive to me "You really need to stop digging,before the ladder becomes as short as your knowledge of local government provisions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I think the issue will be how the long-term unemployed will receive medical treatment, not how the employed will receive medical treatment Companies provide Private Medical Insurance as part of the remuneration package. It is not a 'hand-out', like benefits are Since when has paying "National Insurance" for over 35 years,then claiming benefits because your to sick to work been a hand out. If thats the case then any claim made against an Insurance policy is simply a "hand out" as you put it. " I am talking about the lazy who make excuses why they cannot work rather than those who have paid their fair share and just like with any insurance policy, now need to make a claim through no fault of their own | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Russia, Dubai, Singapore, USA, Columbia. There's dozens of non socialist low taxation counties, why moan about living in one..... Your free to leave anytime you like. So are you. Then there will be one less mouth for me to feed ". But I'm a socialist and like living in a socialist country like the uk, it's why I continue to live here  .
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Russia, Dubai, Singapore, USA, Columbia. There's dozens of non socialist low taxation counties, why moan about living in one..... Your free to leave anytime you like. So are you. Then there will be one less mouth for me to feed
Your money is more likely going towards allowing the inland revenue to give tax breaks to big business, rather than feeding a fellow human being. But hey I guess the corporations create jobs and thats whats important right? Spend spend, consume consume?
How about, work, work, save, save, plan, plan instead of laze, laze, and live off others. Must reach a point where one must become immune to feeling any shame; just a feeling of entitlement remains "Look I know plenty of lads who would rather play call of duty than get a job, and plenty of lasses who are eying up the next cash cow sperm donor. These people are leeches, I agree with you 100%. However the fact is that the amount of money leaked out of the UK's economy due to these people is negligible in comparison to the amount corporations are stealing from us all while giving politicians a nice golden handshake. If you want someone to be mad at, pick on Rupert Murdoch and the like paying less than 10% tax, not society's most vulnerable. Rampant individualism and the erosion of any kind of social conscience is destroying this county. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Josie said - Yes, my Council Tax, which is something else I have to pay and my refuse gets collected 26 times times a year. Almost £100 per binful seems a bit excessive to me
You really need to stop digging,before the ladder becomes as short as your knowledge of local government provisions.
"I don't need to do any such thing. I know that I am not getting anywhere near the almost £100 per week which I pay into my Council Tax The funding for anything does not come from outer space; it comes from the employed through their Income Tax, NI contributions, Council Tax and other such taxes. The unemployed do not contribute a single penny; they take money away from the system and make excuses why they cannot find employment I see the unemployed driving in cars. Who is paying for this? I see the unemployed spending their entire days on the Internet. Who pays for this and why aren't they spending their time looking for a job instead? So don't try and confuse the issue | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I am talking about the lazy who make excuses why they cannot work rather than those who have paid their fair share and just like with any insurance policy, now need to make a claim through no fault of their own" Right can I ask, do you have any experience of working within local government? I didn't work for "Josie" for 7 years I worked for The Department of Work and Pensions. The "lazy" that you're describing I'm assuming you mean the people who say they can't work due to illness or disability. Those people are assessed every 6 months and have to provide sick notes from their GP or hospital to cover them and they have personal capability assessments with the jobcentres own GP's to confirm that the people claiming sickness benefit are actually sick. Is it really fair to call these people lazy? Under your rule you'd stick a paintbrush in a paraplegics mouth and tell him the poor fucker that he should be out painting walls or something. As for JSA claimants the rules on claiming unemployment benefit now are insane, after 4 weeks they have to sign on weekly they have to provide evidence of looking and applying for jobs or else their benefit is stopped it's as simple as that. As for lone parents claiming income support they have until their child is 4 years old and then they have to claim job seekers allowance and will be under the same rules. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Russia, Dubai, Singapore, USA, Columbia. There's dozens of non socialist low taxation counties, why moan about living in one..... Your free to leave anytime you like. So are you. Then there will be one less mouth for me to feed
Your money is more likely going towards allowing the inland revenue to give tax breaks to big business, rather than feeding a fellow human being. But hey I guess the corporations create jobs and thats whats important right? Spend spend, consume consume?
How about, work, work, save, save, plan, plan instead of laze, laze, and live off others. Must reach a point where one must become immune to feeling any shame; just a feeling of entitlement remains
Look I know plenty of lads who would rather play call of duty than get a job, and plenty of lasses who are eying up the next cash cow sperm donor. These people are leeches, I agree with you 100%. However the fact is that the amount of money leaked out of the UK's economy due to these people is negligible in comparison to the amount corporations are stealing from us all while giving politicians a nice golden handshake.
If you want someone to be mad at, pick on Rupert Murdoch and the like paying less than 10% tax, not society's most vulnerable.
Rampant individualism and the erosion of any kind of social conscience is destroying this county. "Fair point; I do not disagree with you on that However, I wouldn't let a thief steal from me and not say anything. So why would I stay quiet about these people who are doing exactly the same by 'playing the system' | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I am talking about the lazy who make excuses why they cannot work rather than those who have paid their fair share and just like with any insurance policy, now need to make a claim through no fault of their own Right can I ask, do you have any experience of working within local government? I didn't work for "Josie" for 7 years I worked for The Department of Work and Pensions. The "lazy" that you're describing I'm assuming you mean the people who say they can't work due to illness or disability. Those people are assessed every 6 months and have to provide sick notes from their GP or hospital to cover them and they have personal capability assessments with the jobcentres own GP's to confirm that the people claiming sickness benefit are actually sick. Is it really fair to call these people lazy? Under your rule you'd stick a paintbrush in a paraplegics mouth and tell him the poor fucker that he should be out painting walls or something. As for JSA claimants the rules on claiming unemployment benefit now are insane, after 4 weeks they have to sign on weekly they have to provide evidence of looking and applying for jobs or else their benefit is stopped it's as simple as that. As for lone parents claiming income support they have until their child is 4 years old and then they have to claim job seekers allowance and will be under the same rules. " The lazy I am describing are the ones who claim that they cannot find jobs The ones who are ill or disabled do NOT fall into that category, whether they became ill or disabled after working for a few years and contributing or whether they were ill or disabled from birth and never got their chance to contribute | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Russia, Dubai, Singapore, USA, Columbia. There's dozens of non socialist low taxation counties, why moan about living in one..... Your free to leave anytime you like. So are you. Then there will be one less mouth for me to feed
Your money is more likely going towards allowing the inland revenue to give tax breaks to big business, rather than feeding a fellow human being. But hey I guess the corporations create jobs and thats whats important right? Spend spend, consume consume?
How about, work, work, save, save, plan, plan instead of laze, laze, and live off others. Must reach a point where one must become immune to feeling any shame; just a feeling of entitlement remains
Look I know plenty of lads who would rather play call of duty than get a job, and plenty of lasses who are eying up the next cash cow sperm donor. These people are leeches, I agree with you 100%. However the fact is that the amount of money leaked out of the UK's economy due to these people is negligible in comparison to the amount corporations are stealing from us all while giving politicians a nice golden handshake.
If you want someone to be mad at, pick on Rupert Murdoch and the like paying less than 10% tax, not society's most vulnerable.
Rampant individualism and the erosion of any kind of social conscience is destroying this county. "
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Yes, my Council Tax, which is something else I have to pay and my refuse gets collected 26 times times a year. Almost £100 per binful seems a bit excessive to me
Of every pound you spend in council tax, around 35p goes on adult social care and 15p on children's social care. Refuse collection you're talking at most 8p. This is why people don't feel they get much for their council tax, because broken down like that, they don't. "Is there a simple way to find out this information for your local authority? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The lazy I am describing are the ones who claim that they cannot find jobs The ones who are ill or disabled do NOT fall into that category, whether they became ill or disabled after working for a few years and contributing or whether they were ill or disabled from birth and never got their chance to contribute" Maybe if you did a little research,you would find,benefit fraud is less than 1% of all claimed amounts. Perhaps if you read facts instead of some party propaganda spiel,you would realise just how little it actually does cost the tax payer. Far less than you actually think | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Russia, Dubai, Singapore, USA, Columbia. There's dozens of non socialist low taxation counties, why moan about living in one..... Your free to leave anytime you like. So are you. Then there will be one less mouth for me to feed
Your money is more likely going towards allowing the inland revenue to give tax breaks to big business, rather than feeding a fellow human being. But hey I guess the corporations create jobs and thats whats important right? Spend spend, consume consume?
How about, work, work, save, save, plan, plan instead of laze, laze, and live off others. Must reach a point where one must become immune to feeling any shame; just a feeling of entitlement remains
Look I know plenty of lads who would rather play call of duty than get a job, and plenty of lasses who are eying up the next cash cow sperm donor. These people are leeches, I agree with you 100%. However the fact is that the amount of money leaked out of the UK's economy due to these people is negligible in comparison to the amount corporations are stealing from us all while giving politicians a nice golden handshake.
If you want someone to be mad at, pick on Rupert Murdoch and the like paying less than 10% tax, not society's most vulnerable.
Rampant individualism and the erosion of any kind of social conscience is destroying this county.
Fair point; I do not disagree with you on that
However, I wouldn't let a thief steal from me and not say anything. So why would I stay quiet about these people who are doing exactly the same by 'playing the system'"Because it is part of the system. If you want to support those in need, whatever system is in place will be open to abuse. I've seen the way the people you refer to live, it's not nice and if they have no aspirations or motivation, then they are welcome to it. There are much more pressing concerns when it comes to the way public money is spent. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Yes, my Council Tax, which is something else I have to pay and my refuse gets collected 26 times times a year. Almost £100 per binful seems a bit excessive to me
Of every pound you spend in council tax, around 35p goes on adult social care and 15p on children's social care. Refuse collection you're talking at most 8p. This is why people don't feel they get much for their council tax, because broken down like that, they don't.
Is there a simple way to find out this information for your local authority? "Those figures are averages from a LGA report. I know where to find it for mine; not sure if yours produces something similar....perhaps the budget report? (If you're really interested I can work it out for you with my insider knowledge  ) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The lazy I am describing are the ones who claim that they cannot find jobs The ones who are ill or disabled do NOT fall into that category, whether they became ill or disabled after working for a few years and contributing or whether they were ill or disabled from birth and never got their chance to contribute Maybe if you did a little research,you would find,benefit fraud is less than 1% of all claimed amounts. Perhaps if you read facts instead of some party propaganda spiel,you would realise just how little it actually does cost the tax payer. Far less than you actually think "1% doesn't sound much at all. Of course in cash terms that's £1 billion which does sound quite a lot. Then there's the estimated £4 billion lost because of 'mistakes' that could be added to that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The lazy I am describing are the ones who claim that they cannot find jobs The ones who are ill or disabled do NOT fall into that category, whether they became ill or disabled after working for a few years and contributing or whether they were ill or disabled from birth and never got their chance to contribute" Right ok, now that's established I'll educate you on the people that fall into that category, the JSA claimants. The ones who "claim they cannot find jobs" ok, they'll be split into different categories as well, you'll have the 18-24 year olds who perhaps have left education and have jumped straight I to claiming benefits, they start a claim for Job seekers allowance, they'll have help producing CV's they are stage 1 claimants because they are usually easier to find employment for, they might not have kids, might still live at home and can basically do any jobs and any hours, they are also places on training courses to give them skills if they haven't had any previous employment. That category isn't a problem, that category is never really on JSA longer than 6 months. The hardest demographic to find employment for are the people that have been working and have lost their jobs through NO fault of their own. They're within the 25-65 year old category, also the category in which the minimum wage increases, a small business when faced with taking on someone over 25 versus an 18 year old who they can pay less, who are they gonna choose? The people that have been working and have lost their jobs do you think they want to be surviving on £70 quid a week, a tenner a day? Do you really really think they make excuses not to find work and try and live off a tenner a day? I've had people with shit hot CV's and so much experience and they're disheartened every week because they aren't getting interviews. I've had to manipulate people's CV's by telling people not to put their date of birth on there and only give the minimum amount of employment history just so the employers don't know how old they are and maybe will get them in for an interview. Positive discrimatiom does go on, companies need so many men so many women, so many people with slight disabilities, different ethnicities, maybe chuck a lesbian or gay into the mix just to make sure they're doing their bit. Honestly now the people that are claiming unemployment benefit really do not want to be on it. Your attitude is quite bad, amusing but bad. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The lazy I am describing are the ones who claim that they cannot find jobs The ones who are ill or disabled do NOT fall into that category, whether they became ill or disabled after working for a few years and contributing or whether they were ill or disabled from birth and never got their chance to contribute Maybe if you did a little research,you would find,benefit fraud is less than 1% of all claimed amounts. Perhaps if you read facts instead of some party propaganda spiel,you would realise just how little it actually does cost the tax payer. Far less than you actually think
1% doesn't sound much at all. Of course in cash terms that's £1 billion which does sound quite a lot. Then there's the estimated £4 billion lost because of 'mistakes' that could be added to that."1% of £5 billion is not £1 billion at all.That would be 20%. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The lazy I am describing are the ones who claim that they cannot find jobs The ones who are ill or disabled do NOT fall into that category, whether they became ill or disabled after working for a few years and contributing or whether they were ill or disabled from birth and never got their chance to contribute Right ok, now that's established I'll educate you on the people that fall into that category, the JSA claimants. The ones who "claim they cannot find jobs" ok, they'll be split into different categories as well, you'll have the 18-24 year olds who perhaps have left education and have jumped straight I to claiming benefits, they start a claim for Job seekers allowance, they'll have help producing CV's they are stage 1 claimants because they are usually easier to find employment for, they might not have kids, might still live at home and can basically do any jobs and any hours, they are also places on training courses to give them skills if they haven't had any previous employment. That category isn't a problem, that category is never really on JSA longer than 6 months. The hardest demographic to find employment for are the people that have been working and have lost their jobs through NO fault of their own. They're within the 25-65 year old category, also the category in which the minimum wage increases, a small business when faced with taking on someone over 25 versus an 18 year old who they can pay less, who are they gonna choose? The people that have been working and have lost their jobs do you think they want to be surviving on £70 quid a week, a tenner a day? Do you really really think they make excuses not to find work and try and live off a tenner a day? I've had people with shit hot CV's and so much experience and they're disheartened every week because they aren't getting interviews. I've had to manipulate people's CV's by telling people not to put their date of birth on there and only give the minimum amount of employment history just so the employers don't know how old they are and maybe will get them in for an interview. Positive discrimatiom does go on, companies need so many men so many women, so many people with slight disabilities, different ethnicities, maybe chuck a lesbian or gay into the mix just to make sure they're doing their bit. Honestly now the people that are claiming unemployment benefit really do not want to be on it. Your attitude is quite bad, amusing but bad. " There is nothing wrong with my attitude. My attitude is that of anyone who doesn't want to free-loaders taking advantage. Perhaps you are the one who needs to re-evaluate your attitude and wonder why someone stealing from you does not bother you
I do not believe your data. Whilst the circumstances which you describe may be true, I do not believe that to be the majority
And even if those were the majority, the minority who are thieving still does not make it right | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How about, work, work, save, save, plan, plan instead of laze, laze, and live off others. Must reach a point where one must become immune to feeling any shame; just a feeling of entitlement remains "Never in my life have I been able to afford all that money just to see a GP. Or to get medication. Could you imagine just the cost of getting contraception? Four vists a year at £70 a go according to the BUPA website. £25 for three months supply according to Lloyds Pharmacy for the one I used to be on. £380 a year just to make sure I don't get pregnant - when I can't afford to have kids anyway because of my low income? Sounds like a complete recipe for disaster. If we didn't have the NHS I certainly wouldn't be doing a degree course right now. I wouldn't be able to afford medical treatment if something went wrong and I wouldn't be able to afford insurance. Not having socialist medical care harms so many people in so many ways. Paying a few pounds a year into the communal pot - even if you don't use it personally - hardly seems like a waste of money to keep the country moving forward and helping those who are potentially in poverty themselves to climb out of it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Yes, my Council Tax, which is something else I have to pay and my refuse gets collected 26 times times a year. Almost £100 per binful seems a bit excessive to me
Of every pound you spend in council tax, around 35p goes on adult social care and 15p on children's social care. Refuse collection you're talking at most 8p. This is why people don't feel they get much for their council tax, because broken down like that, they don't.
Is there a simple way to find out this information for your local authority?
Those figures are averages from a LGA report. I know where to find it for mine; not sure if yours produces something similar....perhaps the budget report? (If you're really interested I can work it out for you with my insider knowledge ) "(That reminds me again of Tim Minchin.. Only a ninja can sneak up on another ninja ) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The lazy I am describing are the ones who claim that they cannot find jobs The ones who are ill or disabled do NOT fall into that category, whether they became ill or disabled after working for a few years and contributing or whether they were ill or disabled from birth and never got their chance to contribute Maybe if you did a little research,you would find,benefit fraud is less than 1% of all claimed amounts. Perhaps if you read facts instead of some party propaganda spiel,you would realise just how little it actually does cost the tax payer. Far less than you actually think "So, you would be perfectly happy if someone stole 1% of your income every month? I guess you would be fine with that OK, how about if they stole 5% every month? Same answer? What about 50% every month? I get a feeling that you won't like that. And why not? They are still only stealing; the act hasn't escalated to murder So stealing a little is OK; stealing a lot is not! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How about, work, work, save, save, plan, plan instead of laze, laze, and live off others. Must reach a point where one must become immune to feeling any shame; just a feeling of entitlement remains
Never in my life have I been able to afford all that money just to see a GP. Or to get medication.
Could you imagine just the cost of getting contraception?
Four vists a year at £70 a go according to the BUPA website. £25 for three months supply according to Lloyds Pharmacy for the one I used to be on.
£380 a year just to make sure I don't get pregnant - when I can't afford to have kids anyway because of my low income? Sounds like a complete recipe for disaster.
If we didn't have the NHS I certainly wouldn't be doing a degree course right now. I wouldn't be able to afford medical treatment if something went wrong and I wouldn't be able to afford insurance.
Not having socialist medical care harms so many people in so many ways. Paying a few pounds a year into the communal pot - even if you don't use it personally - hardly seems like a waste of money to keep the country moving forward and helping those who are potentially in poverty themselves to climb out of it."Ah but if you're in poverty in the first place it's because you are either stupid or lazy, or both. There's no such thing as luck. Those doing well earned it from hard work and good decisions and worthiness. It gives them a right to look down on the poor and blame them for their own situation. The poor shouldn't be allowed to crawl out of their situation because if they were worthy, they wouldn't be poor in the first place. I went the other way, from high income, platinum cards and yes madam, no madam to being unworthy scum of the earth. And because there is no luck, that it happened is my fault and I damn well deserve to stay in the gutter with the unworthy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I went the other way, from high income, platinum cards and yes madam, no madam to being unworthy scum of the earth. And because there is no luck, that it happened is my fault and I damn well deserve to stay in the gutter with the unworthy." It's good down here. *Wallows in the rich's stolen cash* | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Yes, my Council Tax, which is something else I have to pay and my refuse gets collected 26 times times a year. Almost £100 per binful seems a bit excessive to me
Of every pound you spend in council tax, around 35p goes on adult social care and 15p on children's social care. Refuse collection you're talking at most 8p. This is why people don't feel they get much for their council tax, because broken down like that, they don't.
Is there a simple way to find out this information for your local authority?
Those figures are averages from a LGA report. I know where to find it for mine; not sure if yours produces something similar....perhaps the budget report? (If you're really interested I can work it out for you with my insider knowledge )
(That reminds me again of Tim Minchin.. Only a ninja can sneak up on another ninja ) "It took me so long to remember how to do the ninja I'm going to be using it lots | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The lazy I am describing are the ones who claim that they cannot find jobs The ones who are ill or disabled do NOT fall into that category, whether they became ill or disabled after working for a few years and contributing or whether they were ill or disabled from birth and never got their chance to contribute Maybe if you did a little research,you would find,benefit fraud is less than 1% of all claimed amounts. Perhaps if you read facts instead of some party propaganda spiel,you would realise just how little it actually does cost the tax payer. Far less than you actually think
So, you would be perfectly happy if someone stole 1% of your income every month? I guess you would be fine with that
OK, how about if they stole 5% every month? Same answer?
What about 50% every month? I get a feeling that you won't like that. And why not? They are still only stealing; the act hasn't escalated to murder
So stealing a little is OK; stealing a lot is not!"You do a very strange life.Who has said stealing is OK. Benefit fraud accounts for less than 1%. Tax avoidance accounts for more than 1 million times that amount. Lets get all those that avoid paying tax and deport them to your island paradise, where they only pay for what they actually need. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I went the other way, from high income, platinum cards and yes madam, no madam to being unworthy scum of the earth. And because there is no luck, that it happened is my fault and I damn well deserve to stay in the gutter with the unworthy. It's good down here. *Wallows in the rich's stolen cash*" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The lazy I am describing are the ones who claim that they cannot find jobs The ones who are ill or disabled do NOT fall into that category, whether they became ill or disabled after working for a few years and contributing or whether they were ill or disabled from birth and never got their chance to contribute Maybe if you did a little research,you would find,benefit fraud is less than 1% of all claimed amounts. Perhaps if you read facts instead of some party propaganda spiel,you would realise just how little it actually does cost the tax payer. Far less than you actually think
So, you would be perfectly happy if someone stole 1% of your income every month? I guess you would be fine with that
OK, how about if they stole 5% every month? Same answer?
What about 50% every month? I get a feeling that you won't like that. And why not? They are still only stealing; the act hasn't escalated to murder
So stealing a little is OK; stealing a lot is not!
You do a very strange life.Who has said stealing is OK.
Benefit fraud accounts for less than 1%.
Tax avoidance accounts for more than 1 million times that amount.
Lets get all those that avoid paying tax and deport them to your island paradise, where they only pay for what they actually need.
"Lets do that. And while we are at it, the 1% of fraudsters (thieves) can go with them and they can keep each other company
You seem to be hung-up about how little the fraudsters steal. What a strange way of looking at things | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" There is nothing wrong with my attitude. My attitude is that of anyone who doesn't want to free-loaders taking advantage. Perhaps you are the one who needs to re-evaluate your attitude and wonder why someone stealing from you does not bother you
"They aren't stealing from you though love, if someone broke into your house or car and took items belonging to you, that is stealing. " I do not believe your data. Whilst the circumstances which you describe may be true, I do not believe that to be the majority And even if those were the majority, the minority who are thieving still does not make it right" You don't have to believe me but by using your own logic you should be able to work out that someone who was earning £250 a week, who would have financial commitments based on earning £250 a week they wouldn't make excuses not to find work and in doing so get themselves into debt. From what you've written now you're saying that the people who have lost their jobs and claiming JSA are ok it's just the minority, the 18-24 year olds that are thieving. Well it's progress I guess! Earlier you thought everyone claiming benefits were a pack of wankers but now you think some of them are ok and allowed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I've had to manipulate people's CV's by telling people not to put their date of birth on there and only give the minimum amount of employment history just so the employers don't know how old they are and maybe will get them in for an interview. Positive discrimatiom does go on, companies need so many men so many women, so many people with slight disabilities, different ethnicities, maybe chuck a lesbian or gay into the mix just to make sure they're doing their bit. " dont think im having a go here but with that statement there you would be subjecting the cv owner to a fraud complaint by the dwp as the person has effectively wipped out there employment history or there age as goes for providing dwp with email and phone number you dont have to do, you can also remove them from the dwp you dont have to provide any details to the wp system of the dwp,s as the new digital signing has come into effect the problem is its voluntary anyone can refuse to use that system | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" There is nothing wrong with my attitude. My attitude is that of anyone who doesn't want to free-loaders taking advantage. Perhaps you are the one who needs to re-evaluate your attitude and wonder why someone stealing from you does not bother you
They aren't stealing from you though love, if someone broke into your house or car and took items belonging to you, that is stealing.
I do not believe your data. Whilst the circumstances which you describe may be true, I do not believe that to be the majority
And even if those were the majority, the minority who are thieving still does not make it right
You don't have to believe me but by using your own logic you should be able to work out that someone who was earning £250 a week, who would have financial commitments based on earning £250 a week they wouldn't make excuses not to find work and in doing so get themselves into debt.
From what you've written now you're saying that the people who have lost their jobs and claiming JSA are ok it's just the minority, the 18-24 year olds that are thieving. Well it's progress I guess! Earlier you thought everyone claiming benefits were a pack of wankers but now you think some of them are ok and allowed.
"Don't put words into my mouth and don't cut and paste sections from my comments which then are out of context I know benefit fraud happens. It does; let us not pretend that it doesn't The benefits people claim are paid through taxes. The employed pay taxes; the unemployed don't Therefore when someone steals (lets call it the fluffy 'benefit fraud') a proportion of it does come out my pocket You seem to think that I should not mind it. I don't have a problem you not minding it but I DO mind it, very much I have no problem with people who have played fair, claiming benefits for short periods of time as a stop gap measure These are not the people I was talking about and you know that. If however, you just want to win some silly argument for reasons best known to you, then fine The fraudsters are not just getting £70 a week. They were getting £100s per week in housing benefit too which is now capped at a 'mere' £400 per week. In some cases, their total 'income' was well in excess of £30,000 per year. That £30,000 per year was paid through taxes by the employed!!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I've had to manipulate people's CV's by telling people not to put their date of birth on there and only give the minimum amount of employment history just so the employers don't know how old they are and maybe will get them in for an interview. Positive discrimatiom does go on, companies need so many men so many women, so many people with slight disabilities, different ethnicities, maybe chuck a lesbian or gay into the mix just to make sure they're doing their bit. dont think im having a go here but with that statement there you would be subjecting the cv owner to a fraud complaint by the dwp as the person has effectively wipped out there employment history or there age as goes for providing dwp with email and phone number you dont have to do, you can also remove them from the dwp you dont have to provide any details to the wp system of the dwp,s as the new digital signing has come into effect the problem is its voluntary anyone can refuse to use that system " Not putting your date of birth on a CV isn't fraud. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I've had to manipulate people's CV's by telling people not to put their date of birth on there and only give the minimum amount of employment history just so the employers don't know how old they are and maybe will get them in for an interview. Positive discrimatiom does go on, companies need so many men so many women, so many people with slight disabilities, different ethnicities, maybe chuck a lesbian or gay into the mix just to make sure they're doing their bit. dont think im having a go here but with that statement there you would be subjecting the cv owner to a fraud complaint by the dwp as the person has effectively wipped out there employment history or there age as goes for providing dwp with email and phone number you dont have to do, you can also remove them from the dwp you dont have to provide any details to the wp system of the dwp,s as the new digital signing has come into effect the problem is its voluntary anyone can refuse to use that system " I know people who have been sanctioned for refusing to sign up to the jobmatch system or for refusing to give their "advisor" their password so they can check up on them. Yes, technically it's voluntary, but not really. The job centre can and do sanction people whenever they like for whatever they like. They're actively looking for reasons to do so most of the time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Jodie ...I established it a few hours ago and it is only an opinion so I could be wrong ..but you seem a bit weird to me ....you are obsessed with these 'thieves' and no data to back it up but keep banging your drum !" Who's Jodie?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" There is nothing wrong with my attitude. My attitude is that of anyone who doesn't want to free-loaders taking advantage. Perhaps you are the one who needs to re-evaluate your attitude and wonder why someone stealing from you does not bother you
They aren't stealing from you though love, if someone broke into your house or car and took items belonging to you, that is stealing.
I do not believe your data. Whilst the circumstances which you describe may be true, I do not believe that to be the majority
And even if those were the majority, the minority who are thieving still does not make it right
You don't have to believe me but by using your own logic you should be able to work out that someone who was earning £250 a week, who would have financial commitments based on earning £250 a week they wouldn't make excuses not to find work and in doing so get themselves into debt.
From what you've written now you're saying that the people who have lost their jobs and claiming JSA are ok it's just the minority, the 18-24 year olds that are thieving. Well it's progress I guess! Earlier you thought everyone claiming benefits were a pack of wankers but now you think some of them are ok and allowed.
Don't put words into my mouth and don't cut and paste sections from my comments which then are out of context
I know benefit fraud happens. It does; let us not pretend that it doesn't
The benefits people claim are paid through taxes. The employed pay taxes; the unemployed don't
Therefore when someone steals (lets call it the fluffy 'benefit fraud') a proportion of it does come out my pocket
You seem to think that I should not mind it. I don't have a problem you not minding it but I DO mind it, very much
I have no problem with people who have played fair, claiming benefits for short periods of time as a stop gap measure
These are not the people I was talking about and you know that. If however, you just want to win some silly argument for reasons best known to you, then fine
The fraudsters are not just getting £70 a week. They were getting £100s per week in housing benefit too which is now capped at a 'mere' £400 per week. In some cases, their total 'income' was well in excess of £30,000 per year. That £30,000 per year was paid through taxes by the employed!!!"Actually yes, the unemployed pay tax. VAT and fuel duty for a start. Not paying income tax is not the same as not paying tax. There are quite a few working people who earn less than the personal allowance threshold and don't pay income tax. Are they just as bad as unemployed people that don't pay income tax? Benefits would be taxable too if they actually exceeded the personal allowance threshold | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes, technically it's voluntary, but not really. The job centre can and do sanction people whenever they like for whatever they like. They're actively looking for reasons to do so most of the time." I got sanctioned for a weeks benefits for refusing to put my name and details on the left hand side of the CV instead of the right hand side of the CV. (Or was it the other way round? Can't remember.) Fucking crazy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I know people who have been sanctioned for refusing to sign up to the jobmatch system or for refusing to give their "advisor" their password so they can check up on them. Yes, technically it's voluntary, but not really. The job centre can and do sanction people whenever they like for whatever they like. They're actively looking for reasons to do so most of the time." So people should just be trusted and not checked. It's an interesting approach. Novel. Just assume everyone is looking for work. Not sure the tax payers funding the system would vote for it though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I know people who have been sanctioned for refusing to sign up to the jobmatch system or for refusing to give their "advisor" their password so they can check up on them. Yes, technically it's voluntary, but not really. The job centre can and do sanction people whenever they like for whatever they like. They're actively looking for reasons to do so most of the time. So people should just be trusted and not checked. It's an interesting approach. Novel. Just assume everyone is looking for work. Not sure the tax payers funding the system would vote for it though." That's not what I said 
My point is that the JCP are abusing the vulnerable position of claimants to force them to do something that is supposed to, by their own rules, be voluntary. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"athena any manipulation to people's CV's is making a fraudulant statement the fact that a persons employment history has been edited to look much better than what it is, is fraud not including there age isnt but the employer will ask there age at the interview the disclamer of dwp actively informs any fradulant claims will be dealt with as fraud upon wiki Job fraud refers to fraudulent or deceptive activity or representation on the part of an employee or prospective employee toward an employer. something ids did himself " It's perfectly reasonable not to put your date of birth on a cv. Lying would be fraud. Omitting it is not. It's perfectly reasonable to leave some employment history off your cv. Lying is fraud. Omission is not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" There is nothing wrong with my attitude. My attitude is that of anyone who doesn't want to free-loaders taking advantage. Perhaps you are the one who needs to re-evaluate your attitude and wonder why someone stealing from you does not bother you
They aren't stealing from you though love, if someone broke into your house or car and took items belonging to you, that is stealing.
I do not believe your data. Whilst the circumstances which you describe may be true, I do not believe that to be the majority
And even if those were the majority, the minority who are thieving still does not make it right
You don't have to believe me but by using your own logic you should be able to work out that someone who was earning £250 a week, who would have financial commitments based on earning £250 a week they wouldn't make excuses not to find work and in doing so get themselves into debt.
From what you've written now you're saying that the people who have lost their jobs and claiming JSA are ok it's just the minority, the 18-24 year olds that are thieving. Well it's progress I guess! Earlier you thought everyone claiming benefits were a pack of wankers but now you think some of them are ok and allowed.
Don't put words into my mouth and don't cut and paste sections from my comments which then are out of context
I know benefit fraud happens. It does; let us not pretend that it doesn't
The benefits people claim are paid through taxes. The employed pay taxes; the unemployed don't
Therefore when someone steals (lets call it the fluffy 'benefit fraud') a proportion of it does come out my pocket
You seem to think that I should not mind it. I don't have a problem you not minding it but I DO mind it, very much
I have no problem with people who have played fair, claiming benefits for short periods of time as a stop gap measure
These are not the people I was talking about and you know that. If however, you just want to win some silly argument for reasons best known to you, then fine
The fraudsters are not just getting £70 a week. They were getting £100s per week in housing benefit too which is now capped at a 'mere' £400 per week. In some cases, their total 'income' was well in excess of £30,000 per year. That £30,000 per year was paid through taxes by the employed!!!"The main elements of benefit fraud are people claiming whilst working, you can't hate those because you like employed people and they are essentially stealing from themselves. Other forms of benefit fraud are lone parents claiming to live alone but have a partner living there who is usually working. There's people who claim to be disabled but they aren't. Those cases though are few and far between. There are going to be people that abuse the system but you can't punish everyone based on the actions of a few. I'm not putting words in your mouth I'm just answering what you say and I wasn't cutting and pasting your comments you just raised two points which I answered seperately, the first about thriving the second was not believing my data. Now based on what you've said I take it as you saying everyone claiming benefit is ok and it's only the people that commit benefit fraud that you have a problem with. That's fine, I have a problem with that too, I'd assume everyone has a problem with people who are fraudulently claiming benefits. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... Don't put words into my mouth and don't cut and paste sections from my comments which then are out of context I know benefit fraud happens. It does; let us not pretend that it doesn't The benefits people claim are paid through taxes. The employed pay taxes; the unemployed don't Therefore when someone steals (lets call it the fluffy 'benefit fraud') a proportion of it does come out my pocket You seem to think that I should not mind it. I don't have a problem you not minding it but I DO mind it, very much I have no problem with people who have played fair, claiming benefits for short periods of time as a stop gap measure These are not the people I was talking about and you know that. If however, you just want to win some silly argument for reasons best known to you, then fine The fraudsters are not just getting £70 a week. They were getting £100s per week in housing benefit too which is now capped at a 'mere' £400 per week. In some cases, their total 'income' was well in excess of £30,000 per year. That £30,000 per year was paid through taxes by the employed!!! Actually yes, the unemployed pay tax. VAT and fuel duty for a start. Not paying income tax is not the same as not paying tax. There are quite a few working people who earn less than the personal allowance threshold and don't pay income tax. Are they just as bad as unemployed people that don't pay income tax? Benefits would be taxable too if they actually exceeded the personal allowance threshold "And those 'taxes' that they 'pay', like VAT and fuel duty is in effect double taxation on the employed! Housing benefit is not taxable, which even with the cap, can add up to almost £21,000 per year But I am talking about fraudsters. I take it that you are not committing fraud and therefore my comments are not directed towards you. Neither are the low-paid committing fraud. So what is the point you are trying to make??? I would like a fraudster to challenge me here and to tell me how little they steal from me and others and therefore, it is fair | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I know people who have been sanctioned for refusing to sign up to the jobmatch system or for refusing to give their "advisor" their password so they can check up on them. Yes, technically it's voluntary, but not really. The job centre can and do sanction people whenever they like for whatever they like. They're actively looking for reasons to do so most of the time. So people should just be trusted and not checked. It's an interesting approach. Novel. Just assume everyone is looking for work. Not sure the tax payers funding the system would vote for it though. That's not what I said
My point is that the JCP are abusing the vulnerable position of claimants to force them to do something that is supposed to, by their own rules, be voluntary. "Do your point is that they should be checked but it should be clear from the outset that it is compulsory not voluntary? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"athena any manipulation to people's CV's is making a fraudulant statement the fact that a persons employment history has been edited to look much better than what it is, is fraud not including there age isnt but the employer will ask there age at the interview the disclamer of dwp actively informs any fradulant claims will be dealt with as fraud upon wiki Job fraud refers to fraudulent or deceptive activity or representation on the part of an employee or prospective employee toward an employer. something ids did himself " Editing yourself isn't fraud. It's intelligent. Why would I put a ten year old lifeguarding summer job on a CV if I was applying to be a journalist at a newspaper on cookery for example? That's not fraud. It's leaving off irrelevant details and making myself look better by pruning selectively. Like I wouldn't write on my CV that my hobby was airsofting war games, but I might write that I enjoyed team sports. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"not including there age isnt but the employer will ask there age at the interview" You've missed the point. Leaving off the date of birth was to get the person into an interview rather than having their cv binned because they're too old. "the disclamer of dwp actively informs any fradulant claims will be dealt with as fraud" Athena isn't talking about benefit claims (which is when the DWP would take action against fraud), she's talking about helping people improve their cv to get them a job. They're not defrauding the DWP by writing a cv and sending it to potential employers | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think the benefits system is a wonderful thing and should be there to support those who through no fault of their own are out of work or can't work. The lazy and the feckless who hide behind made up illnesses and the like should simply not get benefits at all. Let them rot in the gutter. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Yes, technically it's voluntary, but not really. The job centre can and do sanction people whenever they like for whatever they like. They're actively looking for reasons to do so most of the time. I got sanctioned for a weeks benefits for refusing to put my name and details on the left hand side of the CV instead of the right hand side of the CV. (Or was it the other way round? Can't remember.) Fucking crazy." the emphasis is to provide your cv by showing it to the jobcentre not how its compiled within your cv and has nothing to do with your ase also known as actively seeking work at that id be appealing it and asking to see the copy that was forwarded to the dm | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... Don't put words into my mouth and don't cut and paste sections from my comments which then are out of context I know benefit fraud happens. It does; let us not pretend that it doesn't The benefits people claim are paid through taxes. The employed pay taxes; the unemployed don't Therefore when someone steals (lets call it the fluffy 'benefit fraud') a proportion of it does come out my pocket You seem to think that I should not mind it. I don't have a problem you not minding it but I DO mind it, very much I have no problem with people who have played fair, claiming benefits for short periods of time as a stop gap measure These are not the people I was talking about and you know that. If however, you just want to win some silly argument for reasons best known to you, then fine The fraudsters are not just getting £70 a week. They were getting £100s per week in housing benefit too which is now capped at a 'mere' £400 per week. In some cases, their total 'income' was well in excess of £30,000 per year. That £30,000 per year was paid through taxes by the employed!!! Actually yes, the unemployed pay tax. VAT and fuel duty for a start. Not paying income tax is not the same as not paying tax. There are quite a few working people who earn less than the personal allowance threshold and don't pay income tax. Are they just as bad as unemployed people that don't pay income tax? Benefits would be taxable too if they actually exceeded the personal allowance threshold
And those 'taxes' that they 'pay', like VAT and fuel duty is in effect double taxation on the employed!
Housing benefit is not taxable, which even with the cap, can add up to almost £21,000 per year
But I am talking about fraudsters. I take it that you are not committing fraud and therefore my comments are not directed towards you. Neither are the low-paid committing fraud. So what is the point you are trying to make???
I would like a fraudster to challenge me here and to tell me how little they steal from me and others and therefore, it is fair"And I would like smug ivory tower dwellers to stop spouting the same old claptrap about being "tax payers" and the unemployed not being "tax payers" and about the unemployed being lazy and workshy and about there being no such thing as luck or bad luck. We can't always get what we want. There are some people I really want to kick in the bollocks/cunt but I can't do that either. It may be that as the level of benefit fraud is infinitesimal, there actually is nobody committing benefit fraud on here. Even if there were, given the attitude of some members of this forum to people in genuine need, legitimately claiming benefits, they'd be really stupid to admit it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"at that id be appealing it and asking to see the copy that was forwarded to the dm " People on JSA often don't know their rights though. There's no easy way to find them out. I wouldn't know where to look for them and I wouldn't know what a reasonable sanction was. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I know people who have been sanctioned for refusing to sign up to the jobmatch system or for refusing to give their "advisor" their password so they can check up on them. Yes, technically it's voluntary, but not really. The job centre can and do sanction people whenever they like for whatever they like. They're actively looking for reasons to do so most of the time. So people should just be trusted and not checked. It's an interesting approach. Novel. Just assume everyone is looking for work. Not sure the tax payers funding the system would vote for it though. That's not what I said
My point is that the JCP are abusing the vulnerable position of claimants to force them to do something that is supposed to, by their own rules, be voluntary.
Do your point is that they should be checked but it should be clear from the outset that it is compulsory not voluntary?"My point wasn't anything to do with how people should or shouldn't be required to show their job hunting activity. I was responding to a comment made by another person that using the jobmatch system is voluntary, nothing more. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I went the other way, from high income, platinum cards and yes madam, no madam to being unworthy scum of the earth. And because there is no luck, that it happened is my fault and I damn well deserve to stay in the gutter with the unworthy. It's good down here. *Wallows in the rich's stolen cash*" This young woman speaks a lot of sense on a range of subjects. Seems to me that a lot of people need to research a few facts and figures before stating facts which are completely wrong. With regard to benefit fraud, yes it is theft but as has been stated it pales into insignificance when you compare it with tax evasion, bank fraud, theft from companies and shops.. All of which the consumer pays for in the long run. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"at that id be appealing it and asking to see the copy that was forwarded to the dm People on JSA often don't know their rights though. There's no easy way to find them out. I wouldn't know where to look for them and I wouldn't know what a reasonable sanction was." You seem fairly intelligent. I'm sure you'd manage. Personally I find the debate on jobseekers a big red herring. Most jobseekers are only on it for a short period and it's a tough amount to live on if you have no other payments. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"at that id be appealing it and asking to see the copy that was forwarded to the dm People on JSA often don't know their rights though. There's no easy way to find them out. I wouldn't know where to look for them and I wouldn't know what a reasonable sanction was." It's also a very long winded process and jobcentres do everything they can to drag it out and make it difficult. People who have had all their income taken away for a month, three months or more are usually panicked and scrabbling about trying desperately to survive. Even if they can appeal, they're still completely without money for that month, or three months or more. If the sanction is overturned several months later it's too late to feed them and keep their electricity on many months earlier. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"at that id be appealing it and asking to see the copy that was forwarded to the dm People on JSA often don't know their rights though. There's no easy way to find them out. I wouldn't know where to look for them and I wouldn't know what a reasonable sanction was. You seem fairly intelligent. I'm sure you'd manage. Personally I find the debate on jobseekers a big red herring. Most jobseekers are only on it for a short period and it's a tough amount to live on if you have no other payments. " I'm an intelligent woman. I would not have known how to find out about if my sanction was fair. Instead I just cried myself to sleep because I couldn't pay the bills and contemplated sex work as one of my options. And if I struggled, how do those less intelligent find the system? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"athena any manipulation to people's CV's is making a fraudulant statement the fact that a persons employment history has been edited to look much better than what it is, is fraud not including there age isnt but the employer will ask there age at the interview the disclamer of dwp actively informs any fradulant claims will be dealt with as fraud upon wiki Job fraud refers to fraudulent or deceptive activity or representation on the part of an employee or prospective employee toward an employer. something ids did himself " You aren't committing fraud by not disclosing your date of birth on a CV. Employers have 100's of CV's to sift through, if one is too long they'll just ignore it, most applications are online now anyway and sometimes CV's that are submitted are not even checked manually by a human the computer will search for certain key words on a CV and erase the rest. Tailoring your CV to specific jobs and only disclosing employment history suitable to the job you're applying for will save the employer from reading irrelevant information and possibly save your application from being discarded. When I had people coming to me to sign on, people that had children my age and people who in their previous jobs earned 2 or 3 times what I made in a year, I felt how degrading and humiliating it was for those people to have me deciding on the piddly amount of benefit they would receive. I tried whatever I could to get those people back in to work. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... Don't put words into my mouth and don't cut and paste sections from my comments which then are out of context I know benefit fraud happens. It does; let us not pretend that it doesn't The benefits people claim are paid through taxes. The employed pay taxes; the unemployed don't Therefore when someone steals (lets call it the fluffy 'benefit fraud') a proportion of it does come out my pocket You seem to think that I should not mind it. I don't have a problem you not minding it but I DO mind it, very much I have no problem with people who have played fair, claiming benefits for short periods of time as a stop gap measure These are not the people I was talking about and you know that. If however, you just want to win some silly argument for reasons best known to you, then fine The fraudsters are not just getting £70 a week. They were getting £100s per week in housing benefit too which is now capped at a 'mere' £400 per week. In some cases, their total 'income' was well in excess of £30,000 per year. That £30,000 per year was paid through taxes by the employed!!! Actually yes, the unemployed pay tax. VAT and fuel duty for a start. Not paying income tax is not the same as not paying tax. There are quite a few working people who earn less than the personal allowance threshold and don't pay income tax. Are they just as bad as unemployed people that don't pay income tax? Benefits would be taxable too if they actually exceeded the personal allowance threshold
And those 'taxes' that they 'pay', like VAT and fuel duty is in effect double taxation on the employed!
Housing benefit is not taxable, which even with the cap, can add up to almost £21,000 per year
But I am talking about fraudsters. I take it that you are not committing fraud and therefore my comments are not directed towards you. Neither are the low-paid committing fraud. So what is the point you are trying to make???
I would like a fraudster to challenge me here and to tell me how little they steal from me and others and therefore, it is fair
And I would like smug ivory tower dwellers to stop spouting the same old claptrap about being "tax payers" and the unemployed not being "tax payers" and about the unemployed being lazy and workshy and about there being no such thing as luck or bad luck.
We can't always get what we want.
There are some people I really want to kick in the bollocks/cunt but I can't do that either.
It may be that as the level of benefit fraud is infinitesimal, there actually is nobody committing benefit fraud on here.
Even if there were, given the attitude of some members of this forum to people in genuine need, legitimately claiming benefits, they'd be really stupid to admit it."No, ofcourse not. The "smugness" is the sole domain of those who keep on bleating on about how they spend 24 hours a day, year in year out, job-hunting but never find a single one of any type or description, anywhere The salon I went to today has two new vacancies. These pay minimum wage and the hours are long. I guess jobs such as those are too menial for the unemployed to consider since they still haven't been able to fill these in after almost two weeks tomorrow | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"you can refuse to use the ujm site and they cannot mandate you to do so as long as you can prove that you are actively using other internet online jobsites that are better than ujm no adviser or this government can demand a selective use of a one system fits all also note if you do get sanctioned appeal it using there own regs against them with a dm " As above, how does that help you feed yourself and pay the bills at the time. "Advisors" know that and they know they can bully and intimate people into signing up for a "voluntary" system because they can take away their entire income for months at a time. And they do. The things JCP staff do and the things people are sanctioned for are shocking, to the point that most decent people simply can't believe it happens. "There must be more to it", they say, "That couldn't happen." Except there isn't and it does. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... Don't put words into my mouth and don't cut and paste sections from my comments which then are out of context I know benefit fraud happens. It does; let us not pretend that it doesn't The benefits people claim are paid through taxes. The employed pay taxes; the unemployed don't Therefore when someone steals (lets call it the fluffy 'benefit fraud') a proportion of it does come out my pocket You seem to think that I should not mind it. I don't have a problem you not minding it but I DO mind it, very much I have no problem with people who have played fair, claiming benefits for short periods of time as a stop gap measure These are not the people I was talking about and you know that. If however, you just want to win some silly argument for reasons best known to you, then fine The fraudsters are not just getting £70 a week. They were getting £100s per week in housing benefit too which is now capped at a 'mere' £400 per week. In some cases, their total 'income' was well in excess of £30,000 per year. That £30,000 per year was paid through taxes by the employed!!! Actually yes, the unemployed pay tax. VAT and fuel duty for a start. Not paying income tax is not the same as not paying tax. There are quite a few working people who earn less than the personal allowance threshold and don't pay income tax. Are they just as bad as unemployed people that don't pay income tax? Benefits would be taxable too if they actually exceeded the personal allowance threshold
And those 'taxes' that they 'pay', like VAT and fuel duty is in effect double taxation on the employed!
Housing benefit is not taxable, which even with the cap, can add up to almost £21,000 per year
But I am talking about fraudsters. I take it that you are not committing fraud and therefore my comments are not directed towards you. Neither are the low-paid committing fraud. So what is the point you are trying to make???
I would like a fraudster to challenge me here and to tell me how little they steal from me and others and therefore, it is fair
And I would like smug ivory tower dwellers to stop spouting the same old claptrap about being "tax payers" and the unemployed not being "tax payers" and about the unemployed being lazy and workshy and about there being no such thing as luck or bad luck.
We can't always get what we want.
There are some people I really want to kick in the bollocks/cunt but I can't do that either.
It may be that as the level of benefit fraud is infinitesimal, there actually is nobody committing benefit fraud on here.
Even if there were, given the attitude of some members of this forum to people in genuine need, legitimately claiming benefits, they'd be really stupid to admit it.
No, ofcourse not. The "smugness" is the sole domain of those who keep on bleating on about how they spend 24 hours a day, year in year out, job-hunting but never find a single one of any type or description, anywhere
The salon I went to today has two new vacancies. These pay minimum wage and the hours are long. I guess jobs such as those are too menial for the unemployed to consider since they still haven't been able to fill these in after almost two weeks tomorrow"Perhaps their requirements aren't realistic. The smugness I'm seeing in this thread and in all the similar threads on here is very definitely not coming from the unemployed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As above, how does that help you feed yourself and pay the bills at the time. "Advisors" know that and they know they can bully and intimate people into signing up for a "voluntary" system because they can take away their entire income for months at a time. And they do. The things JCP staff do and the things people are sanctioned for are shocking, to the point that most decent people simply can't believe it happens. "There must be more to it", they say, "That couldn't happen." Except there isn't and it does." I agree vv its what the workers forget they may scream do this do that but what would really happen if they actually faced the harsh system that they are demanding to be created I wouldnt wish it on anyone to face being sanctioned for doing what was called of them only to find a jcp staff member has to sanction people just to get there quota for the week otherwise the staff member faces there own sanctions within the dwp | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... No, ofcourse not. The "smugness" is the sole domain of those who keep on bleating on about how they spend 24 hours a day, year in year out, job-hunting but never find a single one of any type or description, anywhere The salon I went to today has two new vacancies. These pay minimum wage and the hours are long. I guess jobs such as those are too menial for the unemployed to consider since they still haven't been able to fill these in after almost two weeks tomorrow" I haven't been there for over 3 years now but when I did work in the jobcentre people had to show that they had applied for a minimum of 50 jobs a week and depending on how long they had been on JSA I would pick at random some of the jobs they said they had applied for and contact the employer directly to see if the application had been received and the outcome. If they had no record of it then a sanction would be applied to the claimant. It's probably even more strict now. Say there's 100 jobs in the area but 1000 people looking and applying for jobs only 100 people can be employed, the other 900 are fucked. The two jobs in your salon that have been advertised for two weeks, they will usually give a time limit for people to submit their interest by and then they will sort through the applications to see who is best suited for the job and then they will go through the interview process. Would probably take about a month to fill those vacancies. Never assume and don't be so narrow minded. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's ridiculous to suggest that every person on benefits is working hard to NOT be on benefits just as it's ridiculous to suggest that they're all fraudulent and undeserving. Do I often see examples of things which really make me resent being a net contributor to the welfare state? Hell yes. Do I also see examples where I think, there but for the grace of god go I? Yes again. Perhaps the reason there's never any meaningful political debate on issues like welfare spending is because it always gets divided into hand-wringing, it's such a struggle, won't somebody think of the children, vs they're all lazy feckless wastrels. " OK, you make a very good point There is polarisation of opinion as one would expect. And that can only be resolved by a 'mediator' such as an honest government. And that is unlikely to happen any time soon | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's ridiculous to suggest that every person on benefits is working hard to NOT be on benefits just as it's ridiculous to suggest that they're all fraudulent and undeserving. Do I often see examples of things which really make me resent being a net contributor to the welfare state? Hell yes. Do I also see examples where I think, there but for the grace of god go I? Yes again. Perhaps the reason there's never any meaningful political debate on issues like welfare spending is because it always gets divided into hand-wringing, it's such a struggle, won't somebody think of the children, vs they're all lazy feckless wastrels. " Fair point, except that the Government's own figures show benefit fraud to be a fraction of 1%. So even allowing room for error, 90+% actually aren't lazy, feckless wastrels. Some of the hand wringers are fed up with the bias of the media and Government rhetoric and those taken in by it and would like some balance. Sure, there are some who play the system, some who claim whilst working and some who don't really want to work. The number is tiny though. Far more politicians and bankers are on the take for far larger sums, yet I see a minute fraction of the hatred that is directed at the poorest aimed at the wealthy who defraud the public of huge sums. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's ridiculous to suggest that every person on benefits is working hard to NOT be on benefits just as it's ridiculous to suggest that they're all fraudulent and undeserving. Do I often see examples of things which really make me resent being a net contributor to the welfare state? Hell yes. Do I also see examples where I think, there but for the grace of god go I? Yes again. Perhaps the reason there's never any meaningful political debate on issues like welfare spending is because it always gets divided into hand-wringing, it's such a struggle, won't somebody think of the children, vs they're all lazy feckless wastrels. Fair point, except that the Government's own figures show benefit fraud to be a fraction of 1%. So even allowing room for error, 90+% actually aren't lazy, feckless wastrels. Some of the hand wringers are fed up with the bias of the media and Government rhetoric and those taken in by it and would like some balance. Sure, there are some who play the system, some who claim whilst working and some who don't really want to work. The number is tiny though. Far more politicians and bankers are on the take for far larger sums, yet I see a minute fraction of the hatred that is directed at the poorest aimed at the wealthy who defraud the public of huge sums." I'm not just talking about fraud. I see examples where people are claiming what they're entitled to but I don't necessarily think they should be entitled to that (a similar argument to tax avoidance where it's legal but ethically dubious - just because someone is legally entitled to something doesn't mean it's necessarily right, in my view). You see a minute fraction, I see it actually quite evenly balanced between benefit scaremongering and non-dom/fat cat/tax the bankers and the politics of envy at the moment but maybe that's because there's an election imminent. But then I don't think hatred towards anyone is ok, even if they're rich. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Of course people should support themselves but that will never and has never worked for all, hence the formation of the NHS. " I appreciate the NHS. But I'd advocate the 'merrican way and paying for our healthcare. There was outcry on social media recently about some American guy complaining that he had to wait 2 hours to see a doctor. In America that's considered a long time. I'd take that personally. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd also question your statistics. In terms of numbers, fraudulent benefits claimants will be more than the numbers of politicians or high profile bankers committing similar fraud. I'm not saying one is better or worse than the other. Just that saying there are more of them is highly likely to be incorrect." The statistics are freely available. They're official government statistics. Benefit fraud is very low. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd also question your statistics. In terms of numbers, fraudulent benefits claimants will be more than the numbers of politicians or high profile bankers committing similar fraud. I'm not saying one is better or worse than the other. Just that saying there are more of them is highly likely to be incorrect. The statistics are freely available. They're official government statistics. Benefit fraud is very low." And the comparable statistics showing more bankers and MP defrauding the system? That was my point. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'd also question your statistics. In terms of numbers, fraudulent benefits claimants will be more than the numbers of politicians or high profile bankers committing similar fraud. I'm not saying one is better or worse than the other. Just that saying there are more of them is highly likely to be incorrect. The statistics are freely available. They're official government statistics. Benefit fraud is very low. And the comparable statistics showing more bankers and MP defrauding the system? That was my point. " In terms of numbers, probably not, but the scale of the fraud is totally different. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Benefit fraud 0.7% http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/may/13/welfare-fraud-error-universal-credit The total amount is less than under payments and benefits that aren't claimed. Most fraud by MPs, Corporate executives and bankers we never hear about." Fraud by bankers/corporate executives only affects me if I am a share-holder of that bank or company. Not that fraud is then a lessor crime. Fraud is a criminal offence, no matter what, even if detected amongst only 0.7% of the benefit claimants | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Benefit fraud 0.7% http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/may/13/welfare-fraud-error-universal-credit The total amount is less than under payments and benefits that aren't claimed. Most fraud by MPs, Corporate executives and bankers we never hear about. Fraud by bankers/corporate executives only affects me if I am a share-holder of that bank or company. Not that fraud is then a lessor crime. Fraud is a criminal offence, no matter what, even if detected amongst only 0.7% of the benefit claimants" Who do you think paid for the bailout of the banks? You really think the costs of corporate fraud don't come back to you? Ultimately the cost of all crime affects you. Car theft, burglary, vandalism and the rest cost you more in insurance premiums. Shoplifting costs you in higher prices for goods. Price fixing by banks, energy companies and other services costs you. If you think the only crime that affects you is benefit fraud...I'll just say you're mistaken, though I'd dearly love to say more. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Benefit fraud 0.7% http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/may/13/welfare-fraud-error-universal-credit The total amount is less than under payments and benefits that aren't claimed. Most fraud by MPs, Corporate executives and bankers we never hear about. Fraud by bankers/corporate executives only affects me if I am a share-holder of that bank or company. Not that fraud is then a lessor crime. Fraud is a criminal offence, no matter what, even if detected amongst only 0.7% of the benefit claimants Who do you think paid for the bailout of the banks? You really think the costs of corporate fraud don't come back to you? Ultimately the cost of all crime affects you. Car theft, burglary, vandalism and the rest cost you more in insurance premiums. Shoplifting costs you in higher prices for goods. Price fixing by banks, energy companies and other services costs you. If you think the only crime that affects you is benefit fraud...I'll just say you're mistaken, though I'd dearly love to say more." All fraud affects all of us in one way, shape or form. Insurance fraud affects me in higher premiums Benefit fraud affects me in higher taxes and/or poorer quality services. The fact that 'only' 0.7% is detected (which simply means that a lot of it goes undetected) could simply mean that more effort should be put into catching these scroungers and putting them behind bars Ofcourse, then we end up funding them in prisons so the argument these low-lifes will put forward is that it is cheaper to let them rip us off instead There is little that you haven't already said, but that is your way | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Benefit fraud 0.7% http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/may/13/welfare-fraud-error-universal-credit The total amount is less than under payments and benefits that aren't claimed. Most fraud by MPs, Corporate executives and bankers we never hear about. Fraud by bankers/corporate executives only affects me if I am a share-holder of that bank or company. Not that fraud is then a lessor crime. Fraud is a criminal offence, no matter what, even if detected amongst only 0.7% of the benefit claimants Who do you think paid for the bailout of the banks? You really think the costs of corporate fraud don't come back to you? Ultimately the cost of all crime affects you. Car theft, burglary, vandalism and the rest cost you more in insurance premiums. Shoplifting costs you in higher prices for goods. Price fixing by banks, energy companies and other services costs you. If you think the only crime that affects you is benefit fraud...I'll just say you're mistaken, though I'd dearly love to say more. All fraud affects all of us in one way, shape or form. Insurance fraud affects me in higher premiums Benefit fraud affects me in higher taxes and/or poorer quality services. The fact that 'only' 0.7% is detected (which simply means that a lot of it goes undetected) could simply mean that more effort should be put into catching these scroungers and putting them behind bars Ofcourse, then we end up funding them in prisons so the argument these low-lifes will put forward is that it is cheaper to let them rip us off instead There is little that you haven't already said, but that is your way "Believe me, there's plenty that I haven't said. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You'll never eradicate 0.7% of fraud down to zero, you reach a point where it costs more than is saved, better yo spend those resources in a more targeted (and financially beneficial) manner http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-benefits-fraud-tax-evasion/20139" True. It is just as provisioning to write-off bad debt. Still makes me mad though | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Benefit fraud 0.7% http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/may/13/welfare-fraud-error-universal-credit The total amount is less than under payments and benefits that aren't claimed. Most fraud by MPs, Corporate executives and bankers we never hear about. Fraud by bankers/corporate executives only affects me if I am a share-holder of that bank or company. Not that fraud is then a lessor crime. Fraud is a criminal offence, no matter what, even if detected amongst only 0.7% of the benefit claimants Who do you think paid for the bailout of the banks? You really think the costs of corporate fraud don't come back to you? Ultimately the cost of all crime affects you. Car theft, burglary, vandalism and the rest cost you more in insurance premiums. Shoplifting costs you in higher prices for goods. Price fixing by banks, energy companies and other services costs you. If you think the only crime that affects you is benefit fraud...I'll just say you're mistaken, though I'd dearly love to say more. All fraud affects all of us in one way, shape or form. Insurance fraud affects me in higher premiums Benefit fraud affects me in higher taxes and/or poorer quality services. The fact that 'only' 0.7% is detected (which simply means that a lot of it goes undetected) could simply mean that more effort should be put into catching these scroungers and putting them behind bars Ofcourse, then we end up funding them in prisons so the argument these low-lifes will put forward is that it is cheaper to let them rip us off instead There is little that you haven't already said, but that is your way
Believe me, there's plenty that I haven't said."Oh, then go ahead; I'll read it after I return from work in the evening | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Benefit fraud 0.7% http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/may/13/welfare-fraud-error-universal-credit The total amount is less than under payments and benefits that aren't claimed. Most fraud by MPs, Corporate executives and bankers we never hear about. Fraud by bankers/corporate executives only affects me if I am a share-holder of that bank or company. Not that fraud is then a lessor crime. Fraud is a criminal offence, no matter what, even if detected amongst only 0.7% of the benefit claimants Who do you think paid for the bailout of the banks? You really think the costs of corporate fraud don't come back to you? Ultimately the cost of all crime affects you. Car theft, burglary, vandalism and the rest cost you more in insurance premiums. Shoplifting costs you in higher prices for goods. Price fixing by banks, energy companies and other services costs you. If you think the only crime that affects you is benefit fraud...I'll just say you're mistaken, though I'd dearly love to say more. All fraud affects all of us in one way, shape or form. Insurance fraud affects me in higher premiums Benefit fraud affects me in higher taxes and/or poorer quality services. The fact that 'only' 0.7% is detected (which simply means that a lot of it goes undetected) could simply mean that more effort should be put into catching these scroungers and putting them behind bars Ofcourse, then we end up funding them in prisons so the argument these low-lifes will put forward is that it is cheaper to let them rip us off instead There is little that you haven't already said, but that is your way
Believe me, there's plenty that I haven't said.
Oh, then go ahead; I'll read it after I return from work in the evening"It's not worth a forum ban. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Benefit fraud 0.7% http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/may/13/welfare-fraud-error-universal-credit The total amount is less than under payments and benefits that aren't claimed. Most fraud by MPs, Corporate executives and bankers we never hear about. Fraud by bankers/corporate executives only affects me if I am a share-holder of that bank or company. Not that fraud is then a lessor crime. Fraud is a criminal offence, no matter what, even if detected amongst only 0.7% of the benefit claimants Who do you think paid for the bailout of the banks? You really think the costs of corporate fraud don't come back to you? Ultimately the cost of all crime affects you. Car theft, burglary, vandalism and the rest cost you more in insurance premiums. Shoplifting costs you in higher prices for goods. Price fixing by banks, energy companies and other services costs you. If you think the only crime that affects you is benefit fraud...I'll just say you're mistaken, though I'd dearly love to say more. All fraud affects all of us in one way, shape or form. Insurance fraud affects me in higher premiums Benefit fraud affects me in higher taxes and/or poorer quality services. The fact that 'only' 0.7% is detected (which simply means that a lot of it goes undetected) could simply mean that more effort should be put into catching these scroungers and putting them behind bars Ofcourse, then we end up funding them in prisons so the argument these low-lifes will put forward is that it is cheaper to let them rip us off instead There is little that you haven't already said, but that is your way
Believe me, there's plenty that I haven't said.
Oh, then go ahead; I'll read it after I return from work in the evening
It's not worth a forum ban."I understand that bans are for a few days only and time for some, is irrelevant So, go on | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""there are 300 HMRC employees investigating tax evasion of over £70bn, and3,250 Department of Work and Pensions bods chasing down £1.2bn of benefit fraud" http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/13/britain-tax-code-17000-pages-long-dog-whistle-very-rich" Because there are only few individuals smart enough to commit high-value tax-evasion whereas benefit fraudsters committing low-value fraud are a dime-a-dozen | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I haven't read all the previous posts. But honestly, if there was an option to 'opt out' of the NHS and protect myself and my family via private health insurance, or opt out of the state unemployment benefit system and rely on the employment insurance I've already taken out, I'd probably go for it. That's not because I hate immigrants, want to condemn everyone on benefits, have any intention of voting UKIP or don't respect the NHS, but it would be financially in my self-interest to do so. Since there isn't that option available I'll keep with the status quo and only whinge to myself a little bit each month when I see my payslip deductions. " & who wants to pay V.A.T & P.A.Y.E when they know that they're being ripped off by the horrendous British class system? - same meat, different gravy, as the saying goes!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""there are 300 HMRC employees investigating tax evasion of over £70bn, and3,250 Department of Work and Pensions bods chasing down £1.2bn of benefit fraud" http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/13/britain-tax-code-17000-pages-long-dog-whistle-very-rich Because there are only few individuals smart enough to commit high-value tax-evasion whereas benefit fraudsters committing low-value fraud are a dime-a-dozen "That seems sensible use of resources and a balanced approach to you? Okaaaay then.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""there are 300 HMRC employees investigating tax evasion of over £70bn, and3,250 Department of Work and Pensions bods chasing down £1.2bn of benefit fraud" http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/13/britain-tax-code-17000-pages-long-dog-whistle-very-rich Because there are only few individuals smart enough to commit high-value tax-evasion whereas benefit fraudsters committing low-value fraud are a dime-a-dozen "They're not smart, it's just that they have the 'law' on their side! That's very naive. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""there are 300 HMRC employees investigating tax evasion of over £70bn, and3,250 Department of Work and Pensions bods chasing down £1.2bn of benefit fraud" http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/13/britain-tax-code-17000-pages-long-dog-whistle-very-rich Because there are only few individuals smart enough to commit high-value tax-evasion whereas benefit fraudsters committing low-value fraud are a dime-a-dozen
That seems sensible use of resources and a balanced approach to you? Okaaaay then. "Sensible approach would be to cut their bollocks off so that the next one doesn't even dream of ripping me off. But that is unlikely to happen in the PC nanny state. So let them run riot and do whatever these low-life fraudsters like | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""there are 300 HMRC employees investigating tax evasion of over £70bn, and3,250 Department of Work and Pensions bods chasing down £1.2bn of benefit fraud" http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/13/britain-tax-code-17000-pages-long-dog-whistle-very-rich Because there are only few individuals smart enough to commit high-value tax-evasion whereas benefit fraudsters committing low-value fraud are a dime-a-dozen
That seems sensible use of resources and a balanced approach to you? Okaaaay then.
Sensible approach would be to cut their bollocks off so that the next one doesn't even dream of ripping me off. But that is unlikely to happen in the PC nanny state. So let them run riot and do w
hatever these low-life fraudsters like"Do you include the Westminster & upper class fraudsters (& peodos) among your list? - the biggest parasites that British society has ever had to burn off it's skin, - & forever will have to, so it seems!! www.immigrationnz.com  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Has anyone here actually used the UJ site to look for a job? Advisors have struggled to get to grips with it. 75% of jobs on there are links to agencies. They are slow to remove vacancies that are no longer active. They send the same vacancies to your email daily,nothing new on them,same shit,every day,sometimes twice a day. When I first started using it my advisor said oh you've been busy,as I had lots of applications and entries about what I had done etc. Of course I had,it's why I'm here,I'm looking for a job duh. The annoying thing was being told to apply for jobs suited for forklift drivers and warehouse workers. They just give the same stuff to everyone. I got the impression that the advisors were as fed up with it as we were. " Yeah I used it... Now two years later I can't stop the emails... I blocked them all which means if I ever need it again I'll have to figure out how to unblock them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""there are 300 HMRC employees investigating tax evasion of over £70bn, and3,250 Department of Work and Pensions bods chasing down £1.2bn of benefit fraud" http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/13/britain-tax-code-17000-pages-long-dog-whistle-very-rich Because there are only few individuals smart enough to commit high-value tax-evasion whereas benefit fraudsters committing low-value fraud are a dime-a-dozen
That seems sensible use of resources and a balanced approach to you? Okaaaay then. "I wouldn't quite have phrased it like that but actually she's right. I think there should be more working on tax evasion too. But it's a much more highly skilled job, knowing what's involved in both of those roles (and one requires significant level of qualifications and technical skills) then that balance is not at all surprising. And this gets back to the point I was making earlier about number of cases. I'm sure there would be outcry if HMRC was revealed to have thousands of employees being paid over £100k a year. Because if they actually were to be serious about closing tax loopholes and investigating tax avoidance schemes, you need people skilled enough to be able to face off against the accountants and tax advisers who work for the firms setting up those schemes in the first place. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
""there are 300 HMRC employees investigating tax evasion of over £70bn, and3,250 Department of Work and Pensions bods chasing down £1.2bn of benefit fraud" http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/13/britain-tax-code-17000-pages-long-dog-whistle-very-rich Because there are only few individuals smart enough to commit high-value tax-evasion whereas benefit fraudsters committing low-value fraud are a dime-a-dozen
That seems sensible use of resources and a balanced approach to you? Okaaaay then.
Sensible approach would be to cut their bollocks off so that the next one doesn't even dream of ripping me off. But that is unlikely to happen in the PC nanny state. So let them run riot and do w
hatever these low-life fraudsters like
Do you include the Westminster & upper class fraudsters (& peodos) among your list? - the biggest parasites that British society has ever had to burn off it's skin, - & forever will have to, so it seems!!
www.immigrationnz.com "Your argument seems to be that lets concentrate on catching the axe murderers and once each and every last one of them has been caught and dealt with, let us then start thinking about dealing with the rapists Mine is that lets go after both of those types of creeps simultaneously I find that both those theiving groups adversely affect me. Perhaps only one of those groups affects you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I haven't read all the previous posts. But honestly, if there was an option to 'opt out' of the NHS and protect myself and my family via private health insurance, or opt out of the state unemployment benefit system and rely on the employment insurance I've already taken out, I'd probably go for it. That's not because I hate immigrants, want to condemn everyone on benefits, have any intention of voting UKIP or don't respect the NHS, but it would be financially in my self-interest to do so. Since there isn't that option available I'll keep with the status quo and only whinge to myself a little bit each month when I see my payslip deductions. " id also take a good look over at america and canada where private medical insurance have refused to pay out for what customers have paid for in private medical insrance | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I haven't read all the previous posts. But honestly, if there was an option to 'opt out' of the NHS and protect myself and my family via private health insurance, or opt out of the state unemployment benefit system and rely on the employment insurance I've already taken out, I'd probably go for it. That's not because I hate immigrants, want to condemn everyone on benefits, have any intention of voting UKIP or don't respect the NHS, but it would be financially in my self-interest to do so. Since there isn't that option available I'll keep with the status quo and only whinge to myself a little bit each month when I see my payslip deductions. id also take a good look over at america and canada where private medical insurance have refused to pay out for what customers have paid for in private medical insrance" See my post further down. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Your argument seems to be that lets concentrate on catching the axe murderers and once each and every last one of them has been caught and dealt with, let us then start thinking about dealing with the rapists Mine is that lets go after both of those types of creeps simultaneously I find that both those theiving groups adversely affect me. Perhaps only one of those groups affects you" There is a specialist team dedicated to investigating and dealing with fraudulent benefit claims and the amount of benefit crime has dropped significantly. Personally I think you're saying all this bollocks for a deliberate reaction, you can't seriously be that stupid to believe that all the countries problems and the amount of income tax you have to pay is purely down to the tiny number of people that commit benefit fraud. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
