Are The Unemployed Truly The People To Blame

[crash2006]

I was looking at the stats and came across this the cost to this government is less that the cost 15 years ago, so all the attacks on the unemployed are'nt justified. We are spending less on the unemployed now.

http://www.ukpublics...0657046#ukgs302

Public Spending Details for 1997

unemployment 11.5

GDP: £830.1

1.3853752% of gdp

Public Spending Details for 2011

GDP: £1,526.5 Unemployment 6.6 0.4323616%

this is GDP and nhs spending it seems we are spending less than what we did last year.

1990 570.283 29.3 a 29.3 a 5.14% 1991 598.664 32.8 a 32.8 a 5.48% 1992 622.08 37.1 a 37.1 a 5.96% 1993 654.196 40.5 a 40.5 a 6.19% 1994 692.987 42.16 a 42.16 a 6.08% 1995 733.266 46.08 a 46.08 a 6.28% 1996 781.726 47.73 a 47.73 a 6.11% 1997 830.094 50.07 a 50.07 a 6.03% 1998 879.102 52.92 a 52.92 a 6.02% 1999 928.73 45.76 a 45.76 a 4.93% 2000 976.533 49.57 a 49.57 a 5.08% 2001 1021.83 54.34 a 54.34 a 5.32% 2002 1075.56 59.93 a 59.93 a 5.57% 2003 1139.75 66.2 a 66.2 a 5.81% 2004 1202.96 74.91 a 74.91 a 6.23% 2005 1254.06 82.9 a 82.9 a 6.61% 2006 1325.8 89.56 a 89.56 a 6.76% 2007 1398.88 94.67 a 94.67 a 6.77% 2008 1448.39 102.3 a 102.3 a 7.06% 2009 1395.87 110.04 a 110.04 a 7.88% 2010 1453.62 118.31 a 118.31 a 8.14% 2011 1526.5 121.31 a 121.31 a 7.95% 2012 1602.8 123.8 g 123.8 g 7.72%

Edited March 19, 2012 by crash2006

[Self Employed Youth]

I was looking at the stats and came across this the cost to this government is less that the cost 15 years ago, so all the attacks on the unemployed are'nt justified. We are spending less on the unemployed now.

http://www.ukpublics...0657046#ukgs302

Public Spending Details for 1997

unemployment 11.5

GDP: £830.1

1.3853752% of gdp

Public Spending Details for 2011

GDP: £1,526.5 Unemployment 6.6 0.4323616%

Adjusted for GDP PPP the unemployment benefit of 1931 after it was cut from 18s to 15s3d would be equivalent to £215/week today (that is more than you get for working full time on minimum wage!). That was just the cash dole you got to spendo too. There was a form of housing benefit back then too.

The system is the problem, more precisely, those that set it up.

[crash2006]

Adjusted for GDP PPP the unemployment benefit of 1931 after it was cut from 18s to 15s3d would be equivalent to £215/week today (that is more than you get for working full time on minimum wage!). That was just the cash dole you got to spendo too. There was a form of housing benefit back then too.

The system is the problem, more precisely, those that set it up.

1985 we spend 10.97% of gdp on welfare today we spend only 7.17% whats going on? where is the tax money really going?

1985 361.758 39.7 a 10.97% 1986 389.149 43.3 a 11.13% 1987 428.665 46.5 a 10.85% 1988 478.51 48.6 a 10.16% 1989 525.274 49.7 a 9.46% 1990 570.283 52.8 a 9.26% 1991 598.664 59.1 a 9.87% 1992 622.08 70.2 a 11.28% 1993 654.196 48.52 a 7.42% 1994 692.987 52.95 a 7.64% 1995 733.266 52.81 a 7.20% 1996 781.726 55.58 a 7.11% 1997 830.094 55.68 a 6.71% 1998 879.102 52.32 a 5.95% 1999 928.73 54.81 a 5.90% 2000 976.533 59.01 a 6.04% 2001 1021.83 57.71 a 5.65% 2002 1075.56 58.93 a 5.48% 2003 1139.75 65.39 a 5.74% 2004 1202.96 73.83 a 6.14% 2005 1254.06 77.78 a 6.20% 2006 1325.8 81.23 a 6.13% 2007 1398.88 83.09 a 5.94% 2008 1448.39 86.88 a 6.00% 2009 1395.87 94.47 a 6.77% 2010 1453.62 106.69 a 7.34% 2011 1526.5 109.49 a 7.17% 2012 1602.8 110.97 g 6.92% 2013 1693.7 110.19 g 6.51% 2014 1789 109.05 g 6.10% 2015 1889.1 110.77 g 5.86%

Edited March 19, 2012 by crash2006

[Russe11]

1985 we spend 10.97% of gdp on welfare today we spend only 7.17% whats going on? where is the tax money really going?

1985 361.758 39.7 a 10.97% 1986 389.149 43.3 a 11.13% 1987 428.665 46.5 a 10.85% 1988 478.51 48.6 a 10.16% 1989 525.274 49.7 a 9.46% 1990 570.283 52.8 a 9.26% 1991 598.664 59.1 a 9.87% 1992 622.08 70.2 a 11.28% 1993 654.196 48.52 a 7.42% 1994 692.987 52.95 a 7.64% 1995 733.266 52.81 a 7.20% 1996 781.726 55.58 a 7.11% 1997 830.094 55.68 a 6.71% 1998 879.102 52.32 a 5.95% 1999 928.73 54.81 a 5.90% 2000 976.533 59.01 a 6.04% 2001 1021.83 57.71 a 5.65% 2002 1075.56 58.93 a 5.48% 2003 1139.75 65.39 a 5.74% 2004 1202.96 73.83 a 6.14% 2005 1254.06 77.78 a 6.20% 2006 1325.8 81.23 a 6.13% 2007 1398.88 83.09 a 5.94% 2008 1448.39 86.88 a 6.00% 2009 1395.87 94.47 a 6.77% 2010 1453.62 106.69 a 7.34% 2011 1526.5 109.49 a 7.17% 2012 1602.8 110.97 g 6.92% 2013 1693.7 110.19 g 6.51% 2014 1789 109.05 g 6.10% 2015 1889.1 110.77 g 5.86%

are you not missing tax credits, which would be in hmrcs budget, not DWP?

[Debbie568]

According to IFS, the amount spent on social security benefits in the 2009-10 year was £188 billion, and made up 28% of government spending.

"In 2009–10, about £188 billion was spent on social security benefits in Great Britain

(henceforth GB).4 This amounts to approximately £3,139 for every man, woman and

child in the country, and represents 28.1 per cent of total government expenditure

(13.74 per cent of GDP).5 Expenditure on social security represents by far the largest

single function of government spending, the next largest being expenditure on

health (which accounts for 17.8 per cent of total expenditure).

Approximately 30 million people in the UK – approximately half the total population

– receive income from at least one social security benefit."

(source: http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn13.pdf)

I realise unemployment benefits are only a small part of this sum. Working tax credits are are paid to millions of people according to the same report, and presumably they may also get the run on benefits that arise from claiming WTC, like housing benefit etc.The Labour government, to their credit, did a good job of stopping the easy identification of welfare recipients, by introducing things like paying the benefits directly into bank accounts, doing away with any kind of voucher, and even changing the name of various benefits to things like "tax credits". I guess it's just that we all know a few people who seem to be taking the p1ss when it comes to claiming what they are entitled to. People who don't work more than 16 hours a week because that's all they need to work to get access to WTC and all the attendant benefits. People who work for themselves and earn very little, secure in the knowledge that other taxpayers will top up their income. The minimum income guarantee used to apply to pensioners, but nowadays it applies to everybody.

It's not just the working poor who are potentially rorting the system. There are people who don't feel up to it mentally, so don't work. You can't expect people who struggle with their own mental health - e.g. maybe they get depressed from time to time - and still work full time to feel good about other people's choices. For every person who is off with a bad back, there are probably 2 who often experience back pain, but just work through it. Just because rorting the system is legal doesn't make it right.

[(Blizzard)]

There are two kinds of unemployed.

People without jobs who claim money by signing on.

People without jobs who claim money by manipulating a position of political or economic advantage. Landlords, planning officers, financial traders.

The former haven't really had much to do with the crisis. The latter pretty much caused it.

So unemployed people are the root cause of the problem, but only if you use a consistent definition of unemployment.

[Debbie568]

There are two kinds of unemployed.

People without jobs who claim money by signing on.

People without jobs who claim money by manipulating a position of political or economic advantage. Landlords, planning officers, financial traders.

The former haven't really had much to do with the crisis. The latter pretty much caused it.

So unemployed people are the root cause of the problem, but only if you use a consistent definition of unemployment.

I would have described the second group as employed - they may even be income tax payers - but not producing anything of any worth. "Worth" in the sense of being able to be traded outside of the UK and therefore bringing real wealth into the country.

[(Blizzard)]

I would have described the second group as employed - they may even be income tax payers - but not producing anything of any worth. "Worth" in the sense of being able to be traded outside of the UK and therefore bringing real wealth into the country.

So would most people, but it is inconsistent.

For example, Landlords earn money by hoarding land. No-one needs this service and no-one would pay for it were it not for the existence of a government who forces them to pay.

The unemployed watch Jeremy Kyle. No-one needs this service and no-one would pay for it were it not for the existence of a government who forces them to pay.

Both are the same kind of problem for the economy, but the second are a far smaller problem and (arguably) are losing out themselves.

Also, it isn't really fair to describe individuals as 'economically active' or 'rent-seeking'.

We are all involved in a mixture of both, landlords and the unemployed are just the extreme, economically inactive cases.

Edited March 19, 2012 by (Blizzard)

[Gone baby gone]

I was looking at the stats and came across this the cost to this government is less that the cost 15 years ago, so all the attacks on the unemployed are'nt justified. We are spending less on the unemployed now.

The categorisation might be helping to confuse the issue.

Of course, unemployment has always been a very small part of UK government benefit spending - significantly less than housing benefit.

Maybe this chart will help understand where quite a bit of money is going...

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/spending_chart_2001_2021UKb_11c1li111mcn_02t

[Self Employed Youth]

Yes but try buying an ipod in those days.

I've never bothered trying buying one these days, haven't even had an iphone 1 yet. I know they only cost a weeks rent. But a weeks rent is a large proportion of my income, and I need a roof over my head and and address in order to gain the ad hoc employment.

[crash2006]

The categorisation might be helping to confuse the issue.

Of course, unemployment has always been a very small part of UK government benefit spending - significantly less than housing benefit.

Maybe this chart will help understand where quite a bit of money is going...

http://www.ukpublics...1c1li111mcn_02t

nhs spending v gdp

1993 654.196 28.62 a 0.043748 1994 692.987 34.11 a 0.049222 1995 733.266 33.44 a 0.045604 1996 781.726 36.33 a 0.046474 1997 830.094 39.21 a 0.047236 1998 879.102 41.12 a 0.046775 1999 928.73 42.73 a 0.046009 2000 976.533 45.99 a 0.047095 2001 1021.83 52.52 a 0.051398 2002 1075.56 53.31 a 0.049565 2003 1139.75 54.82 a 0.048098 2004 1202.96 55.71 a 0.046311 2005 1254.06 59.18 a 0.047191 2006 1325.8 61.92 a 0.046704 2007 1398.88 64.2 a 0.045894 2008 1448.39 69.59 a 0.048046 2009 1395.87 76.78 a 0.055005 2010 1453.62 82.77 a 0.056941 2011 1526.5 86.69 a 0.05679

Edited March 19, 2012 by crash2006

[Georgia O'Keeffe]

1993 654.196 28.62 a 0.043748 1994 692.987 34.11 a 0.049222 1995 733.266 33.44 a 0.045604 1996 781.726 36.33 a 0.046474 1997 830.094 39.21 a 0.047236 1998 879.102 41.12 a 0.046775 1999 928.73 42.73 a 0.046009 2000 976.533 45.99 a 0.047095 2001 1021.83 52.52 a 0.051398 2002 1075.56 53.31 a 0.049565 2003 1139.75 54.82 a 0.048098 2004 1202.96 55.71 a 0.046311 2005 1254.06 59.18 a 0.047191 2006 1325.8 61.92 a 0.046704 2007 1398.88 64.2 a 0.045894 2008 1448.39 69.59 a 0.048046 2009 1395.87 76.78 a 0.055005 2010 1453.62 82.77 a 0.056941 2011 1526.5 86.69 a 0.05679

Yes, thats probably cleared it up for anyone called Johnny 5

[Olebrum]

No the unemployed are not completely to blame.

You can add the poor, the sick, the disabled, the elderly, feckless fathers, welfare mothers, their feral children,

the immigrants, sink estate dwellers, bed blockers, travellers, council tenants and anyone else I've forgotten to

mention (check todays Daily Mail), to the list.

These people, let us not forget, hold the reins of power in this country and control the intricate workings of the economy and are

wholly responsible for the all the troubles we now face.

['Bart']

Yes, thats probably cleared it up for anyone called Johnny 5

Or Joe 90.

[crash2006]

No the unemployed are not completely to blame.

You can add the poor, the sick, the disabled, the elderly, feckless fathers, welfare mothers, their feral children,

the immigrants, sink estate dwellers, bed blockers, travellers, council tenants and anyone else I've forgotten to

mention (check todays Daily Mail), to the list.

These people, let us not forget, hold the reins of power in this country and control the intricate workings of the economy and are

wholly responsible for the all the troubles we now face.

i don't think the unemployed are to blame but policies of the current government are, when you live in a nation that spends more in aid to help other around the world than its own unemployed, thats the problem.

[wonderpup]

No the unemployed are not completely to blame.

You can add the poor, the sick, the disabled, the elderly, feckless fathers, welfare mothers, their feral children,

the immigrants, sink estate dwellers, bed blockers, travellers, council tenants and anyone else I've forgotten to

mention (check todays Daily Mail), to the list.

These people, let us not forget, hold the reins of power in this country and control the intricate workings of the economy and are

wholly responsible for the all the troubles we now face.

You forgot to mention the fiendishly cunning borrowers who tricked innocent and trusting banks into lending them money they could not afford to pay back.

Edited March 19, 2012 by wonderpup

[Olebrum]

You forgot to mention the fiendishly cunning borrowers who tricked innocent and trusting banks into lending them money they could not afford to pay back.

Yeah, them too.