10 Facts About Benefits Britain

[Flopsy]

As i said in my post, the only people who are harming genuine disabled people are fakers, people who tell you it is not worth working then go to thier doctors with a walking stick, its not hate its a fact.

It's up to disabled people like myself to say what is harming us.

The fakers are not harming "us". What is harming us are the claims online that there is a large or substantial or whatever what want to call it group of people who are claiming benefit and could work if they chose to. What harms us are the attacks from people online and in public which have increased.

Why dump the "responsibility" for the fakers on us as "our" problem.

It is resulting in increased verbal and physical attacks on people in my own disabled group for people with neurological diseases. It is also resulting in increased numbers being denied benefit, having to fight legally to get benefits, being denied blue badges and being reported to the DWP as a "faker" resulting in very distressing surveillance and investigations. This hurts genuine disabled people.

Not wanting to get involved in this debate, but the irony in that statement was just too much not to comment on!

You did chose to get involved in this debate and chose not to comment on the attacks on the disabled, but the disabled person who posted.

Irony indeed.

So you cherry pick your attacks and ignore the earlier hate speak "We all KNOW a sizeable proportion of these people are taking the piss, hence why the fraud figure is also rubbish."

We have a poster hear claiming just that. Go back and look if you can be bothered. Have a look on any thread on benefits and the disabled here and then come back and tell me it's not a problem on this forum.

Edited July 1, 2014 by Flopsy

[Flopsy]

Flopsy location: "London Central".

'nuff said.

Yeah so, your point was?

I'm not currently living in Central London and I still don't know anyone like that.

I was commenting on this claim "We all KNOW a sizeable proportion of these people are taking the piss, hence why the fraud figure is also rubbish."

So you cherry pick your attack lobbing one at me instead. The remark above is hurting disabed people regardless of where we live. People in London are being abused as "fakers", denied benefits as well.

Edited July 1, 2014 by Flopsy

[Digsby]

You did chose to get involved in this debate and chose not to comment on the attacks on the disabled, but the disabled person who posted.

Irony indeed.

So you cherry pick your attacks and ignore the earlier hate speak "We all KNOW a sizeable proportion of these people are taking the piss, hence why the fraud figure is also rubbish."

We have a poster hear claiming just that. Go back and look if you can be bothered. Have a look on any thread on benefits and the disabled here and then come back and tell me it's not a problem on this forum.

No, I chose *not* to get involved in the debate, and that is why I chose *not* to comment "the attacks on the disabled" (and if you need clarification, my quotes do not indicate any opinion on the truthfulness or otherwise of the quote, they indicate that I am *not* getting involved in the debate).

The irony of me making it clear that my comment was purely to point out the irony in your sweeping generalisation about people who make sweeping generalisations is lost on me I'm afraid, you must have a much keener sense of irony than me.

At no point did I state that it was a joke or an idle debate, I did not attack you, I ignored nothing, I have read the entire thread, and I'd appreciate your not implying that I cannot be bothered. No, I am not looking through previous threads on benefits and the disabled, because I am *not* getting involved in the debate.

[awaytogo]

It's up to disabled people like myself to say what is harming us.

The fakers are not harming "us". What is harming us are the claims online that there is a large or substantial or whatever what want to call it group of people who are claiming benefit and could work if they chose to. What harms us are the attacks from people online and in public which have increased.

No one is blaming any genuine disabled person, just the ones who as many people know of them are faking it, who in many cases admit it, how can you say they are not harming you?

[time2sleep]

Also I note under your avatar it says 'new members' and '8 posts'

I also note once again no rational point is being made. Stop wasting everyones time.

I am an unashamed sock puppet, though I was a regular reader of this forum for years before I saw your sleazy moniker appear.

My point about sock puppets was well made. You were accusing anyone who disagreed with you of having mulitple posting identities so you could shrink your opposition into a series of clones of a poster or two whose opinions you find disagreeable.

Well, I may be a sock puppet, but I'm not "operated" by any of the other posters on this thread. I've read the posts of those who you were attacking and they all have pretty unique styles and voices. I'd be very surprised indeed if any of them have multiple accounts.

Nor do I have multiple accounts. I merely don't give a flying fox about internet identities so I tend to fairly frequently forget the user names and passwords I've used previously. No problem, I'm not idenitified with any of the names I've posted under. But if I create an account I will continue to use it until I forget the details, usually becasue I didn't post for a while.

Frankly I don't even have a problem if anyone has a problem with my posting behaviour. There's a lot of value added to discussion forums by recognisable pseudonyms, the regular posters create a genuine community and good on them. But there's room for people just passing through as well, in my opnion, or people coming back with a different name because they lost an older one.

If I'm banned for saying so, so be it.

My point stands: the posters you attacked and accused of running multiple accounts look like perfectly genuine and unique posters to me and I've read this forum for many years.

As for rational debate - the right wing crew that's taken over here lowers the tone to the extent its hardly worth having any more. Rationale debate with borderline idiots is not really possible. They always come away crowing and believing they won the argument. What was the phrase used by the Russians about the Americans: they play chess like a pigeon strutting all over the board shitting on it. and count that a victory. Just as its impossible to beat a pigeon at chess, so too its impossible to enter into rationale debate with a right-winger.

[cybernoid]

This is more or less what Cybernoid has argued- that there should be different standards of moral behavior depending on how much value you have added to society- the more value you have added, the less obliged you are to behave in a moral way.

Not even close.

FOURTH TIME :

Could it be the case that 'the rich' actually do indeed have less moral imperative to work than 'the poor'?

Well, if I'm rich, today I might go to the golf course. Or I might work on my business a bit. Which is most moral? Well, its my money. I made it. Its my money I spend when I go to the golf course when I feel like it. This life of choice is one I purchased by making myself rich. It hurts no-one else if I work a bit today or decide to take the day off. No harm is being done, it would be difficult to describe my life of leisure, that I earned, as immoral.

If Im poor, today maybe I could go to the golf course too. But I'm unemployed and on benefits. And the only reason I can afford to go to the golf course is because other people who are at work today have paid for me to go via their taxation. If I don't bother to work, others are harmed. They have to pay from their taxation for my benefits. If I work instead, I am less of a burden on the state and therefore on the tax payer. So in this case a moral judgement can be made. Its not my money Im spending, I didn't earn it, others did.

If Im rich and take a day off because I can afford it, I have no moral case to answer. If Im poor and I take a day off because other people have to work to pay for me I do have a moral case to answer.

Got it yet?

[cybernoid]

Rationale debate with borderline idiots is not really possible.

Correct.

You have made no point. Why are you posting?

[time2sleep]

No one is blaming any genuine disabled person, just the ones who as many people know of them are faking it, who in many cases admit it, how can you say they are not harming you?

The vast majority of those claiming disability benefits are genuninely disabled. Do you have any idea how strict the tests are these days?

Sure, there may be a few cases which fall into a "grey" area, for example, certain disabilities are socially induced or maintained, perhaps some types of obesity, addiction, perhaps even some mental illnesses. If someone has been given such a shitty ride through life that they've become partly broken by it, my first question would be "where is the help for that person to enable them to participate more fully in society?" We don't even have enough jobs for the able-bodied and mentally well as it is.

As for the out-and-out fraudsters, they are a tiny minority. Frankly if a small percentage of fraud is the price to be paid for those who are disabled to get the benefits they're entitled to, then I am willing as a tax-payer to pay that cost. It's the price of a civilised society, because the way that some of you seem to want disabled peopel to be treated is barbaric. The doubts to be cast on their "genuineness", the burden of proof you are asking them to take on to prove that they're not "fake", don't you think thye've got enough on their plate dealing with the frigging illness or disability in the first place? Believe me the tests are already hard, strict, inconvenient, punitive and occasionally humiliating for too many disabled people making benefits claims. And you want to make it harder?

[time2sleep]

Correct.

You have made no point. Why are you posting?

And you have made no point. Coo coo. Why are you strutting?

[wonderpup]

If i came to your house tomorrow and robbed it would you be happy with it, well the fakers are robbing you every day and rubbing it in as well,

Yes- from a certain point of view this is morally wrong of course-I agree. However self interest is not a moral proposition- it's an amoral proposition, so your argument is invalid.

The motivational model proposed by the wealthy is very clear on this point- they work only for reasons of self interest. Why else would a man paid a generous salary require in addition a large bonus to provide him with the motivation to do his own job? A man with a work ethic would feel a moral pressure to do that job without additional incentive. Clearly no such ethic now prevails among our societies elite.

So if the people at the top take this utilitarian view why should anyone else take a different one?

So while I understand that you have a strong moral objection to the attitude taken by those you call 'fakers' you are assuming that moral values have place in this debate- they do not.

If we accept the elite claim that self interest is the sole motivator of human effort then we cannot really argue against someone acting in their own self interest can we?

[cybernoid]

And you have made no point. Coo coo. Why are you strutting?

If you have anything rational to contribute try your hardest and try to do so. If you do not, stop posting.

[cybernoid]

If we accept the elite claim that self interest is the sole motivator of human effort then we cannot really argue against someone acting in their own self interest can we?

Again, it is not in a persons self interest to live on benefits rather than working.

I would like to see evidence for your claim that 'the elite' (whatever that means) are collectively making statements which include that 'self interest is the sole motivator'. Do they have a committee? Perhaps a news letter? 'The elite monthly ; how to live your lives' ?

Edited July 1, 2014 by cybernoid

[spyguy]

The vast majority of those claiming disability benefits are genuninely disabled. Do you have any idea how strict the tests are these days?

Anecdotally, I would guess 70% of disabilities in Teesside are either swinging it: bad back, depression, or have conditions that people would not classify as disabilities - alcholisms, or self inflicted obesity and smoking related stuff.

[wonderpup]

If Im rich and take a day off because I can afford it, I have no moral case to answer. If Im poor and I take a day off because other people have to work to pay for me I do have a moral case to answer.

Got it yet?

You are going backwards here. We have already established that if the only reason to work is self interest then no one has a moral case to answer- so your distinction between those who have resources and those who do not is entirely beside the point.

The thing that you seem quite unable to grasp here is that self interest has no moral dimension at all-none- it's an amoral concept. So all moral argument is redundant if we accept the self interest model of human motivation.

My point here is that we cannot complain that the poor act in their own self interest while the rich constantly promote the idea that this is exactly how human beings are supposed to act- and they use this argument to oppose any attempt to redistribute wealth on the grounds that it would lead to a chronic demotivation of themselves in their (self defined) role as the nations 'wealth creators'.

In effect they argue that their self interest is so vital to the national interest that it would be economic suicide to damage that self interest- a potent claim indeed- it elevates greed to the highest level of social virtue.

So greed is not only good- it's a vital national interest. And that is a perfectly clear argument even if you don't agree with it.

So in my view we can either argue in favor of pure self interest-'greed is good' or we can argue that self interest should be balanced with social responsibility- what we cannot do is argue that the rich are free to act purely in their own self interest while the poor should act in a socially responsible way- to me this is blatant double standards.

[wonderpup]

Again, it is not in a persons self interest to live on benefits rather than working.

But you do not dispute that they should be acting in their self interest-whatever that might be?

I would like to see evidence for your claim that 'the elite' (whatever that means) are collectively making statements which include that 'self interest is the sole motivator'. Do they have a committee? Perhaps a news letter? 'The elite monthly ; how to live your lives' ?

Have you ever heard of an idea called 'Trickle down economics?'- it's been propagated by the elite for the last thirty years as the best way to create wealth for society.

Based on a rather selective interpretation of the work of a man called Adam Smith it essentially argues that individual self interest is the primary motivation of human beings- and that this is a good thing since as a consequence of that self interest people will work to produce the goods and services that others need-not out of kindness but out of their desire to grow wealthy and successful.

From this idea is then derived the argument that 'greed is good' and that taxing the rich is against the national interest since it's the desire of the rich to get richer that drives the nations prosperity in the form of investments in jobs and industry.

In my view trickldown has failed to deliver- but it is at least a coherent narrative that places self interest at the core of human motivations- which is why I find it so odd that people who agree with this view also seem to feel that poor people should not act in their own self interest but should instead act in a 'moral' fashion- so instead of doing what's best for themselves the poor- in contrast to the rich- should instead 'do the right thing' by society.

So as society we are saying it's fine for the rich to be greedy and selfish- but if the poor act the same way that's 'immoral'?

This is bullshite.

[cybernoid]

Thems good trollings !

If you really believe what you're saying and not just intentionally being provocative for amusement I think you're alone in this 'thinking'… and convincing you is not something Im keen enough on to actually expend the effort in spelling it all out, yet again, when my only reward is to have the same stuff repeated at me with another request to join you in your rabbit hole.

If anyone else is actually in agreement with this chap on this do speak up !

[Goat]

Yeah so, your point was?

I'm not currently living in Central London and I still don't know anyone like that.

See Spyguy's post on Teeside, the fact that you don't know anybody like that doesn't mean that they don't exist and the fact that you quote your location as "london central" suggests that you don't move in the kind of circles where you would meet such people.

[Goat]

Thems good trollings !

What exactly is he trying to argue this time? To be honest I find his convoluted posting style and pseudo-logic frankly impenetrable and I'm not going to wade through 18 pages to find out.

Based on past experience he's trying to confuse marginal tax rates with absolute levels of income and argue that if we cut tax rates we should also increase benefits or vice versa.

This talk of morality and self-interest is a red herring, does anyone actually think that anyone has a moral responsability to work? I have no problem with the poor acting in their self-interest¹ so long as they don't object to reform of the system to discourage excessive drain from the public purse.

1. excluding fraudulent acts.

Edited July 1, 2014 by Goat

[cybernoid]

So can you explain to me why the poorest people in our society should adhere to a work ethic when the people at the very top are so lacking in a work ethic themselves that the only way to get them to perform their own jobs properly is by throwing money at them?

then,

This is more or less what Cybernoid has argued- that there should be different standards of moral behavior depending on how much value you have added to society- the more value you have added, the less obliged you are to behave in a moral way.

Not even close.

FOURTH TIME :

Could it be the case that 'the rich' actually do indeed have less moral imperative to work than 'the poor'?

Well, if I'm rich, today I might go to the golf course. Or I might work on my business a bit. Which is most moral? Well, its my money. I made it. Its my money I spend when I go to the golf course when I feel like it. This life of choice is one I purchased by making myself rich. It hurts no-one else if I work a bit today or decide to take the day off. No harm is being done, it would be difficult to describe my life of leisure, that I earned, as immoral.

If Im poor, today maybe I could go to the golf course too. But I'm unemployed and on benefits. And the only reason I can afford to go to the golf course is because other people who are at work today have paid for me to go via their taxation. If I don't bother to work, others are harmed. They have to pay from their taxation for my benefits. If I work instead, I am less of a burden on the state and therefore on the tax payer. So in this case a moral judgement can be made. Its not my money Im spending, I didn't earn it, others did.

If Im rich and take a day off because I can afford it, I have no moral case to answer. If Im poor and I take a day off because other people have to work to pay for me I do have a moral case to answer.

Followed by wilful obfuscation where he attempts to remove morality from incentivises having introduced them into the discussion in the first place, blah de blah, blah blah blah.

Wonderpup set menu number 72

I expect he's pretty confused what point he was making himself.

Im done, knock yourself out

[Goat]

So has anyone actually suggested that the poor should adhere to a work ethic? I thought the debate was about incentivising them to work rather than relying upon state handouts.

[spyguy]

Maybe we should be celebrating the 'new' disabled for their new freedom.

After all, 50 odd years ago someone with a non-specific 'lung condition', preventing them from working, would be confined to a metal lung or maybe a sanitorium in Bournemouth.

Now, the advances in medical science and generous DLA allows that individual to go to football, drink 10 pints and have a scrap with a police horse:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/newcastle-united-fan-who-punched-1836372

[time2sleep]

Maybe we should be celebrating the 'new' disabled for their new freedom.

After all, 50 odd years ago someone with a non-specific 'lung condition', preventing them from working, would be confined to a metal lung or maybe a sanitorium in Bournemouth.

Now, the advances in medical science and generous DLA allows that individual to go to football, drink 10 pints and have a scrap with a police horse:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/newcastle-united-fan-who-punched-1836372

There have always been those who take advantage of the system, any system, always will be. So what?

Their existence is noted. But it doesn't need to be trumpeted over and over and over and over as it if proved any kind of point about anything else. It is what is is. the fact remains it is still difficult for genuinely disabled people to go through the hoops required for DLA and increasingly PIP claims. Funding is already under attack and the disabled have suffered disproportionatley during the recent recession and "austerity" climate.

I'm a tax-payer and I consider the price of a civilised society where disabled people don't have to go begging for a living is well worth paying even if that means a few fraudsters or borderline cases slip through the net.

Why does it wind you up so much? Lot of noise and fuss and drama about nothing.

[wonderpup]

So has anyone actually suggested that the poor should adhere to a work ethic?

Have you ever read a single thread on benefits where terms like 'lazy' or 'workshy' are not routinely trotted out?

This thread itself is littered with value judgments all predicated on the notion that working is a moral obligation to some degree or another.

So yes- there is a strong belief in the idea that to work is an ethical responsibility- and why not?

I have no problem with the idea that work has both a self interest and a social responsibility aspect- what I object to is the double standard whereby we insist the poor work for reasons of social responsibility while agreeing that the Rich can only be motivated by money.

So while FTSE 100 CEOs have awarded themselves a 480% pay rise since 1998, and the wages of the average worker have risen from around £22,500 to £26,500 over the same period- an increase of about 15%- any suggestion that taxes on the wealthy might be raised is met with the claim that without these huge 'incentives' the nations 'wealth creators' would stop working.

So what happened to social responsibility at the top? Why do people who are well rewarded for their efforts seem to always need more and more to perform their jobs?

Well the claim is that these people can only motivated by more money- thus they need more and more of it to stay motivated- and this is a claim they themselves seem happy to endorse.

And that's fair enough- but note that a man who is only motivated by money does not-by definition- have a work ethic- because a work ethic means working for reasons other than personal gain. A man with a strong work ethic will get the job done not only because you pay him but also because he feels a moral obligation to do the job to the best of his ability- such a man would not require an additional 'bonus' to provide him with motivation, he motivated by his ethics.

So as I understand things we have a situation in which the poor can be expected to work for reasons of social responsibility while the rich must be persuaded to work with large incentive payments on top of their already large salaries.

Arguing that those who are wealthy need not behave in an ethical way fails to address the point, which is why anyone would be stupid enough to imagine that the poor will respect an ethical standard that applies only to themselves and not to those at the top of society.

And why the same people who argue that self interest is king then bleat on endlessly that the poor are not acting in an unselfish and socially responsible way- why should they? have they not been told that personal gain is the only reason to work? and told this by the leaders of our Society- leaders who back up this claim by taking ever larger slices of the nations wealth to themselves?

So to talk about people being 'lazy' or 'workshy' misses the point entirely. In a world of rational self interested agents there is no such thing as a 'lazy' or 'workshy' person- there are only those for whom the correct combination of incentives has not yet materialized.

[DarkHorseWaits-NoMore]

+1

[winkie]

So has anyone actually suggested that the poor should adhere to a work ethic? I thought the debate was about incentivising them to work rather than relying upon state handouts.

There are two kinds of work...work you can do for money, cash, a credit to your bank account each month, and work you do where you are not paid, either because the work you do the recipients can't pay or won't pay or where there is nobody available to pay whatever is the going rate.......all work is not paid work, but it is still, time consuming and necessary, important hard work.