Unemployment and Benefits

[alw]

Of course every single one of these analyses of immigrant contribution or deficit deliberately omit the cost of providing infrastructure and services for the increased population.

They always pretend that the new population goes away at night and does not need housing, does not need additional transport to deliver them food and other goods and medical capacity was not increased as the numbers increased.

Government should only be permitted to admit new citizens for whom they have already provided spare capacity, including jobs.

Of course no government has ever dared to price out the cost of physically accommodating and supplying the millions that continue to arrive.  Officially migration increased the UK population by 243,000 in 2013 and yet every year the number of new houses built goes down.

[SteveH]

Sorry alw, missed this post,   all good points.

[Hugo]

Yes Alw some very good points but the numbers of immigrants quoted is at best only an estimate and I would imagine grossly under estimated.    These Government bodies are inclined to manipulate statistics to suit their aims or policies.
I was watching a program on TV this week and they were interviewing a Fruit Farmer who employed only foreign workers as the English people were not prepared to do the work of fruit picking!
That's absurd, fruit picking is not exactly rocket science and all that is required is a reasonable level of fitness for this manual work.  If so many people in the UK are out of work why can't the employer approach the Job Centre and ask the Centre to send out the number of workers he needs?

[mull]

Fruit/Vegetable pickers are usually controlled by Gang Masters paying them very low wages . It has been going on for years.
In certain parts of the UK these foreign workers are living in appalling conditions that are only tolerated by those desperate to be in this country.

If we were all prepared to pay the true cost of our fruit and veg it would put a stop to this exploitation.

[Hugo]

You are quite right of course about some workers being controlled by Gang masters and the various Governments have tried to stop this but in this case the employer was openly  being interviewed on TV.
I assume that he would be paying those employees the minimum wage because if he wasn't then he would be in trouble for not doing so and like wise if any of them were illegal immigrants then he would be fined for employing them.
He seemed to be genuine and would not have been stupid enough to leave himself open to investigation by the authorities.
The point I was trying to make is why  couldn't he just go to the Job Centre and get local people to do the work, accommodation wouldn't come in to it as the people would already have an address in the local area.

[Hugo]

David Cameron was supposed to be capping benefits at £26K and here is another example of why it should be done.    There are some people who disagree with the £26K cap,  saying that it is far too high and should be much lower, because after all the benefits are tax free. 
I'm sure that the people receiving these high benefits and a few odd bods would disagree but it's unfair and just stupid


https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDkQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mirror.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuk-news%2Fdad-of-26-1k-windfall-after-council-4499440&ei=s71LVMHHEcWP7Abr2YCQDA&usg=AFQjCNGwoi0FHyA89LYFaxcj8aSCDn-i5A

[SteveH]

Hi Hugo, I managed to watch a small part of the TV program, before changing channel, not only has he fathered these children on benefits, they are exactly the same, young single parents on benefits, they are laughing there heads off at us,..... there is a mentality of deliberately having children, just for the housing and benefits and we have said before, that this cycle has to be broken, starting with education.
Every idea I think of ends up affecting "the baby" ....if you stop housing and benefits, make them stay in the family home, and tough luck if it is not big enough....etc.
I found this interesting article, it might help...
April 2013
Benefits in Britain: separating the facts from the fiction 
How many people are dependent on welfare – and do families where three generations have never worked really exist?
The welfare state is a big part of British family life, with 20.3 million families receiving some kind of benefit (64% of all families), about 8.7 million of them pensioners. For 9.6 million families, benefits make up more than half of their income (30% of all families), around 5.3 million of them pensioners. The number of families receiving benefits will be between 1 and 2 million fewer now because of changes to child tax credits that mean some working families who previously got a small amount now get nothing.
(In my opinion pensioners should not be included as being on benefits, they paid into the system to get a pension)

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/apr/06/welfare-britain-facts-myths

[Hugo]

(In my opinion pensioners should not be included as being on benefits, they paid into the system to get a pension)

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/apr/06/welfare-britain-facts-myths

The sad part of this Steve is that out there, there are also OAP'S who have never worked a day in their life which seems unbelievable.   I don't bother watching those benefit programmes on TV as they would drive me mad by their contents.   One classic comment I heard somewhere by an unemployed female was that it was her human rights to be entitled to benefits as her grandfather had apparently paid his taxes.
When women can make a career out of getting pregnant and men can go through life without doing a days work is unfair to the majority of working people and is totally unacceptable and unsustainable.
Right or wrong there still seems to be a class system in the UK and that's the upper class, middle class and the working class but where does it leave those physically and mentally able bodied people who refuse to work and are content to live off the backs of those that work.
They cannot be called working class as they don't work by choice and the only word I can think of that is printable is a parasite as they also feed off a host.

[SteveH]

I am still reading up on this subject, and found this article on low pay, another side of the story, these are the people who want to work......... I think your reference to "Parasites" is correct, and when we discuss unemployment and benefits, we will have to remember it is a minority group of parasites we are talking about.

"While low pay is likely to be better than no pay at all, it’s troubling that the number of low-paid workers across Britain reached a record high last "

“Being low paid – and getting stuck there for years on end – creates not only immediate financial pressures, but can permanently affect people’s career prospects. A growing rump of low-paid jobs also presents a financial headache for the government because it fails to boost the tax take and raises the benefits bill for working people."

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/26/record-number-of-britons-in-low-paid-jobs-says-thinktank

[born2run]

This 'parasite' thing is as you rightly say, a tiny minority. The vast majority of people who are on benefits are there because they need it. Whether it's because they are too old to work, looking after young Children or mentally or physically incapable of sustaining a job.

How do you differentiate between the genuine people and the people you call 'parasites' ?
You can't. That simple, any kind of benefit cap, benefit cuts or anything else is only going to hurt those people who genuinely need those benefits to survive.

All these attempts to 'stop the scroungers' and whatever else the government throws out to pander to the bitter right wingers only hurts and attacks the most vulnerable and needy people in our society. Even the right wing gutter press think some of these new 'incentives' are harsh to say the least

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2809386/Father-told-work-lose-benefits-hospital-waiting-quadruple-bypass-just-days-suffered-heart-attack.html

[Hugo]

That link's typical of the DFM and hopefully that's just an extreme example of what is happening with the benefit changes.
Any civilised society has a moral obligation to look after and protect children, the elderly, the sick and the vulnerable people and there can be no argument about that.
Often people are on benefits through no fault of their own but we are not talking about them but about the small minority that refuse to do any work.    I make no apology for calling them parasites because that is what they are and the dictionary defines them as so.
To get a fair society it is only right that we all contribute to society in a positive manner and that includes everyone from all walks of society.
Now tax avoidance and tax evasion are two different things.   One is perfectly legal and the other is not. 
The rich and famous and those large multi international companies have been heavily criticized and quite rightly so for not paying their fair share of tax.  But they have done nothing wrong, nothing illegal because the present system allows them to do it.  It is morally wrong though and needs sorting out.
Benefit claimants such as the example of the father of 26 receiving £32K tax free have done nothing wrong either as the system allows them to claim these ridiculous amounts while sitting on their backsides and doing nothing to contribute to society
Both examples are obscene and shouldn't be tolerated.  This statement is just ridiculous    "any kind of benefit cap, benefit cuts or anything else is only going to hurt those people who genuinely need those benefits to survive"
 How do you think the vast majority of working people cope?   
They live in property they can afford, have as many children as they can financial support and so the list goes on.
We have seen the wages of trade unionists being pegged for many years and the Nurses pay being stopped this year and in effect these working people have effectively had a pay cut.
Now if I was a Union Rep and said to my members that it is perfectly ok for benefit people to have a higher income than the members I represent then I would seriously question whether I was the right man for the job.

[Ian]

The vast majority of people who are on benefits are there because they're...looking after young Children

But isn't having children optional? I suspect a lot of folk are concerned about people having children and expecting the state to finance their upbringing. What would you say to them, B2R?

[born2run]

What is there to possibly say?- What can you, I or anyone else do about it?
 The answer is nothing,

We can't stop these people having children.
We are not going to let these Children starve.
Therefore the state will continue to support these Children.

There is zero debate to be had.

Remember not all people looking after Children are able to work. Lots are single parent, with non school age Children. It is not practicable for them to work.

[born2run]

  This statement is just ridiculous    "any kind of benefit cap, benefit cuts or anything else is only going to hurt those people who genuinely need those benefits to survive"
 How do you think the vast majority of working people cope?   

That is completely irrelevant. We are not talking about how the vast majority of working people cope, we are talking as I quite clearly said about 'those who genuinely need those benefits to survive'

Unless you are proposing a Darwinian type concept in which only people who are fortunate enough to be in and who are capable of work will survive then you're just throwing up apples instead of oranges!


 

[Ian]

What is there to possibly say?- What can you, I or anyone else do about it? The answer is nothing,

I suspect the answer is a political one. And you haven't answered the question.  Do you support single girls having babies and expecting the state to look after them? Because that's what appears to be happening.

Remember not all people looking after Children are able to work. Lots are single parent,

See my previous point...

I'm playing devil's advocate here, but you're lacking in coherent responses.