Isn't it curious how welfare scroungers are the same the world over? This clip is from America, but I'm certain some of our resident Lefty layabouts on this group will recognise some of the characters portrayed as they're so universal.
Cursitor Doom snipped-for-privacy@notformail.com wrote
But the welfare systems arent. Here you are welcome to bludge on the dole for your entire 'life' if you decide that the lifestyle suits you. You can't do that in the USA.
In spades with HongKong before it was handed back to china.
:-)
Are you sure?
The term "welfare witch" was coined there. Yes, we have the same people in the UK and I'll bet they exist in Oz too.
JNugent snipped-for-privacy@mail.com wrote
Yep.
Just journo bullshit.
Yep, and I know some personally.
National Service would sort them out.
On 7 Apr 2024 at 10:28:15 BST, "Paul" snipped-for-privacy@needed.invalid lamented:
"Defunding the police" doesn't help, and we know who to blame for that. Fortunately, here, there is no option to do that.
If you want a s*it army.
Or just need cannon fodder.
A state pension is a state benefit. Perhaps everyone should be entitled and choose to work or not?
The issue is more over a lack of incentive to work, where in many case it costs a family more to work than get benefits.
Everyone is entitled to make that choice. It's a free country. But anyone who does so had better have a private income.
And that's because the state, on behalf of those who do choose to work and on behalf of those who pay taxes (willingly or unwillingly), is entitled, no, under a duty, to look on in detached bemusement without paying other peoples' money to the person exercising the choice not to work.
The law on benefits for unemployed / unemployable has, in fact, always been quite clear:
Look for work (and look convincing while doing it) and when a job is offered, take it.
Fail in either of those and the deal with the taxpayer has been voided. Unemployment benefit is not some sort of flat-footed entitlement. It's a quid pro quo.
No quid, no quo.
And it has been like that since benefits were invented. It's nothing new.
But you already know this.
"It's a free country" you say. Since when? It was close to being one when I was growing up, but that's long gone, mate. Anyone can lose their job or even their career just through one careless remark. That
*never* used to be the case back in the day.AISI, the tax burden is the real incentive killer here, not low pay. But if you look at the state of the nation's finances, it ain't a pretty sight. It's either continue to levy crippling taxes or default on that *huge* pile of debt that's been built up over the decades. Neither choice is pleasant, but *debt* could bring this country (and many other Western countries) down at any time now. It's inevitable with the course we're on that sooner or later the bond markets will sell off and TSHTF.
Actually, that's not the case. During the 1970s and 80s, being on the dole required no effort on the part of the claimant to seek work. That's a far more recent development.
A careless remark such as that trans women are still men, style of thing?
But they are. Biology being what it is and all.
Of course.
Since women with young children are no required to work, guess what:
Where there's a will there will always be a way.
Bullshit on the many.
Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something...
It is perfectly possible to live on benefits without a private income.
Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something...
The law says nothing like that last.
There is no deal involved.
Try that in english. Even google translate doesnt do gobbledegook yet.
Nope.
Nope.
Nope.
Tax dodgers are far worse.
The real benefit scroungers are the government.
In the UK, only if you have zero housing costs i.e. live with parents.
Unemployment benefit barely covers basic food, and lasts for a maximum of six months, during which evidence of looking for work *is* required.
Maybe it's different where you are.
What happens, of course, is that people come down with 'depression', and disability benefit is not limited to six months. It's still pretty low, though. You need lots of children to make it useful, and an extra wife or two helps. Yes, they *are* counted as dependants.
The wording may be different, but claimants are required to produce evidence of recent job applications/interviews/refusals.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required