The EU debate - Part III

Based on that a single sentence from their own site that says none of that?

 

It comes down to that quote I posted earlier mate;

The rich will only work if you give them money and the poor will only do so if you take it away. Those words might as well be emblazoned across the foreheads of every member of the government, for underneath the facade of compassionate conservatism this appears to be what many on the front bench genuinely believe

 

you think they are going to say that they could do a better job?

 

Everyone can do a better job. It's meaningless. Nobody's claiming otherwise.

Your claim wasn't that they can do a better job, though.
It was that they "throw their hands in the air and say it's too difficult to stop paying lazy people benefits".
You've completely failed to support this in any way.

 

What a bunch of ****ing morons lol. You are so blinded by your dislike of anything posted by certain members that you want to create bullshit arguments and run around back slapping and rimming each other. Even when you agree with the main points, you still try to twist the original point so as to have something to say 'no' to and whine about.

Napoleon pops in to play the pedantic prat (badly) every once in a while. Stan the snide sits at home fuming at the screen as he tries to resist posting too often in the hope we all believe he now has a job. Tobes just thinks he can win a point because his paragraphs contain more expletives than the opposing side and the rest are clinging onto the shirt tails of whoever in the remain camp manages to use words of more than 2 syllables.

Oh well never mind. Carry on carrying on.

 

you were the one giving the impression that people shouldn't make an effort because it might catch people who are genuinely trying to find work

 

Bingo!

Next he'll be blaming the refs

 

Nope. Feel free to quote me saying that, though. Good luck.

 

What a small man you are.

 

#deltmown

 

you didn't you those precise words but you certainly gave that impression
“genuinely ill people get cut off, instead.”
“At what point does the risk of cutting off genuine claimants outweigh the payments to the lazy?”
or do you agree with me that more should be done to make lazy people try to find work?

 

Some flip flop so much, they'll end up with shoes on their feet.

If I could be arsed to find it, there's a post on one of these threads where the same people defending those on benefits, were critical of those pointing out the gulf between benefit payments and tax avoidance. Then there's the recent posts.

One minute they're defending the poor on benefits, later they'll be back to saying the immigrants are doing the jobs our work shy spongers won't do or that care homes would collapse without them.

 

Genuinely ill people are being cut off, instead of those gaming the system, who appear to be a pretty small number.
It's estimated that less than 0.7% of benefits are falsely paid out and that includes errors and mistakes.
The same system also underpaid by £1.6bn.

Far more is being missed out as a result of tax evasion and avoidance.
One is banged on about constantly by the media outlets that you constantly endorse, while the other is ignored.
Why do you think that is?

The system needs to be constantly reviewed, updated and improved.
One end of it's currently being ignored.

 

0.7% is an estimate of fraud overpayment - it's not an estimate of people people claiming to be looking for work when they don't want a job
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...ment_data/file/371459/Statistical_Release.pdf

 

So what number should we put on that then, in your opinion?

 

Nobody is defending those choosing not to work when they could do so. They're evaluating the ridiculous argument that there are enough of them to just waltz into jobs currently filled by unskilled EU migrants and thus radically reduce the need for people to come from abroad to do those roles.

Unskilled jobs are often physically difficult. Why would/should an employer choose someone who has shown themselves to be lazy? How do you match up the supply of long term unemployed with the supply of jobs suitable for them when they could be in totally different parts of the country?

 

So when others claimed we need immigrants to do the jobs our own 'lazy bastards' won't do, they were wrong,. Fair enough.

 

we don't know
by it's very nature it is impossible to quantify but we all know of instances - including undercover investigations on TV - where people brag about getting job seekers allowance and housing benefit when they are making sure they don't look for work. they simply copy applications and never actually send them off.

 

there's been plenty of interviews with employers who say that when they advertise jobs they usually only get immigrants applying and rarely UK nationals

 

No, they were right. There are X lazy bastards, Y unskilled jobs and Z non-immigrants in unskilled jobs. Y > X + Z so immigrants are needed to fill the gap even in the unrealistic scenario you catch out every lazy bastard, match them up with a job they stick to and can realistically do (physically, mentally and geographically) and aren't unproductive in.

Given the lazy are lazy, they aren't likely to be productive employees. Almost certainly less so than someone who wants to travel hundreds of miles to do the job for what we consider in the U.K. to be a low wage. The cost of catching out the lazy gets marginally higher as the long term UE rate falls. As the rate is very low it appears measures are working but will become increasingly less cost effective.