
Why do we care more about benefit ‘scroungers’ than billions lost to the rich? - YeGoblynQueenne
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/15/benefit-scroungers-billions-rich-paradise-papers-tax-avoidance
======
ryandrake
False optimism? Old article, but probably still true today: 19% of Americans
think they are among the top 1% of earners and 20% more think they will be one
day [1]. When you introduce a plan that hurts "the rich": 39% of people think
they're the target.

1: [http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/12/opinion/the-triumph-of-
hop...](http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/12/opinion/the-triumph-of-hope-over-
self-interest.html)

~~~
blfr
This isn't false optimism. It's a surprisingly accurate self-assessment.

 _It turns out that 12 percent of the population will find themselves in the
top 1 percent of the income distribution for at least one year. What’s more,
39 percent of Americans will spend a year in the top 5 percent of the income
distribution, 56 percent will find themselves in the top 10 percent, and a
whopping 73 percent will spend a year in the top 20 percent of the income
distribution._

[https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/20/opinion/sunday/from-
rags-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/20/opinion/sunday/from-rags-to-
riches-to-rags.html)

~~~
yorwba
So ... 39% think they'll be in the top 1%, when in reality that's the
proportion who get to be in the top 5%. How is that an accurate self-
assessment?

~~~
blfr
For a question about finance to the general public this is a cheating-on-the-
test and educators-wept-tears-of-joy level great result.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
So you call it "accurate" because it's not as inaccurate as you think it could
be?

~~~
ApolloFortyNine
It's pretty close, for people taking a shot in the dark. It's just what these
people believed.

------
muzani
It's a matter of principle.

I think most people just have this plan of working hard until 65. They're
deeply unhappy with this. They sacrifice joy, comfort, relationships, and
family to live this dream of survival. They value others who suffer similarly.

Benefit scroungers have some level of comfort without the hard work.

I don't even tell people I live comfortably freelancing anymore because people
have such a negative perception of it. I may work 20 hours a week at double
the effort but all people see is that I'm being lazy for not doing a full 40
hour week.

Whereas people have this perception of a rich person working weekends, waking
up at 4 AM, getting divorced to make their company work. And so people
empathize more with the corrupt rich.

~~~
arethuza
In the UK I don't think it's "people empathize more with the corrupt rich" \-
I think it's simply that most people aren't aware of the amounts of money lost
to the Treasury by benefit fraud and tax evasion.

~~~
valuearb
In one case someone wants you to work harder so they can work less, in the
other someone worked hard (or smart) and doesn't want to give up as much of
what they earned to others so they can work less.

~~~
arethuza
Yes, I know what they both are - and I don't approve of either.

However, looking at the simple finances of it (because that's what actually
impacts public services) tax evasion is about 30 times bigger a problem than
benefit fraud.

------
fredley
As the article states, a lot of this is to do with the characterisation of the
ultra-rich as 'hardworking', vs the characterisation of benefits claimants
(legally or otherwise) as not. This narrative plays depressingly well with a
lot of people in the UK, especially with those who are in the socioeconomic
classes just above recipients of benefits.

~~~
dionidium
Why do you say "depressingly well?" Charitable people from the upper classes
tend to have a naive, cartoonish vision of the noble poor. As someone who has
been poor, who has family members who still are, I can tell you that it's a
mixed bag. I know lots of people who could be characterized as benefit
"scroungers." They're not bad people. They don't deserve to starve. And I'm
happy they're getting the help they need.

But I wouldn't describe any of them as particularly _hard-working_.

That's feel-good nonsense.

~~~
mrguyorama
Are they less valuable human beings? Do their lives mean less than the average
person, or the supposedly "hard working" millionaire?

~~~
dionidium
Clearly not. In fact, I went out of my way to say as much in my comment (in
anticipation of responses like this one). But I guess there's almost nothing
you can say to prevent this response (which is unfortunate, because it's a
_significant impediment_ to productive discussion).

~~~
mrguyorama
Is someone who isn't "hard-working" (a non-specific and subjective concept) a
lesser person?

~~~
dionidium
No. I've now answered your question _twice_ (three times, if you count my
initial anticipation of this question). What is this weird impulse? What are
you trying to accomplish here?

------
j7ake
When the rich have significant influence over the media and politics, they are
able to sway public opinion to focus on others rather than them

~~~
toasterlovin
Wasn't the lesson of Trump's election that the rich and powerful don't have
significant influence over the media that people actually consume (social
media) anymore?

~~~
lightbyte
Is Trump not rich and powerful?

~~~
toasterlovin
Yes, Trump is rich (and powerful, now that he's president), but he doesn't
control the media in the sense that the person I was responding to was
referring to. I think they had someone like Jeff Bezos, who owns The
Washington Post, in mind.

~~~
lightbyte
He might not control the media in the traditional sense, but we have to give
him credit for how he manipulated it into giving him endless free coverage and
exposure. He turned the lack of media control INTO the powerful position.

------
adamwong246
because we, mere thousandaires and paupers alike, live in a separate reality
from the ultra-wealthy. The rich and poor-and-middle-class might as well be
living on different planets. When a benefits cheater somehow gets free housing
or spends foodstamps on lobster, we ordinary citizens can see that and relate
to that. "That could have been my house or my dinner!" We can see the cheaters
on the street and imagine ourselves in their place. We can _relate_.

But when a faceless corporation we've never heard of hides umptillions in a
place we've never heard of, somehow the impact is lost. Ask an average joe on
the street the difference between a million, a billion and a trillion and you
will be answered with shrugs. We don't see how that money flows from one
holding company to another and we fail to connect that to the broader economy,
and this illusion has been perpetuated by hidden class of venal, remorseless,
well-educated and very smart mercenaries beholden by law and their
shareholders to accumulate every last speck of capital.

This state of affairs is not new in America- Kurt Vonnegut recognized the
phenomenon 50 years ago [https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/158414-america-is-
the-wealt...](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/158414-america-is-the-
wealthiest-nation-on-earth-but-its-people)

------
loourr
Because the rich are contributing and it's a question of the degree to which
they're contributing.

Scroungers are just taking and draining the system even if it's a "smaller"
amount.

~~~
goda90
This raises the question of the importance of the consumer in our economy.
Scroungers still spend money, and often spend most of the money they get,
which puts money in the pockets of companies, which they then spend on payroll
and other things. If the money they get is being put back into the system,
then how is it draining?

~~~
Merthurian
_Almost_ by definition, these people can't manage their resources _as_
efficiently as the wealthy.

~~~
myaso
There is nothing to manage at least from the perspective of monetary assets,
things would disappear too fast for you have a chance to 'manage' them; also
it's the opposite, the poor are very efficient with the limited resources they
have -- you kinda have to be wouldn't you? Lest you end up from just being
poor to being a corpse. Below a certain breakpoint money only functions as a
means of consumption. With what they are bringing in they will never be able
to save enough to make any investments that will have a net positive in their
lives and a negative shock will very quickly wipe out whatever progress they
make. From their perspective it is actually logical to buy lottery tickets and
gamble since the price of admission is low enough for them to afford; the
calculus for them is shifted in a way that is different from your experiences.
When you have an abundance of resources you are in a completely different
position since you don't need to be concerned with survival anymore -- also
you get many chances since your eggs won't end up in the same basket. It's not
impossible but the chances that somebody who is poor can execute the process
for a legitimate means of making money outside whatever formal arrangement
they are in as opposed to brewing meth (which can be considered a 'side
project' depending on your frame of mind) is unlikely given the context they
find themselves in. The prior statements also hinge upon the unlikely event
that someone can escape the cess pit of proletariat culture in the first
place. It's structured to be this way, the range of choices somebody can make
at the bottom of the socio economic ladder is much more restricted -- why do
you think there are such stringent drug and prostitution laws in certain
places? It's to reduce the actions that poor people can take outside the game
that a relatively small group collectively decided we need to play -- when you
reduce people's agency enough you can get them to do absolutely anything
through a 'legit' channel: like taking a bullet to the head in some far off
country, doing back breaking work in a kitchen, or something else that is
equally unpleasant. A certain fraction of the population needs to be meat for
the grinder to do it's job.

~~~
Merthurian
The soft bigotry of low expectations.

------
mseebach
This seems to be the central data point of the article:

> _less than half (48%) thought that legal tax avoidance was “usually or
> always wrong”._

> _By contrast, more than 60% of Britons believe it is “usually or always
> wrong” for poorer people to use legal loopholes to claim more benefits_

I think there are two reasonably simple explanations here:

First, I don't know what a legal loophole to claim more benefits is - either
you qualify for a given payment, or you don't. Perhaps I'm not paying
attention, but I don't recall having heard much debate on legal benefits
loopholes, just regular fraud. There's a risk that some portion of respondents
heard "fraud", even though the question was about legal loopholes.

The other factor is that there is a significant moral difference between
arrangements for paying less tax on money that you legitimately earned, and
arrangements to receive more money that you didn't, but which are provided to
you to help you become your situation is considered precarious.

Yes, there are people (legally) receiving unreasonable amounts of income that
they didn't "earn", in many cases from public budgets, directly or indirectly,
through various kinds of cronyism. This, not which rate of tax is paid on such
income, is unethical, basically a crime, but I believe that the way to deal
with it, is in a first class way, not through the tax code.

~~~
DanBC
> There's a risk that some portion of respondents heard "fraud", even though
> the question was about legal loopholes.

Isn't that the point? People see tax avoidance but don't see it as fraud;
people see legal benefit maximisation and see it as fraud.

> First, I don't know what a legal loophole to claim more benefits is - either
> you qualify for a given payment, or you don't.

A benefit claimant's benefit is paid by the secretary of state for the
department for work and pensions. That person is obviously busy, so they
employ decision makers who sit in benefit centres across the UK.

There's no way to interact directly with a decision maker. You can only ever
interact with them via forms and postal letters, and those letters and forms
go through an intermediary.

A decision maker looks at the details of the person's claim. They apply the
various acts, statutes, statutory instruments, and case law to the person's
claim. All that law is scattered across various places, and so decision makers
have a couple of handy guide books.

These are available online.

[https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/decision-makers-
gu...](https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/decision-makers-guide-staff-
guide)

[https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/advice-for-
decisi...](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/advice-for-decision-
making-staff-guide)

The advice for decision making is for:

> DWP decision makers now use Advice for decision making (instead of the DMG)
> for decisions that involve:

> Universal Credit

> Personal Independence Payment contribution-based Jobseeker’s Allowance and
> contribution-based Employment and Support Allowance for people who are
> eligible for Universal Credit

I think all the rest use the decision makers guide.

Have a look at the guide. Have a look at the page numbers listed in each
volume. The decision makers guide is 14,000 pages (fourteen thousand) long.
And there's no index.

It's impossible for ordinary people to work out if they're really entitled or
not to a benefit. And the quality of decision making is, frankly, piss poor.

[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/30/stagge...](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/30/staggering-
rise-pip-complaints-rot-system-disability-benefits)

here's a judge from a first tier appeal panel saying the decision making is
terrible: [https://sirhenrybrooke.me/2017/11/08/poor-decision-making-
pe...](https://sirhenrybrooke.me/2017/11/08/poor-decision-making-personal-
independence-payments-pips-and-pip-appeals/)

So, a legal benefit loophole might be a skilled benefits adviser who helps
claimants make claims by helping them fill in the forms and gather evidence,
and then helps them attend the independent medical assessments, and then helps
them write the letter for mandatory reconsideration and then follow up with an
appeal.

~~~
mseebach
My argument is that I don't think that's what people hear when you ask them
about "legal loopholes".

And so the survey accidentally, implicitly ends up comparing "legal tax
avoidance" with "benefits fraud" which is apples to oranges. If the questions
instead had been "working with your accountant to minimise you tax liability
in legal ways" vs. "working with your benefits advisor to make sure you
receive the benefits you legally qualify for", I suspect the result would have
been different.

If you want to write the article the author actually did, the more relevant
question would probably have been "tax fraud" vs "benefits fraud". I'd be
curious to know what those numbers are.

------
georgeecollins
I think the answer is because you tend to compare yourself to people that are
close to you in terms of attainment. So you don't compare yourself to the
Queen of England or a malnourished farmer in Africa. A middle class person
compares them self to the person who lost his job, and the person that is
doing a bit better in their town or neighborhood.

Focusing on the "scroungers" is a way to hate what you are afraid of becoming,
or what you sacrifice to avoid.

------
tonyedgecombe
To me the biggest benefit of UBI is we might be able to get rid of this
attitude. It's hard to criticise a benefit when you are a recipient of it
yourself.

~~~
neximo64
This is precisely the reason I'm against UBI, I don't want to be involuntarily
subject to it. I'd rather have the choice.

~~~
pjc50
The capacity of people to rationalise a literal free lunch as oppression never
ceases to amaze me.

~~~
ApolloFortyNine
And the capacity of people to call government hand outs 'free' never ceases to
amaze me.

The money is coming from somewhere. It may be free to you, but it's someone
else's money.

~~~
lovich
And with an actual free lunch the group handing it out is losing something.
That doesn't change the fact that to you, it is free, and how is that a bad
thing for you?

~~~
ApolloFortyNine
Because there isn't an infinite supply of money, it has to come from
somewhere.

It's the flaw in democracy that I'm surprised has taken this long to come
about. People are inherently greedy, as you are pointing out, and will
generally vote for whatever candidate will benefit them the most. They don't
care about how it will effect the economy or where the money would come from,
just that they get it. And with how hard it is to remove entitlements once
they're passed, it's a constant snowball.

~~~
kwhitefoot
Money is only useful while in motion. Money paid to poor people is immediately
spent on, mostly, necessary goods and services. Local economies benefit from
the extra liquidity.

------
indubitable
Without expressing an opinion one way or the other, the reason is very simple
to explain. Taxes are seen as taking something away from you. Benefits by
contrast are something that somebody else is giving to you. Having less taken
away from you is going to be seen as less of an issue than somebody else
taking more from other people than they 'deserve.'

There's plenty of lost nuance in this view, but if you try to empathize with
people who feel this way - it's not hard.

~~~
tonyedgecombe
A lot of the people in the UK you hear complaining about benefits are
pensioners, the pension budget dwarfs that for benefits, it's the largest part
of our welfare state. They don't complain about that gift from the government.

The reality is we have had a rather rabid right wing press for some time, this
has led to some people having a distorted view on these things. There was a
survey recently which asked people how much is lost to benefit fraud, the
answer people gave was 25% when the reality is 0.7%. I don't know about the
costs but I can imagine you couldn't get lower than that without spending more
than the return.

I try and empathise with their attitudes but I don't want it affecting policy.

~~~
Boothroid
'gift from the government'?! These are people that have worked their whole
lives from times when benefit scrounging was not a viable life plan. There's
plenty of poverty in retirement.

Also quite apart from fraud there are peversely generous incentives for people
not to work, and thus we end up with the spectacle of multiple generations
having never worked, and having no intention to do so.

~~~
pjc50
Incentives not to work: a real problem. The only way out of that is methodical
reform of the system; what Universal Credit could be if it wasn't a disaster
being run by IDS.

Multiple generations never having worked: very rare, this is a common piece of
anti-benefit propaganda that's rarely rooted in fact.
[https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/are-cultures-worklessness-
pass...](https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/are-cultures-worklessness-passed-down-
generations)

~~~
tonyedgecombe
I don't think IDS is involved anymore, May didn't like his face.

------
neilwilson
Because the billions aren't lost to the rich. They ain't spending it, so there
is no real resource drain. It's just numbers in a bank account. Essentially
the rich saving has the same economic effect as taxation. Hit them with
remittance taxation and it will just sit there 'offshore' doing largely
nothing other than making the rich feel rich, even though they can't spend it.

The 'scroungers' however are draining real resources for nothing apparently in
return. Not that they can provide anything because there aren't sufficient
jobs for them.

In other words they are not 'scroungers', they are just the 1 in 20 people who
can't get a job under neo-liberalism because it requires about 5% permanently
unemployed to control inflation.

What we do get annoyed about are the 'idle rich'. Those who appear to get
their money 'for nothing' the same as the 'scroungers' and then flaunt it by
buying expensive stuff.

There is no reduction in public service capability by the rich having vast
sums of money 'offshore'. The government is never short of money - as they
demonstrate everytime somebody they don't like needs bombing, or a set of new
nuclear submarines need purchasing.

~~~
pc86
> _Those who appear to get their money 'for nothing' the same as the
> 'scroungers' and then flaunt it by buying expensive stuff._

How someone got their money is irrelevant, but it's _much_ better for the
economy that they spend it, even on garbage, than let it sit in a brokerage
account. Every person with a trust fund spending $400k on an Aston Martin is
sustaining (not creating) jobs and distributing wealth to some degree.

~~~
neilwilson
"but it's much better for the economy that they spend it,"

Generally it isn't - because that tilts the economy towards producing goods
and services that are wanted rather than those that are needed. Trickle down
has been shown over the last 30 years to be largely a myth.

For example if you have public healthcare and private healthcare and there is
a shortage of doctors then the wealthy "crowds out" the public healthcare
system by purchasing private healthcare. Essentially they are using their
wealth to jump the queue. Like the 'priority queue' at a theme park.

~~~
dandermotj
Consumption through spending is economically beneficial to everyone. You
misunderstand what 'trickle down economics' is.

~~~
Boothroid
So then let's have permanent war because all that spending on bombs is
economically beneficial to everyone, right?

~~~
dandermotj
Say hello to the military-industrial complex

------
contingencies
"The rich" have more education, political and media influence and resistance
to accusations as advertisers, potential litigators, owners, etc. Many people
are not critical thinkers and lap up media as gospel without a second thought.

------
archagon
For some reason, people can't wrap their heads around the fact that every
enterprise needs some degree of "shrinkage" to keep functioning effectively.
Try to get those margins to zero and everything starts going haywire.

------
yequalsx
H.L. Mencken once defined puritanism as the haunting fear that someone,
somewhere is having fun. Based on my interactions with conservatives in the
U.S. who are religious I've modified Mencken's quote:

Religious conservatism is the haunting fear that someone, somewhere is getting
something they don't deserve.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
So, in your country only the religious are greedy?

~~~
yequalsx
No. I think your logic may be off. If I say all A have property B this does
not imply that no other type of object can have property B. For instance, it
is true that all living men have cells that reproduce. But men aren’t the only
living humans with this property.

Also it’s clearly just meant to be a witty statement and not to be taken as a
formal definition.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
It was a question, not a conclusion; I think you'll find the flaw with your
own logic, comprehension, or both.

>"Based on my interactions with conservatives in the U.S. who are religious
[...]"

This strongly implies you only find the given characteristic, greed, amongst
the religious subset of conservatives.

I was thus enquiring so as to establish whether, for example, you found all
those without religion to be devoid of greed. You strongly implied it was only
_non-religious_ conservatives who were immune to greed; do you care to comment
on those who aren't conservative, do you find the same result.

Of course my question was loaded: I expect your position to be based primarily
on prejudice rather than science but would be happy to be corrected.

FWIW I'm not religious, not conservative, not USAmerican, but am often greedy.

~~~
yequalsx
My statement does not imply what you say it does. My statement is about
religious conservatives and defining a characteristic of such people. It does
not define greedy people. My statement isn't even about greed it's about a
subset of the people who have the haunting fear that someone, somewhere is
getting something they don't deserve. This isn't the same thing as greed.

When I say that religious conservatism is the haunting fear that someone,
somewhere is getting something they don't deserve, I am defining a
characteristic of the set of people who are religious conservatives. That set
of people may have other characteristics and, here's the important thing, the
set of people who have the haunting fear that I described is itself not
described. Other people may have this same haunting fear and not be religious
conservatives. I have merely posited that the set of religious conservatives
is a subset of the set of people with the aforementioned haunting fear. A Venn
diagram may be useful.

If I had said that one has the haunting fear if and only if they are a
religious conservative then you'd be correct in your interpretation. But I did
not say this. I did not make any claims about non-relgious conservatives or
any other group. Therefore any conclusion on what I believe about these other
groups is not logically supported by what I wrote.

Again, clearly the statement was merely an attempt at wit and not meant to be
taken literally. It's hyperbole.

------
dnautics
I think this is a question everyone who is anti-austerity should ask
themselves. It seems like every program labelled 'austerity' marginally cuts
social services and benefits instead of actually cutting bloatware programmes
(construction, military) that send money to the 1%. And then is declared
(usually by the left) to be a failure of the concept of ending deficit
spending.

------
mythrwy
Human nature is such that we are in awe of tigers but disgusted by
cockroaches.

------
HarryHirsch
Maybe it's a matter of staging and perception. Every quarter Social Services
audit their books, and the local fishwrapper features the County Executive and
the Sheriff grandstanding with their arrest record over overclaimed benefits.

Now if you did like Mohammed-bin-Salman and paraded with the most brazen tax
evaders payment morale at the top would increase quickly.

------
russellbeattie
I'm surprised this wasn't flagged. Who is "we"?? God knows what the British
think, but for years I've considered Republicanism as "a debilitating phobia
that somewhere out there, someone is getting something they don't deserve, and
it isn't you."

------
mattlondon
I don't know enough about who-hasn't-paid-what or what the cuts to benefits
are and what the impact of those are, but the article feels a bit like flame-
bait to me by doing things like directly equating corporations not paying tax
to people committing suicide. Surely if someone is fit for work (and so their
benefits are cut), then they are fit for work even if we did have a benefits
system overflowing with untold riches from Apple/Facebook/Alphabet? They'd
still be fit to go to work regardless of tax revenue, surely?

Perhaps there is something deeper and there is research between tax revenue
and suicide due to being found fit for work, but they didn't cite any research
- anyone seen any?

------
somethingabout
I've talked about tax avoidance to many people. I get the sense that most
people don't understand it or the consequences.

If you say "so and so company avoided paying 1 billion in taxes so all of us
will have to pay it instead" that means nothing to them.

------
jlebrech
We don't plan to be poor, and all wish to be rich.

When someone claims that extra £30 a week we feel it's our money because we
can visualise it in our minds.

When a rich person finds a way to not pay tax, it feels more like it's their
money to begin with and it is taken from them, and we ourselves wouldn't like
to lose out on millions.

~~~
roryisok
I don't feel that way. I feel much more angry about rich people dodging taxes
than relatively poor people cheating on benefits.

~~~
finaliteration
Especially given that benefit “cheating” isn’t nearly as widespread as people
tend to think it is. The percentage of benefit payout errors (not just fraud
but overpayments for other reasons including fraud) in the US is typically in
the single digits, whereas public perception seems to be that anyone using any
sort of welfare program is cheating and doesn’t deserve it.

~~~
roryisok
> whereas public perception seems to be that anyone using any sort of welfare
> program is cheating and doesn’t deserve it.

I think this is it. Even being on benefits in the first place is considered
scrounging by some.

I'd much rather see someone on minimum wage manage to get a free medical card
than someone making £100k a year find a way to avoid paying tax on their
holiday home. I find it hard to believe I'm in the minority.

------
DanBC
Some more, and recent, info:
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42012116](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42012116)

UK gov has been cutting disability benefit, but it turns out they've been
underpaying by maybe 0.5 billion.

------
mter
It's because normal people see the money that we make as ours, then the
government takes their cut. "Benefits" are our money redistributed to people
who don't work. At no point do the people receiving benefits actually
contribute to the system.

------
jokoon
Because the rich are essential the functioning of society, while the poor are
expendable.

If the poor don't trust the government, even the poor will agree that the rich
should pay less taxes.

I really believe that's how things lead to anarchy.

------
hans_mueller
the scroungers are visible while the rich are rather abstract and invisible.

------
megamindbrian2
Because if we were rich, we would try and avoid the government also? Can't
blame them. Don't like it? Find yourself an angel investor.

------
hasenj
The other day I was listening to a clip from Jordan Peterson, and he said
something that I found a bit surprising/shocking, but this articles seems to
confirm it: people on the left who claim to side with the poor don't actually
care about the poor, they just hate the rich.

This article is basically just hating on the rich people.

I think it's rather easy to understand what this author is puzzled by: people
want to keep their money. If you've earned your money and you want to keep it,
I can empathize with you. If you think you deserve to take other people's
money, I can't empathize with you.

~~~
pjc50
A little case study from Twitter today:
[https://twitter.com/imajsaclaimant/status/930515080130826240](https://twitter.com/imajsaclaimant/status/930515080130826240)

Do you "empathize" with the person referred to as "PH" there? Why not?

~~~
hasenj
For every guy who legitimately could use some temporary help until he gets
back on his feet, there are hundreds of free loaders.

If you think about it actually more reason to hate on free loaders. They cause
tragedies like this.

~~~
DanBC
Clearly not in the UK. For every freeloader there are hundreds who need a bit
of temporary support.

We know this from the number of people who are working and claiming benefit.
(I think these now outnumber people not working and claiming benefit).

~~~
hasenj
> We know this from the number of people who are working and claiming benefit.

For how long do they claim benefits?

This could actually be a bad sign.

~~~
DanBC
It's a bad thing, because it shows the minimum wage isn't enough and zero-
hours contracts aren't keeping people out of poverty.

But people in work who do over sixteen hours per week and who are claiming eg
working family tax credits are not free-loading.

This is one of the mechanisms that's designed to get people back into work.
There's a benefit cap in place, and that cap is removed if you work more than
16 hours per week.

------
Boothroid
I don't care - we need to counter the cynicism at both ends of the scale. For
example, it cannot be right that someone that pays into the system their whole
lives can then be refused housing in favour of an able bodied person that has
paid in nothing and caused their own homelessness by arriving in the UK
without a job or means to support themselves. Needless to say the tax
avoidance is also disgusting.

There are some very strange situations in the UK at present - for example when
a person would actually be worse off by going out to work, or when someone's
(viable) career plan involves having a child in order to get a house and
benefits.

Given my political views I'm consoled by the fact that the level of welfare
spending is unsustainable in the long term. The UK is already going deeper
into the red every month, despite supposed austerity.

~~~
pjc50
> able bodied person that has paid in nothing and caused their own
> homelessness by arriving in the UK without a job or means to support
> themselves

Is this actually possible? People claim it happens a lot, but without being
specific on what they mean. Note that most UK visas involve "no recourse to
public funds" [https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/public-funds--
2/p...](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/public-funds--2/public-
funds)

> the level of welfare spending is unsustainable in the long term

Reducing this means either an expansion of employment in run-down areas like
Blackpool, or reducing benefit levels and hoping that people die quietly.

[http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-
articles/1117/161117-austerit...](http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-
articles/1117/161117-austerity-deaths-england)

~~~
Boothroid
But if you come from the EU you do not need a visa, do you?

>Reducing this means either an expansion of employment in run-down areas like
Blackpool, or reducing benefit levels and hoping that people die quietly.

Not reducing means that the country eventually goes bankrupt. And then there
won't be any benefits for anyone at all, will there? To put it another way, if
your principle holds true, why don't we just increase benefits until they are
100% of the economy?

~~~
pjc50
EEA nationals are not entitled to HB until they have worked in the UK:

[http://www.housing-
rights.info/02_4_EEA_workers.php#housing-...](http://www.housing-
rights.info/02_4_EEA_workers.php#housing-and-benefits)

[https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-rules-to-stop-
migrant...](https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-rules-to-stop-migrants-
claiming-housing-benefit)

There are other ways of closing the gap, such as addressing tax avoidance.
It's not that the UK is a poor country, but it's an increasingly unequal one.
And a lot of the Crown dependencies operate as tax havens.

~~~
Boothroid
Women are always first in the queue and they do indeed house women that have
never worked. Just because you quote that page doesn't mean that's the policy
that's followed.

You honestly think that tax avoidance is the cause of the deficit?

Point is, it's not an either or. Let's follow up whatever ways we can find of
eliminating the deficit - it's still utterly shameful and wrong that someone
should be able to get themselves pregnant and be supported by the state in
relative comfort whilst someone that has paid in for decades is refused
housing. Your defence is to avoid addressing this and instead deflect by
talking about generalities.

~~~
pjc50
(are we still talking about EEA nationals or have we gone back to the old Tory
demon of "single mothers"?)

> "get themselves pregnant"

I hadn't realised there was such a problem with parthenogenesis among women in
this country, that pregnancies were happening without men being involved at
any point.

So, what's your solution? Mandatory abortions? Divorce ban? Women with babies
in homeless shelters? Living in cardboard boxes on the street? What's an
acceptable fatality rate for the children in this scenario?

I'm talking about specifics, the extremely brutal ones of what exactly is
required for people to remain healthy in these circumstances.

A person presents at the benefit office holding a baby. She is homeless. What
specifically should the response of the system be? What questions to ask? Why?
What outcomes are acceptable?

------
gadders
Because in general the rich are a net gain to society.

