Less Than A Third Deserve Their Incapacity Benefits
The government’s own welfare advisor says that less than a third - nearly two million people - of those who receive incapacity benefit deserve it. And why are they on it? Because the system is too easy - “ludicrously” easy - to cheat and benefits are set too high and thus encourage those who can work not to bother.
Thus, all those receiving incapacity benefit should be independently assessed, and those who are able to work should be moved on the the Jobseeker’s Allowance - and told to go and look for a job.
There is a difference between the deserving and undeserving. Those who actually can’t work should be paid Incapacity Benefits. It is our duty as a civilised country to do this. But those who can work should go and do so. Those who can’t work deserve our support. Those who can work but would rather sit at home leeching off the rest of us don’t deserve it. The classification of “deserving” and “undeserving” poor goes back to the Poor Laws, and much it is correct right to the present day.
Everyone deserves some support whilst they are looking for a job, so long as they will actually take one when they get it. If they don’t take a job that they are offered, then they should not receive any benefits for a month, increasing by a month for each job they refuse. Those who are claiming Jobseekers Allowance should also have to actually prove that they are looking for work, each and every time they go to get their benefits.
Maybe now those who claim that those on benefits would work if they could will admit that they are wrong?
Sources: BBC, The Times, The Telegraph
It is interesting that nowhere in the Guardian has this story been mentioned, that I can find. I wonder why that is?
This entry is filed under Benefits, Work. You can follow any responses to this entry through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
The greatest problem is the PC advocates who process these applications. These are the cause of Britain today.
I really can’t understand why the concept of “benefits” upsets so many people given that the alternative is a predatory underclass that would have no choice to to steal everything they need.
Sorry but leaving people to starve or steal is beyond the pale as far as I’m concerned.
Unless they are politicians that is and then it’s an obligation
If they got a job, they wouldn’t need benefits - and there are plenty of jobs out there for the taking.
The only time when I am suggesting that they shouldn’t get paid any benefits is if they *turn down* a job. And if they know that that is the case when they turn the job down, that is their own choice.
When they *can* work, they shouldn’t get paid money that is supposed to be earmarked for those who *can’t*.
I really can’t understand why the concept of not letting people just live off the state rather than getting a job upsets so many people.