Benefit Fraud

Discussion in 'The NAAFI Bar' started by blonde_guy, Mar 22, 2010.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Not one person, not one single person on this thread gives a flying fuck about this "finite pot" of yours. That's furthest from their (and your) minds. Try a bit harder to be more realistic in your approach, Bubbler, ole buddy.


    The pot might not be actually finite but it does exist within the constraints of input and output. I am very concerned that those who do not contribute to the pot take from it at the expense of those who do. In your socialist Utopia, do you really see it as fair that the idle and feckless should live off the backs of the workers? I certainly don't.

    The problem with socialism is that it doesn't bring everybody up to an ideal of prosperous equality, but brings them all down to the lowest common denominator of equal misery. Have you ever considered why obvious corruption is far worse in countries where incomes and lifestyles are fixed by a centrally determined co-efficient?

    Fairness is never fair to all and socialism just encourages minimum effort. It is simple economics; if I cannot improve my lot by doing more, I probably won't bother. On the other hand if the rewards are there to be had I will probably strive to get them and in the process enrich all those around me.
  2. I assume that you’re referring to the “benefit scroungers”, who, you believe, take from it at the expense of others. Quite correct, they do. What they “take”, however, is a pittance against the scams run by rich individuals and even richer international companies to deprive gobments of billions in taxes. All this propaganda to "demonise" these folks has become a highly effective smokescreen to mask the activities of the dishonest and corrupt politicians who get their orders from the business biggies as to what to do in order to facilitate them helping themselves to even more taxpayers’ dosh. It’s one huge racket and the taxpayers are the ones getting severely fucked over. As long as the normal Josephines and Joes are made to concentrate on the tangible beneficiaries of a very bad system, they’re largely oblivious to the blatant fraud and barefaced robbery being carried out on a quite breathtaking scale by the big boyyos.

    This might sound good, but it's largely irrelevant. I can understand that you'd think this, for that's what you've been inculcated with. But there are a few flaws in your statements. First; we can only make vague guesses at the scale of corruption in Capitalist countries because of the carefully nurtured notion that our gobments are looking out for our best interests. They’re not. They’re catering purely for their small circle of friends, and we normal Josephines and Joes aren’t included. In addition, I believe you’ll find that, to all intents and purposes, most Capitalist societies also determine incomes and lifestyles in a centralised manner. Second; you’re applying Capitalist behavioural characteristics to a Socialist society, without considering that this “human nature” would change, just as it’s changed countless times during the course of human history. Third; the only comparison you use is no comparison at all, since it’s taken from repressive State Capitalist regimes which had, or have, nothing at all in common with Socialism.

    I believe you’re wrong here. I've lived in enough State Capitalist systems to have experienced at first hand the basic principles of Socialism on a daily basis. With that I mean that the “sociality" of Socialism is embraced and practiced. Thus, I know for a fact that this “minimum effort” effect you mention isn't a determining factor and has minimum influence on the functioning of the community at that level. What does have an influence, however, is the unnecessary and largely unwanted intrusion of the State Capitalist system. Left to their own devices, the folks would have been much happier with their own interpretation of Socialism, but that was never allowed.

  3. The only evidence of Socialism working is in relatively small groups of like-minded individuals who are drawn together by a common purpose. They all wish to live in a Socialist society and readily embrace that which it entails. When you have such a dedicated collection then the aim and the collective takes over and replaces the individual as prime motivator. Unfortunately when you widen the group to include people who don't subscribe to the principles of Socialism then you have the problem. In a small, dedicated group, then most will put in the maximum effort because they can see the common purpose and realise the importance of the part they play in it.
    I'm not sure exactly what you mean by the intrusion of the State Capitalist system. Perhaps you could expand on that, maybe an example or two to help me grasp what you're driving at?
    The biggest threat to any socialist society is that people will not buy into the ideal. If you're not willing to work towards the common good or are more interested in personal gain then you will damage or destroy that group. I agree that given enough time human thinking can evolve but we've already had at least 2,000 years of the Socialist ideal but have failed to even modestly embrace it. It would seem that Capitalism fits the majority much more comfortably then Socialism, that doesn't mean that Socialism isn't an ethically superior system just that the majority are more interested in some degree of self first. Most people would far rather have a fair wage than make a fair contribution. Take your own circumstances, you say that you make enough by only working 2-3 days. That's fine from your point of view but what about the needs of your customers? Are you addressing their needs? In a Socialist society everyone would have to work to capacity or at the very least to the same work pattern, if not on their primary task then on a secondary one. Baker in the morning, field hand the rest of the working day. If the society can survive on everyone putting in effort for 2-3 days then all well and good but if you weight effort by time then you create a Capitalist Meritocracy whereby you have a hierarchy. You all get the same reward but some people have to work twice as hard or twice as long to be equal, not a Socialist principle at all.
  4. Take this FCUKING argument out of the bleeding NAAFI.

    You're bringing down the tone of the JRC
  5. I respect that you took my points seriously and put some thought into your rebuttal. I shall pay you the same courtesy.

    For a long time I have been aware that there is a growing tendency toward what I call people farming. Those that do not have the power to self-determine are manipulated by those that do have that power. Expanding central goverment control, careful management of public taste, dumbing down of the publicly available education system, manipulation of retirement age and pensions and taxation to the maximum extent possible without entirely discouraging effort on the part of the the wealth creators. Adding in legislation that forbids anything that threatens, or is not in, the plan completes the picture. It is a reverse of controlling the means of production; controlling the medium of production.

    You should read this: Manna

    It occurs to me that we are both concentrating on only one end of the distribution characteristic of effort and earnings, a bit like people who believe in the death penalty being against abortions and vice versa. Perhaps ideally both ends of the curve need to be truncated. Everybody works and contributes, but no-one gets to exploit those in the middle.

    Oops! we are back at socialism. In theory a great idea, just like religion, but a complete load of bollox that will never work as long as some people are capable of free thought. Stalin and others of his ilk knew this and sought to remove them from society. Pol Pot went one further and had all the urban professionals executed, then everyone else sent to work the land. Year Zero he called it.

    So for purely practical purposes, until human consciousness has evolved beyond self-interest, we are left with controlled capitalism.

    Contribute or get out!
  6. Humans are creatures of habit.

    Provide a non-threatening means of existing and you'll get a Pavlovian response, idleness. Idleness is habitual and, when combined with poor generic health and the most basic education, creates what the American's call an "underclass". We have a burgeoning underclass.

    I have no idea what the solution is, but a society's willingness to tolerate the non-contributors is limited. Therein lies the danger.
  7. Right, you lot, get out. Who the f*ck woke up The Herbivore? My office 0745 tomorrow. You know The Herbivore's an annoying c*nt once he gets started, but no, you still have to get him going.

    If you're not going to slag dolies (and scousers, for some unknown reason) you can all f*ck off to bed.

    Lights Out


  8. Great post GBS and thanks for the link to Manna. I've read chapter 1 and bookmarked it for a full read when I get the time.

    You're quite right, we've been going through a period of intense grooming, for want of a better word. If you look at today's values they bear scant resemblance to those of the first sixty years of the last century. Legislation is brought in to control our impulses, our likes and dislikes. Nowadays it's becoming illegal to be an obnoxious person. Peer pressure can no longer be relied on to curb excess, our transition to enlightenment must be artificially accelerated by legislation. No one must be inconvenienced or even mildly distressed without someone being held to book and another reaping the rewards of being a 'victim'. Either incentivise someone to conform or legislate against non-conformity.
    Again we are back to benefit cheats. In days gone by the work ethos was prevalent. You could not hold your head high in society if you weren't gainfully employed without a very good reason. The ethos fit the times, jobs were aplenty and most people worked for just one employer all of their working lives. There was an unwritten understanding that the employee would carry out their duties diligently and in return would receive recompense and stability. That changed when firms started downsizing and outsourcing work and materials. Neither the companies nor their workforces were flexible enough to deal with the change and our educational system was geared to deal with a situation which no longer existed. As that unwritten understanding of lifelong fealty began to disintegrate around our ears came the realisation that there wasn't always going to be unending employment for all, there was an excuse for unemployment, the unemployed could be a victim and that suited some. They had a reason to be unemployed and a State that would tolerate their being out of work and who would provide for their every need and to a higher level of comfort than their parents could even dream of.
    If you listen to what the Rowntree Foundation calls the breadline you might be amazed at what they consider the bare necessities. What are now considered bare necessities were considered the height of luxury by my parents. When I was a child the whole family sat in the lounge, together, and watched a black and white TV. Now you are considered a deprived child if you don't have your own colour TV in your bedroom!
    I believe passionately in a Socialist Society and I wish more than anything that we could all form a society where it could exist but we can't. We can't because we're all free-thinking individuals and different people want different things.
    Society has programmed us, today more than ever before, to put self first. That is why people can walk past a young woman being mugged or raped and do nothing to help. Something that would have been absolutely unthinkable 30 or 40 years ago, such a person would be almost as vilified as the mugger/rapist.
    Once again thanks for the link to Manna, I'll get back to you when I've read it.
  9. When on exercise in Kenya I remarked to the QM that we paid the locally employed camp staff an appallingly low wage and remarked that I would have expected the Army to at least pay what they would pay an equivalent worker in the UK. He told me that they had tried that and the workers all took the money and paid others the going Kenya rate to do the work! He told me that it became so difficult to police that they gave up and just paid the going Kenya rate and that was that. On the one hand the lazy were allowed to profit from there indolence but on the other twice as many people were employed. Idleness is a vicious circle and financing idleness does not help anyone.
  10. This is my two pence to the forum.

    My father was ill for a long time. Spent 18months in hospital then went into an old peoples home, which me and my mother had to pay for. He worked all his life, was in the forces during national service (Military Police but don't hold it against him). We even had to pay for a TV licence for his room. My mother had to relinguish all their life savings to pay for him to be looked after in the home. These were savings that both of my parents had worked hard for all their life to make retirement enjoyable.

    The old fella in the room next door had never worked, and neither had the remainder of the family. He got it all for free. In fact it wasn't for free because you paid, I paid and my parents paid for it from out NI and Taxes.

    I had to make the decisiion to stop my fathers medication in order to let him die with dignity. Not only did this relieve the pressure on me and my mother but also on my mothers fading savings so she could afford to live.
    My father died not long after.

    The same happened with my father in law. Worked all his life. Had 2 jobs to support his family and was never a drain on the welfare system because it wasn't right.

    Now my daughter (10) goes to primary school. All the other children in her class get a free laptop under a Govt initiative. My daughter doesn't because I earn too much. My sons friend all get EMA. He doesn't because I earn too much. I can't afford a laptop for my daughter and I cant afford to give my son £35 a month. Why not, because I'm paying for everyone else's.

    The bloke next door to me doesn't pay rent, council tax etc etc because he earns less than minimum wage yet he can afford a bit feck off telly to mount on his wall. I can't because I pay a mortgage and council tac etc etc.

    I hate this country. I've served and fought in NI, the Balkans (twice), Afghanistan (twice) and Iraq. Now pikey kids live better than mine because I can afford to pay my tax and my mortgage whilst they pay f[/b]uck all.

    Rant over and yes I have been drinking as I do most nights whilst being married unaccompanied to give my children the stable backgroung which is their right.

  11. Fantastic post Roninxix, I feel the same way my 7 year old daughter wants a laptop, and she'll be getting it when I've saved enough to buy one. Yet I know 13 kids in her class have got one free(teachers a friend). Both myself and the bitchqueen(wife) work pay tax/NI and get p1ssed off that once rent, bills, food out the way we have less cash left than people we know on benefits.
    I sometimes regret that my Father taught me to work hard, when I see people who seem to use the Boswell or Gallagher family methods thriving financially.

  12. Great post, summing up exactly what is wrong with the system.

    Socialism might be great in theory (I'm not convinced), but can never properly work when swathes of society do not pull their weight and contribute. One wonders why the taxpayers get disillusioned.
  13. They are not lazy, come on wake up thats called "capitalism" i tendered for a contract several years ago,and won with best bid.I was then approached by another company to ask if i would sub-contract the work or part of the work, i had known and worked with them before and they were struggling financially. In short we struck a deal that kept 4 people employed for 2 years in that company, My own business paid them a good rate, but still made a profit from the work, client happy,employees happy,i made a profit, Capitalism.
  14. Difference being that the labour in Kenya was unlikely to have been contracted under tender conditions..........
  15. I am sure they used the local equivilant and offered the job to the bidder who had the best family/tribal connections.