Jeremy Hunt says UK must break out of tax rise 'vicious circle"

[papasmurf]

You really are cabbage looking.

You really susceptible to propaganda. Hunt is having another hot air with no substance rant against the unemployed today. It shows his ignorance of the benefits system as well. People are already sanctioned in large numbers for none compliance with benefit regulations.


Benefit sanctions statistics to May 2023 (experimental) - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

[Nick]

A report from 2012. (Currently most of the benefits quoted no longer exist, and there is zero mention of the claimant commitment which all current claimants have to sign and comply with.) There is NOTHING to back up the contention that there are a million "waster," "scroungers" "lay abouts" on benefits.

You really are cabbage looking. 

[papasmurf]

If you read it you would see it comes from a government report. Like pigs can't smell their own crap, clearly scroungers can't spot another scrounger.

A report from 2012. (Currently most of the benefits quoted no longer exist, and there is zero mention of the claimant commitment which all current claimants have to sign and comply with.) There is NOTHING to back up the contention that there are a million "waster," "scroungers" "lay abouts" on benefits.

[Nick]

Nick from that link:- "Headline writers in the Daily Mail, the Telegraph and the Daily Express all agree: "

In other words right wing journalists are making the same assumption as you with eff all evidence to back up their contentions.
I also suggest you read ALL of the article.

If you read it you would see it comes from a government report. Like pigs can't smell their own crap, clearly scroungers can't spot another scrounger. 

[papasmurf]

I am sick to death of constantly arguing with you, you have been warned about being a PITA many times, either respond to what people post and stop lying or I will have no choice but to ban you.

Here is the link AGAIN.

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check/2013/apr/24/benefits

Nick from that link:- "Headline writers in the Daily Mail, the Telegraph and the Daily Express all agree: "

In other words right wing journalists are making the same assumption as you with eff all evidence to back up their contentions.
I also suggest you read ALL of the article.

[Nick]

I posted the link and it does not specify your contention. Which is all in your mind backed up with ZERO evidence.

I am sick to death of constantly arguing with you, you have been warned about being a PITA many times, either respond to what people post and stop lying or I will have no choice but to ban you. 

Here is the link AGAIN. 

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check/2013/apr/24/benefits

[papasmurf]

There is a link in post #4, if you can't read it's not my problem.

I posted the link and it does not specify your contention. Which is all in your mind backed up with ZERO evidence.

[Nick]

There is no such link. It is only an assumption on your part, with no evidence at all of "dodging" work. You need to provide evidence in the case of each person unemployed for a year that they are dodging work. All you are doing is proving your ignorance of the benefits system, and assuming, that there is employment that not only matches the skill of those people and the jobs are where they live.

There is a link in post #4, if you can't read it's not my problem. 

[papasmurf]

There is a link showing a million people dodging work, if you can't read it's not my issue.

There is no such link. It is only an assumption on your part, with no evidence at all of "dodging" work. You need to provide evidence in the case of each person unemployed for a year that they are dodging work. All you are doing is proving your ignorance of the benefits system, and assuming, that there is employment that not only matches the skill of those people and the jobs are where they live. 

[Nick]

Really? Evidence please? (Seriously.)  You make the same serious mistakes Tory DWP ministers make. With no thought of what if anything those long term unemployed are qualified for that matches the job vacancies, when they are in compared to the job vacancies. (That is just a start.) Calling a million people layabouts  if frankly very offensive. It also show like Borchester you know eff all about the benefits system.
Just one aspect:-
Economic labour market status of individuals aged 50 and over, trends over time: September 2023 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

:

• the employment rate for 50 to 64-year-olds is not yet back to pre-pandemic (2019) levels, although it has increased over the past year. It is too early to determine if changes over the past year are short-term fluctuations or the beginning of a longer-term trend
• from 2019 to 2022 the employment rate of older adults decreased each year from a record high in 2019 of 72.5% to 70.7%. Over the past year, the employment rate of people aged 50 to 64 years has increased by 0.6 percentage points to 71.3%, though this increase is not statistically significant
• the employment rate of people aged 50 to 64 years has generally been statistically significantly increasing over the long-term. The employment rate increased by 4.0 percentage points in the last 10 years (from 67.3% in 2013) and by 7.3 percentage points over the last 20 years (from 64.0% in 2003)
• the employment rate gap between people aged 35 and 49 years and 50 to 64 years, has statistically significantly decreased in the last year, from 15.1 percentage points in 2022 to 14.2 percentage points in 2023. This is due to a decrease in the employment rate of people aged between 35 and 49 years and an increase in the employment rate for those aged 50 to 64 years
• the employment rate of women aged 50 to 64 years with no qualifications is 20.5 percentage points lower than that of men of the same age with no qualifications. Whereas there is only a 2.5 percentage point difference in the employment rate of men and women for those with degree level education
• the average age of exit from the labour market has decreased for both males and females over the past year. In 2022, the average age of exit for men was aged 65.4 years, decreasing by 0.1 years to 65.3 years in 2023, this is the same as the male average age of exit in 2019 and 2020. The 2022 average age of exit for women was 64.3 years and has decreased by 0.3 years to 64.0 years in 2023, this is equal to the female average age of exit in 2021
• the 2023 inactivity rate still remains higher than the pre-pandemic rate which was 25.5% in 2019. Although the rate has decreased by 0.8 percentage in the last year, from 27.4% in 2022 to 26.6% in 2023, this decrease is not statistically significant. It is again too early to determine whether the changes in inactivity over the past year are short-term fluctuations or the beginning of a longer-term trend
• around half of inactive 50 to 64-year-olds left their last job five or more years ago (51.0%) compared with a fifth (19.9%) who have left their jobs within the last two years
• being sick, injured or disabled continues to be the main reason why people aged 50 to 64 years are economically inactive in the labour market, this was the main reason given by 42.3% of older inactive adults
• the State Pension age has a statistically significant impact on employment and inactivity rates of older adults. Between ages 65 and 66 the employment rate decreases by almost 10 percentage points and the inactivity rate increased by a similar proportion
• older adults are more likely to be long-term unemployed (12 months plus) compared to those aged 35 to 49, with 37.5% of those aged 50 to 64 being long-term unemployed compared to 21.0% of those aged 35 to 49

There is a link showing a million people dodging work, if you can't read it's not my issue. 

[papasmurf]

Everything in your world is offensive and were it not obvious that you are one of Gerry's mum's sock puppets, I would say baa humbug

What is offensive is "pub professors" and others who know eff all about the benefits system calling millions of people scroungers and similar. What is even worse is when Tory ministers, and Prime Ministers spout the same lies and propaganda when the government's own data refutes their contentions.

[Borchester]

Really? Evidence please? (Seriously.)  You make the same serious mistakes Tory DWP ministers make. With no thought of what if anything those long term unemployed are qualified for that matches the job vacancies, when they are in compared to the job vacancies. (That is just a start.) Calling a million people layabouts  if frankly very offensive. It also show like Borchester you know eff all about the benefits system.
Just one aspect:-
Economic labour market status of individuals aged 50 and over, trends over time: September 2023 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

:

• the employment rate for 50 to 64-year-olds is not yet back to pre-pandemic (2019) levels, although it has increased over the past year. It is too early to determine if changes over the past year are short-term fluctuations or the beginning of a longer-term trend
• from 2019 to 2022 the employment rate of older adults decreased each year from a record high in 2019 of 72.5% to 70.7%. Over the past year, the employment rate of people aged 50 to 64 years has increased by 0.6 percentage points to 71.3%, though this increase is not statistically significant
• the employment rate of people aged 50 to 64 years has generally been statistically significantly increasing over the long-term. The employment rate increased by 4.0 percentage points in the last 10 years (from 67.3% in 2013) and by 7.3 percentage points over the last 20 years (from 64.0% in 2003)
• the employment rate gap between people aged 35 and 49 years and 50 to 64 years, has statistically significantly decreased in the last year, from 15.1 percentage points in 2022 to 14.2 percentage points in 2023. This is due to a decrease in the employment rate of people aged between 35 and 49 years and an increase in the employment rate for those aged 50 to 64 years
• the employment rate of women aged 50 to 64 years with no qualifications is 20.5 percentage points lower than that of men of the same age with no qualifications. Whereas there is only a 2.5 percentage point difference in the employment rate of men and women for those with degree level education
• the average age of exit from the labour market has decreased for both males and females over the past year. In 2022, the average age of exit for men was aged 65.4 years, decreasing by 0.1 years to 65.3 years in 2023, this is the same as the male average age of exit in 2019 and 2020. The 2022 average age of exit for women was 64.3 years and has decreased by 0.3 years to 64.0 years in 2023, this is equal to the female average age of exit in 2021
• the 2023 inactivity rate still remains higher than the pre-pandemic rate which was 25.5% in 2019. Although the rate has decreased by 0.8 percentage in the last year, from 27.4% in 2022 to 26.6% in 2023, this decrease is not statistically significant. It is again too early to determine whether the changes in inactivity over the past year are short-term fluctuations or the beginning of a longer-term trend
• around half of inactive 50 to 64-year-olds left their last job five or more years ago (51.0%) compared with a fifth (19.9%) who have left their jobs within the last two years
• being sick, injured or disabled continues to be the main reason why people aged 50 to 64 years are economically inactive in the labour market, this was the main reason given by 42.3% of older inactive adults
• the State Pension age has a statistically significant impact on employment and inactivity rates of older adults. Between ages 65 and 66 the employment rate decreases by almost 10 percentage points and the inactivity rate increased by a similar proportion
• older adults are more likely to be long-term unemployed (12 months plus) compared to those aged 35 to 49, with 37.5% of those aged 50 to 64 being long-term unemployed compared to 21.0% of those aged 35 to 49

Everything in your world is offensive and were it not obvious that you are one of Gerry's mum's sock puppets, I would say baa humbug

[papasmurf]

A million people capable of working and not doing, that sounds a lot like a layabout army to me.

Really? Evidence please? (Seriously.)  You make the same serious mistakes Tory DWP ministers make. With no thought of what if anything those long term unemployed are qualified for that matches the job vacancies, when they are in compared to the job vacancies. (That is just a start.) Calling a million people layabouts  if frankly very offensive. It also show like Borchester you know eff all about the benefits system.
Just one aspect:- 
Economic labour market status of individuals aged 50 and over, trends over time: September 2023 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

:

• the employment rate for 50 to 64-year-olds is not yet back to pre-pandemic (2019) levels, although it has increased over the past year. It is too early to determine if changes over the past year are short-term fluctuations or the beginning of a longer-term trend
• from 2019 to 2022 the employment rate of older adults decreased each year from a record high in 2019 of 72.5% to 70.7%. Over the past year, the employment rate of people aged 50 to 64 years has increased by 0.6 percentage points to 71.3%, though this increase is not statistically significant
• the employment rate of people aged 50 to 64 years has generally been statistically significantly increasing over the long-term. The employment rate increased by 4.0 percentage points in the last 10 years (from 67.3% in 2013) and by 7.3 percentage points over the last 20 years (from 64.0% in 2003)
• the employment rate gap between people aged 35 and 49 years and 50 to 64 years, has statistically significantly decreased in the last year, from 15.1 percentage points in 2022 to 14.2 percentage points in 2023. This is due to a decrease in the employment rate of people aged between 35 and 49 years and an increase in the employment rate for those aged 50 to 64 years
• the employment rate of women aged 50 to 64 years with no qualifications is 20.5 percentage points lower than that of men of the same age with no qualifications. Whereas there is only a 2.5 percentage point difference in the employment rate of men and women for those with degree level education
• the average age of exit from the labour market has decreased for both males and females over the past year. In 2022, the average age of exit for men was aged 65.4 years, decreasing by 0.1 years to 65.3 years in 2023, this is the same as the male average age of exit in 2019 and 2020. The 2022 average age of exit for women was 64.3 years and has decreased by 0.3 years to 64.0 years in 2023, this is equal to the female average age of exit in 2021
• the 2023 inactivity rate still remains higher than the pre-pandemic rate which was 25.5% in 2019. Although the rate has decreased by 0.8 percentage in the last year, from 27.4% in 2022 to 26.6% in 2023, this decrease is not statistically significant. It is again too early to determine whether the changes in inactivity over the past year are short-term fluctuations or the beginning of a longer-term trend
• around half of inactive 50 to 64-year-olds left their last job five or more years ago (51.0%) compared with a fifth (19.9%) who have left their jobs within the last two years
• being sick, injured or disabled continues to be the main reason why people aged 50 to 64 years are economically inactive in the labour market, this was the main reason given by 42.3% of older inactive adults
• the State Pension age has a statistically significant impact on employment and inactivity rates of older adults. Between ages 65 and 66 the employment rate decreases by almost 10 percentage points and the inactivity rate increased by a similar proportion
• older adults are more likely to be long-term unemployed (12 months plus) compared to those aged 35 to 49, with 37.5% of those aged 50 to 64 being long-term unemployed compared to 21.0% of those aged 35 to 49

[Nick]

Borchester you are repeating the same disgusting lies about me yet again. You will at some stage suffer the consequences for that, that latest set of repeated lies has been added to the list.
There is NO "layabout army." Only in your bitter and twisted mind. You know eff all about the benefits system.

There a many thousands of cases like this one showing the DWP is unfit for purpose:-

DWP refuses MS sufferer PIP because she can 'carry handbag' - Stoke-on-Trent Live (stokesentinel.co.uk)

What has that example got to do with the layabout army?

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check/2013/apr/24/benefits

A million people capable of working and not doing, that sounds a lot like a layabout army to me. 

[papasmurf]

To be honest Pappy, I have always seen you as a personal insult. Your pride in scrounging and demanding handouts from better men and women is not a pretty sight. But on this occasion I was commenting not so much on your scumbag friends and their refusal to take theirs coats off for anybody, including themselves, but the fact that all sides of the political spectrum have more or less admitted that their policy is not to do much of anything.

Borchester you are repeating the same disgusting lies about me yet again. You will at some stage suffer the consequences for that, that latest set of repeated lies has been added to the list.
There is NO "layabout army." Only in your bitter and twisted mind. You know eff all about the benefits system.

There a many thousands of cases like this one showing the DWP is unfit for purpose:-

DWP refuses MS sufferer PIP because she can 'carry handbag' - Stoke-on-Trent Live (stokesentinel.co.uk)