Illegal Behaviour

sarahlouise210

ManAtHome wrote:

And the billions wasted on computer systems which never quite seem to work.

Yes, it does annoy me that some of my tax is going to spongers, but not half as much as the larger proportion of tax going to fund government department wastage. If we are all going to "un-a$$" and report everything does that mean we can replace 90% of government departments with a couple of web sites? I'd develop that for free, and I suspect I wouldn't be the only one.

did you just pluck your figures from out of the air ??
Are you sure that a larger proportion is going to fund government department wastage?? If 90% of government departments were replaced by a couple of websites that you had developed..you would indeed be a very talented and very wealthy man! I would love to hear how the various government depts would run if only 10% were to remain - and lets not forget the 90% of staff you have just got rid of...now in a position where they need to claim benefits while looking for a job!

Llyllyll

powerful_Rogue

I don't work for the DWP but for another gov. dept. and this sort of thing really p**ses me off. The person you bought the envelopes from is committing fraud :mad: and it should be investigated.

I’ve dug up a few contact details and posted them here. Obviously up to you to decide whether or not to report it again - they should have done something about it in the first place.


Disability and Carers Service (DWP)

Chief Executive: Terry Moran
Responsible Minister: Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Disabled People)
Address: 5th Floor, Whitehall 2, Whitehall Quay, Leeds, LS1 4HR
Website: https://www.dwp.gov.uk/lifeevent/benefits/dcs
Telephone: 0113 307 8191

Private Office to John Hutton (Responsible Minister)
Telephone: 020 7238 0654
Fax: 020 7238 0661
Email: SoS@dwp.gsi.gov.uk

robindunne1

This has opened a hornets nest.

It's interesting to see how people get defensive when it comes to benefits. Also interesting about the comments people make about me on the strength that I'm an accountant working for the government.

Our department spends billions on trying to administrate a system and keep it fair. A good percentage of that would be avoided if people were honest in their dealings.

The law isn't here to be broken - it's to protect the public from corrupt individuals who would rather steal than work for a living.

Capable people who would rather stay on benefits than work for a minimum wage are a burden on the whole of society. It is itheir repsonsibility to look afetr themselves than rely on other people to pay their way.

Heck, I can't even afford to run a car, but I would be able to if I didn't have to pay so much income tax! Why should I forego being able to to use a car so someone else does not have to get out of bed on a morning?

robindunne1

peter999 wrote:

Maybe you shouldn't be working for DWP with prejudices like that.

The half million migrants have come under desperate circumstances
& are working in minimum wage jobs to make others rich.

I'm sure you'll be more than happy to employ a cheaper Polish nanny/plumber/migrant
& save your money.
And I'm sure you'll be more than happy to sack them when you've finsihed exploiting them.

As an accountant I'm sure you are paid very well & will never work
on minimum wage job or have need to claim benefits.

Ps: You may be more symapthetic towards people on benefits,
when your job is taken by a skilled migrant which is on the horizon.

All the professionals who think uncontrolled migration is wonderful, will soon change their tune.

The issue isn't about migration. It is people who choose not to work, rely on my salary (and yours) through taxation to support themselves, whilst being capable and jobs being available. Basic economics tells you that receiving something for nothing does not add value. It is not about my prejudice - maybe your ignorance.

I've had to support myself and a couple of kids whilst working for the minimum wage. Being out of the house for 12 hours every day working for a pittance wasn't fun, but would rather do that than rely on the state when I am capable myself to look after my children. I decided to have them so they are my repsonsibility.

Some people just do not have a work ethic.

peter999

robindunne1 wrote:

This has opened a hornets nest.

It's interesting to see how people get defensive when it comes to benefits. Also interesting about the comments people make about me on the strength that I'm an accountant working for the government.

Our department spends billions on trying to administrate a system and keep it fair. A good percentage of that would be avoided if people were honest in their dealings.

The law isn't here to be broken - it's to protect the public from corrupt individuals who would rather steal than work for a living.

Capable people who would rather stay on benefits than work for a minimum wage are a burden on the whole of society. It is itheir repsonsibility to look afetr themselves than rely on other people to pay their way.

Heck, I can't even afford to run a car, but I would be able to if I didn't have to pay so much income tax! Why should I forego being able to to use a car so someone else does not have to get out of bed on a morning?

As before, maybe you shouldn't be working for DWP with prejudices like that.

You've picked up an axe to grind against people on benefits from somewhere.
.

Fran

Why should people aspire to the "work ethic" that dictates that you should only receive the minimum wage and spend all of your life worrying about bills, debt and earning enough to keep you/your family in a home and with enough to eat? Why should people be happy to take the crappiest jobs for the minimum wage for the worst employers for the sake of "the work ethic"? This has nothing to do with laziness or not wanting to contribute to society, it's our only go at life and most people want more than that.

There are far more ways that people are "using your tax money" than just unemployed, I honestly don't understand why they get worse press and more coverage than other sections of society.

Fran

robindunne1 wrote:

Our department spends billions on trying to administrate a system and keep it fair.

Billions? Perhaps they should employ the unemployed who could tell them about the massive shortcomings of the system.

liney

The NMW is topped up by Tax Credits anyway, so lets face it there are very few people who actually have to live on the National Minimum Wage. I dont think anyone begrudges people claiming benefits if they are unable to work, or need a top up because they earn NMW. It is the people who choose not to work because they know they will be be quite well off thankyou very much. They should be grateful they don't live in a country where people that dont work dont get paid, instead of looking at the safety net of the benefit system as a way of life.

As for people 'wanting more than that' how is standing in the dole que achieving anything?

robindunne1

peter999 wrote:

As before, maybe you shouldn't be working for DWP with prejudices like that.

You've picked up an axe to grind against people on benefits from somewhere.
.

You clearly misunderstand me. My point isn't against people on benefits - it is people who brake the law.

It always baffles me when people will not work for the minimum wage. We only have one take at life do what it takes to get a job you enjoy and are secure in. Why people think it is OK to compromise other peoples quality of life simply because they don't want to put the effort in is byond me.

Mrs_pbradley936

One of the problems of our benefit system is the “poverty trap” whereby if somebody wants to help themselves they are penalised for doing so. If I had a magic wand I would raise the threshold for income tax to around £1200 per year. That would mean that pensioners with a bit of savings, low paid workers, mums doing a few hours in Tesco etc could keep more of their own money. I would also introduce a “luxury tax” so that footballers wives who boast about paying £3000 for a pair of shoes would pay tax on them. My luxury tax would not be aimed at high street prices but in the example of shoes I would say that any shoes costing over £80 attracted more tax. Same with clothing, again stores like Next, M&S, etc should be able to operate unhindered but those who want to pay hundreds of pounds for a pair of trousers should be taxed. Perhaps someone clued up on economics will tell me why the government will not do that.