J B

[J B @JBrzph]

@Matt56404055206 @Sonny496 @Heccles94 Able to do so, it's draining funds from taxpayers and other disabled people who can't work - in addition to from all the disabled people who work but don't claim benefits. It's not kind to allow people to milk a system they don't need as it disadvantages people who do /2

[J B @JBrzph]

@Matt56404055206 @Sonny496 @Heccles94 There's two different conversations though, most people who are disabled can work. That's just a fact. So it's about establishing more thoroughly who actually can work Vs who genuinely can't - as by allowing people to sit on their ass and not work when they're fully /1

[J B @JBrzph]

@Bleache1rs @Heccles94 Yes it is this, people need to stop making excuses from having valid conversations which is what Burnham is doing. Just because you're disabled doesn't mean you're disabled to the point you can't work - those are two very different things.

[J B @JBrzph]

@chris_baker60 @Heccles94 Cold sweats at one point before going to work tied to a health condition that inflamed at one stage, so I was dragging myself into work while struggling while Brenda at home who has minor depression is supposedly so bad she can't work - it's immoral /3

[J B @JBrzph]

@chris_baker60 @Heccles94 It's exactly this Chris, like I'm 33 and I've got severe asthma and had mental health issues for 20 years. I've always worked and never claimed benefits bar from 1 month where my condition got so bad I went to NHS crisis. It's not that these people are not disabled, it's that /1

[J B @JBrzph]

@chris_baker60 @Heccles94 Just because you have a disability doesn't mean it's severe, nor does it mean you can't work. I'd wager I've probably had significantly more struggles than a lot of those claiming they're unable to work - such as having to experience vomiting every single morning along with /2

[J B @JBrzph]

@Heccles94 Correct, hence why it's targeted at the portion of people claiming they are disabled when they are nowhere near the point that their condition prevents them from working. The people who are actually disabled to this extent will be fine, those exaggerating will be pushed into work

[J B @JBrzph]

@dontdelay E.g. after tax with a student loan =£2093, outside of London their essential bills range between £1350 and £1750 - add on if they need a car to get to said job that's more costs in terms of fuel and the car itself leaving nothing remaining.

[J B @JBrzph]

@dontdelay We shouldn't target individuals but it's a fair point to make that these individuals paid nowhere near as much tax as people do now all things considered due to economic imbalances that grew the last 40 years. For example someone on just over minimum wage now e.g. 30k a year /1

[J B @JBrzph]

@dontdelay Are paying 70-80% of their income for essential bills alone - they have zero ability to save, so why should they face the burden to pay for many pensioners who aren't struggling and don't require additional income. It's extremely damaging to the country long term /2

[J B @JBrzph]

@Solonfb @MeggMacc This is 100% a massive part of it I agree.

[J B @JBrzph]

@piran_peyman @MeggMacc A male perspective also would be: when misogyny occurs the country condemns it socially and legally, when misandry occurs excuses are made, it's downplayed, and ignored. People don't like double standards, it's "why should I care about your issues when you don't care about mine"

[J B @JBrzph]

@MeggMacc You will never see a substantial decrease in misogyny for example while misandry exists and vice versa as they radicalise normal people on the opposing side. Hate based on sex or ethnicity is hate regardless, there is no "this one's worse" as by doing that you just enable it /2

[J B @JBrzph]

@MeggMacc I don't, but I do hate misandrists like I hate misogynists. A lot of men hate women though as when misogyny occurs everyone in the administration and socially condemn it, as they should - while when misandry happens it's allowed and deemed "not as bad" while hate is a cycle. /1

[J B @JBrzph]

@RajanBarot24 If someone comes over illegally for example, they aren't British just for being in Britain as being British is more than simply being inside of a country or I go to America and then I'm American /4

[J B @JBrzph]

@RajanBarot24 There's an important discussion that the right and left refuse to have about national identity and it's complex, no side has the answer yet but being abusive to other people won't solve it. For example if you come from abroad and never work - should you be able to claim /1

[J B @JBrzph]

@RajanBarot24 We do need to draw the lines and distinctions around who qualifies as British and who doesn't as the backbone of society and benefits relys on those distinctions for social welfare and workplace schemes /3

[J B @JBrzph]

@RajanBarot24 Benefits or should we simply send you home as you've contributed nothing? I'd send them home. Whereas if you've lived in the UK and worked for let's say 30 years, you should be eligible for benefits and you are effectively British as you've been here most of your life - so /2

[J B @JBrzph]

@HollowPoint_USA Yep, young people on minimum wages who pay their own bills have 0 ability to save at present. That's the core issue, why would they pay for a pension that won't be there when they retire when we can see from history people who haven't saved just depend on social welfare.

[J B @JBrzph]

@BlokeOnWheels The devils advocate I would play here is: if they have been able to attend school for roughly 7 hours a day for the past 5 years - why can't they work for 7 hours a day?