There have been many articles about these so called assessors putting people to work that really shouldn't be working, terminal patients, patients with late stage cancer.
The small number of affected people undoubtedly have a hard time, but you're talking about an extreme minority of claimants.
They aren't being extremely careful they are being malicious and the reason they get away with it is because they con you into thinking you are paying for it
No, I really am paying for it. There's no magic money tree, no matter what your union rep may tell you. All tax comes from the private sector workers to pay for the public secotr workers and any welfare given. It's just a simple economic fact.
Do you think your taxes will come down if they scrap the benefit system?
Probably not, but they will go up if they make it more generous.
demonising everyone on benefits is not going to help
Being asked to prove your financial and medical situations as they relate to your claim for my money is not demonising. It's entirely reasonable, fair, and proportionate.
The reason they don't use a GP to determine if someone is fit for work is because they know full well assessing someone on whether they can pick up a box or walk more than 50ft is going to get more people off benefits than actual qualified medical opinion on whether someone is fit for work.
Its hard to see how someone that can carry a box for 50 feet is not capable of some work. There's an argument that terminal people shouldn't have to work, but that is emotive more than economic. We'd have to look at how much everyone is willing to pay for that, because there just aren't enough bankers/high earners to support further expenditure.
it's not like that at all because if it was there would be no need for food banks, charities
Food banks get used so much because thats the economically correct thing to do. Get the free food there and spend what you would have spent on it elsewhere. It's just basic economics or game theory.
Charities waste almost all the money they're given on themselves. Oxfam probably spent as much on hookers as it did on poverty, and that's before we get to all the 6 figure salaries. The charity sector isn't what you seem to think it is.
Then again most people think they spend the money on fags, booze, flat screen TV's and play stations.
Given that a lot of claimants DO spend their money on such things, you're going to need a different argument. Pop into any wetherspoons on a monday at about 11am and you can marvel at your tax disappearing.
If your claim is that welfare claimants don't have flat screen TVs you're going to end up looking stupid, and I'm fairly sure that isn't your intent.