The work and pensions secretary has issued a stark warning that some poor people are stubbornly clinging to life despite his best efforts to remove them from the welfare system by killing them off.
Writing in the Daily Telegraph, Iain Duncan Smith said that people who are poor and alive are much more likely to claim benefits and tax credits than people who are dead.
?The overwhelming majority of people who claim benefits are alive,? he explained.
?This is a situation that we cannot allow to continue.?
?We need to implement a system that encourages people off benefits and into mortuaries.?
Duncan Smith on obituaries
Mr Duncan Smith also lambasted the tax credit system put in place by Labour, describing it as ?not fit for purpose?.
?It is not fair that decent hardworking people should have to foot the bill for decent hardworking people,? he said.
?What we need is a fairer system that involves employers paying what they want, being able to sack people when they want and for whatever reason they want.?
?Employers are more likely to create jobs and take on more staff if they can sack them.?
Duncan Smith used numerous pieces of evidence-free evidence in order to highlight how the poorest in society are causing the UK to haemorrhage money quicker than Paul Merson playing Three-card Monte.
?It is important when discussing welfare reforms that I use the word ?fraud? as often as possible,? he said.
?It is equally important when discussing tax avoidance and MPs expense claims that I don?t use it at all.?
?That way everyone knows where they stand.?
newsthump.com/2012/12/31/poor-people-still-clinging-to-life-warns-iain-duncan-smith/
News
Poor people still clinging to life, warns Iain Duncan Smith
ttosca · 31/12/2012 15:34
Stats please, lets have some evidence. It's not just spending though is it, one has to watch carefully what they have coming in 
His attempts to make people panic into taking out a subscription make Sarah Palin and the Tea Party fanatics sound calm and measured. Claiming the rot set in with Llloyd George and the introduction of pensions - yeah, because the world was a much better place when elderly people too frail to work ended up in the workhouse... 
It's hardly news that there is a financial crisis, that the deregulation of financial markets and the bankers' trick of slicing and repackaging and selling on debts was a disaster.
What we should do is look at Sweden - where they had their banking crisis something like two decades ago and survived by taking a long hard look at their society. The social contract in Sweden, the shared parental leave and good childcare didn't happen by accident. When the banks fucked up, voters and taxpayers said, right, if we've got to sort this mess out, let's build a better society that works for all of us. We need that to happen here.
Thank you Xenia, I would like to take each one of the points on in order because I haven't got time to really formulate anything else (I'm trying to work 
)
If you look at the first graph, you'll see that that from 1900-1915 it shows no debt, war 1914-1918, we borrowed money. Then we had a stock market crash and crisis, but look at the years 1920-1940, you see that the debt hasn't increased, Why? you notice that the debt remained constant but did not increase significantly until mid 70's but from 1979 on it climbed rapidly. (what happened in 1979?, look up Volker, Reagan, Thatcher,)
I would also draw your attention to, "When the NHS is sold off and benefits are scrapped" and then the mention of a certain Lobby group by the name of McKinsey "McKinsey Global Institute" does this not make you think??????
www.mckinsey.com/global_locations/europe_and_middleeast/london/en will give you the address of their London Offices, they are the very same people that have been lobbying on behalf of American health care groups and American Health care insurers and have been whispering in the ears of landsley and co since the early 1990's long before Cons came to be in office!
If you look at the graph where it shows public spending, it shows that spending has sky rocketed from mid seventies to present day. Horrifying. However what you have to factor in, is the fact that over that period from the mid 70's something else has happened. That is the gap between what workers have been paid in relation to output in goods and services and the profit they have created for the employers. Basically employers have squeezed greater productivity whilst sharing less in the form of salaries.
I will read the rest of it later but my main conclusion so far
The period of national ownership and big government did not increase government debt (in fact debt to GDP ratio was the healthiest it's ever been ) but after thatcher and volker's shock treatment (to bring down inflation and stop stagflation) and the neo-liberalists pushed their agenda, the state has been robbed. So who stole the money? Did anyone steal the money? which brings me back to "shouldn't we consider also what money we have/had coming in?)
This is what neo-liberal policy has created
"As a result of neoliberal globalization, the income gap between the fifth of the world?s people living in the richest countries and the fifth in the poorest has widened significantly, moving from 44:1 in 1980 to 74:1 in 1997. Today, as a consequence of these policies, the richest 358 people on earth have the same wealth as the poorest 45% of the world?s population, or 2.3 billion people. Even more shocking, the top 3 billionaires have the same wealth as all of the Lowest Developed Countries put together, or 600 million people.These statistics flag a massive transfer of wealth and resources from poor countries to rich countries, and from poor individuals to rich individuals. Today, the wealthiest 1% of the world?s population controls 40% of the world?s wealth, the wealthiest 10% control 85% of the world?s wealth, and the bottom 50% control a mere 1% of the world?s wealth"
www.newleftproject.org/index.php/site/article_comments/a_short_history_of_neoliberalism_and_how_we_can_fix_it
For Xenia and Niceguy to have a read Xenia, it explains WHY we had inflation in the 70's and guess what it had nothing to do with workers receiving better pay and everything to do with the American's trying to pay down their war debt, and we all know how the neo-libbers love a good war.
It's not hard to see how people have been won over, it was always going to be about winning people over wasn't is Thatcher that said it was an ideological war and that "there is no such thing as society"
Don’t want to miss threads like this?
Weekly
Sign up to our weekly round up and get all the best threads sent straight to your inbox!
Log in to update your newsletter preferences.
You've subscribed!
Which ultra left states have ended up broke? Under communism it would be impossible to be broke!!! We have never seen communism.
If you look back on history you see that that it is taken up by a struggle between serfs/peasants/working class and ruling class. The yardstick I would use is freedom from not freedom for. ie, freedom from exploitation and struggle as opposed to freedom to exploit. When the serfs rose up or at the time of the French revolution they hadn't already experienced capitalism or living in a republic 
History isn't a mish mash of chaotic events unrelated. We make history happen, we do so now.
To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.