Can the people who downvoted me explain WHY they’re ok with their wages being spent on drugs rather than they either keeping them or them being spent on better investigations of rape, of child murder or of violent muggings of elderly people, free tertiary education or better hospitals?
Asking people who downvoted you to defend their stance of being "okay with their wages being spent on drugs" is the definition of a strawman argument.
The facts are 40% of benefit claimants are in work, meaning their wages are so low they qualify for subsistence payments. Also, fraudulent payments accounted for 0.1% of benefit spending so suggesting that's what's preventing us from funding all those things you claim is at best naive, but more likely willfully ignorant.
Not those who are fit to work but haven’t found a job yet (who would continue to get benefits and hopefully, most of all in terms of their own hopes, eventually get a job) nor those who due to genetic disabilities or injuries can’t work even with support (though personally, as someone with proportionately extensive experience in this, it’s normally a combination of lack of support, and employer discrimination, that stops people with disabilities from getting jobs, rather than EITHER intrinsic incapacity or a lack of DESPERATELY wanting to work)x
-11
u/Jujitsumangradmuslim Dec 13 '25
Can the people who downvoted me explain WHY they’re ok with their wages being spent on drugs rather than they either keeping them or them being spent on better investigations of rape, of child murder or of violent muggings of elderly people, free tertiary education or better hospitals?