This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Should there be restrictions on what people on benefits choose to buy?

Poll

Should there be restrictions?

Last night I was watching a episode of Spaced, in which a young woman (Daisy) is a character who is unemployed and receives JSA. However, she spent quite a few nights out with Tim and her other friends in night-clubs and pubs.

Fiction aside, do these stories irritate you? I am not too fond of the idea of vouchers as it is too much of a 'Big Brother' idea and seems very inefficient and costly. On the contrary, when it comes to taxpayers' money surely they should have some say in how the government spends their earnings? Also, it may act as a needed deterrent for the fraudsters.

What measures are you in favour of to prevent benefit claimants unnecessarily spending state money?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

yothi5

Yes, people on benefits should be receiving things like food tokens only; not a lump sum of cash to blow on booze, fags and prams.

Reply 2

JessicaW

Original post by yothi5

Yes, people on benefits should be receiving things like food tokens only; not a lump sum of cash to blow on booze, fags and prams.

Ah, prams - one of society's greatest evils.

Reply 3

yothi5

Original post by JessicaW

Ah, prams - one of society's greatest evils.

Prams for babies born to teen mums and drug addict parents and whoever else that don't deserve to be benefits.

Reply 4

sexbo

What's the point? There is none unless the value of the tokens you plan on handing out have less value than the monetary JSA. If so rather than spend millions on implementing a token system why not just cut JSA? Restrictions are arbitrary anyway? Why cigarettes and not chewing gum? Cigarettes are perfectly legal and most of the money goes back to the govt in the form of tax anyway. Alcohol is also perfectly legal and just another drink at the end of the day. Why the stance against clubbing? it is not massively expensive. Are you trying to say people on JSA should sit in their rooms all day and not be allowed to socialize with their friends. Way to improve public mental health. Even the ancient Romans had enough brains to work out that subsidizing free/cheaper games for the masses was a good idea to keep people happy and calm. These people do have a vote you know.

Reply 5

Tiger Rag

It's going to expensive to do it. And how are you going to stop people selling the tokens / vouchers and spend it on other stuff?

Reply 6

keyboard-warrior

Since online purchasing and cashless payment is so common these days, give them a debit cards which automaically logs what they buy, this will ensure they only spend money on essential goods and the occasional leisure item, otherwise there can be sanctions put on them. This should also solve the problem that food stamps/vouchers have on causing embarassment to them.

Reply 7

username567022

Original post by yothi5

Prams for babies born to teen mums and drug addict parents and whoever else that don't deserve to be benefits.

Not all teenage mums are scroungers... please don't tar them all with the same brush.

Drug addict parents, I agree with though. :smile:

Reply 8

yothi5

Original post by sexbo

It is when you consider how many people are on benefits. Using benefits to spend it who knows what. Why should I have to pay for that?!

Benefits need to go. If someone is mentally ill...too bad.

Reply 9

turkishdisco

I disagree. I think we should invest (as we already are) in ways to empower people to make their own decisions about how they live their lives.

Reply 10

chefdave

Roll all benefits and unnecessary state spending (i.e quangos etc) into a single universal payment and then let people spend the money as they wish. This would end benefit fraud in one fell swoop.

Reply 11

Herr

Cash into bank accounts is the cheapest system, the implementation of a voucher system will be hugely expensive and difficult to do and currently it is the minority of benefit scroungers who abuse it and more than likely this same minority would find a way to circumvent the system.... more than likely it would be quite easy to circumvent in times of downturns as people are eager to find "bargains"

Reply 12

Piko_Piko

Some people are disabled, or temporarily out of work through no fault of their own. Not to mention that there simply aren't nearly enough jobs for all who want them.
I believe that the groups above, who would take a job if they could, are entitled to spend their pittance on whatever they like - organic food, drugs, prams, baby formula, a pet kitten. I don't really mind.
It seems you're confusing the out of work with the bennies-for-life people, who of course, need to be stopped. Somehow.

Reply 13

keyboard-warrior

Original post by sexbo

Theres nothing arbitary and difficult about drawing the line between essential goods and things like cigarettes and beer. Obviously they can't be expected to live like robots, which is why I say we should set aside only a small proportion of money for their own leisure.

Reply 14

Infallible

I don't understand this obsession with controlling what people on benefits spend. Do you not understand that they are putting back into the economy?

Honestly, anyone would think that you didn't have anything better to do all day. Oh, wait...

Reply 15

tea_loving_girl

The same could be argued about how people spend their student grants and loans, from the government (therefore the taxpayer), given to them in order to live and pay for things needed on the course. How much of that is thrown away on alcohol and smoking etc.?

People are free and should have the choice how they spend their benefits which the government, elected democratically, decides they are entitled to.

At least that is my opinion on the matter as someone on JSA who can barely stay in the black. I place restrictions on myself. I walk instead of catching the bus, I meet up with my friends rarely and live as cheaply as possible. I end even accepting charity off my friends. I hate living like this, if I also felt like the government were watching my every move in terms of spending I would crack under the pressure. You are talking about actual human beings and a lot of current students now will end up on JSA at some point. It isn't fun.

Help people make informed decisions by all means but that comes from education not making their situation any worse.

Reply 16

TheSownRose

No, it's their money.

I'm sure lots of people will now cry that it's the tax payer's money. Yes, the money has come from taxes, but similarly the staff at Starbucks are paid with money that comes from us buying coffees - does that mean we have a say on how they spend it?

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 17

Iron Lady

Original post by Infallible

And you're the one wasting time to comment?

created a poll

Original post by keyboard-warrior

Orange juice isn't essential. Theoretically only bread, water and vegetables are. This is just a moral issue of no benefit to the economy whatsoever. people like you don't like to see poor people enjoying themselves with the "vices of cigarettes and alcohol" Infact a bag of apples is more expensive than a bottle of cider so it would be of far greater benefit to the economy for the government to ban the sale of fruit to people on JSA as fruit is one of the most expensive foods around. Have you seen the price of a little pack of grapes from LIDL of all places? £4 at least. Obviously due to transport and storage issues.