Shoul benifits be regulated more (what you can spend them on)

Finbar21

Maybe im wrong but I swear its more green?

I'm a bloke, I have eight colours.
Bluey/green maybe.

Its what we call a £5 note, valid for goods and services to be purchased up to the value of £5.

Reply 23

rs88

If they introduce that then they should stop students spending their loans and especially grants on expensive fancy coffees and cardis from Topshop as well. After tuition fees and rent, maybe 60% on study books and transport, 10% on food (only REAL student food like own-brand baked beans allowed), 10% on clothing (can only be spent at Peacocks and Matalan) and 20% on socialising?

LOL.
Yes, cause rather more uproar if a government did that than if did something to those on benefit.

Reply 24

rs88

If they introduce that then they should stop students spending their loans and especially grants on expensive fancy coffees and cardis from Topshop as well. After tuition fees and rent, maybe 60% on study books and transport, 10% on food (only REAL student food like own-brand baked beans allowed), 10% on clothing (can only be spent at Peacocks and Matalan) and 20% on socialising?

You can't regulate a loan. A grant, yes, but not a loan.

Reply 25

Diminutive

I would really support a voucher system - but feel it should be done more of a "credit card" style. Like, you get a certain about of credit on a card, linked to that family/person to stop the black market. It should be limited to "real" food aka no ready meals and the system should make sure that bills/rent is auto payed, leaving them with whats left.

People genuinely on benefits due to being out of work but actually looking properly, deserve support as do those genuinely sick etc. Those who just scrounge off the state deserve **** all. Why should they get loads of money to buy cigarettes booze and nice stuff....

Many people don't know how to cook. There are in addition some of us who cannot cook any more - simply too dangerous.
Real food is all well and good except it can cost more than ready meals, can require preperation and cooking that can't be done.

And who would decide the genuinely sick? You need a sick note to be classed as sick for a time on benefits, those of us who are working can also be required to claim sickness benefits when SSP runs out.
Who would decide that someone is looking properly for work? We already have benefit sanctions that often fail miserably.

This is a minefield area. People don't fit into nice little tick boxes. Some of us are way out of line due to illness, disability or simply prejudice.

Reply 26

cpj1987

You can't regulate a loan. A grant, yes, but not a loan.

If they can pay it out, they can regulate it.
You don't however have to agree to the conditions - in which case you wouldn't get given it.

Reply 27

Annie72

17

No I dont think they should, I imagine it would be very degrading to the person to have to hand over tokens to pay for what they have brought.Besides people claiming benefits and who have babies already receive milk tokens, that means they can either buy baby milk or cows milk.Granted some do have big tvs etc, but they dont buy them outright, they get them from catalogues or rent them.We had to live on benefits a number of years ago, and I have to say I really could not live like that my whole life, it was awful.

Reply 28

mart2306

If they can pay it out, they can regulate it.
You don't however have to agree to the conditions - in which case you wouldn't get given it.

Seems ridiculous to regulate someone's spending of their own money in that way, to me.
That's like saying 'you can have a mortgage, but only if you spend it on this one, specific house'.

Reply 29

fletchinator

1

Let them eat cake and have massive TV's :teehee:

Seriously though, its not up to anyone to dictate what people spend their dosh on.

Reply 30

cpj1987

Seems ridiculous to regulate someone's spending of their own money in that way, to me.
That's like saying 'you can have a mortgage, but only if you spend it on this one, specific house'.

Thats exactly what a mortgage is for. Usually you don't even see the mortgage money, its straight to the seller's solicitors.

A remortgage now, extra you can spend as you like.

Reply 31

death.drop

16

Diminutive

It should be limited to "real" food aka no ready meals

I know other's have already taken issue with this but ready meals are often a necessity for people with a low income, and it's not because they can't cook.
In a lot of council housing the ovens don't work properly and those that do aren't very energy efficient so turning an oven on to cook a meal for one person just isn't affordable.
In fact, even if you have a really efficient oven it's still not economically sensible to turn it on, and even things like boiling on a hob take more energy than is absolutely necessary.

L i b

Why?

No, really, why?

What do you gain out of dictating to people what they spend their benefits on?

I spend my money on a hell of a lot of stupid ****. When I'm short of cash, I'd probably rather buy booze than food sometimes. So what? I'm not doing you any harm by it.

I prefer luxury items to mundane things - if that's how I choose to live my life, it's none of your ******* business, even if you are paying for it.

this is basically my opinion.
I'll be honest, it upsets me and kind of pisses me off when I see my brothers spending their dole on drink or drugs and then expecting people to lend them money for the basics, but realistically it would just be the other way around if the vouchers were introduced. And, if they'd rather be homeless and barely eating so that they can go to the pub with their mates once a week then fair enough. Their lives are ****, they're the first ones to say it, socialising makes them feel better.

The only place I can really see this possibly being a viable option is to make sure that child benefits are genuinely spent on the children.

Reply 32

MazalTov89

9

Er, no? Such a voucher scheme is a repugnant and a humiliating idea and would make many of those on the system worse off than they already are.

Do you have any idea what it's like to live off benefits? It's not all easy money as the Daily Mail or the rag press make out it is. My family depend on the benefit system, but the amount they're given each month isn't enough to support the family - most of it gets paid on bills and the remainder isn't enough to feed a family of six. They can't afford a plasma screen TV, or a brand spanking new car or trips to the Costa del Sol or Tenerife or where ever the **** the proles supposedly go on holiday. Their financial situation wasn't as bad before I left for uni last year, but they're ****** once my sister leaves for uni next year.

Reply 33

Doyle&TheFourFathers

11

I suggested this monthes ago under a different username but nobody cared.

Not that i think its a good idea in these financial times - the blame doesn't rest with benefit recievers at all.

Reply 34

MoonwalkBaby

1

I don't like it; I think benefits should be regulated more as in who gets them. There are so many people out there who want to work, can work, but won't because the wages they'll get from working is so much less than what they get in their benefits. Stupid really.

Reply 35

mart2306

Thats exactly what a mortgage is for. Usually you don't even see the mortgage money, its straight to the seller's solicitors.

A remortgage now, extra you can spend as you like.

That's not what a mortgage is for. The bank staff don't tell you which house you can buy. You tell them.

Reply 36

cpj1987

That's not what a mortgage is for. The bank staff don't tell you which house you can buy. You tell them.

You tell the bank which house its for. The bank check and approve (or not) and then pay the money.
You don't see the money, you don't get to decide what the money is for. Its simply for the house that you applied for the mortgage on.

Reply 37

MoonwalkBaby

I don't like it; I think benefits should be regulated more as in who gets them. There are so many people out there who want to work, can work, but won't because the wages they'll get from working is so much less than what they get in their benefits. Stupid really.

Yes, its stupid.
However would you accept a job knowing you would lose your house over it? Or that you'd have to decide between heating and food?

If you were offered shift work at minimum wage for 30 hours a week, and that worked out less overall than benefits, would you go for it?

Reply 38

Altocirrus

2

This discussion isn’t going the way I thought it would...

I think a voucher system is an excellent idea. I live in a ‘deprived’ area that is populated by people who are taking advantage of the benefit system- pumping out children so they can have a huge house and far more disposable income than my family has ever had. People should be able to spend their money on what they want, but the thing is that it’s not their money. It’s the taxpayers money.

Yes, not everyone on benefits is ‘abusing the system’, but those who are made redundant (etc) aren’t on benefits for the money.

Incapacity benefit is of course another matter- these people deserve more support. However, people who knowingly brought their affliction on themselves can go on the voucher system

Reply 39