The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

future_hopeful_uk
Have you read any of this thread??


Eh??? They dont have a right to chose when the money they are spending isnt even their money. They need food, clothing etc- if we can provide it cheaper and its adequate then thats what they should get.

If they dont like it, they could always......... get off benefits?


Ok - as I said in an earlier thread, what about the disabled and sick? People dying of cancer for instance - do they get money for food, clothes and nothing else? People with severe disabilites - food, clothes and nothing else? Funnily enough, people rely on benefits because they can't do anything else - my mum is too disabled to work, she's also a full time carer to my sister. Under this system my sister would be clothed, my mother clothed and they'd get food. We don't have designer clothes, we can't afford to drive, we don't go out very often - we go to the cinema maybe twice a year and the theatre once. The only "luxury" I would say we do have is Sky TV and broadband, and a PS2/sega mega thing. We don't holiday abroad and I leave my home county about maybe ten times a year. A lot of our bedding is 2nd hand and for a long time so was most of our furniture. Neither my mum nor I smoke, we hardly ever drink, and we don't spend endless cash on beauty treatments either... I think you get my point - that we are sensible, decent people. Why then should we be punished for the actions of the few?? Even my counsellor said this morning that she can't understand how these people can get so much - presumably becuase they have so many bairns and get them all diagnosed with ADHD!! :p:
Reply 61
Add to that carers - you want to put people off doing the NHS's work?

How is that value for money?
im so academic

*No benefits to any teenager who has had a child
*No council house to any teenager who gets pregnant
*Lifetime ban on benefits if a teenager has a child
etc


lol no, you can't do this, I agree that in general teenagers should never be having children but they're well within their legal rights to do so if they wish. (assuming their over 16 [& personally I don't really think there should be any age of consent]) You can't tell people when they can and can't reproduce! Unless of course you want to live in an extremely fascist state?
FMFChris
0/10, poor trolling.


Look at my post count im not trolling lol actually serious
Reply 64
brokenangel
Look at my post count im not trolling lol actually serious


Oh... I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. I didn't think any reasonable person would actually suggest forced abortions :s-smilie: I don't think I even need to illustrate why that is a horrendously barbaric idea.
Reply 65
future_hopeful_uk
no computers (job centres and ... have them)


Thats actually not true through is it. Not for job seekers to use anyway.
This would be a good idea :smile:

Like assylum seekers are given cards to buy food and are limited. i.e no gift cards so they cant go on e to defeat the system etc.

Azura cards i think.
(edited 13 years ago)
Reply 67
kind of like the idea but couldnt work as benefit money has to cover too many dif things. travel both public and cabs in emergency, clothing, as money is limited some may want to use cheaper options than superstores, ebay poundshops etc, haircuts, then there is the fact that we all use dif supermarkets etc, not everybody has a local tesco, not everybody uses same energy company... would be easier to clamp down on benefit frauds and make it harder for people to take advantage of the system.
MALIK HAMID
lol no, you can't do this, I agree that in general teenagers should never be having children but they're well within their legal rights to do so if they wish. (assuming their over 16 [& personally I don't really think there should be any age of consent]) You can't tell people when they can and can't reproduce! Unless of course you want to live in an extremely fascist state?


So you're saying it's perfectly acceptable for two unemployed people (even regardless of age) to have a child?

Of COURSE there are boundaries as to when and how you should have a child.
Reply 69
im so academic
So you're saying it's perfectly acceptable for two unemployed people (even regardless of age) to have a child?

Of COURSE there are boundaries as to when and how you should have a child.


That does ruin the pyriamid scheme of UK growth going forward though.
Reply 70
im so academic
Forced abortion? :dontknow:



Even then, it should be education first, then children; not at the same time and deffinitely not the other way round.


My mum was 18 when she had my brother. In spite of this, she went on to do a BSc at university and then further into a PGCE. She's now been teaching for 20 years, including various positions when she was in charge of literacy for the whole school, or running specialist after-school classes for Gifted and Talented children. Her education and working despite being a "teenage mum" has benefited hundreds of children. Should the government have just kicked her out on the street and left her and my brother to die?
Quady
That does ruin the pyriamid scheme of UK growth going forward though.

What pyramid scheme? What on earth are you talking about?
future_hopeful_uk
With the image in your signature, clearly not as retarded as you are...

At least i dont support a political party who has bankrupted the UK every time they left power since the 70s..... IMF anyone?

If you're going to critcise, atleast do the non-Labour thing and propose a better idea (as we are sorting out Labour's mess).


Oh God, some people on here really are mind-blowingly stupid. What is it about GLOBAL financial crisis you right wing nut-jobs don't understand? Yes, we have a huge deficit. But it was necessary in order to support the British economy. That is basic Keynesian economics. Countries all over the world are coming out of the financial crisis and you still spew out this nonsense about 'Labour's mess'.

The reason I didn't give you a better idea was because I didn't want to waste my time explaining things to someone with the IQ of their shoe size. But seeing as you insist, I will tell you why your idea is the biggest load of crap I've ever read.

What you're proposing would basically be a huge government funded monopoly. ASDA, Morrisons, Sainsburys would lose huge amounts of business along with other small shops. Baring in mind George Osborne wants an "enterprise led recovery", starting to feel stupid yet? You are also clearly unaware that the conservatives oppose monopolies in every form - the reason they're privatizing Royal Mail at the moment. Next time, before you have ago at me for my political beliefs, could you please actually try and understand what you claim to believe?

Secondly, this system would open up a whole new social stigma. People would be singled out from others as a lower member of society because they have vouchers. Contrary to what you believe, not everyone on benefits is a scumbag who deserves to be humiliated. Although, it wouldn't surprise me if you agree with all this, Tory's often show themselves to have zero capacity to reason and zero concept of moral fairness.

Thirdly, the system is just completely impractical. The only shop you are ever allowed to shop in is Tesco? What if you don't live near a Tesco? What if you just need to go to the corner shop for some milk, but have to go all the way into town to get it? It is absolutely impossible to live with no cash/very little cash.

This system would open up a whole black market aswell. People would start selling and buying vouchers. Then criminals would find ways to forge them. The list goes on.

Even if the system was opened up to other super-markets small business would still lose out badly. The idea is completely stupid, the government would be creating a whole new money system. You can't give Tesco £85bn and expect to recieve £100bn in vouchers. It completely undermines the whole currency. The government would be effectively creating £15bn and injecting it into the economy. Have you any idea how inflationary that would be? And then on top of that you have to face the all the set-up costs of introducing an entirely new system. It would take years and years until the system would be in place properly and would cost billions.

Please can you now stop harping on about this ridiculous idea and accept it is stupid. Let's face it anyway, all of this has just been born out of your weird hatred for people on benefits. If you don't like poor people then just make a thread about that. Don't bore us all with your stupid ideas.
(edited 13 years ago)
How are they meant to pay the bills? No point in saying we'll pay the bills because it won't work - people will spend crazy amounts etc. Better to let them have the money and do it themselves.
(edited 13 years ago)
im so academic
So you're saying it's perfectly acceptable for two unemployed people (even regardless of age) to have a child?

Of COURSE there are boundaries as to when and how you should have a child.


It would be extremely foolish for two unemployed people to have a child. The child and parents are all going to have a very poor quality of life. However, the government has no right to tell people when they can and can not have children, its an entirely personal matter. I think that a good system would be: If the parents [or grandparents, if the parents are under 18] have received any benefit money any time between 10 months and 3 years before the birth of the child, it counts as though that child does not exist for all future benefits purposes. Barring somebody from all future benefits because they had a child as a teenager on the other hand, is an incredibly extreme and actually laughable proposal.
Reply 75
im so academic
What pyramid scheme? What on earth are you talking about?


Without population growth we can't fund future promises (this has been the case for centuries.

Previously life expectancy did the job, now we are reaching the limit of that we have increasing the birth rate (the decrease in birth rate balanced out against the increase in working women post 1960), or increased immigration.

Japan is seeing the what happens when your working population starts dropping.
Reply 76
The Next Left
Oh God, some people on here really are mind-blowingly stupid. What is it about GLOBAL financial crisis you right wing nut-jobs don't understand? Yes, we have a huge deficit. But it was necessary in order to support the British economy. That is basic Keynesian economics. Countries all over the world are coming out of the financial crisis and you still spew out this nonsense about 'Labour's mess'.


That would be fine arguement had the previous administration been running a balanced budget before the crisis.

However it was breaking the EU guidance of 3% of GDP.

Square that one.
inksplodge
How are they meant to pay the bills? No point in saying we'll pay the bills because it won't work - people will spend crazy amounts etc. Better to let them have the money and do it themselves.


You could do part food vouchers and part cash.

As someone who has spent the last 5 or so years living from benefits, I think it's a great idea.

I'm not going to lie and say all the money my family got was spent on the essentials etc., but if it was forced then I would have no issue with it. Benefits are, after all, basically free money given by the government intended to enable you to live a decent life - not to be spent on stuff like cigarettes etc.

The part cash element is still wide open to abuse, but it will reduce it at least.
inksplodge
How are they meant to pay the bills? No point in saying we'll pay the bills because it won't work - people will spend crazy amounts etc. Better to let them have the money and do it themselves.


You could do part food vouchers and part cash.

As someone who has spent the last 5 or so years living from benefits, I think it's a great idea.

I'm not going to lie and say all the money my family got was spent on the essentials etc., but if it was forced then I would have no issue with it. Benefits are, after all, basically free money given by the government intended to enable you to live a decent life - not to be spent on stuff like cigarettes etc.

The part cash element is still wide open to abuse, but it will reduce it at least.
Not a good idea not very realistic either.
There should just be a limit to how much benefit you are allowed or a certain amount of years and they should cut it off. There is no excuse to not have a job within 5 years.
That story about that stupid woman who never had a job and used her money to spend on a boob job really pissed me off :dry:

Latest