This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
Should there be restrictions on what people on benefits choose to buy?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by minimarshmallow
So instead of finding a cost-effective way of finding those 3% and punishing them for what they're doing wrong, you'd rather employ a cost-ineffective scheme that punishes the 97% of people who haven't done anything wrong as well as those that actually deserve it...
3%? Sorry but wake up to the amount of people that cheat this system. Being within the rules does not mean you aren't cheating the system. How many people claim while they sit at home and do less then 100% to go out there and get a job. Far to many.
Part of the problem is captured perfectly in you quote above in my opinion. This idea that people 'deserve it'. That they are entitled to these benefits. That is one of the big issues. People don't appreciate that benefits don't come out of a magic government pot, they come out of the pockets of their neighbours who are bothering to make a living and paying national insurance. Let me give a very simplified example;
Back before all these benefits, people had to consider when having children that it would be an extra mouth to feed. This was a big concern! If they had that child and they couldn't afford to keep it then it is likely that the child would die. Not acceptable.
Benefits are introduced. The idea is simple, if you end up with more then you can handle (i.e. you have that child but then lose your job) then we as a society help you out by providing you with funds from the pot to see you through to better times. Ideal.
However now there is this entitlement issue. People feel that benefits are something they have earned, not something that should be a last resort. People no longer consider if they can afford another child, because in there mind they are entitled to support if they have more children then they can afford. Role out the mothers who live off benefits.
Original post by SarahY90
3%? Sorry but wake up to the amount of people that cheat this system. Being within the rules does not mean you aren't cheating the system. How many people claim while they sit at home and do less then 100% to go out there and get a job. Far to many.
Part of the problem is captured perfectly in you quote above in my opinion. This idea that people 'deserve it'. That they are entitled to these benefits. That is one of the big issues. People don't appreciate that benefits don't come out of a magic government pot, they come out of the pockets of their neighbours who are bothering to make a living and paying national insurance. Let me give a very simplified example;
Back before all these benefits, people had to consider when having children that it would be an extra mouth to feed. This was a big concern! If they had that child and they couldn't afford to keep it then it is likely that the child would die. Not acceptable.
Benefits are introduced. The idea is simple, if you end up with more then you can handle (i.e. you have that child but then lose your job) then we as a society help you out by providing you with funds from the pot to see you through to better times. Ideal.
However now there is this entitlement issue. People feel that benefits are something they have earned, not something that should be a last resort. People no longer consider if they can afford another child, because in there mind they are entitled to support if they have more children then they can afford. Role out the mothers who live off benefits.
Part of the problem is captured perfectly in you quote above in my opinion. This idea that people 'deserve it'. That they are entitled to these benefits. That is one of the big issues. People don't appreciate that benefits don't come out of a magic government pot, they come out of the pockets of their neighbours who are bothering to make a living and paying national insurance. Let me give a very simplified example;
Back before all these benefits, people had to consider when having children that it would be an extra mouth to feed. This was a big concern! If they had that child and they couldn't afford to keep it then it is likely that the child would die. Not acceptable.
Benefits are introduced. The idea is simple, if you end up with more then you can handle (i.e. you have that child but then lose your job) then we as a society help you out by providing you with funds from the pot to see you through to better times. Ideal.
However now there is this entitlement issue. People feel that benefits are something they have earned, not something that should be a last resort. People no longer consider if they can afford another child, because in there mind they are entitled to support if they have more children then they can afford. Role out the mothers who live off benefits.
I'm sick of bloody saying this.
You pay money into the government, the money is no longer yours because it belongs to the government. The government pays the money to the benefit claimant (who is entitled to it because the government said that that's how the money they have been paid is going to be spent). As soon as it hits the bank account of the benefit claimant, the money is theirs. If you don't like how the government spends the money that it collects in tax, you vote for a new government or you go to another country where they do it how you would prefer.
The 3% statistic is people who are committing JSA fraud. You get your JSA stopped if you can't prove you're looking for jobs. And when I said 'deserve it' I meant the 3% of JSA claimants that deserve to be punished for breaking the law because they are defrauding the system.
Original post by minimarshmallow
So instead of finding a cost-effective way of finding those 3% and punishing them for what they're doing wrong, you'd rather employ a cost-ineffective scheme that punishes the 97% of people who haven't done anything wrong as well as those that actually deserve it...
you do have a knack for twisting words dont you?
there is no cost effective way of finding each rule breaker there, what a ludicrous suggestion.
and besides i was never talking about benefit cheats originally anyway i said i dont like the fact they can spend this money on luxury items. if theyre in a position to have to claim benefits from the state then what possibile reasoning can they have to start treating themselves? thats what i disagree with, the corruption of the system ... its there to give a last line of support to people who have no where else to turn, not to piss away on things they dont need like fags, tv, sky etc.
and your other post what on earth are you doing comparing this to state contractors?
I personally feel there should be any exchange of cash, but they should get food tokens and tokens for necessities like some electrical good and clothes, because epidemiologically speaking smoking, alcohol and drug abuse are most prevalent in the poorer demographic of society and whilst not every one does drugs, significant do smoke and drink, and the minute the option to spend money on such items is presented, by process of human nature, people will buy fags and booze, which are responsible for loads of medical problems in this demographic and social issues like child neglect and abuse and domestic violence.
Original post by minimarshmallow
I'm sick of bloody saying this.
You pay money into the government, the money is no longer yours because it belongs to the government. The government pays the money to the benefit claimant (who is entitled to it because the government said that that's how the money they have been paid is going to be spent). As soon as it hits the bank account of the benefit claimant, the money is theirs. If you don't like how the government spends the money that it collects in tax, you vote for a new government or you go to another country where they do it how you would prefer.
The 3% statistic is people who are committing JSA fraud. You get your JSA stopped if you can't prove you're looking for jobs. And when I said 'deserve it' I meant the 3% of JSA claimants that deserve to be punished for breaking the law because they are defrauding the system.
You pay money into the government, the money is no longer yours because it belongs to the government. The government pays the money to the benefit claimant (who is entitled to it because the government said that that's how the money they have been paid is going to be spent). As soon as it hits the bank account of the benefit claimant, the money is theirs. If you don't like how the government spends the money that it collects in tax, you vote for a new government or you go to another country where they do it how you would prefer.
The 3% statistic is people who are committing JSA fraud. You get your JSA stopped if you can't prove you're looking for jobs. And when I said 'deserve it' I meant the 3% of JSA claimants that deserve to be punished for breaking the law because they are defrauding the system.
Well it goes without saying the money isn't yours at that point... but we are still funding it? This is where our national insurance goes. The money which is supposed to help society and those in genuine need, whereas these days it funds whoever can't be bothered putting in effort to support themselves. So I feel very entitled to talk about how my money is used, thank you very much.
Your 3% figure, do you know how people have to prove they are looking for jobs? Three emails will do it. Three emails to employers in a week, that takes 10 minutes!!! And they don't look at the follow up, so you never actually have to accept, interview or put any effort in to getting a job. Just need to print off three emails. So this is where you and I disagree, that does not constitute a deserving claim in my opinion.
No way, not if the government were to still give the same amount of benefits.
We are severely struggling with our economy, so we should be encouraging spending not limiting it! It would do no good whatsoever to the economy and would only create social unrest.
Unless of course you mean to reduce the amount they receive in addition to restricting their purchases. But how would you go about doing this?
This is a perfect example of the right wing mindset, cutting of their nose to spite their own face.
We are severely struggling with our economy, so we should be encouraging spending not limiting it! It would do no good whatsoever to the economy and would only create social unrest.
Unless of course you mean to reduce the amount they receive in addition to restricting their purchases. But how would you go about doing this?
This is a perfect example of the right wing mindset, cutting of their nose to spite their own face.
Original post by calumsteele1
you do have a knack for twisting words dont you?
there is no cost effective way of finding each rule breaker there, what a ludicrous suggestion.
there is no cost effective way of finding each rule breaker there, what a ludicrous suggestion.
But an extremely cost-ineffective system by which we restrict what people can buy with their money by some sort of token system isn't ludicrous?
and besides i was never talking about benefit cheats originally anyway i said i dont like the fact they can spend this money on luxury items. if theyre in a position to have to claim benefits from the state then what possibile reasoning can they have to start treating themselves? thats what i disagree with, the corruption of the system ... its there to give a last line of support to people who have no where else to turn, not to piss away on things they dont need like fags, tv, sky etc.
and your other post what on earth are you doing comparing this to state contractors?
and your other post what on earth are you doing comparing this to state contractors?
People on benefits do not live a life of luxury. If they do, it is likely that they are cheating the system.
If someone can live on £52 of the £53 a week that they're are given and want to spend the rest putting the lottery on or saving it to buy a few cans then that's up to them. Like when my mum saved every penny she could for over a year to send me to France.
This picture of a life a luxury that benefit claimants all live is not a true representation. You have been told this many many times.
Original post by SarahY90
Well it goes without saying the money isn't yours at that point... but we are still funding it? This is where our national insurance goes. The money which is supposed to help society and those in genuine need, whereas these days it funds whoever can't be bothered putting in effort to support themselves. So I feel very entitled to talk about how my money is used, thank you very much.
Like I said, if you're not happy with what the government does with the money it is paid by the people who reside within this country, vote for a new government or move somewhere else where they do things differently. Don't sit there and moan about it.
Your 3% figure, do you know how people have to prove they are looking for jobs? Three emails will do it. Three emails to employers in a week, that takes 10 minutes!!! And they don't look at the follow up, so you never actually have to accept, interview or put any effort in to getting a job. Just need to print off three emails. So this is where you and I disagree, that does not constitute a deserving claim in my opinion.
Well the guidelines are set by the government and if the job centre thinks that a claimant has satisfied them, they'll get their money. Again, if you're not happy, vote for a different government or move somewhere where they do things differently.
It's also infuriating how people assume that those on JSA are living the lives of Kings.
I know people who are out of work at the minute, and I can tell you now, boy are they struggling.
It's the people who wrongly claim other benefits that live comfortably, e.g if one partner claims sick and the other claims careers allowance in addition to other benefits. And they, despite what the DM claims are a minority.
I know people who are out of work at the minute, and I can tell you now, boy are they struggling.
It's the people who wrongly claim other benefits that live comfortably, e.g if one partner claims sick and the other claims careers allowance in addition to other benefits. And they, despite what the DM claims are a minority.
Original post by minimarshmallow
But an extremely cost-ineffective system by which we restrict what people can buy with their money by some sort of token system isn't ludicrous?
People on benefits do not live a life of luxury. If they do, it is likely that they are cheating the system.
If someone can live on £52 of the £53 a week that they're are given and want to spend the rest putting the lottery on or saving it to buy a few cans then that's up to them. Like when my mum saved every penny she could for over a year to send me to France.
This picture of a life a luxury that benefit claimants all live is not a true representation. You have been told this many many times.
People on benefits do not live a life of luxury. If they do, it is likely that they are cheating the system.
If someone can live on £52 of the £53 a week that they're are given and want to spend the rest putting the lottery on or saving it to buy a few cans then that's up to them. Like when my mum saved every penny she could for over a year to send me to France.
This picture of a life a luxury that benefit claimants all live is not a true representation. You have been told this many many times.
i never suggested anything about a token system? i simply said i disagree with them being able to spend it on whatever they so choose and it should be somewhat more restricted. i never suggested how..
i didnt say they live a life of luxury i merely said that some do spend on some luxuries that realistically they shouldnt be entitled to given their situation and i most definitely never said all of them do...
take this example i saw on a politics video a while back, a chap moved here from ukraine and his job as a janitor was in kensington so the council thus paid for him to rent a house there ... is this not grossly unfair to every hard working individual within the British isles? considering the averege wage of most people in this country is about £25k this man was recieving arond £4000 a month for rent let alone the other benefits such as income support, child benefit etc. i mean i have no problem with people recieving money from the state to give them somewhere to live its barbaric to suggest they should be made homeless but with specific relation to this example its heinous the council should be paying for a house like this which the vast majority of citizens could never afford in their wildest dreams
Original post by minimarshmallow
Like I said, if you're not happy with what the government does with the money it is paid by the people who reside within this country, vote for a new government or move somewhere else where they do things differently. Don't sit there and moan about it.
Well the guidelines are set by the government and if the job centre thinks that a claimant has satisfied them, they'll get their money. Again, if you're not happy, vote for a different government or move somewhere where they do things differently.
Well the guidelines are set by the government and if the job centre thinks that a claimant has satisfied them, they'll get their money. Again, if you're not happy, vote for a different government or move somewhere where they do things differently.
Just to clarify, you're saying nobody should every complain or discuss anything. We should just vote in a new government over a single issue any time we have a grievance or opinion?
Either make a proper argument or don't bother replying, you're starting to sound like a child...
Original post by calumsteele1
i never suggested anything about a token system? i simply said i disagree with them being able to spend it on whatever they so choose and it should be somewhat more restricted. i never suggested how..
Go on then, how?
And still, why restrict the liberties of people who cannot find work because THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH JOBS!
i didnt say they live a life of luxury i merely said that some do spend on some luxuries that realistically they shouldnt be entitled to given their situation and i most definitely never said all of them do...
There are very few benefit claimants who can afford luxuries. And if they do they are going without something else. If someone spends all of their JSA on alcohol, they won't be able to eat, because they're not going to be given any extra money. Their benefits won't be paying for them to eat and have a bottle of vodka each week, they'll go without one or the other.
take this example i saw on a politics video a while back, a chap moved here from ukraine and his job as a janitor was in kensington so the council thus paid for him to rent a house there ... is this not grossly unfair to every hard working individual within the British isles? considering the averege wage of most people in this country is about £25k this man was recieving arond £4000 a month for rent let alone the other benefits such as income support, child benefit etc. i mean i have no problem with people recieving money from the state to give them somewhere to live its barbaric to suggest they should be made homeless but with specific relation to this example its heinous the council should be paying for a house like this which the vast majority of citizens could never afford in their wildest dreams
Yes, one extreme example. So, let's restrict the choices of a bunch of people who don't do this - and maybe save a little bit of money each week so they can have a drink with their friends - because you've heard of one extreme case that is not in any representative of how most benefit money is spent!
Original post by SarahY90
Just to clarify, you're saying nobody should every complain or discuss anything. We should just vote in a new government over a single issue any time we have a grievance or opinion?
Either make a proper argument or don't bother replying, you're starting to sound like a child...
Either make a proper argument or don't bother replying, you're starting to sound like a child...
I'm saying that sitting there repeatedly saying 'But its my money! I'm financing their life of luxury' both isn't true, and isn't going to change anything. If you have an issue with what the government is doing, you vote them out.
Original post by minimarshmallow
I'm saying that sitting there repeatedly saying 'But its my money! I'm financing their life of luxury' both isn't true, and isn't going to change anything. If you have an issue with what the government is doing, you vote them out.
I don't remember mentioning a life of luxury. What I remember speaking about was the amount of people getting benefits who don't need them. I have at no point raised issue with the amount given to those in genuine need. My issue is with those who just live off the system as opposed to being supported by the system during genuine times of need. Frankly I'd rather see money taken off the lazy and given to people in actual need.
Secondly, it is the money of every tax paying citizen. So it is true. The fact that the government collects it and dispenses it does not change the fact that we finance it. Consider us investors, the government a business and benefit claimants stakeholders if it helps.
Finally, this ridiculous notion of voting the government out is just not relevant. A government is not chosen based on one factor.
Original post by SarahY90
I don't remember mentioning a life of luxury. What I remember speaking about was the amount of people getting benefits who don't need them. I have at no point raised issue with the amount given to those in genuine need. My issue is with those who just live off the system as opposed to being supported by the system during genuine times of need. Frankly I'd rather see money taken off the lazy and given to people in actual need.
People in need get benefits to survive on. 'Lazy people' get the same amount of money, except they get it stopped if the job centre staff aren't satisfied they're looking for work.
How do you suppose we take benefits off lazy people, but not those who need it?
Secondly, it is the money of every tax paying citizen. So it is true. The fact that the government collects it and dispenses it does not change the fact that we finance it. Consider us investors, the government a business and benefit claimants stakeholders if it helps.
Finally, this ridiculous notion of voting the government out is just not relevant. A government is not chosen based on one factor.
Finally, this ridiculous notion of voting the government out is just not relevant. A government is not chosen based on one factor.
No, the money used to be the money of tax paying citizens, it is now the government's money because it has been paid to them.
And I'm a voter, I know that you use more than one factor to choose the government that you want. But this seems to be a big issue for you...
No, people should have the right to make their own decisions, even if others may not approve of them. Just because they might be poor, it doesn't mean they should lose their rights to freedom.
Original post by 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?
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?
The people in Starbucks actually work. That's why people don't have an issue with it.
Original post by minimarshmallow
People in need get benefits to survive on. 'Lazy people' get the same amount of money, except they get it stopped if the job centre staff aren't satisfied they're looking for work.
How do you suppose we take benefits off lazy people, but not those who need it?
How do you suppose we take benefits off lazy people, but not those who need it?
As I've mentioned, the job centre checks are a joke. You provide 3 emails a week. A moron could write three emails in 10 minutes. There is no check to see if you are actually doing your best to get a job, sending an email won't land you a job if you don't bother attending the interview etc.
One way which I have already recommended is the idea that you don't get job seekers for free, you work the hours of community service to earn that money. Seems fairer all round and society gets more out of this. Don't start on about overheads again... the argument is weak at best when you consider the amount of available labour at no extra cost.
Original post by minimarshmallow
No, the money used to be the money of tax paying citizens, it is now the government's money because it has been paid to them.
I've given up with you on this. If I give my money to a bank, am I not entitled to question them if I feel they are using it irresponsibly? After all, we pay taxes for a reason. We expect roads, hospitals and schools to name a few. If the roads were in an unacceptable condition then I can claim that my money is not being put to good use, so why can't I do the same if the benefits system isn't acceptable?
Original post by minimarshmallow
And I'm a voter, I know that you use more than one factor to choose the government that you want. But this seems to be a big issue for you...
A bit issue for me? No.. I just highlighted that we don't pick governments based on one issue, so therefore this stupid childish 'vote out the government' attitude to respond to a single issue is pathetic. It doesn't make sense. If you are going to vote out every government that doesn't do everything you want then you would never find an acceptable government. This doesn't mean we can't debate a change. Does that honestly not make sense to you?
Original post by SarahY90
Your 3% figure, do you know how people have to prove they are looking for jobs? Three emails will do it. Three emails to employers in a week, that takes 10 minutes!!! And they don't look at the follow up, so you never actually have to accept, interview or put any effort in to getting a job. Just need to print off three emails. So this is where you and I disagree, that does not constitute a deserving claim in my opinion.
What you're missing in this is that JCP staff can and do ask for more. They also push people for information when they think they are lying or not really pulling their weight. They do follow up on jobs people say they applied for, not everyone as it would take too long, but if there's any chance someone may be lying you can bet a member of staff is going to be chasing things up.
You're forgetting that there are people involved in vetting the details about job searches who can suss out liars pretty well. Believe me most people who aren't actively seeking work are pretty bad liars. Sometimes all it takes is to ask them to name the 2 papers they say they've looked at. If they can't then you can dig deeper and possibly sanction them.
Now, if the system were totally automated then you'd be right, but there are people there who are able to dig deeper and really figure out if someone is playing the system.
Original post by Architecture-er
I don't know if anyone's already said this, but if you cut somebody's quality of life, then they'll be more inclined to try and remedy the situation.
It's rare, but some people can live average lives on benefits, which isn't what the system is designed for. It's supposed to just tide you over until you can make ends meet, whichever way you can
It's rare, but some people can live average lives on benefits, which isn't what the system is designed for. It's supposed to just tide you over until you can make ends meet, whichever way you can
But this thread was started because there are people out there who think you can live comfortably on fifty quid a week. I have been clubbing while on ESA (which is sixty quid a week) a few times before (friends pressured me into it) and trust me you feel the burn afterwards. Food for one person for one week is like £20 minimum then there's a weeks worth of gas so that's £5 electricity £5 also. that's already £30 minimum gone so you have £20 left to play with, and we all know £20 is nothing these days you could spend that all just trying to get somewhere in London. not to mention phone credit cleaning products for the house, laundry. I'ts the little things that add up. The ones complaining from their well paying jobs would not last a week on JSA without moaning.
Also people act as if clubbing is this big expensive glamorous thing that if you are doing it then your life is fully for-filled. So what if a person on benefits goes clubbing? It means they spent a fiver to jump around in a dark room with loud music for a couple hours. If people were able to go on safaris and cruises with their JSA then you may have a point. Just because someone can afford to go to a **** club once a week doesn't not mean they are enjoying their quality of life.
Latest
Trending
Last reply 5 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 5 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 5 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 5 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 5 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 5 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
