[Infallible]

(Original post by Iron Lady)
And you're the one wasting time to comment?

Not particularly. I'm relaxing on my phone, so yeah.

[Kibalchich]

(Original post by Iron Lady)
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?

If you want to **** the economy up even further, argue for it.

[keyboard-warrior]

(Original post by sexbo)
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.

I should've used then world, 'foodstuff', basically anything thats food/drink related. There aren't even that many items to put on the blacklist - cigarettes, beer. Then set aside a smal amount every month where they could spend on leisure. I just don't want people living beyond their means, this is not specific to poor people, but clearly as this relates to benefit claimants - supported by taxpayers - we should have a say in it, no?. And object to your claims that this has no economic case, we want these people to be fit and healthy for getting back out and contributing to the economy.

[daisydaffodil]

Yes and no. The people who spend their money on nights out or booze generally go without in other ways - the same money gets spent, no matter what it gets spent on. I don't see the point in placing restrictions, in any case someone will eventually lose out. Booze is heavily taxed as are fags which does in a way help to keep the economy going and keeps hundreds if not thousands in jobs. There's also the issue of people on benefits who have ZERO choice in the matter - my mother for example, my neighbour who has applied for over 100 jobs in six months and received nothing but four hours in a hotel as a temporary worker..

Could also argue - as someone else said here - I pay Tescos on average £30 a week for my shopping. Should I have the rights to then dictate to the Tescos staff what they can spend that money on? After all - it's my money that I'm giving them!

[OU Student]

(Original post by HarryPotterFanx)
Some people are on JSA because they can't work because of disabilities...

JSA is paid to someone who can work but doesn't have a job.

[HarryPotterFanx]

(Original post by OU Student)
JSA is paid to someone who can work but doesn't have a job.

My mum gets it and she isn't able to work...

[madders94]

(Original post by HarryPotterFanx)
My mum gets it and she isn't able to work...

It's likely that she's either getting ESA because she isn't able to work or has been found fit to work by ATOS (which is no indication of her actual ability to work because they're a biased, profit-driven company) and is on JSA because they're expecting her to find a job.


In response to this idea, great. Yet another way of making those who claim benefits because THEY HAVE NO OTHER CHOICE - some people seem to think everyone who lives on benefits sees it as a lifestyle choice, when it isn't - feel inferior to the awesome taxpayers who should be worshipped like almighty gods

[College_Dropout]

(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?

Your right, its their money. But similarly when you apply for a student loan for uni, that's the only thing the money can be used for, tuition fee's and not all the nights out that go along with it.

They should be given tokens along with free condoms for them single mothers.

[TheSownRose]

(Original post by College_Dropout)
Your right, its their money. But similarly when you apply for a student loan for uni, that's the only thing the money can be used for, tuition fee's and not all the nights out that go along with it.

They should be given tokens along with free condoms for them single mothers.

The tuition fee loan can only be used for tuition fees because you've actually applied for a ... tuition fee loan. The student loan can be spent on whatever you want - plenty of people spend that on nights out, I spend a lot of it on camera gear, I know people that have spent it on holidays or video games or whatever they want.

[OU Student]

(Original post by College_Dropout)
They should be given tokens along with free condoms for them single mothers.

What about the men who sleep around?

[TheSownRose]

(Original post by keyboard-warrior)
I should've used then world, 'foodstuff', basically anything thats food/drink related. There aren't even that many items to put on the blacklist - cigarettes, beer. Then set aside a smal amount every month where they could spend on leisure. I just don't want people living beyond their means, this is not specific to poor people, but clearly as this relates to benefit claimants - supported by taxpayers - we should have a say in it, no?. And object to your claims that this has no economic case, we want these people to be fit and healthy for getting back out and contributing to the economy.

No, no more than I should have a say in what Waitrose staff spend their wages on.

[hmon93]

(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.

So now babies born to unemployed people shouldn't have prams?

[Hobo389]

A voucher based system is cruel and degrading, imagine going into a shop with your JSA or benefit vouchers and spending them. You're going to feel judged by the cashier, and everyone else around you even if they are perfectly nice people who will not judge you. It is a degrading idea.

[Mr Dangermouse]

Yes.


Benefits are for a safety net, not crack.

[yothi5]

(Original post by hmon93)
So now babies born to unemployed people shouldn't have prams?

Well why are they unemployed in the first place? Most unemployed people cant be bothered to get off their backsides to do something about their situation. If they tell me they're trying, I will tell them they are not trying hard enough.

If they are unemployed and have little money, why on earth would be bring new life into their lives.

It shouldn't be hard working people - British taxpayers- that have to foot in the bill for other people's ill life choices.

Makes me angry when I see mothers/anybody who clearly are the benefit claiming type with better clothes, phones and whatever else better than ordinary hard working people working 8am-late, at least 5 days a week.

[Pawsies]

no, it would highlight poverty if people used vouchers and create a bigger gap between working and upper class.

the debit card idea sounds good initially but what about places that don't accept card?

[gateshipone]

(Original post by yothi5)
British taxpayers- that have to foot in the bill for other people's ill life choices.

The British taxpayer foots the bill for civil servants to buy drink and drugs and, shock horror, prams. I suppose you'd want their wages paid in a different form than money so that the taxpayer doesn't have to support their lifestyle either?

Makes me angry when I see mothers/anybody who clearly are the benefit claiming type with better clothes, phones and whatever else better than ordinary hard working people working 8am-late, at least 5 days a week.

I think it's adorable that you think there's a "type" of person who claims benefits. You clearly have no clue about the majority of people on benefits.

[yothi5]

(Original post by gateshipone)
The British taxpayer foots the bill for civil servants to buy drink and drugs and, shock horror, prams. I suppose you'd want their wages paid in a different form than money so that the taxpayer doesn't have to support their lifestyle either?



I think it's adorable that you think there's a "type" of person who claims benefits.

Proof?

[gateshipone]

(Original post by yothi5)
Proof?

Lol whut? I was a civil servant, I went out to drink at least once a week as did most of my colleagues. Some occasionally smoked weed. Some even had babies!

[FrogInABog]

This was on the Beeb a while back, caused a bit of a stir...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16812185

The article is actually about the benefits cap, but it shows something related to this topic. For those who can't be bothered to read it, it is about a Welsh family, with both parents unemployed, who are worried about the impact of the benefits cap, by which they stand to lose just over £80 a week from an already tight budget. You begin to feel sympathetic, until you read what they're spending their money on.

Every week, they buy/pay (as well as all the normal necessities):
-200 cigarettes
-A large pouch of tobacco
-24 cans of lager
-£15 worth of Sky TV, including Sky Movies (or £60 a month)
-"3 or 4 pints of beer"
-£32 worth of mobile phone bills (£128 a month)

I'm not saying I expect a family on benefits to live an entirely Spartan lifestyle, but there are quite a few things above that my family (both parents employed) survive quite happily without. Also, I know that this example won't be entirely representative (see the adjoining article), but it does show that at least some people are spending their benefits on things that are completely unnecessary.