What do you think of people on benefits who purchase luxuries?

Nobody needs an Xbox to survive. That's the point. Sell the Xbox and use the money to look for a job. All people on benefits that do game are a waste money and time. Why should they be wasting my money and time on an Xbox when they could be using it more productively?

If they want an xbox once they've found work they can save up and purchase one like most hardworking people in the country do.


The state of their lives will never change if they spend their time running up electricity bills and playing Xbox and sitting on their arses watching TV. For their lives to change they need to make a change. The best thing I ever did was sell all of the unproductive items in my life and invest in things that could generate more money.



But they can help their situation. They have money they could spend on productive things as opposed to watching TV and playing Xbox whilst running up an electricity bill.


Spot on. They're just excuse makers and always find a reason to justify their own laziness.

Honestly, I say crack on.
JSA is really such a tiny amount, I don't believe that many can afford luxuries on it.

With the introduction of new shows such as Benefit Street and Benefit Britain people on benefits are being frowned upon more and more. Now whilst I understand that in many cases there is a right to be angry. There are people who spend a lot of their income from benefits on cigarettes and unhealthy food, I fully get that. What I am more interested in is why people get so angry when a family on benefits owns a widescreen television or a smart phone.

My Mum used to work until she got a brain tumor which made it extremely difficult for her. She can't walk at a normal speed and she is constantly nauseous and in pain. There are loads of people like this out there but it feels as if people don't want them to have anything good because it is 'their' money that is being used to purchase these items.

On the radio and in comment sections you even get people suggesting that people on benefits shouldn't be allowed on holiday. I think that's ridiculous. Have we got to a point where the media has created a very negative image of someone on benefits, so negative that people no longer want them to have anything good?

I know there are a lot of people who don't deserve benefits, but do you think the people who actually need it are being unfairly frowned upon?

Do you think people on benefits should be allowed to purchase luxuries or maybe you think there should be a limit?

Interested to know.

A person gets x amount in benefits to spend on whatever they like. There is no criteria set by law or by government guidelines on what they are to spend their benefit money on, whether it is a top up for their mobile phone, a console game or a piece of rump steak. They get that money and it is up to them how they use it, of course, they should use it wisely. The money spent on the item/items goes into the economy, so whether it is a bottle of vintage wine or pint of milk, it does not matter.

I think it's evil, of both the government and the participants themselves
I know a stamp system will have its flaws but it is desperately needed.

It isn't needed. The same amount of money would have to be given in vouchers. It all goes into the economy regardless. The only "rationale" for giving vouchers instead of money is if you want to curb people's spending power or you want to punish those not in work.

"it isn't need"
it's necessity is predicated upon not allowing public money funding people's incentives to not work and to have fun instead; fun should exist only when they can work for it.

vouchers? stamps? they're the same thing here

"it all goes into the economy"
who cares? if we cared about the economy we'd all be libertarians but not many people are

and yes, of course I'd want to curb their spending power/"punish" them for not being in work; I wouldn't call it punishment, because you don't punish people by not giving them things they're already not entitled to.

I think we need to make a distinction between those who depend on the state like the disabled and those who simply need short term help like jobseekers.

I have no real objection to the disabled spending money on what they like because they may never have another source of income. Those on jobseekers though should not be draining the taxpayer for anything other than the necessities.

Yeah, I agree. I'm pretty sure these luxuries are probably purchased on credit card debt (which is a bad thing, but only for the person/family who is getting into debt, so I don't care). A normal person on benefits wouldn't be able to afford them.

Most of the middle classes complaining about benefits have no clue and live beyond their means with a huge mortgage 3 cars on finance giving the presentation they are rich when really they have little disposable income , throwing their toys out of the pram because an unemployed/low paid person goes on a cheap package holiday to Benidorm for a 100 quid, when they wouldn't even holiday in benidorm anyway and would have to go somewhere exotic like the Maldives, me and my fiance both work and he pays something like 10k in tax and national insurance a year he doesnt moan about because if we somehow lost everything the state would be there to help until we got on our feet. You cannever predict the future.

So you're denying people fun? Let's say you became unemployed and you cannot find work and now a year has passed and you still cannot find work. You're miserable now. Do you deserve to be miserable?

It's about ambition and attitude if you become content with cheap holidays and minimum wage because it's safe then that's where you will stay.

Poor people shouldn't be allowed nice things because then they won't live up to my outdated Dickensian image of what 'poor' is. Poor people these days just aren't poor enough goddamn it - some of them even have refrigerators ffs!