Benefit payments should be in the form of meals, not money

you would not have been subject to stringent conditionality and would not have experienced the worst of it.

If 100% of it is turned into a combination of GDP and tax, the taxpayer recoups the whole cost.

No it's not, because the £50k household (who are more than likely on child benefits, state education, state healthcare and so on) will save it. Savings are invested by the banks, but it is under-investment compared to spending, because there is no guarantee the banks will invest it in the UK economy.

No idea why you are saying that about tax: it seems irrelevant.

I specifically referred to high-end phones.



The Government/taxpayers aren't there to fund comfort.



How "cheap"? Anything requiring more than 15 pounds p/m is not cheap. Otherwise people on benefits who use food banks shouldn't moan they can't afford food.



How is public transport unreliable or inconvenient? It does the same thing as a car. If there's congestion, you're stuck if you're in a car or a bus or a taxi. Not much of a difference. In terms of public transport not being on time, "leave earlier" has never ceased to be advice.



Yes but we're getting into extraordinarily small amount of jobs right now. Not many jobs need personal vehicles at all, other than small business delivery jobs I can't think of many. Should the government fund lorries or vans to people? They're too expensive.



When a business goes insolvent, it sells assets. Phones and vehicles are assets, and shouldn't be any different for people.



Disagree.

I find it a nice comfort when I see your posts on threads such as this. I feel less obliged to anger myself through responding when I'm really not in the mood because I know you've got it covered.

(I just wish you weren't so anti-feminist )

By using a newspaper, a cheap phone or a friend's internet device.

Use a taxi. Costs less in the long run than the full up-keep of a motor vehicle.

A lot of phones are on contracts - you pay a certain amount a month and you can't just stop it mid-contract if, for example, you become unemployed. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly sure it costs money to get out of a contract like that.

The whole idea of restricting what benefit claimants should be allowed to buy is just unworkable and unncessary.

A lot of phones are on contracts - you pay a certain amount a month and you can't just stop it mid-contract if, for example, you become unemployed. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly sure it costs money to get out of a contract like that.

Public transport is unreliable because it can sometimes be late, it doesn't always go at a time suitable for me, and it doesn't always go where I want/need to be (my dad's workplace is far from any bus route). It is far far easier to use a car, and for me not that much more expensive.

A lot of jobs require you to have your own transport. And even for the ones that don't technically require it, not having it can still be a disadvantage. If you have to take several buses, you are at a disadvantage if other applicants have cars or live closer - the employer will look at you and think you are possibly less reliable and more likely to be late to work.

And if I sell my car if I become unemployed, it could end up costing me more to buy another car when I manage to find a job again. So it would be much easier and probably more cost effective to just keep my original car.

The whole idea of restricting what benefit claimants should be allowed to buy is just unworkable and unncessary.

Doesn't exactly cost a million to legislate against that, just costs time.



It's never been tried, therefore not unworkable. And very necessary - to prevent abuse.

and then being contacted back?

Because that helps how? What about those in rural areas, with an absent or entirely unsufficient public transport network - how do they get anywhere?

I take it you've never been to an interview then? appearances count for a lot, you need to be smart, not just stomachable.

Entirely false. Taxi fares are exorbitant compared to running a car for the same journey and if you have to use them regularly then it will cost far more.

It's never been tried, therefore not unworkable. And very necessary - to prevent abuse.

Telling the potential employer you've used a newspaper and you currently do not possess a phone and asking for a re-visit date, or using the other two options again.

That's because they're pretty useless - I was in there last Monday talking to them about the possibility of work experience and a placement in a local chemistry lab (i'm stuck in that lovely catch 22 of can't get a job because I've got no industrial experience) and got told to contact the NHS - I explained that the NHS is biomedical, not chemistry, it's a completely different science and contacting them would be completely useless, and asked whether they had details of local labs - and was just told to contact the NHS again. They don't listen, they don't help - it's turn up, get asked why you haven't found work yet, get told to go away: as yet they've given me no constructive help whatsoever.

That is not true to some extent. I'm fairly certain employers would be willing to hire people to do basic jobs (as long as they aren't like screwing everything up) for 2-4 pounds/hour but the question is are people willing to work for that low?

no because the benefits system pushes the wages up, since employers will be expected to pay more to people who do actually work, otherwise people would actually earn more being on benefits than working.

Not directly.



"will save it"

And you just called me economically illiterate? Savings in an average household as a proportion of income are around 4% - 5%, and haven't been above 20% since the late 50s.

Yeah, nice drivel.



Because most people don't want their tax spent on excessive luxuries of other people.

I was thinking about whether the government should close to abolish benefits so that the lazy people would finally get a job, by reducing it to the level so people on benefits experience poverty on the level of third world countries; but starving them would be rather inhumane.

not like luxury food, but basic, cheap, good food like an apple/banana/orange and a sandwich for a meal, and you would have to queue at least half an hour to get it plus meet the criteria

i was think this would discourage people to live off benefits without being inhumane to them so you wouldnt suffer from benefits but if you had no money to do anything you would be really bored. And the people that dont actually need the benefits wont go to get it because of the half an hour queue.

Vouchers exchangeable for basic living necessitates.

Why do they need petrol?

A lot of phones are on contracts - you pay a certain amount a month and you can't just stop it mid-contract if, for example, you become unemployed. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly sure it costs money to get out of a contract like that.

Your ignorance is astounding. People in benefits need to pay for rent, bills, for buying clothes and transport. Meals do not pay for these things.


It will need to be a very flexible voucher system. That flexibility and implementing the system itself as well as mantaining it will cost money. Money that could be put to better use.


Erm...to drive? People who live in small towns use cars because buses are unreliable or non-existent.