The Student Room Group

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

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

Scroll to see replies

Original post by SophieSmall
If a system was put in place like the one OP suggested it would literally leave my mum housebound. She is disabled and can't use the buses as they are too far of a walk for her, they took disability benefits off her so she can't afford upkeep on her mobility scooter (which is now broken) and the only way she can get around is by taxi. Which she has to SAVE up for from the sod all amount of money they give her.

The people who come out with this nonsense say it from a ridiculously privileged position. They have probably never had to struggle in their lives. Most likely have put little thought into the consequences of the system and almost definitely don't even care. And like you said this affects a lot more than just where they can buy their food or whether they can buy "fags", it stops them ever being able to put any money aside to pay for emergencies like a broken cooker.


Would rep 1,000 times, bold bit is bang on.
Reply 41
Original post by superwolf
Almost like... money then? :tongue:


Almost

But with the advantage that it can be limited... much unlike money.
Original post by Reue
Almost

But with the advantage that it can be limited... much unlike money.


But why the **** should you limit what I can spend my money/vouchers on?!
Reply 43
we need to have a card system where people on benefits can only spend money on essentials such as food, petrol, clothing
Original post by Reue
I just have.

Clearly your mother is in the wrong situation under the current system; so I dont really understand why you're so against a change?

I think the key point of giving people vouchers instead of cash is that they can exchange them for things they need. In your mother's case it would be the upkeep on her mobility scooter.

I'd also argue that by moving to such a system it would stop the 'wastage' on fags/booze and so free up more of the welfare money to be put to use on those who genuinely need it like your mother.

We have to remember that there is only a set pot of money to go around. If you or someone you know is a genuine claimant who requires 100% of the funds they get.. surely you would support any system which seeks to cut the wastage and redistribute more of that pot towards the real needs?


The 'wastage' is very small though. Only a tiny percentage of people are benefit frauds. The amount the government loses due to this is tiny. So a system designed to catch these cheaters may even spend more money in its implementation than is being lost by them in the first place. And the hassle and stress it causes the vast majority of honest users outweighs any benefits it has in my view.

Not to mention, why can't people on benefits buy fags or whatever if they want to? They're not given that much money, so would have had to either budget extremely efficiently or give up something else to buy them. That's their choice surely. Yes those things are harmful and unnecessary but if that's the sole argument then it should be banned for the populace as a whole. If the reason is that people on benefits don't deserve nice things, I'd have to disagree.
E
Original post by sdotd
we need to have a card system where people on benefits can only spend money on essentials such as food, petrol, clothing


I don't see my sex toys on your list. :colonhash:
Original post by FunkItsMechanics
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.



Ur post makes several inaccurate assumptions. (Hi this is proving good revision for my economics A level)
Economics is a neither moral nor fair force - and it should not be treated as such. Yes there are lazy people in the world but we should not presume that unemployment and a degree of reliability on the state is somehow self inflicted or a deserved predicament.

I take it that by benefits you are referring to the 'welfare system'. The vast majority of people 'on benefits' have jobs. The welfare budget (as it stands) is something like 200 billion - bit lower than that I forget the exact figure.

Job seekers allowance currently accounts for 4.5 billion - and you have to apply for 14 different jobs a week in order to qualify.

Pensions are the largest pot at 93 billion.

The disabled get about 40 billion, same for children.

In-work benefits accounts for the bigger proportion - that's basically the Government subsidising poor wages because we don't always pay the living wage in the country.

You are also presuming that unemployment is a demand and not a supply problem.

In the last few years although there has been a growth in the number of jobs, most of that growth has been in very high skilled sectors (like the financial sector) requiring years of training and experience, conversely the other growing sector is in the very low productivity service jobs, like working in cafe shops, where wages are low and employees often find themselves reliant on in-work-benefits.

I hope this helps you form a more rounded and informed opinion.
Reply 47
Original post by superwolf
But why the **** should you limit what I can spend my money/vouchers on?!


And that is the great ethical debate. Because; it's only your money if the people + government decide that it's your money.
Original post by superwolf
But why the **** should you limit what I can spend my money/vouchers on?!


So we can help you save our money on stuff you don't need.
Original post by Reue
This:


I'm sorry you don't have a clue. Do you really think the benefits system is capable of tracking who has a working mobility scooter? Do you have any idea how much that level of scrutiny would cost and how many mistakes would be made?

Just grow the **** up and give people the money they need to live on.

Reue

I didnt suggest all unemployed should ditch the car; but that some might be better served in doing so.


Well I'm sure they're in a much better position to decide that than you are. Have you considered that they're not all completely stupid and can work this sort of thing out for themselves without having a proper person with a job come and give them condescending suggestions?

It's almost like you think this sort of thing only happens to a certain sort of person that's not you.
Original post by Reue
So, with the greatest respects; having a voucher system or not would have no impact on your mother? This discussion is about having a voucher system or equivalent so why are you using your mother as an example against such a system when you say it's got nothing to do with the method of payment of benefit but more the fact that she had been judged to be illegible?


Yes it would, because chances are this voucher system would only cover basic necessities like food, clothes and bills. I doubt repairs would be covered.

And of course if this system was put in place tomorrow my mum would suffer, she'd have 0 money to leave the house. So I don't see how you could possibly say how it wouldn't affect her with a straight face.

And you could argue that the system wouldn't be a problem if everything like this was covered and people got what they were entitled too. But it's pretty obvious that people slip through the cracks, people get put on the wrong benefits and people who should be entitled to things aren't. And let's be honest, no system is perfect so it's likely to be the case that there will always be people who get put on the wrong benefits, or are wrongly misjudged. So in my opinion a vouchers system would do far more harm than good.
Reply 51
Original post by Dungarees
why can't people on benefits buy fags


I dont believe they should be able to. Sorry, I've no other argument against it other than my own personal belief. No doubt others may be along to explain why it may be beneficial to the overall economy having people spending their benefit money on fags.. but it is unlikely to change my personal view.
Original post by Yawn!
To look at it from another angle (playing devil's advocate here....is that the right term?), giving out social security in the form of money rather than food (or vouchers) is the smarter thing to do. Money that is pumped into social security ultimately finds its way around the economy. Whether that social security money is spent on food, bills, necessities, etc or clothes, TV's, gadgets, etc (which is what gets so many people upset). It is almost a form of government stimulus to the economy, it supports jobs and businesses and contributes to the consumption that keeps the economy ticking.

That said, it would be preferable to have 100% skilled employment, etc, but that's a lot easier said than done. In the interim, this is probably the best system.....economically speaking.


That's great and all, but this is real life, not a 12 mark A Level economics question...
Original post by dyslexicvegie


You are also presuming that unemployment is a demand and not a supply problem.



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.
Original post by Reue
And that is the great ethical debate. Because; it's only your money if the people + government decide that it's your money.


:dontknow: Doesn't seem particularly ethical to me to deny people basic autonomy over whether they buy their basics from Tesco, Lidl or Lovehoney...

Original post by FunkItsMechanics
So we can help you save our money on stuff you don't need.


I don't need your help ta, I've got it all figured out. :wink:

Out of interest, how much income tax did you pay this last year? :cookie:
Original post by scrotgrot
The skills gap is a thing but I would suggest much more important is the fact that there are less jobs than unemployed people. Not sure why people think education is going to change that. Also not sure in general why people immediately blame unemployment on the character flaws of a large group of people rather than the economic system. They must have put something really funny in the water in the 1980s when everyone lost their jobs and the unemployed underclass was created - or could it possibly have been due to the huge economic rebalancing we underwent at that time?


nah. OP immediately criticised their character, calling them lazy, so I felt obligated to provide alternative reasons why people as individuals might not prosper socioeconomically. But of course lacking jobs is a factor, I was hoping OP wouldn't need help with that. I just hate when people are called lazy, like partly I attribute poverty to of course the government and disparity but also in a world of much choice and freedom like the west people need to use choice and freedom properly and not add on to the government's faults.
Original post by Reue
And that is the great ethical debate. Because; it's only your money if the people + government decide that it's your money.


Which is exactly why the welfare state was framed as a birthright. Otherwise you get people like you insisting that it's just another form of charity you have to behave "well" and jump through hoops to get.

Why don't we put all this energy, money and sense of purpose into designing the sort of economy where everyone gets a liveable income? If we can't create enough jobs, why is that the fault of the unemployed? We need to stop punishing the poor, unemployed, disadvantaged, disabled for the craven failures of our government and corporate class.
Original post by superwolf


Out of interest, how much income tax did you pay this last year? :cookie:


I've paid 0. My parents have paid quite a lot though.
I think people are watching too much benefits Britain tbhQuite a lot of people on benefits want to work but there is not enough jobs and most people don't get a lot of money, and don't even spend their money on drinks and drugs.

What is needed is a reformed system, to actually give the money to the people who actually need it like the people with disabilities who sometimes don't get enough and end up suffering the most.
Reply 59
It's easy for some on this forum to look down on people who are less fortunate than them.

By less fortunate I mean not everyone's parents can afford to give their little darlings a monthly allowance until they're 40.

Latest