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 superwolf
Can we all pause, take a minute, and really *appreciate* what you've just said there?

...aaand breathe.

Good session folks, I think we've all learned something about ourselves today. :yy:


your point being...?
Original post by orange crush
Erm, no it isn't....

By that same argument student loans should be replaced with grants since those with degrees will on average make higher tax contributions than those without them.


Yes it is. What the hell do you think pays for welfare?


As for the bolded, that's a completely different argument, don't even bother trying to pretend it is the same.
Reply 82
Avatar for Reue
Reue
20
Original post by SophieSmall
Though to be honest I think your system would cost a lot more to implement and so in terms of saving money would be negligible at best.


I did read an article on this awhile ago but have forgotten the exact points made. Forgive me; but I cant remember the conclusion either way. My gut feeling is that a voucher system would save money but the research may suggest otherwise.
Original post by FunkItsMechanics
Why do you think there aren't enough jobs? Because you have people on the bottom of the food chain taht are expecting 10 pounds an hour to work since they can get more or less the same amount on benefits. Why are all the supermarkets replacing their employees with machines? Oh right, because of benefits, you get firms needing to pay so damn much just to hire a damn person because it's cheaper to be on benefits. Imagine if firms could hire most people for basic jobs for 4 pounds an hour. Then you wouldn't have people being replaced by machines in jobs!


A stepped minimum wage is something I'd like to see to give small local British-tax-domiciled businesses an advantage over multi-national corporations. You really think the big corporates can't afford to pay their staff a decent wage? (The actual amounts are kind of irrelevant.)

It was sort of OK in the olden days when there was social mobility - and plus the crappy jobs were taken by kids still living at home with their families - but today if you are unskilled and start working on the tills at Tesco you'll be there until the day you die, you'll never move up.
Original post by superwolf

Now go play with your junk,


lmao
I like how you put it
Original post by FunkItsMechanics
your point being...?


...obvious to all but you, I suspect. :wink:
Original post by superwolf
Can we all pause, take a minute, and really *appreciate* what you've just said there?














...aaand breathe.

Good session folks, I think we've all learned something about ourselves today. :yy:


I actually laughed :tongue:
Reply 87
Avatar for Reue
Reue
20
Original post by superwolf
:dontknow: Doesn't seem particularly ethical to me to deny people basic autonomy over whether they buy their basics from Tesco, Lidl or Lovehoney...


Hence the debate :biggrin:
Original post by Reue
I did read an article on this awhile ago but have forgotten the exact points made. Forgive me; but I cant remember the conclusion either way. My gut feeling is that a voucher system would save money but the research may suggest otherwise.


My gut says otherwise, looks like we just can't agree today.
Original post by SophieSmall
I actually laughed :tongue:


If you can't persuade them with rational debate, might as well get a giggle. :biggrin:
Original post by scrotgrot
You really think the big corporates can't afford to pay their staff a decent wage? (The actual amounts are kind of irrelevant.)


It's not about whether or not they can afford to, it's about how profitable it is for them to do so.
Economics bro
Why do we not have enough jobs? Oh right, it's because it's not profitable to employ so many people now since people are so damn expensive to employ.
Original post by Reue
I'm arguing for a different system which cuts wastage so funds can be redirected to those who have genuine need. Nowhere have I suggested that welfare should be cut. Please don't attempt to suggest otherwise.


No, and neither has IDS: it hasn't stopped him doing damage to people's lives by making conditionality more stringent (see Sophie's mum) or ramping up sanctions (there are league tables for which job centres can get the most sanctions...)

Your system would cut wastage in theory but would be completely incompatible with the real world and - like IDS's reforms - would cost more than it saves and then not actually work.

It is not worth it to micro-manage wastage in any sphere.
Reply 92
Avatar for Reue
Reue
20
Original post by SophieSmall
My gut says otherwise, looks like we just can't agree today.


I'd like to think that any government would employ someone far brighter than I to assess the financial implications of any move before doing so...

Wishful thinking maybe :biggrin:
Original post by superwolf
If you can't persuade them with rational debate, might as well get a giggle. :biggrin:


You're the one that lacks logic, not me.
Original post by Reue
I'd like to think that any government would employ someone far brighter than I to assess the financial implications of any move before doing so...

Wishful thinking maybe :biggrin:


I definitely they'd be better employing someone much smarter than myself also.
But they have to be a lot more than smart, they have to also not be completely ignorant to public issues...which honestly it seems many people employed by the government are.
Original post by Man.bear.pig
that word "lazy" to me in political discussion is just....that dammit itch you can't dammit scratch.

NOT on benefits, NOT from a council estate but I have friends and fam who are and you just never know what the situation is. I personally think it's not laziness as much as it is bad life choices like teen pregnancy, not going sixth form when it was a choice, bad habits like drugs, resorting to crime, inheriting substandard living conditions that conflict with developing self worth, lack of proper guidance that contribute to making bad choices...

all them sob stories.

Laziness is the wrong sob story. :colonhash:


I'm on benefits. I've never been pregnant or got anyone pregnant, I have four A Levels and two AS Levels, I've never taken drugs or committed a crime, my house is damp but that's because landlords are money-grabbers and I think I've made pretty reasonable choices. I just happen to be ill. But it's not a sob story.
Original post by Reue
Hence the debate :biggrin:


But where's your argument other than 'I think this because I think so'? :eyebrow:

I'm happy to provide the rationale behind my needing each and every one of my sex toys, if it helps? :smile:
Reply 97
Avatar for Reue
Reue
20
Original post by SophieSmall
I definitely they'd be better employing someone much smarter than myself also.
But they have to be a lot more than smart, they have to also not be completely ignorant to public issues...which honestly it seems many people employed by the government are.


So are you suggesting; that in a totally hypothetical world where everyone was accurately assessed on their needs.. a voucher system would indeed cut waste and so be beneficial to everyone?

Or would that be a step to far :wink:
Original post by SotonianOne
Benefits should be capped regionally to their bare minimum with a payment made to the landlord/council independently including energy and water (with limits) as well as food stamps, and perhaps a transport allowance for buses.

People who are unemployed (bar disabled) don't need anything more, anything less.


Transport allowance? Why? They can walk no? I do.
Original post by FunkItsMechanics
You're the one that lacks logic, not me.


Nope, I've just skipped to the end stage of the argument, thus enabling me to have a very good laugh. :giggle:

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you