Should benefits be scrapped?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by ChaoticButterfly

What happens when I offer to buy said vouchers off a benefit claimant at cheaper price for the good they can be exchanged for? I get cheaper food. Claimant can then use benefit to buy fags.

That system is open to black markets etc. It would also require a lot of policing to work. So it's more bureaucratic, which itself cost money. We want to reduce bureaucracy, not create more of it.

Nothing happens :s

You get slightly cheaper food and the person who values fags above food starves.

Reply 41

username457532

Original post by Reue

Ditch the computer, the rest is the responsibility of the landlord to fix.

A high initial cost but the real benefit comes in the form of serving as a disincentive.

1. Not all benefit claimants rent. They may have bought their house/flat whilst in work and have now lost their job or become ill or disabled and so would need to pay to fix a boiler etc. Also, not all rented accommodation provides washing machines, fridges etc. Some belong to the tenants.

2. You know what the biggest disincentive for me about being ill is...? That being ill ****ing sucks. But I'm still ill and still unable to work. Reducing my benefits, giving me vouchers that I could only spend in certain shops on certain things rather than allowing me to make the choices that are right for me will only make me feel worse.

Reply 42

Reue

Original post by SmallTownGirl

This is very true.

Original post by SmallTownGirl

2. You know what the biggest disincentive for me about being ill is...? That being ill ****ing sucks. But I'm still ill and still unable to work. Reducing my benefits, giving me vouchers that I could only spend in certain shops on certain things rather than allowing me to make the choices that are right for me will only make me feel worse.

Sorry to hear that.

Reply 43

username457532

Original post by Reue

Sorry to hear that.

I don't need your pity. I need you to rethink your prejudice.

Reply 44

Reue

Original post by SmallTownGirl

I don't need your pity.

Then don't use your own personal circumstances to support an argument.

Original post by SmallTownGirl

I need you to rethink your prejudice.

I think I don't, but you're obviously entitled to disagree.

Reply 45

username457532

Original post by Reue

Then don't use your own personal circumstances to support an argument.

I think I don't, but you're obviously entitled to disagree.

Do you know how disgusting to be like 'It's sad that you're disabled but I still agree with things that will make that harder for you...'

Reply 46

Reue

Original post by SmallTownGirl

Do you know how disgusting to be like 'It's sad that you're disabled but I still agree with things that will make that harder for you...'

I've not given any details on how I'd implement a voucher system so you can't really judge whether it might be harder on you.

Reply 47

Sgmjb

Original post by SmallTownGirl

Wow. I love the idea of privileged private school kids debating whether people have enough money to afford a warm home, clothes and food for them and their families. That's so unheard of.

Oh wait... That's exactly what happens in Parliament.

as a fellow private school attendee who does economics with an incredibly right wing economics teacher, it annoys me how out of touch people are with the realities faced by people who receive benefits. our economics lessons do little to strip the sense of entitlement many have and it often turns into a full blown ''lets slag off those who aren't rich through no fault of their own''.

Reply 48

username457532

Original post by Reue

I've not given any details on how I'd implement a voucher system so you can't really judge whether it might be harder on you.

So how would you implement a voucher system?

Because I'm pretty sure any possible system would give me less ability to make decisions for myself.

Reply 49

username457532

Original post by Sgmjb

Well the system's just about allowing the people who are privileged to not realise how much privilege they have.

Reply 50

Sgmjb

Original post by SmallTownGirl

Well the system's just about allowing the people who are privileged to not realise how much privilege they have.

Exactly! the lack of empathy astounds me! they see helping those in need via daddy paying tax on his six figure salary as taking their god given right to being a spoilt princess away from them!

Reply 51

Reue

Original post by SmallTownGirl

So how would you implement a voucher system?

I'm not sure, haven't got the time to give it the required thought to make the system detailed enough that people wouldn't then start finding loopholes. Perhaps exclude disability claimants :beard:

Reply 52

scrotgrot

Original post by futbol

YES!

The vonrable people we are helping may as well not be alive while we have a deficit.

Any kind of benefit for anyone ever need to be abolished (and borders closed) or Britain will be a third world country by 2025.

I'm only saying what 99.9% of the population think.

Left wing haters will say helping others is a decent and moral thing to do.

You do realise a public sector deficit is a private sector surplus.

And a public sector surplus is a private sector deficit.

You are literally handing money to Osborne to pay him for taking money out of the economy

Reply 53

scrotgrot

Original post by Reue

I'm not sure, haven't got the time to give it the required thought to make the system detailed enough that people wouldn't then start finding loopholes. Perhaps exclude disability claimants :beard:

Or the money, eventually you realise it's just not worth it. Like I say, most of the benefit reforms we have had have cost money - and that's without considering the extra impact on the NHS, charities etc

Reply 54

AceViva

Original post by SmallTownGirl

No kids in private schools should not be allowed to discuss political ideas as their too rich and may offend the working class. Brilliant. Also im not sure why you are so angry as i have not said anything bad about benefits infact i just wanted peoples input??

Reply 55

Reue

Original post by scrotgrot

I recall one country toying with the idea of just giving everyone a flat benefit regardless of entitlement in order to cut costs.

Reply 56

AceViva

Original post by abruiseonthesky

I think a base universal income is a great idea and would eliminate the need for most benefits. Those that, for example, cannot work due to disability or illness, could then have that income supplemented with additional benefits. So I don't think scrapped but reformed.

Im getting so much hate but i dont think i have mentioned i want benefits cut anywhere. I completely agree with you, if there were changes in which people who did not deserve benefits did not get them, there would be more money to hand to people with disabilities etc. I dont understand how this is so offensive infact i find it offensive that people would rather see benefits go to people who could work and choose not to then people who would work and but genuinely cant.

Reply 57

Nathanielle

Vouchers are also pointing out to everyone in the shop, who is claiming benefits. And that is simply of noones business, whether one is unemployed/ill/etc. ...

In case one suspects someone is faking benefits, then just let the people sent their invoices in, then one can exactly see, what they have spent and at the same time, without all the disadvantages of vouchers. At the end, it is also simply not important, what exactly the people spent their money on and their are other ways to care for cases, where one suspect mismanagement. This would also give more time to look after the minority, who is doing wrong, except punishing the majority, who would love to work and spent their money wisely.

Reply 58

scrotgrot

Original post by Reue

I recall one country toying with the idea of just giving everyone a flat benefit regardless of entitlement in order to cut costs.

Yes I believe in that. To cover economic benefits (dole, housing) but keep extra bits for personal circumstances type ones (disability, children). No conditionality on the first is philosophically justified: everyone not falling into the second group is equally subject to market forces, and failure to thrive is not due to an essential failing of the claimant.

There is still a referendum outstanding on the basic income in Switzerland to come this year. Other proposals have been halfway houses and the problem with this is you either have to do it properly or not at all.

It is a redistribution of the surplus from automation, and the knowledge (read bull****) economy. These things are why there are suddenly enough unemployed people to be economically dysfunctional. At present the corporations who use automation keep the surplus and the people pay for it with their worklessness and income insecurity.

Reply 59

djh2208

Original post by Little Popcorns

That's ridiculous sometimes people can struggle to find a job not because they're not trying hard enough but simply because they've had no luck/ the job market isn't great.

Also there's a difference between getting a job and being able to live off it and just getting any old job irrespective of it's pay.

So what would most likely happen if you put a time limit to the provision of benefits/period within which people needed to find work is a hell of a lot of people would quickly getting any old job that they may not feasibly afford to live off. Either that or worse still homeless etc.

They should be getting any old job. They can get a job on minimum wage in the short term and continue to look for work after, then they would be contributing to their income and not be living solely off of taxpayers money. They still get in work benefits as well so I see no issue.

The real problem is that we have got to stop rewarding bad behaviour. If someone doesn't work hard then that's their issue, you can't expect the taxpayer to bail them out.