The Student Room Group

UKIP don't want benefit claimants driving.

Scroll to see replies

Original post by tengentoppa
Is that actually a UKIP document? The English is atrocious:

"as a form of exercise and past-time"

"Cycles should go back to the pavements"


And some of the things look live they've been written by an angry teen on Facebook:

"These people could really catch a bus!"


It looks like a leaflet prepared by a small local office, probably by unpaid staff. Then again who knows...
Original post by RFowler
A car is not a luxury
While it seems we're entering loony territory from both ends, this definitely also counts. A car is a luxury as is living somewhere with a really high implicit cost of living due to low density of infrastructure.

An arbitrary car ban for benefits claimants is probably not a good idea, but it's perfectly reasonable to point out there are incongruities in the system. Why should permanent dependants be warehoused places it is expensive to maintain them, rather than places it is cheap to maintain them? The main current reason is that housing benefit is administered at a local level rather than on a national level. Why should the government pay working tax credit to induce someone to take a job that wouldn't cover its transportation costs otherwise?
(edited 9 years ago)
To be fair I agree, if someone gets benefits why are they wasting tax payers money on luxurious items? They shouldn't drive and should catch the bus. Probably the only thing I agree with UKIP

Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 63
Avatar for n00
n00
14
Original post by Observatory
While it seems we're entering loony territory from both ends, this definitely also counts. A car is a luxury as is living somewhere with a really high implicit cost of living due to low density of infrastructure.


urgh.

If you live in a rural area a car is a necessity.

If your work is in an area of low density of infrastructure living close by is a necessity.
Original post by scrotgrot
I agree. Looking into the structure, culture, shady research institutes and patronage networks which operate in academic economics, it is literally no different to a medieval priesthood. Appropriately so given that economics is the religion of secular states. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say so.

The Austrian School has never gone in for empirical evidence I'm afraid. They just do what makes the rich richer because the rich fund them, and they fund the astroturfing needed to make it happen.


What's even more exasperating is they have used the 2008 crisis, which massively discredited their theories, as a justification to carry out extreme versions of the policies that created the mess in the first place. That is some impressive manipulation of people.
If you can afford to run a car whilst you're on benefits, you're being given too much money.
Reply 66
Avatar for n00
n00
14
Original post by Rakas21
Those are a small minority


Another big **** you to minorities from Rakas21, what a surprise.

Original post by Rakas21
although i accept there may be cases and proof can be provided.


It's all starting to sound very expensive, well I say starting but really you have to go absolutely full on retard to miss it from the start.

Original post by Rakas21

I'm not suggesting they sell the car, once they are off JSA they can drive as they like.


What exactly are you suggesting? Take their license? So jobseekers will have to reapply for it and sit around waiting for everything to check out and come back to them before taking up a job? No borrowing a car? Again sounds expensive.
(edited 9 years ago)
Reply 67
Avatar for n00
n00
14
Original post by sr90
If you can afford to run a car whilst you're on benefits, you're being given too much money.


Why?
Reply 68
Avatar for A5ko
A5ko
3
Those starving kids in Africa don't have cars, you don't see them complaining!
Original post by n00
urgh.

If you live in a rural area a car is a necessity.

If your work is in an area of low density of infrastructure living close by is a necessity.

Living where you want, or where you were born, isn't a necessity.
Original post by sr90
If you can afford to run a car whilst you're on benefits, you're being given too much money.


If they can afford to buy and run a Jaguar and drive around all the time, then maybe you'd have a point. But that's clearly not the case is it?

There are plenty of cars that are cheap to run and insure that someone on benefits would be able to manage.

For a lot of people, a car is a necessity rather than a luxury. An awful lot of people just cannot rely on public transport. If someone is unemployed, not being able to run a car can make it much harder to get back into work. It seems quite a few people on this thread are missing out this exceedingly simple point.
Reply 71
Avatar for n00
n00
14
Original post by Observatory
Living where you want, or where you were born, isn't a necessity.


That's nice. I'm not sure what your point is though.

Some people live in rural areas because that is where their work is. :wink:
Original post by Observatory
Living where you want, or where you were born, isn't a necessity.


Actually it kind of is. If someone becomes unemployed and relies on benefits it's not that easy to move out to somewhere else.

Some people live in rural areas because that's their best chance of work, as someone else has already said. If your qualifications are geared towards work in a rural area, then moving to a city is not going to solve an awful lot.
'' We the British Tax Payer ''...

I say tak their mobile phones away too. Why should they spend we the British tax payers money on those?

Also, take away their clothes. Why should we the British tax payer pay for those? A potato sack would do perfectly well.

Also, take away their internet. Why should we the British tax payer pay for that? Word of mouth is perfectly good.

Also, give them food vouchers for the cheapest scummiest food places there are. Why should we the British tax payer pay for nutritious food? Rice and water never killed anyone.

Also, don't let UKIP spend more money on arms, why should we the British tax payer continue funding that? No wait hang on, that's not meant to be in the manifesto, who put that in?

I reckon a lot of the posters on here are actually Katie Hopkins under false accounts judging from the replies. Seems like the Daily Mail is popular on here too.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Rakas21
With regards to the unemployed disabled they should keep getting motability.

With regards to the employed disabled, they can pay for it themselves.

With regards to the unemployed, they should be provided with a travel pass and be banned from car driving until they have a job. The state should not have to listen to them say they can't afford food when they are blowing money on fuel.


How exactly would you police this? Stop everyone who's driving and ask to see their paypacket / bank balance / etc? Make people wear badges?

'they can pay for it themselves' - that reminds me - you are aware that most people receiving benefits are, like, pensioners. Or people in work who need tax credits to top up their measly income in order to be able to pay the rent / look after their family
Original post by Afghan Warrior
To be fair I agree, if someone gets benefits why are they wasting tax payers money on luxurious items?


I guess for the same reason that the Government spends tax payers money on luxurious items.
Original post by Afghan Warrior
To be fair I agree, if someone gets benefits why are they wasting tax payers money on luxurious items? They shouldn't drive and should catch the bus. Probably the only thing I agree with UKIP

Posted from TSR Mobile


1) What if there is no bus
2) What if they had the car before they started claiming JSA
3) Biggest welfare spending = pensioners. Should we take away their cars?
4) Also: people in work who need benefits to keep their income at a manageable level, so their family doesn't starve and has a roof over their head. What about them?
5) How would you police this? Make people wear special hats if they claim JSA, or something?

You're all insane.
Original post by Afghan Warrior
why are they wasting tax payers money on luxurious items?


Funny you should mention that...
'MPs £275,000 wine and champagne bill'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9014098/MPs-275000-wine-and-champagne-bill.html

Besides, a crappy old Ford KA is not a 'luxurious item' by any stretch of the imagination. Cars are a mode of transport, and some people need it.

I seriously don't understand how you failed to consider that some people have cars, then they lose their jobs, and they go on JSA. Should the state reclaim everything except underwear, socks, 2 t-shirts and tins of soup from those on JSA, as everything else is a 'luxury item'? Christ on a bike...
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by молодой гений

Besides, a crappy old Ford KA is not a 'luxurious item' by any stretch of the imagination. Cars are a mode of transport, and some people need it.

I seriously don't understand how you failed to consider that some people have cars, then they lose their jobs, and they go on JSA. Should the state reclaim everything except underwear, socks, 2 t-shirts and tins of soup from those on JSA, as everything else is a 'luxury item'? Christ on a bike...


This.

If we're going to take away cars because some people deem them "unnecessary" for some reason, then where do you stop? Anything other than basic food could be considered a luxury using the same arguments.
Original post by молодой гений
How exactly would you police this? Stop everyone who's driving and ask to see their paypacket / bank balance / etc? Make people wear badges?

'they can pay for it themselves' - that reminds me - you are aware that most people receiving benefits are, like, pensioners. Or people in work who need tax credits to top up their measly income in order to be able to pay the rent / look after their family


This is the insanity of what these lot propose. They actually endorse a large intrusive state managing everyone. Workfare is basically slave labor enforced by the state, like what happens in those bogey man communist countries they love to compare the left to at every opportunity.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you