Should benefits be scrapped?

Original post by callum_law

And the one who survives gets wins the right live in a council house in Stoke.

Exactly

Reply 23

RF_PineMarten

18

Original post by Aceadria

Helping the less fortunate should never be in question. As a society we need to help those who may not have as much. But I'm not entirely sure the benefits system, in its current state, is the best solution.

Yes, but there's a difference between merely having issues with the current benefits system, and actually questioning whether we should have a benefits system at all.

Original post by Reue

Scrap child benefit, reallocate housing benefit to council house construction and pay out benefits in vouchers or similar.

That's a terrible idea for many reasons that have been discussed before on this forum. The main one is that it prevents people from budgeting their benefit money and saving it for a "rainy day", such as if something breaks and needs fixing/replacing (like a computer, washing machine, heating, etc). Then there's the cost of organising and implementing such a scheme compared to the small amounts it would save.

Reply 24

Original post by RF_PineMarten

That's a terrible idea for many reasons that have been discussed before on this forum. The main one is that it prevents people from budgeting their benefit money and saving it for a "rainy day", such as if something breaks and needs fixing/replacing (like a computer, washing machine, heating, etc). Then there's the cost of organising and implementing such a scheme compared to the small amounts it would save.

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.

Reply 25

Tiger Rag

22

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.

They want to change the way that PIP (this replaces DLA, which is paid to disabled people who have care and /or mobility needs) is paid and one of the things they want to do is pay in vouchers. There are some flaws with this:
- I'm being told what I can spend my money on
- I'm being told where I can spend my money
- It doesn't enable me to give my parents money to take me shopping or do other things I can't do without help
- it will cost a lot to implement
- there's the huge cost of having to write to each claimant to see how much money they require each month
- it doesn't enable me to save so that I can spend the money on more expensive items that I need

Reply 26

scrotgrot

Original post by RF_PineMarten

Yes, but there's a difference between merely having issues with the current benefits system, and actually questioning whether we should have a benefits system at all.

That's a terrible idea for many reasons that have been discussed before on this forum. The main one is that it prevents people from budgeting their benefit money and saving it for a "rainy day", such as if something breaks and needs fixing/replacing (like a computer, washing machine, heating, etc). Then there's the cost of organising and implementing such a scheme compared to the small amounts it would save.

Careful with what you say there, some of these petty sanctimonious ***** think poor people should be washing their clothes in the river, and as for a computer, luxury!

In fact it seems like Reue has proven my point - apparently poor people shouldn't have computers.

Reply 27

Original post by Tiger Rag

They want to change the way that PIP (this replaces DLA, which is paid to disabled people who have care and /or mobility needs) is paid and one of the things they want to do is pay in vouchers. There are some flaws with this:
- I'm being told what I can spend my money on
- I'm being told where I can spend my money
- It doesn't enable me to give my parents money to take me shopping or do other things I can't do without help
- it will cost a lot to implement
- there's the huge cost of having to write to each claimant to see how much money they require each month
- it doesn't enable me to save so that I can spend the money on more expensive items that I need

Of course they decide what the money gets spent on.. that's the point.

Reply 28

Original post by scrotgrot

Careful with what you say there, some of these petty sanctimonious ***** think poor people should be washing their clothes in the river, and as for a computer, luxury!

In fact it seems like Reue has proven my point - apparently poor people shouldn't have computers.

Nor let near a river to pollute it with their dirty washing.

Reply 29

scrotgrot

Original post by Tiger Rag

They want to change the way that PIP (this replaces DLA, which is paid to disabled people who have care and /or mobility needs) is paid and one of the things they want to do is pay in vouchers. There are some flaws with this:
- I'm being told what I can spend my money on
- I'm being told where I can spend my money
- It doesn't enable me to give my parents money to take me shopping or do other things I can't do without help
- it will cost a lot to implement
- there's the huge cost of having to write to each claimant to see how much money they require each month
- it doesn't enable me to save so that I can spend the money on more expensive items that I need

It will cost more than it saves like all the other benefit cuts have, but it warms the hearts of Tory bullies.

You are a second class citizen. You don't get to benefit from the versatility of legal tender, you can only buy what the government says. They love the big state when it's being used to bully the weak, or to hand money to the rich.

Reply 30

scrotgrot

Original post by Reue

Nor let near a river to pollute it with their dirty washing.

What makes them different to you?

I find it absolutely beyond vile that you would want to even pay disabled people in vouchers.

How petty can you get, seriously?

I can only assume you have been lucky enough not to have had disability in your family. Lucky you.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 31

Original post by scrotgrot

What makes them different to you?

A washing machine it would appear.

Reply 32

Original post by scrotgrot

I can only assume you have been lucky enough not to have had disability in your family. Lucky you.

You should be extremely careful with your assumptions.

Reply 33

Tiger Rag

22

Original post by Reue

Of course they decide what the money gets spent on.. that's the point.

And then we have another problem - I need some items which most other people. But in order for me to be able to actually use them, I need to buy a more expensive version. Under the current plans, I wouldn't get money for that and it would somehow be assumed that I can use them.

An example - you can pick up a basic landline phone for £10. (which is how much my first one cost me) The one I have (which I need in order to able to read the display) cost me £50.

And please tell me - how do I pay for things like carers?

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 34

Original post by Tiger Rag

And then we have another problem - I need some items which most other people. But in order for me to be able to actually use them, I need to buy a more expensive version. Under the current plans, I wouldn't get money for that and it would somehow be assumed that I can use them.

An example - you can pick up a basic landline phone for £10. (which is how much my first one cost me) The one I have (which I need in order to able to read the display) cost me £50.

And please tell me - how do I pay for things like carers?

I've no idea, I didn't implement or control the current system.

I said benefits should be paid in voucher or similar. I didn't go into any specifics about how such a system should operate.

Reply 35

futbol

18

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.

Reply 36

abruiseonthesky

11

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.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 37

NoPunInThisName

Scrap benefits and force people in to work yet work is growing increasingly tough to gain, certainly was for me. I never claimed but wish i had - for any one to assume those on JSA or Universal Credit is "lazy" needs a mental reassessment and some decency injected in their veins.

Reply 38

ChaoticButterfly

Original post by AceViva

Pros

- More money in order to cut deficit

Not necessarily.

People who receive benefit spend a lot of the money, if not all they have. So when you give them money it gets spent on local economy. What do you think is going to happen to the local corner shop on a council estate when no one around it has any money anymore? YOu gain less tax from successful business and increase unemployment. If you aren't careful, cutting spending can counter intuitively increase a deficit/debt.

Also there has recently been a report showing how it it costing more money than it is saving with the disability assessments that are essentially harassing disabled people causing lot of distress.It costs more than it saves.

https://www.nao.org.uk/report/contracted-out-health-and-disability-assessments/

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 39

ChaoticButterfly