Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Job Centres to give food vouchers to the unemployed Watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    If I was unemployed, and they offered me food vouchers, I'd take them. I was chatting to my Dad the other day about the whole forcing the unemployed to work thing. He was unemployed for about 6 months when I was a teenager, and he said he'd have quite liked it if they gave him something to do to earn the money he was getting for free, that he'd have felt a bit better about taking it. He certainly wouldn't have turned his nose up at food vouchers.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    A person experiencing severe financial hardship, caused by issues such as benefit delays or being ineligible for a JCP crisis loan, will be given a voucher that can be exchanged at a trust foodbank for three days' worth of food. So its for the most extreme cases so it can only be a good thing really. Its not like they are doing this in stead of benefits
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Democracy)
    How demeaning.

    In a perverse way I do wish the snobby middle class brats posting nonsense in this thread end up on the dole for a very short while at some point in their lives. Then they'll realise it's not fun or a treat and that being demeaned by the state (and further demonised by the chattering classes and media) is actually not a laughing matter.
    So you believe that people who are desperate should not be given free food?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    So you believe that people who are desperate should not be given free food?
    Not actually what I said, straw man fail

    (Original post by Crimsonchilli)
    why though ?

    What is so demeaning about free food compared to other benefits ?

    If you are unemployed, short of cash, and desperate for state-hound outs to survive, then what's the problem with free-food ? I doubt they will force you to take it if you don't want it, there will always be others who will gladly take it.
    You think relying on charity and food vouchers isn't demeaning? How wrapped up in your own world are you?

    Unemployed people (many of whom are unemployed through no fault of their own) ought to be able to have access to money, not vouchers and hand outs. As someone pointed out earlier in this thread, the stigmatisation of the unemployed is really sickening.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cybergrad)
    Then they can bring in food for the family and in return get some pocket money from their parents.
    I know Cambridge graduates who live with their parents who are on JSA, and I'm sure they're not in the habit of receiving 'pocket money' from their parents.

    JSA goes on far more than just food.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Democracy)
    Not actually what I said, straw man fail



    You think relying on charity and food vouchers isn't demeaning? How wrapped up in your own world are you?
    What exaitly is your point> That we should not offer things like this to people because we are scared of it offending them? If you need it you need it and the state is there to provide it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    If you need it you need it and the state is there to provide it.
    Yes. But why must the unemployed be forced to subsist and not exist? Do you think they won't find it humiliating to expose their status to every cashier? At least with money they can pretend they are not considered inferior by society. I assure you that every mouthful bought with a food voucher will taste bitter.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Democracy)
    You think relying on charity and food vouchers isn't demeaning? How wrapped up in your own world are you?

    Unemployed people (many of whom are unemployed through no fault of their own) ought to be able to have access to money, not vouchers and hand outs. As someone pointed out earlier in this thread, the stigmatisation of the unemployed is really sickening.
    Well I completely disagree.

    It may well be demeaning but no more so than relying on a whole host of other benefits. At least under this system the money cannot be abused and is solely used for the purpose it was originally designed for.

    This way the money is spent on directly giving the service needed to the individual who needs it, rather than giving them the money to do so themselves in which case a percentage is guaranteed to be misused.

    Your poor, need help and here's some free food ? Why are you somehow above that ? There are millions who would give an arm and a leg to be in that position. Your right to be picky is somewhat thin..
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I don't know why people are against the idea of "chain gang" benefit work. You argue "It means hard working people lose their job" but sorry but my city centre is ****ed up it's arse in litter. No one's going to lose their job so those on benefits do it cheaper, if anything they'll just get an extra helping hand in dealing with it and we'll have a cleaner environment. If the area is well managed, clean and well organized, the government isn't going to say "Soz mates, these benefits need to work here, off you pop to join them."

    As for food vouchers, look at it from both sides. Unemployment is hard to avoid for some, but a lot of people abuse it. Food vouchers mean people don't waste their money and don't go hungry. I don't want my parent's tax payers money to go to some benefit thief so he can buy a PS3 with the benefits he's saved up. Sure being unemployed you should have some freedoms, but so many people abuse the system. Peterborough is a prime example of it, so many immigrants come here and find jobs because our city is too lazy to do it themselves. In a documentary, a guy receiving benefits was offered a job to work in a potato field doing midnight shifts for around £1500 average a month and he turned it down because he couldn't be bothered. There are jobs out there, but people refuse to take them.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Crimsonchilli)
    Well I completely disagree.

    It may well be demeaning but no more so than relying on a whole host of other benefits. At least under this system the money cannot be abused and is solely used for the purpose it was originally designed for.
    That's precisely what I find demeaning about it, the fact that the unemployed (the vast majority of whom would give anything to have a stable, well paying job) are viewed with suspicion as potential abusers and scroungers.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Democracy)
    That's precisely what I find demeaning about it, the fact that the unemployed (the vast majority of whom would give anything to have a stable, well paying job) are viewed with suspicion as potential abusers and scroungers.
    Don't get me wrong, of course its bad, but true none the less. The benefits system is abused.

    I have 4 close mates with EMA. All 4 will be the first to admit they use practically all of it on booze, nights out and xbox games. Same is true every single time I walk past my local council estate, there are always people outside binging and smoking themselves to an early grave. And who pays for all those booze and **** ? The taxpayer. And who else looses out? The respectable and honest benefits claimants who get labelled along with the rest. And while that is true I will continue to advocate a voucher bases system instead. Those who use the system as it should be used will not loose out, rather benefit. Those who will be caught out will simply be those using their benefits for things which it was not intended to be used for.

    I have nothing wrong with the raw capital we spend on the welfare state, rather the way it is managed and distributed. It is wasteful, unfair and ridiculously easy to abuse.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    i think all state benefits should be paid out in vouchers that are redeemable for their specific purpose.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Oh, but we all know those unemployed dole dossers just spend their days on their obese lazy arses, breeding and getting drunk. With the odd treat of getting wasted on their drug of choice.

    Get real. The vast majority of unemployed people do not want to be unemployed. They don't want to live off benefits. They want to have a reason to get up in the morning again. I too would love some people on here to try it themselves. Try getting a job but have nobody employ you, and then sit in wonder at how utterly **** it is. It's not fun. You don't get loads to live on. People do look down on you, even if you apply for every job going there are another 10, 20, 50 people or more going for the same job. The longer you have been out of work, the more it is looked down on by potential employers. the harder it is to go for those jobs that already are massively over applied for. It's a joy, a real joy.

    I am on benefits. I quite honestly couldn't give a flying **** what other people think about it tbh. In my situation, I'm a single mum who is doing a full time college course. i split up with my littluns dad when she was just over a year old, so i didn't bring her into the world knowing we would be relying on benefits. I was working f/t in a supposedly stable long term relationship that broke down. Relationships do that quite often. I work 2 hours a week, because I can't get a job that fits in the hours I'm out of college or around my daughter. If I work on my day off college, I wouldn't be hitting the 16 hour a week mark and so would get no help towards looking after my daughter. her dad works, my parents work, my family works. By the time I pay out my childcare costs for the day, I'll have sod all to show for it. if I work over 16 hours a week, I get ****** by the benefits and lose more than I earn. I'm sorry, but I need benefits to live on. That's the fault of the government. If you earn anything more than a pittance they take most of your benefits off. It's not relevant to how much you bring in. You bring in 200 a month, they reduce your benefits by 400. It's just not possible to live without the benefits. Not the people on the benefits fault, the governments fault. I have no other option at the moment, particularly because there are very very few jobs around anyway.......now I'm rambling, and pretty o/t. I'm just trying to illustrate that not everyone on benefits its the scum of the earth. There are lots of people on benefits while they retrain as something to provide a better future for themselves and/or family. There are lots of people who are victims of the mass redundancies who want a job but can't get one.
    As you may have gathered, this topic is something I feel incredibly strongly about. In regards to food stamps, I already get healthy start vouchers for my little girl. £3.10 a week to buy her milk and the quid odd thats left over goes on a bunch of bananas or a packet of apples. I don't like getting the vouchers out, but to be honest it helps, I'm not in a position to argue with it. So whilst I don't love it, I don't really care either. These food stamps sound as if they are only for exceptional circumstances and won't be a regular thing. As someone who has had to wait for money to come through and been with empty cupboards waiting, I again wouldn't care that it was a voucher, as long as I was eating. if it was for constant use I wouldn't agree with it, but for exceptional circumstances I wouldn't care. My daughter eating is worth more to me than my pride in a situation like that!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    There was an Al Jazeera documentary I think, about aid packages being given to poor countries in Africa which most people dislike tbh because they rather have the money sent through the various charities at work than the alternative because then they would rightfully have a greater amount of choice of what they needed. So this really stems down to trust. I think most people who are in poverty have common sense i.e. wouldn't spend carelessly as some would assume and/or generalise.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    While the largesse currently afforded to those on benefits should arguably be subject to more stringent regulation, making unemployment the single most oppressive, alienating and de-humanising experience on Earth is not the answer. Such measures should be reserved for long-term claimants.

    (Original post by Democracy)
    How demeaning.

    In a perverse way I do wish the snobby middle class brats posting nonsense in this thread end up on the dole for a very short while at some point in their lives. Then they'll realise it's not fun or a treat and that being demeaned by the state (and further demonised by the chattering classes and media) is actually not a laughing matter.
    It seems that I'm prevented from repping more than five posts per day. How demeaning.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    If someone is in a terrible situation and needs money to buy food on a certain day, and the DWP cannot process such a payment in time, then yes - I have no problem with it. It makes sense.

    (Original post by Genocidal)
    Very good idea it's better to make sure they buy essentials such as food rather than just to give them money and assume they won't spend it on drugs,booze etc.
    Why would I care if they choose to spend their benefits on booze? I spend my income on booze!

    (Original post by Huskaris)
    Living on benefits is not meant to be fun. Why not stigmatise the unemployed? It is a stigma. Not having a job means you are being paid by society, I want that to be something which is looked down upon.
    So, in other words, you want to punish people for being unemployed?

    You might as well punish people for being sick and using the NHS, or punish people for performing poorly in school. I certainly don't think putting people into a culture of indignity is likely to build their confidence or enhance their ability to get a job.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Democracy)
    How demeaning.

    In a perverse way I do wish the snobby middle class brats posting nonsense in this thread end up on the dole for a very short while at some point in their lives. Then they'll realise it's not fun or a treat and that being demeaned by the state (and further demonised by the chattering classes and media) is actually not a laughing matter.
    I suspect plenty of them will be heading for the dole queue when they finally graduate.

    (Original post by Democracy)
    You think relying on charity and food vouchers isn't demeaning? How wrapped up in your own world are you?

    Unemployed people (many of whom are unemployed through no fault of their own) ought to be able to have access to money, not vouchers and hand outs. As someone pointed out earlier in this thread, the stigmatisation of the unemployed is really sickening.
    I agree that stigmatising unemployment is completely wrong and counterproductive, but I equally fail to see how getting money from the DWP isn't a hand out or relying on charity.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Haychee)
    Well this is what happens when the government gets too involved in the economy. Mass unemployment. Thank your socialist friends for this problem.

    Food tokens are a temporary solution to a huge problem.
    Yes, let's all blame the socialists for a capitalist system's worldwide collapse.
    • Offline

      2
      Beggars can't be choosers. Be grateful for not letting you starve to death.
      Offline

      20
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by L i b)
      I agree that stigmatising unemployment is completely wrong and counterproductive, but I equally fail to see how getting money from the DWP isn't a hand out or relying on charity.
      Simply because I believe that giving hard working adults who have fallen on hard times coupons and vouchers is demeaning in itself. Having to queue up to get a paltry £65 a week is humiliating enough for a lot of the unemployed without having to throw in an extra measure of suspicion and distrust. Besides which having to rely on the state isn't half as much a bitter pill to swallow (in my opinion) than going to a foodbank run by an actual charity.

      (Original post by Profesh)
      It seems that I'm prevented from repping more than five posts per day. How demeaning.
      Quite. Maybe you can ask for some rep vouchers
     
     
     
  1. See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  2. Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  3. See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  4. The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.