Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
Turn on thread page Beta

UKIP don't want benefit claimants driving. watch

  • View Poll Results: Is it fair that ppl who depend on a car for mobility give it up to appease UKIPvoters
    Yes
    17
    26.98%
    No
    46
    73.02%

    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I was just going to post this myself, looks like someone beat me to it.

    (Original post by Rakas21)
    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.
    Rubbish. If you're unemployed and looking for work a car is pretty important, especially if you live in an area with poor public transport (which is not a "small minority" by the way). Not just for finding a job, but simple daily life as well. Not everyone has brilliant public transport that they can rely on.

    Not being able to drive can make it harder for unemployed people to find work. It's pretty simple. But banning unemployed people from driving would be horrendously complicated and expensive.

    We need to ditch this idea that a car is somehow a luxury. And not all drivers have a car which is expensive to buy and run.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by illegaltobepoor)
    That is right. Long gone are the days of equality.
    How is me working and them not working equal?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SophieSmall)
    What of those who live in areas with little/no public transport? Not to mention many jobs ask for the applicant to have their own form of transport, so they could be missing out on jobs.
    Tough- why should I work to pay for them to have a car?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SophieSmall)
    Seems a bit stupid of a rule to put in place, very little money would be saved whilst a tonne of money would be spent implementing it. Idiotic idea at best.
    Its called a deterrent.... why should we inspire failure?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by illegaltobepoor)
    You need a driving licence for the majority of jobs these days.
    You need a driving licence for office jobs? :rolleyes:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by samba)
    Fuel duty is currently 58p/litre or around 60%. The government doesn't currently pay for transport at all. It's simply a net loss, whichever way you attempt to cut it. The pressure to raise welfare does not come from people on benefits driving, which is likely a very low percentage anyway. If more were driving, benefits would actually cost less. If claimants were forced to spend 25% of their weekly benefits on fuel, you could raise welfare by 10% easily and net a good profit.

    So economically it makes no sense, even using the crappy neoclassical model you people are almost exclusively taught. Though you should think of it as straight lines anyway really with your models; it probably is given the likely ratio of people on benefits who drive.

    Morally it's reprehensible too. Why should you lose the right to drive if you're made redundant? Why shouldn't you be allowed to spend your welfare (which you likely earned through taxes if you drive and had cash for a vehicle) on whatever the hell you choose?

    The idea of 'pressure to raise welfare because people spend money on fuel instead of food' is exactly as the above poster put, 'beyond idiotic,' especially considering how benefits raises are calculated.

    If you don't want called out, don't post retarded ****. You're intelligent enough to know better.
    Personally I think we need to invest in transport on a national level.

    I would start by letting each county come up with ideas to increase transport links. For example rural counties need more casual yet energy efficient links. I would advocate a rail system between each large village. There are dozens of new technologies in rail transport. We could have a very energy efficient clean transport system that transports everything from grain, vegetables, livestock to people.

    I would then be in favour of rolling out HS2 to every county in the UK with links to every city & major town.

    To get the economy moving we need a low cost transport system.

    We do need to get more cars off the road but we need transport capacity else where.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billydisco)
    You need a driving licence for office jobs? :rolleyes:
    Yes depending how far they are away. Even remote workers have to attend office meetings once per week or fortnight.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billydisco)
    Tough- why should I work to pay for them to have a car?
    Do you apply that argument to welfare in general or is it just when they have cars? Because a lot of people who oppose even having a welfare state use those sorts of arguments.

    To answer your question, because not having a car can make it harder for an unemployed person to get back into work. In a lot of places they're important just for daily life. For a lot of people a car is a necessity, not a luxury.

    If all these unemployed people were driving around in Jaguars all the time, you would have a stronger argument. That's not the case - there are plenty of small cars that are cheap to run, insure and tax.

    (Original post by billydisco)
    You need a driving licence for office jobs? :rolleyes:
    If the office isn't within walking distance of your home it might be. Some jobs require you to have a driving license, and even those that don't often take it into account, in which case another applicant with a driving license has an advantage over you. Even with public transport, a worker with a driving license is simply more reliable than someone who has to catch several buses.

    And not everyone works in an office you know.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Ahhh ok. What about unemployed people getting jobs? I guess you are in favour of that? You are aware that people have to attend job interviews to get jobs? And some places are very poorly serviced by public transport.

    Plus some unemployed people are disabled as well. Just because they are claiming JSA it doesn't mean they don't have a mobility problem.

    Plus not all unemployed people complain about not having food. Most are grateful and eager for work.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I particularly liked this:

    "Labour’s shadow health minister Jamie Reed said Ukip was “not so much a political party but a stag night out of control”."

    https://twitter.com/jreedmp/status/557927275786928129
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billydisco)
    Tough- why should I work to pay for them to have a car?
    So they can drive to job interviews, get a job, pay for your usage of the roads and the NHS. In some parts of the country driving is vital... Not a luxury at all. Plus having a car and a license would make someone more employable.

    So basically all you are saying is we should make it harder for people to find work.... Because you don't want to pay for them to drive?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I'm not Ukip so to address some of these.

    If i had my way that would not be a problem. You'd get a cash payment, a food voucher and a travel pass. Now here in West Yorkshire you can get a bus and train pass for a bit over £20 so i'm sure the state could get them for a similar price away from the south where it would obviously cost the state a bit more. But at any rate, i imagine most people do spend a similar amount on fuel (£80 per month) so it's a saving.

    One would need the license for identification presumably so it could be a thing like insurance where the police check the number plate on their database.

    Personally speaking i wouldn't live in rurality if i was unemployed.
    You wouldn't live in a rural area if you were unemployed? What world are you living in? You lose your job, get £70 a week and you reckon you could afford to relocate to the city? Blimey
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by samba)
    'At best' is being generous. He's supposedly an economist too...
    Being taught by people who deny recessions can happen most likely.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    There would be longer term savings in the overall welfare budget. Once inflation begins to increase again future governments are going to be under increased pressure to raise welfare amounts. Now if the state can use economies of scale (likely since operators would be getting more passengers - a revenue stream) to procure passes generally cheaply while keeping the cost below what the claimant would have spent on fuel then it reduces future pressures to raise welfare spending while only inconveniencing the claimant on time.

    In the long term i imagine you could get a net benefit, not to mention reduced congestion and tax revenues from the passes (assuming taxation is charged on them now).



    Consider yourself going on my ignore list. Personal jibes are not something i have time for on the internet.

    Convince me my argument is wrong.
    Will the govt pay the insurance and refund the MOT fee and car tax while the benefit cliamate's car is not been used?

    If the claimant has to drive other people such as children to school or an elderly relative to hospital, will the govt provide free taxis and bus passes to replace it?

    How will the govt stop claimants driving cars, they can't stop people who are banned from driving driving now?

    If people's jobs needs transport for certain times to fit in with shifts and buses are not available, will the govt provide taxis or should people give up their jobs and claim even more benefits?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    This thread is why you shouldn't get the vote until you're 21.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Being taught by people who deny recessions can happen most likely.
    Unsure if sarcasm there. Don't get me started on the whole teaching of economics in this country though. It's all the neoclassical model, one that's proven time and time again to be failing, and forward thinking economies are moving away from already. Complete lack of free thinking as evidenced below

    (Original post by alapa)
    You wouldn't live in a rural area if you were unemployed? What world are you living in? You lose your job, get £70 a week and you reckon you could afford to relocate to the city? Blimey
    Now here in West Yorkshire you can get a bus and train pass for a bit over £20 so i'm sure the state could get them for a similar price away from the south where it would obviously cost the state a bit more. But at any rate, i imagine most people do spend a similar amount on fuel (£80 per month) so it's a saving.

    ^ that part is my favourite. Assuming his theory of 'economies of scale' coming into effect, let's say you get the bus passes for £18 as a government. Fuel is taxed at 60% right about now....

    .....Rakas21 thinks that's saving money.....

    ding ding ding ding!!!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by samba)
    Unsure if sarcasm there. Don't get me started on the whole teaching of economics in this country though. It's all the neoclassical model, one that's proven time and time again to be failing, and forward thinking economies are moving away from already. Complete lack of free thinking as evidenced below
    That is exactly what I am on about! The models they use do not allow a recession to occur. We have been living in a ****ing recession! It's all around us! If it were a social science some serious scrutiny would now be occurring. When your models fail to predict a recession to the point where then bank of England chief guy says no one saw it coming (people did see it coming, they just got ignored) there is a problem with your theory. A primary school child could figure it out. But nope, just carry on as usual, they are just a bunch of quacks and mainstream economics can in no way be termed a science by any stretch of the imagination. Alchemy is probably a better description.

    To have these guys adviding policy is just nuts and I don't know why people accept it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    That is exactly what I am on about! The models they use do not allow a recession to occur. We have been living in a ****ing recession! It's all around us! If it were a social science some serious scrutiny would not be needed. But nope, just carry on as usual, they are just a bunch of quacks.
    They aren't all so deterministic on a research level, but people like the one quoted above probably think microeconomics deals in straight lines for example (they learn one consumer/small supplier doesn't affect the supply/demand curve so graph it as a straight line.). And then the left equate these idiots with capitalism and blame that. Keynes was a glorious man though.

    He probably thinks moderate unemployment is bad, and costs the economy, and that cutting the deficit is important.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    The models they use do not allow a recession to occur. We have been living in a ****ing recession! It's all around us! If it were a social science some serious scrutiny would now be occurring. When your models fail to predict a recession to the point where then bank of England chief guy says no one saw it coming (people did see it coming, they just got ignored) there is a problem with your theory. A primary school child could figure it out. But nope, just carry on as usual, they are just a bunch of quacks and mainstream economics can in no way be termed a science by any stretch of the imagination. Alchemy is probably a better description.
    This! This! This! This, this, this, this, this, this, this, thissy thissy this.

    and have a

    WHS!

    too.


    Social-sodding-science my arse.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    That is exactly what I am on about! The models they use do not allow a recession to occur. We have been living in a ****ing recession! It's all around us! If it were a social science some serious scrutiny would now be occurring. When your models fail to predict a recession to the point where then bank of England chief guy says no one saw it coming (people did see it coming, they just got ignored) there is a problem with your theory. A primary school child could figure it out. But nope, just carry on as usual, they are just a bunch of quacks and mainstream economics can in no way be termed a science by any stretch of the imagination. Alchemy is probably a better description.

    To have these guys adviding policy is just nuts and I don't know why people accept it.
    ps. did you read this lol? http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-c...y-a-summing-up

    Final paragraph sums things up a bit, though I don't entirely agree, and don't think most economic historians or political economists would either. There's value to it all, but the data in the hands of idiots like Cameron or deterministic students is just dangerous.
 
 
 
Poll
“Yanny” or “Laurel”
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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

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