UKIP don't want benefit claimants driving.

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.

That is right. Long gone are the days of equality.

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.

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.

You need a driving licence for the majority of jobs these days.

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.

You need a driving licence for office jobs?

Tough- why should I work to pay for them to have a car?

You need a driving licence for office jobs?

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.

Tough- why should I work to pay for them to have a car?

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.

'At best' is being generous. He's supposedly an economist too...

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.

Being taught by people who deny recessions can happen most likely.

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

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 not be needed. But nope, just carry on as usual, they are just a bunch of quacks.

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.

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.