(Original post by Martyn*)
You are clearly confused. The jobs market is there to help people become Independent from handouts. Handouts are the welfare system, which is designed to support those who are out of work. I will append that by stating that one of the aims of the welfare state was to protect each and every citizen from the harsh realities of poverty. Thus a minimum of income is given in the form of benefits. It is not a funding for a lifestyle.
Whilst it may not be a funding for a lifestyle, the system is broke and does nothing to encourage people. For example, in many cases a person is better off staying on benefits than they are taking a promotion, being paid more and seeing a slight cut in benefits. Surely a system that encourages a person to take the promotion or the new job they have been offered is more desirable?
(Original post by minimarshmallow)
A microwaveable dish could be stolen from their doorstep, or a frozen and narrow meal could defrost in their porch. Not going to last long in this weather.
You'd be giving people less food for more money, and there is no way that would ever make sense.
Okay, use military dry rations that are to be boiled in water. But this is a minor technicality which can be ignored
Quite agree! Although GDA's could be hit the extra cost is an unacceptable compromise. Would you overhaul the welfare system if you were in a position to do so?
(Original post by nam92)
So why not extend this 'meals on wheels' scheme to everyone if you want a healthier population? Why only benefits claimants? Because every person who receives any form of benefit happens to be an obese scrounger right?
Firstly, there would be no need to extend the scheme to people who can afford food. No one suggested benefit claimants were fat. Only you did! Benefit claimants would be spending taxpayers' money on food. Therefore, it's only right the money is spent on healthy food regardless of the individual person's health. Non-claimants are spending their own money in which case they can buy whatever the hell they like.
(Original post by cerlohee)
And why are these things not needed? You expect these people to go through life eating ****ting and occasionally pushing out a kid?
I'm sure you have at least one of these things, and that it significantly improves your quality of life. Now I don't see why you would deserve to have a better quality than someone who, due to circumstances, cannot work.
I don't think that's fair. And I also think the money saved by the government will have to be re-pumped into the health sector, due to an increase in mental health issues
They are a non-necessity. People can survive without them. Some may improve the quality of one's life, in which case if they earn their own money they can buy them but when taxpayers' money is being used only the necessities should be bought. the taxpayer is there to ensure a minimum standard of life and not 'improve the quality of your life'.
No booze, no **** and no subscription TV will lead to mental health issues! Seriously, you don't honestly believe that?