should benefit claimants be paid only in vouchers Watch

Martyn*
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#41
Report 4 years ago
#41
Swapping money for vouchers is just a cheap political swipe at the unemployed. We might as well just pay all workers in vouchers as well. Why not? It is money all the same. And if you are saying that by giving the unemployed vouchers that they will no longer be able to spend it on alcohol and other non-essential items, what kind of narrow thinking is that? Do all unemployed people spend their benefit money on booze? No. They don't. So why punish the many for the sake of the few? Idiots.
0
reply
Martyn*
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#42
Report 4 years ago
#42
(Original post by Ripper-Roo)
It's their money to spend on whatever they like. If they waste it, so be it, they won't get anymore until the next payment if they run out.
They are not wasting it though. They are spending it in the economy, whether that is ciggarettes or alcohol or a computer game or a gym membership.
0
reply
minimarshmallow
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#43
Report 4 years ago
#43
(Original post by This Is Matt)
I have never given much thought to food packages until OMGWTFBBQ suggested it. Whilst it's true the elderly are likely to be at home to receive the packages, some microwaveable dish could be left on their doorstep, or if frozen and narrow, posted through their letter box. You're right about the cost, it's not worth the extra money.
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.
0
reply
nam92
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#44
Report 4 years ago
#44
(Original post by This Is Matt)
Interesting idea. 'Meals on wheels' works well when looking after the elderly so extending it to benefit claimants could work. It would afford greater control over diet so there's an argument to be made about a healthier population.
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?
0
reply
cerlohee
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#45
Report 4 years ago
#45
(Original post by This Is Matt)
There is a fine line, obviously, but I think it's safe to say there is no need for someone to be allowed to buy alcohol, tobacco, designer clothes, TV packages, gaming consoles etc... The vouchers don't state what can be bought with them but state what can't be bought with them. It's easier to decide what is not needed than it is what is needed.
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
0
reply
This Is Matt
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#46
Report 4 years ago
#46
(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?
0
reply
minimarshmallow
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#47
Report 4 years ago
#47
(Original post by This Is Matt)
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?
No, I wouldn't. I'd move a little more into investigating fraud, but not that much as it isn't too much of a big deal.
I'd also do more to promote contraception for younger people to hopefully prevent teenage pregnancies.
0
reply
This Is Matt
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#48
Report 4 years ago
#48
(Original post by minimarshmallow)
No, I wouldn't. I'd move a little more into investigating fraud, but not that much as it isn't too much of a big deal.
I'd also do more to promote contraception for younger people to hopefully prevent teenage pregnancies.
Sometimes the cut off limits for certain benefits create a situation whereby a pay cut, refusing a job promotion or not working becomes more value for money. This needs to change.

Considering fraud is estimated to cost £27m it's difficult to know when to stop investing in investigation and when to accept it.
I remember reading an article about teenage pregnancy, there's a big debate over whether contraception is as widely available as it can and teens choose not to use it, or a stigma being attached to using contraception, or sheer ignorance in the face of pregnancy and disease with the 'can't get pregnant on the first time' myth being commonly cited. I think promotion would start in the friendship groups. As soon as one friend strongly promotes it other will soon follow and positive peer pressure builds up.
0
reply
Brit_Miller
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#49
Report 4 years ago
#49
Yeah great idea - stigmatise the poor and vulnerable even more when it was the elite that crashed the economy in the first place. Why not increase banker's bonuses at the same time?
1
reply
The Socktor
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#50
Report 4 years ago
#50
(Original post by This Is Matt)
There is a fine line, obviously, but I think it's safe to say there is no need for someone to be allowed to buy alcohol, tobacco, designer clothes, TV packages, gaming consoles etc... The vouchers don't state what can be bought with them but state what can't be bought with them. It's easier to decide what is not needed than it is what is needed.
What if they have a tolerance to alcohol/nicotine and their doctor recommends they give up gradually rather than going cold turkey?

Design clothes may help them in an interview.
0
reply
This Is Matt
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#51
Report 4 years ago
#51
(Original post by The Socktor)
What if they have a tolerance to alcohol/nicotine and their doctor recommends they give up gradually rather than going cold turkey?

Design clothes may help them in an interview.
In the very few cases where that is recommended the answer would be - tough! They would have to go cold turkey or use a replacement substance. It's impossible to cater for every situation.

Nonsense! Most designer clothes have a high street or supermarket equivalent for half of the price. If expensive clothes are needed the claimants could apply to a panel for emergency funds as they had to do in the 1950's when faced with an 'exceptional circumstance'.
0
reply
nohomo
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#52
Report 4 years ago
#52
(Original post by This Is Matt)
In the very few cases where that is recommended the answer would be - tough! They would have to go cold turkey or use a replacement substance. It's impossible to cater for every situation.

Nonsense! Most designer clothes have a high street or supermarket equivalent for half of the price. If expensive clothes are needed the claimants could apply to a panel for emergency funds as they had to do in the 1950's when faced with an 'exceptional circumstance'.
I think your parents should pay you in vouchers.
1
reply
The Socktor
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#53
Report 4 years ago
#53
(Original post by This Is Matt)
In the very few cases where that is recommended the answer would be - tough! They would have to go cold turkey or use a replacement substance. It's impossible to cater for every situation.
Hence why this is a **** idea.

(Original post by This is Matt)
Nonsense! Most designer clothes have a high street or supermarket equivalent for half of the price. If expensive clothes are needed the claimants could apply to a panel for emergency funds as they had to do in the 1950's when faced with an 'exceptional circumstance'.
Wouldn't creating so much buerocracy defeat the point of doing this?
0
reply
frankieboy
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#54
Report 4 years ago
#54
Where's the compassion for your fellow human being?

Seemingly in short supply on this thread, with it's drachonian totalitarian comments.

Strikes me a lot of you could do with losing a job and having to go on benefits for a while. You'd soon change your tune.

All very well to pass judgement from your armchair, but it's amateur, ill-informed, and ignorant.
0
reply
Mike_123
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#55
Report 4 years ago
#55
The vouchers would be sold on the black market for a lower price to regular consumers. So I could offer a benefit claimant £48 for a £50 government voucher which can be spent on only food.
0
reply
cerlohee
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#56
Report 4 years ago
#56
(Original post by This Is Matt)

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?
So to the entirety of your first paragraph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state. This 'minimum standard of life' may be what you would optimally like to contribute as a taxpayer. But in reality, tax money goes partially into maintaining the quality of life of its citizens, also. The reason they're on benefits is because they /can't/ earn their own money. Therefore, they'd be stuck at this minimum quality of life until the country offers more jobs, which could be a while. And if you think people just need to survive and get through life, I feel very sorry for you

Yes, I do.
-guilty as can't provide for kids (birthdays, social gatherings)
-cigarretes, alcohol and tv act as releases to temporarily escape from reality
-don't get to enjoy some of the simple pleasures of life
-feel inferior to those working
-not much to look forward to
etc.
I'm not saying to give them enough money to rent out strip clubs for their birthday, just enough to be able enjoy life and have a good morale.
2
reply
frankieboy
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#57
Report 4 years ago
#57
(Original post by cerlohee)
So to the entirety of your first paragraph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state. This 'minimum standard of life' may be what you would optimally like to contribute as a taxpayer. But in reality, tax money goes partially into maintaining the quality of life of its citizens, also. The reason they're on benefits is because they /can't/ earn their own money. Therefore, they'd be stuck at this minimum quality of life until the country offers more jobs, which could be a while. And if you think people just need to survive and get through life, I feel very sorry for you

Yes, I do.
-guilty as can't provide for kids (birthdays, social gatherings)
-cigarretes, alcohol and tv act as releases to temporarily escape from reality
-don't get to enjoy some of the simple pleasures of life
-feel inferior to those working
-not much to look forward to
etc.
I'm not saying to give them enough money to rent out strip clubs for their birthday, just enough to be able enjoy life and have a good morale.

I don't think such clear thinking and understanding of the human condition applies to those who want to pass judgement. To them, it's more like some kind of computer game.
0
reply
cerlohee
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#58
Report 4 years ago
#58
(Original post by frankieboy)
I don't think such clear thinking and understanding of the human condition applies to those who want to pass judgement. To them, it's more like some kind of computer game.
I agree. And until they have lived in the awful conditions they're suggesting for the jobless, I don't think their opinions will change.
0
reply
This Is Matt
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#59
Report 4 years ago
#59
(Original post by The Socktor)
Wouldn't creating so much buerocracy defeat the point of doing this?
I haven't given it much thought. The person who started this thread probably has. However, bureaucracy would depend on how it's implemented. Thinking simply, log on at the job centre and collect a wad of vouchers there maybe?

(Original post by cerlohee)
So to the entirety of your first paragraph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state. This 'minimum standard of life' may be what you would optimally like to contribute as a taxpayer. But in reality, tax money goes partially into maintaining the quality of life of its citizens, also. The reason they're on benefits is because they /can't/ earn their own money. Therefore, they'd be stuck at this minimum quality of life until the country offers more jobs, which could be a while. And if you think people just need to survive and get through life, I feel very sorry for you
I'm aware tax money goes towards maintaining a standard of life but I still believe the standard of life the tax money maintains in the bare minimum. i.e. food, shelter, energy, clothing, miscellaneous (internet to search for jobs, phone line, tooth brush, toilet paper etc...)

Yes, I do.
-guilty as can't provide for kids (birthdays, social gatherings) - Fair but child benefit helps with this.
-cigarretes, alcohol and tv act as releases to temporarily escape from reality - So does going for a walk, having a nap, having a bath
-don't get to enjoy some of the simple pleasures of life - Tough! A downside of being dependent upon welfare.
-feel inferior to those working - Same as above.
-not much to look forward to - Same as above
etc.
I'm not saying to give them enough money to rent out strip clubs for their birthday, just enough to be able enjoy life and have a good morale.
This opens a new debate altogether. Do we have a moral obligation to increase their morale and provide them with a relatively high standard of living? I would say no, we should only give the bare minimum. I would go further to say we don't have a moral obligation to do that as such but do it out of the kindness of our heart but mainly for economic reasons.
0
reply
rickfloss
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#60
Report 4 years ago
#60
(Original post by Wade-)
How about a system where all those who are unemployed for a substantial period of time are conscripted to the army, I bet that'd cut unemployment


Posted from TSR Mobile
an how much exactly would it cost to train and equip one?, £100,000 easily
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?

Remain (280)
80.46%
Leave (68)
19.54%

Watched Threads

View All