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

Job Centres to give food vouchers to the unemployed Watch

Announcements
    • Offline

      1
      (Original post by Genocidal)
      You may not have an interest or a belief about what to spend benefits money on but I do. It would not be an interest to me neither if everybody used the system correctly and people did not spend it on things such as drugs for example.

      What I expect it to extend to is essentials to living in our era if you will such as electricity, gas, water, food, clothing vouchers for certain stores (not going into specifics on which ones) otherwise survival maybe misinterpreted as literally a cave/tent and a bottle of water.
      I was privileged to be able to visit a hospital that was formerly a Work House in the early 1800's. Whilst there, I had access to ledgers that detailed the 'payments' made to the workers. As examples, for a family of 6; 1 leg of lamb, 5 ounces of margarine, 2 loaves of bread, 3 pints of milk, 5 lbs of potatoes, one head of cabbage...etc. weekly!

      This was in the days when there was hardly any social security (in its widest terms) at all. Since then, we have become far more civilised and each who is able, helps contribute to the existence of those who are destitute, whilst allowing them to live a life that is commensurate with a civilised, compassionate society.

      Benefit payments are calculated very carefully; they should cover the everyday nutritional, housing and energy costs of the number of individuals who are included in the claim. It is up to the beneficiary how they spend that money. If they choose to purchase items that are not on the 'inventory' of the calculated requirements that is their free choice - but they then have to go without something to get something else instead.

      It is none of your and anyone else's business what an individual purchases because we have done our bit to ensure that they have the means to survive. If they choose to misspend that is their prerogative.

      We don't live in a facist dictatorship - at least as long as people with opinions the same as yours remain very much a minority - and long may it stay thus.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      Great idea.

      There are plenty of reasons for delays in benefits or for people to be denied crisis loans so a way of ensuring people don't starve while things are sorted is great.

      It's ok for people to sit on here and say "why should we help out scroungers" but I dare you to look into the eye of a single parent who has lost their job, is trying hard to find one and has to pay bills and feed their kids with no money, and tell them that we can't help. It is a horrible feeling and happens too often.

      Most people who sign on aren't scroungers and we should try to help where we can when there is a reason they aren't getting the benefits they're entitled to.
      • Offline

        16
        (Original post by yawn)
        I was privileged to be able to visit a hospital that was formerly a Work House in the early 1800's. Whilst there, I had access to ledgers that detailed the 'payments' made to the workers. As examples, for a family of 6; 1 leg of lamb, 5 ounces of margarine, 2 loaves of bread, 3 pints of milk, 5 lbs of potatoes, one head of cabbage...etc. weekly!

        This was in the days when there was hardly any social security (in its widest terms) at all. Since then, we have become far more civilised and each who is able, helps contribute to the existence of those who are destitute, whilst allowing them to live a life that is commensurate with a civilised, compassionate society.

        Benefit payments are calculated very carefully; they should cover the everyday nutritional, housing and energy costs of the number of individuals who are included in the claim. It is up to the beneficiary how they spend that money. If they choose to purchase items that are not on the 'inventory' of the calculated requirements that is their free choice - but they then have to go without something to get something else instead.

        It is none of your and anyone else's business what an individual purchases because we have done our bit to ensure that they have the means to survive. If they choose to misspend that is their prerogative.

        We don't live in a facist dictatorship - at least as long as people with opinions the same as yours remain very much a minority - and long may it stay thus.
        Well sorry but I don't really like the idea of possibly funding some random drug addicts addiction. In an ideal world it would be unnecessary but the only people that would complain about a vouchers system would be people that intended to spend the money on things such as drugs or the odd hippie that complains about hurting self-esteem.

        This is very similar to EMA in a way, the system is designed in good faith but quite often it's spent on booze so you can draw connections between the two.

        I wouldn't go as far to say it's fascist but total freedom is perhaps not always the best thing for all people in society.
        Offline

        3
        ReputationRep:
        Unemployment can happen to anyone. We should not stigmatise the unemployed or force them into demeaning work. Unemployment benefits put people below the poverty line as it is. No-one can meet their household needs on £60 a week. Our approach to people on state handouts is unnecessarily hostile, and the daily mail furore over the minority of people who abuse the system is blinding everyone to the struggle of hard-working people who have been made redundant and are forced to look for jobs on unreasonable terms.
        Offline

        9
        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.
        Right...

        I mean, it's not as if capitalism caused the world-wide recession & unemployment is it? Oh, hang on...

        In response to the question I don't like it, I do think it's demeaning but at least it's only temporary for the people who need it, it could be worse I guess.

        Edit: Lol @ the neg rep cos people can't face the truth... like it or not, capitalism failed us
        Offline

        2
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by gateshipone)
        It's ok for people to sit on here and say "why should we help out scroungers" but I dare you to look into the eye of a single parent who has lost their job, is trying hard to find one and has to pay bills and feed their kids with no money, and tell them that we can't help. It is a horrible feeling and happens too often.

        The thing that annoys me is how some families on benefits get more money than people in low paying jobs.
        That's my only problem with the benefit system, i know people living in huge houses with rent, council tax and heating paid sometimes while my mum has to struggle with a car/mortgage/bills/kids on minimum wage. (£500 a month for her)
        okay sure they may only have £60 a week, but that's a lot more than my mum has after she has paid everything she needs to pay.

        i wouldn't ever want the benefits system removed though, it's there for a reason. It does a good job, but it can take the piss.
        Offline

        15
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Democracy)
        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.
        Why ought they? Please justify your point.
        Offline

        12
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Genocidal)
        I don't really think that the state should be paying for your relaxation, merely your survival. And remember unemployment is a temporary affliction not a life one. I don't think a limited period of time in this situation is enough to drive people to suicide because they can't afford a beer.
        Let's take long-term employment as longer than a year. I mean ffs, six months of unemployment and the poverty of being on JSA is more than enough to make anybody depressed. The proportion of people who are long-term unemployed has reduced dramatically but it is by no means a negligible one. The ability to relax is essential, essential to well-being. People who do have mental health problems also find it more difficult to obtain employment for various reasons. But you honestly couldn't give a **** could you? You think mental ill-health is something that can be chalked up to some dismissive throwaway remark about suicide. Just FYI, suicide rates are strongly correlated with social class. For example http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publicati...03/01145422/11 here the lowest social classes (IV and V) experience by far the highest rates of suicide. Here http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1060757/

        MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS--For England and Wales around 1971, suicide and undetermined death rates showed a progressive increase with age and a markedly higher rate in the lower social classes. A significant interaction effect was identified in the central age groups of the lower occupational categories. This interaction was confirmed in the remaining three data sets, notwithstanding some differences in the profile of age specific mortality. Other findings included a higher standardised mortality ratio for the economically inactive, who also showed an earlier peak in age specific mortality, and a relative concentration of undetermined as compared to suicide deaths in the lower social classes, but not all these further results were fully replicated. CONCLUSIONS--There is a concentration of suicide and undetermined deaths in the middle age groups of the lower social classes. Plausible explanations include both the social drift and the social genesis hypotheses, the latter including the effects of long term unemployment.
        On a side note. Hyperbolic language ftw!
        Errr, no.
        Offline

        12
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by DesignFreak)
        The thing that annoys me is how some families on benefits get more money than people in low paying jobs.
        That's my only problem with the benefit system, i know people living in huge houses with rent, council tax and heating paid sometimes while my mum has to struggle with a car/mortgage/bills/kids on minimum wage. (£500 a month for her)
        okay sure they may only have £60 a week, but that's a lot more than my mum has after she has paid everything she needs to pay.

        i wouldn't ever want the benefits system removed though, it's there for a reason. It does a good job, but it can take the piss.
        Should it not annoy you more that people are being paid wages that are impossible to survive on without government benefits on top? As a side note though, I don't think you'll find many people on benefits with a car. (Or a mortgage.)
        • Offline

          16
          (Original post by littleshambles)
          Let's take long-term employment as longer than a year. I mean ffs, six months of unemployment and the poverty of being on JSA is more than enough to make anybody depressed. The proportion of people who are long-term unemployed has reduced dramatically but it is by no means a negligible one. The ability to relax is essential, essential to well-being. People who do have mental health problems also find it more difficult to obtain employment for various reasons. But you honestly couldn't give a **** could you? You think mental ill-health is something that can be chalked up to some dismissive throwaway remark about suicide. Just FYI, suicide rates are strongly correlated with social class. For example http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publicati...03/01145422/11 here the lowest social classes (IV and V) experience by far the highest rates of suicide. Here http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1060757/





          Errr, no.
          Ok I know when to admit I have made a mistake. And in this situation I have made a mistake and missed the full picture due to how some of these people are represented in the media.

          Thank you for the insight as well as a well structured post with facts and figures to back it up with.

          But again on a side note I do love a good bit of hyperbole.
          Offline

          2
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by littleshambles)
          Should it not annoy you more that people are being paid wages that are impossible to survive on without government benefits on top? As a side note though, I don't think you'll find many people on benefits with a car. (Or a mortgage.)
          Yes, but people who can work and sit on income support forever is something that annoys me greatly. I know quite a few on benefits with cars and some are even running two, if you come to the council estate I live on and ones around me you'll find cars parked outside most houses.

          (on another side note our mortgage is really low btw, it's less than the average of private rents around here and actually it's less than renting a council house around here, we were lucky a few years back and managed to buy our council house very cheap)

          You do have a point with your first statement though and it's right but this government isn't going to raise the minimum wage. I don't want benefits to be abolished or anything stupid like that, it just needs to be a temporary thing and not something people who are able to work can be on for life.
          I'm incredibly **** with grammar and vocabulary so sorry if this made no sense. (:
          Offline

          15
          ReputationRep:
          (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.
          Your irantional hate for the unemployed is so ****ing stupid. Looked down upon because they cant find a job in what is a tough climet for jobs? Get a grip
          Offline

          14
          ReputationRep:
          Treading people underfoot is not the way to get the best out of them.

          I seriously doubt the vast, VAST majority of people think it's great to be unemployed and on benefits. It's majorly depressing, and it's hard enough to motivate yourself to keep looking for jobs after heaps of rejections without society sending out the message that you are worthless scum. I doubt even serial benefits claimants think it's a great life - many of them have probably lost the confidence to do anything. As someone who was on the dole for a few months and found it horribly demoralising, I can't even imagine how your mindset would alter after a year, or a few years.

          For the record, I have a job now, and a place on a grad scheme for September. But I am massively sympathetic to people who aren't as lucky as me.
          Offline

          17
          ReputationRep:
          (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.
          Same as students then?
          Offline

          3
          ReputationRep:
          I think it's a good idea. A lot of people find it hard to budget, and this would mean that the money would be spent on what it's meant for, rather than something random.
          Offline

          17
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by Gemma :)!)
          I think it's a good idea. A lot of people find it hard to budget, and this would mean that the money would be spent on what it's meant for, rather than something random.
          Same should be done for students then yarp.
          Offline

          3
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by Quady)
          Same should be done for students then yarp.
          Indeed; I've always said that.
          • Offline

            1
            (Original post by Gemma :)!)
            I think it's a good idea. A lot of people find it hard to budget, and this would mean that the money would be spent on what it's meant for, rather than something random.
            The food vouchers are meant for emergency situations only...covering three periods of time for a maximum of three times a year.

            Unfortunately, although you have misunderstood what the link is say, your attitude albeit patronising might become accepted as the norm rather than the extreme.

            There is always the facility to ask for payment to be made on a daily basis if it is impossible for someone to eke out their money sensibly...it doesn't need to have to entail food banks where the food has been donated by those who have more food than they need.

            Just how mean can we get to those who are disadvantaged in our society? What has happened to human compassion? Does this attitude to others come from the government of the day? Are we being manipulated how to think? Is the relentless distortion of the life-styles of those who are unable to work a means to an end for cutting spending?
            Offline

            1
            ReputationRep:
            (Original post by jacketpotato)
            people have to rely on footbanks in a rich country in the 21st century.
            We're not a rich country. We're heavily in debt, in fact the UK has the highest level of personal debt in the entire world.

            However, contrary to popular belief, the vast majority of the unemployed don't wish to be so. As someone has already pointed out, benefit payments are calculated very carefully and unemployed people ought to reserve the right to buy what they wish.

            Even if they do choose to spend that on cigarretes/alcohol, these products are so heavily taxed they're practically returning their benefit payements back to Davie C.
            Offline

            0
            ReputationRep:
            (Original post by Craiky1506)
            Right...

            I mean, it's not as if capitalism caused the world-wide recession & unemployment is it? Oh, hang on...

            In response to the question I don't like it, I do think it's demeaning but at least it's only temporary for the people who need it, it could be worse I guess.

            Edit: Lol @ the neg rep cos people can't face the truth... like it or not, capitalism failed us
            No, phony capitalism where governments get involved with big businesses and banks caused the world-wide recession & unemployment.
           
           
           
        • 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.

        • Poll
          Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
          Useful resources

          Groups associated with this forum:

          View associated groups
        • 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.

        • 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.