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

Job Centres to give food vouchers to the unemployed Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain92)
    Yes, let's all blame the socialists for a capitalist system's worldwide collapse.

    Yes, well meaning government socialist agenda's cause over bloated states and boom. Capitalism fails.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Haychee)
    No, phony capitalism where governments get involved with big businesses and banks caused the world-wide recession & unemployment.
    The banks & big businesses weren't regulated enough. We let them do what they want, they lend too much money and capitalism fails.

    I don't believe it's an option to purely let banks & businesses do what they want without any interference - they don't care about the overall picture, they just care about profits. This is a recipe for disaster.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Giving food vouchers or cash makes absolutely no difference to people's spending habits. The vouchers are tradable and I doubt that many will be inframarginal consumers. It's a non-story, really.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Craiky1506)
    I mean, it's not as if capitalism caused the world-wide recession & unemployment is it? Oh, hang on...

    Edit: Lol @ the neg rep cos people can't face the truth... like it or not, capitalism failed us
    Of course, it's not the advent of capitalism that got us out of subsistence living, that gave incentives for all the technological improvements that have immeasurably improved all of our lives is it?

    Of course, capitalism has failed because GDP has dropped 6% from a massive, massive base because of the wealth we created under that system. Capitalism failed despite the business cycle being well known and the booms far outweighing the busts, even debt-caused ones such as this.

    Furthermore, it wasn't the system that even created this recession. It was government creating perverse incentives combined with human imcompetence, mostly the former factor. See here and more importantly here for further details.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Craiky1506)
    The banks & big businesses weren't regulated enough. We let them do what they want, they lend too much money and capitalism fails.

    I don't believe it's an option to purely let banks & businesses do what they want without any interference - they don't care about the overall picture, they just care about profits. This is a recipe for disaster.
    They lent too much money to people that could not afford it. That is not capitalism. That is BS.


    Profits = Win
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Beanz meanz voucherz
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by simontinsley)
    Of course, it's not the advent of capitalism that got us out of subsistence living, that gave incentives for all the technological improvements that have immeasurably improved all of our lives is it?

    Of course, capitalism has failed because GDP has dropped 6% from a massive, massive base because of the wealth we created under that system. Capitalism failed despite the business cycle being well known and the booms far outweighing the busts, even debt-caused ones such as this.

    Furthermore, it wasn't the system that even created this recession. It was government creating perverse incentives combined with human imcompetence, mostly the former factor. See here and more importantly here for further details.
    Don't get me wrong, although I'm a socialist I'm not denying that capitalism has been productive in certain cases. That said, socialism doesn't stop people from making technological advancements, I don't agree with the argument that socialism stops people from wanting to work. People are always curious, people always want to make advancements - it's human nature.

    While I can't get into an economics debate because my knowledge is relatively low, I would agree human incompetence is a big factor.

    We still live in a capitalist system - and the USA even more so where the whole thing started. I mean, I don't just disagree with capitalism because of this - I disagree because of various reasons. My initial point however was that socialism has not caused this mess at all, capitalism has - other factors have presumably contributed to it but in the end, it is still capitalism.

    Thanks for the links though, I haven't read through the last one yet cos I'm now going out, but I'll give it a read later, thanks.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    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.
    Yes, it is their prerogative, but in some aspects he is right. It is not up to society to dictate the way people spend their benefits. However, it does not mean society has to like what these people spend this money on.

    And regarding the housing benefit element specifically, putting up the unemployed and their families in what is quite often prestigious rented accommodation, with the taxpayer - many/most of whom could not afford it for themselves - footing the bill is certainly the most controversial aspect of it all.

    Which is why, quite correctly, the coalition government have decided to set stricter limits on how it should be "doled" out.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Is it really as bad as it sounds? If the person in question is likely to spend the money on drugs/alcohol due to any abuse issues they might have, surely the state is doing the taxpayer and the person a favour by ensuring the person is using the money for the right reasons only?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Why would I care if they choose to spend their benefits on booze? I spend my income on booze!
    .
    Spend it however you like - you earnt it yourself, it wasn't given to you by the tax payer.
    When budgets public funds, there is some attempt, at least, of accountability and transparency for how it's going to be spent. But you can't do that handing out money. This is public spending, and gives the taxpayer a better idea of how their money is being spent.

    So I can see the argument for it.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    Yes, it is their prerogative, but in some aspects he is right. It is not up to society to dictate the way people spend their benefits. However, it does not mean society has to like what these people spend this money on.

    And regarding the housing benefit element specifically, putting up the unemployed and their families in what is quite often prestigious rented accommodation, with the taxpayer - many/most of whom could not afford it for themselves - footing the bill is certainly the most controversial aspect of it all.

    Which is why, quite correctly, the coalition government have decided to set stricter limits on how it should be "doled" out.
    The reason why the taxpayer is shelling out a lot of money to private landlords is the fact that the previous Tory government wanted the private sector to take over the provision of public housing and sold off lots of council houses.

    You sold direct your complaints to governments both Labour and Tory that failed to build enough social housing.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ish90an)
    Is it really as bad as it sounds? If the person in question is likely to spend the money on drugs/alcohol due to any abuse issues they might have, surely the state is doing the taxpayer and the person a favour by ensuring the person is using the money for the right reasons only?
    What are the right reasons? Who gets to decide what someone on benefits should spend their benefis on?
    • Offline

      1
      (Original post by marcusfox)
      Yes, it is their prerogative, but in some aspects he is right. It is not up to society to dictate the way people spend their benefits. However, it does not mean society has to like what these people spend this money on.
      Whether the individual in society likes the way the beneficiary spends their money does not impinge of the prerogative to spend it as they wish.

      And regarding the housing benefit element specifically, putting up the unemployed and their families in what is quite often prestigious rented accommodation, with the taxpayer - many/most of whom could not afford it for themselves - footing the bill is certainly the most controversial aspect of it all.
      In most areas, council put a cap on the amount of Housing Benefit they will pay to family groupings...it is the fault of both landlords who are being greedy, and the relevant councils who don't cap that leads to abuse of Housing Benefit provision. The beneficiary is merely taking advantage of an uncontrolled situation...the blame ultimately rests with landlords and councils.

      Which is why, quite correctly, the coalition government have decided to set stricter limits on how it should be "doled" out.
      Again, you are missing the points. These food vouchers will be made available to those who are the victims of ineffiency of benefit offices in dealing with their claims. Rather than make an 'emergency payment' at the public counter, the office will give food vouchers to family units which will be exchanged at various venues around the country. The food that is given in exchange for the vouchers has been donated by kind-hearted people, so the cost of the government is zero as the exchange is organised and run by a charity. Additionally, there is a limit on the amount of times this can happen within a benefit year.

      My questions are this: Will the benefit claimants receive back-dated monies for the benefits that are late? Bearing in mind that benefit calculations take into account housing, energy, clothing and other costs apart from food, I would anticipate that the food vouchers are extra, especially since they cost the government nothing.

      Will the government seek to extend the system so as benefit claimants will receive charitably sourced food vouchers routinely, thus saving the government the responsibility of feeding claimants? If so, this is anathema to all natural justice.
      Online

      20
      ReputationRep:
      I suspect the food banks and vouchers are there because the government will make large scale redunduncies at the DWP and they will be used to cover the longer time it will take to pay benefits.

      I think the charity involved should not be doing this because it lts the government off its responsiblity to provide timely assistance to those they have a duty to serve.
      Offline

      17
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Maker)
      I suspect the food banks and vouchers are there because the government will make large scale redunduncies at the DWP and they will be used to cover the longer time it will take to pay benefits.
      Given their SR settlement thats unlikely surely?
      Offline

      17
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Dirac Delta Function)
      Spend it however you like - you earnt it yourself, it wasn't given to you by the tax payer.
      When budgets public funds, there is some attempt, at least, of accountability and transparency for how it's going to be spent. But you can't do that handing out money. This is public spending, and gives the taxpayer a better idea of how their money is being spent.

      So I can see the argument for it.
      Same should go for students then right?
      • Thread Starter
      Offline

      17
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by lovely_me)
      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.
      Being in debt and being rich are not the same thing.... if I have a £100m house with a £75m mortgage that makes me pretty rich.
      Offline

      12
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Craiky1506)
      Don't get me wrong, although I'm a socialist I'm not denying that capitalism has been productive in certain cases. That said, socialism doesn't stop people from making technological advancements, I don't agree with the argument that socialism stops people from wanting to work. People are always curious, people always want to make advancements - it's human nature.

      While I can't get into an economics debate because my knowledge is relatively low, I would agree human incompetence is a big factor.

      We still live in a capitalist system - and the USA even more so where the whole thing started. I mean, I don't just disagree with capitalism because of this - I disagree because of various reasons. My initial point however was that socialism has not caused this mess at all, capitalism has - other factors have presumably contributed to it but in the end, it is still capitalism.

      Thanks for the links though, I haven't read through the last one yet cos I'm now going out, but I'll give it a read later, thanks.
      It removes the incentive for QUALITY.

      Give me something that was created in a socialist/anarchist/communist society that compares in quality to many of things produced in capitalism?

      For example, how would Apple exist? Sure, they are overpriced, but you cannot deny they are extremely well made. Nice things can't exist in socialism because whilst the incentive to innovate is not necessarily stifled [perhaps even enhanced] in a socialist system, but the incentive to produce results is gone, which is not produced by curiosity.
      Offline

      12
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Quady)
      Same should go for students then right?
      Well, yes - and it does. Students get government subsidies, given directly to the universities, they don't get cash handed to them. They get loans of course, but in principle, at least, they are paid back.

      You also have to remember that educating students brings long term returns - if someone can show that cash gives better returns to the tax payer than vouchers, Im happy to say go with cash.
      Offline

      17
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Dirac Delta Function)
      They get loans of course, but in principle, at least, they are paid back.
      Sorry, What do you think NI is?
     
     
     
  1. 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.

  2. Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  3. 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.

  4. 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.