Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the mezzil)
    Most expenses are legit, however as with any system, there are those who abuse it. And unless you are a social outcast, you would hear people complain every day.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I really doubt you take that tone when it comes to benefit fraud.

    If only the debate about benefit fraud was as nuanced as the one about expenses, eh?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Burridge)
    You were not correct - you wrongly assumed the poster's position. Intentionally or not, you straw-manned him - he wasn't referring to takeaways when he said "fast-food", it doesn't matter what most people consider fast food to be - it was his argument you were challenging and therefore his definition of fast food.
    Regardless, fast food still includes take aways. The point being, an execuse that some where like McDonalds can not be used as an execuse, because it is certainly not cheaper.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Burridge)
    I really doubt you take that tone when it comes to benefit fraud.

    If only the debate about benefit fraud was as nuanced as the one about expenses, eh?
    I hate all forms of fraud! Im just pointing out, not all expenses are illegitimate.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lumberjack 101)
    .......................
    Just because it is legal doesn't mean it is right. The government could make benefit fraud legal tomorrow does that make it right?

    In fact that actually adds to our point. When rich people try to cheat the system, it's all perfectly fine, it's legal. They are just doing what they have to do. But when poor people try to cheat the system, all hell breaks loose. Double standards much.

    It's like that quote 'when rich people steal it's business, when poor people steal it's theft'.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the mezzil)
    Regardless, fast food still includes take aways. The point being, an execuse that some where like McDonalds can not be used as an execuse, because it is certainly not cheaper.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    As I've said, nobody has mentioned McDonalds. It'd be silly to mention McDonalds. By "fast-food" I'm certain that the poster was referring to microwave meals and the like, not takeaway pizzas or kebabs (which can be really expensive).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Burridge)
    As I've said, nobody has mentioned McDonalds. It'd be silly to mention McDonalds. By "fast-food" I'm certain that the poster was referring to microwave meals and the like, not takeaway pizzas or kebabs (which can be really expensive).
    Then why not say 'microwave meals'?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rlove95)
    Just because someone smokes doesn't mean that they don't need the money. As far as I am aware, smoking is addictive, its not that easy to stop and a lot of people view it as a necessity. Who are you to decide what is 'unnecessary spending'?
    Just because you budget money so that you can buy something you view as a necessity doesn't mean you have 'spare cash'.
    There is plenty of help available on the NHS free of charge to help stop smoking. It`s not a necessity AT ALL. You don`t NEED cigarettes to live. You do need food, shelter and clothing. Even the Fabian society don`t class smoking as a necessity! If someone chooses to smoke then that`s up to them, but IMHO they should not get extra funding from the taxpayer because they chose to buy do so and now can`t pay the rent.

    And as unnecessary spending i`m not talking about the occasional treat or day out. The average smoker in the UK smokes 12 a day. 12 a day at 35p each is roughly £30 per week. By the time the 26 weeks have passed and they`re eligible for a loan they will have spent nearly £800 on something they can do perfectly well without and so have contributed to being in the situation they are now in, i.e skint. Just because someone is on benefits doesn`t mean they should give up all responsibility for their own actions.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the mezzil)
    Whatdafaq?

    No **** are not a necessity. Dont be absurd.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    To some people they are.
    Just because you can live without them doesn't mean everyone else can.
    Are you going to start denying people meat because you are a vegetarian? Some people may view meat as a necessity and some people may be able to live without meat. Someone may decide to eat vegetable lasagne instead of beef lasagne and use the money they were going to spend on beef on cigarettes instead, not because they have extra money to throw away but because they really need cigarettes. This idea that people on benefits live a life of luxury because they can afford to smoke is ridiculous.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rlove95)
    To some people they are.
    Just because you can live without them doesn't mean everyone else can.
    Are you going to start denying people meat because you are a vegetarian? Some people may view meat as a necessity and some people may be able to live without meat. Someone may decide to eat vegetable lasagne instead of beef lasagne and use the money they were going to spend on beef on cigarettes instead, not because they have extra money to throw away but because they really need cigarettes. This idea that people on benefits live a life of luxury because they can afford to smoke is ridiculous.
    No they are not neccessary, dont be stupid. Everyone can live without ****. And if somebody wishes to spend money on **** and not food that is fine, as long as they dont expect extra money or food, even if they havent ate in days. People can do what they want with their benefits, as long as they dont expect to be entitled to more.

    If people starve to death because they prefer to spend their small benefit allowance on benefits that is fine. I can live with that.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lumberjack 101)
    There is plenty of help available on the NHS free of charge to help stop smoking. It`s not a necessity AT ALL. You don`t NEED cigarettes to live. You do need food, shelter and clothing. Even the Fabian society don`t class smoking as a necessity! If someone chooses to smoke then that`s up to them, but IMHO they should not get extra funding from the taxpayer because they chose to buy do so and now can`t pay the rent.

    And as unnecessary spending i`m not talking about the occasional treat or day out. The average smoker in the UK smokes 12 a day. 12 a day at 35p each is roughly £30 per week. By the time the 26 weeks have passed and they`re eligible for a loan they will have spent nearly £800 on something they can do perfectly well without and so have contributed to being in the situation they are now in, i.e skint. Just because someone is on benefits doesn`t mean they should give up all responsibility for their own actions.
    Quitting smoking is not easy, some people get withdrawal symptoms when they try to quit. It's easy for you to say how easy it is to quit smoking because you've probably never tried. I might not smoke personally but I know plenty of people who do, who want to stop but simply can't. The fact that the NHS provides a service helping people to quit smoking should show you that it isn't that easy. I'm not saying people should spend their money on cigarettes I'm just acknowledging that to some people cigarettes is as much of a necessity as food is.
    Plus not everyone on benefits spends their money recklessly, some people on benefits might smoke and might budget accordingly. A lot of the people at food banks aren't at food banks because they spent all their money on cigarettes but are there because of sanctions or delays from the government so this idea that people don't have money because they've spent all their money on things that you deem as unnecessary is stupid.
    Just the typical 'its all their fault' response I'd expect from someone out of touch with reality.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rlove95)
    Just because it is legal doesn't mean it is right. The government could make benefit fraud legal tomorrow does that make it right?

    In fact that actually adds to our point. When rich people try to cheat the system, it's all perfectly fine, it's legal. They are just doing what they have to do. But when poor people try to cheat the system, all hell breaks loose. Double standards much.

    It's like that quote 'when rich people steal it's business, when poor people steal it's theft'.
    I`ve never once said rich people should not pay tax (If i`ve got to pay it then they damn well should too!), but there is nothing wrong with not paying more tax than you need to. But there seems to be this perception that it`s "the rich" who are cheating on their taxes. Some do. But so do millions of ordinary people when they slip the plumber a couple of twenties for fitting a new shower, or the hairdresser pays an assistant in cash so she wont lose her working tax credits.

    There is a double standard that it`s wrong for companies and "the rich" to use tax avoidance, but ok for ordinary people to use tax avoidance (like pensions, ISAs, share schemes, childcare vouchers, lack of CGT on PPR etc).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the mezzil)
    No they are not neccessary, dont be stupid. Everyone can live without ****. And if somebody wishes to spend money on **** and not food that is fine, as long as they dont expect extra money or food, even if they havent ate in days. People can do what they want with their benefits, as long as they dont expect to be entitled to more.

    If people starve to death because they prefer to spend their small benefit allowance on benefits that is fine. I can live with that.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    To you they aren't but to them they are. Like I said to the other poster, a lot of people going to the food banks aren't going there because they have spent all their money on '****' but because of admin problems or because of cuts and sanctions.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rlove95)
    Quitting smoking is not easy, some people get withdrawal symptoms when they try to quit. It's easy for you to say how easy it is to quit smoking because you've probably never tried. I might not smoke personally but I know plenty of people who do, who want to stop but simply can't. The fact that the NHS provides a service helping people to quit smoking should show you that it isn't that easy. I'm not saying people should spend their money on cigarettes I'm just acknowledging that to some people cigarettes is as much of a necessity as food is.
    Plus not everyone on benefits spends their money recklessly, some people on benefits might smoke and might budget accordingly. A lot of the people at food banks aren't at food banks because they spent all their money on cigarettes but are there because of sanctions or delays from the government so this idea that people don't have money because they've spent all their money on things that you deem as unnecessary is stupid.
    Just the typical 'its all their fault' response I'd expect from someone out of touch with reality.
    Smoked for nearly 15 years before I gave it up. Not the easiest thing to do but perfectly possible if you need to. I`ve not said everyone on benefits wastes money, but I see no reason why the taxpayer should bail out people who put themselves in a position like that through their own fecklessness.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rlove95)
    To you they aren't but to them they are. Like I said to the other poster, a lot of people going to the food banks aren't going there because they have spent all their money on '****' but because of admin problems or because of cuts and sanctions.
    No they really arent neccessary. I can gurantee if they crash landed on a desert island, the last thing they would be concerned with is ciggies. You are so naive and out of touch.

    Yes there are people who need it, but there is also people who abuse the system, such as buying ****.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Burridge)
    The real proliferation in food-banks has only been since 2010. In 2009/2010 it is estimated that 40,000 people turned to food banks. It has risen massively, year-on-year and now stands at nearly 1,000,000 - you can't dismiss a rise like that. It's disgraceful; the government is turning a blind-eye to it and are constantly peddling myths and hatred surround the issue (just look at comments made by Freud, Gove, McVey, IDS et al on the topic).

    I support charity and commend the work of the voluntary sector. But they should not be shouldering such a burden; we have a welfare state for that. Charity should work alongside the welfare state - it shouldn't replace it. Considering that 52% (Trussell Trust figures) of those visiting food banks do so due to benefit sanctions or delays, it's pretty obvious that the welfare state is failing a significant amount of people. Bear in mind that last year a record number of sanctions were overturned (133,000) within 11 months i.e they were made in error, and that a 2011 poster in a Job Centre in Grantham indicated that Job Centre employees were being set 'sanction targets', it really raises worrying questions about the condition of our welfare state.

    You'd happily try and use a food bank to get the "free food"? If only it was that easy. People have to be referred to food banks; you can't just waltz in, fill your bags and head home.
    So would it be fair to say that they fill a gap caused by cash flow problems?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    So would it be fair to say that they fill a gap caused by cash flow problems?
    In a small number of cases, yes. For the majority of food-bank users, however, no.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I think reducing the amount of expenditure on our overinflated welfare system is not a bad idea - I don't know why the title of this is "Shame of Condem Cuts". We spend over 62 billion annually on welfare and many benefit recipients will have a better standard of living than those who are actually working and earning a low income. Welfare should only be for the truly vulnerable in our society: the terminally ill, the disabled and children - and, if you cannot afford it, don't have children!

    Child poverty is still an issue in Britain (although it shouldn't be) and we need to ensure that every child has a proper education, food and shelter. Invest in education, not in welfare for people who are perfectly able to work but cannot be bothered and see benefits as a better lifestyle.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billyfisher100)
    I think reducing the amount of expenditure on our overinflated welfare system is not a bad idea - I don't know why the title of this is "Shame of Condem Cuts". We spend over 62 billion annually on welfare and many benefit recipients will have a better standard of living than those who are actually working and earning a low income. Welfare should only be for the truly vulnerable in our society: the terminally ill, the disabled and children - and, if you cannot afford it, don't have children!

    Child poverty is still an issue in Britain (although it shouldn't be) and we need to ensure that every child has a proper education, food and shelter. Invest in education, not in welfare for people who are perfectly able to work but cannot be bothered and see benefits as a better lifestyle.
    Cool, and what shall we do about the people who would like to work but can't because there are more unemployed than vacancies? Or the underemployed who have jobs that don't provide enough to live on and have to supplement their income with in work benefits?

    Also, can you find some of these people on benefits who have such an unacceptably high standard of living? I'd like to see how they manage that, and what portion of benefit expenditure they account for.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ManifoldManifest)
    Cool, and what shall we do about the people who would like to work but can't because there are more unemployed than vacancies? Or the underemployed who have jobs that don't provide enough to live on and have to supplement their income with in work benefits?

    Also, can you find some of these people on benefits who have such an unacceptably high standard of living? I'd like to see how they manage that, and what portion of benefit expenditure they account for.
    Went on to entitled-to a couple of years ago out of curiosity. Put all my details in but changed myself to an unemployed female with 2 kids under 5. Turns out I was entitled to £350/week in cash. Not bad when I was only earning £370/week after tax. Given I had to run a car and pay for work clothes etc from this I can honestly say if I was a woman I wouldn`t have bothered going to college, just got a couple of TSR`s resident alpha males to knock me up and enjoy spending time watching my kids grow up while being better off than someone working in a skilled job.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the mezzil)
    Whatdafaq?

    No **** are not a necessity. Dont be absurd.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Look mate, what are you proposing to do? Have every benefit claimant scan his shopping receipts and send them in every week? Issue a ridiculous card system to shame them in public and make it easier to stop benefits due to "technical errors"? These things would be phenomenally expensive and serve only one purpose: to marginalise the poor even further. But people like you seem to get a kick out of that, the Tories have certainly spared no expense during this parliament, they have squandered billions and billions on Universal Credit without ever once consulting the public (the Treasury is not liable for most benefit spending), millions on employing Atos to kill off 10,000 disabled people (2012; they don't release figures any more) and more billions on hastening the arrival of the slave labour economy with the Work Programme.

    Tories kill and enslave. They do it every time we let them into power. And people like you swallow the propaganda and cheer slogans about fast food and cigarettes from the sidelines. Well as far as I'm concerned you can get out of my country.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 20, 2014
Poll
Should MenACWY vaccination be compulsory at uni?
General election 2017 on TSR
Register to vote

Registering to vote?

Check out our guide for everything you need to know

Manifesto snapshots

Manifesto Snapshots

All you need to know about the 2017 party manifestos

Party Leader questions

Party Leader Q&A

Ask political party leaders your questions

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.