Shoul benifits be regulated more (what you can spend them on)

Scroll to see replies

I totally agree with this, if they are taking money from the state, then how they spend it should be governed. The majority of it therefore should be spent on essentials, with a small amount left over to spend on little luxuries - we're giving them money for food, not to buy plasma TVs.

Unless you are disabled, there is no reason you need to take benefits, you can get a job, you don't need qualifications to work for minimum wage.

Reply 61

PrincessJasmine

Diminutive

Good food doesn't mean expensive though. I mean, we manage to knock up a meal for 5 of us on a budget of £5 each saturday, and we've had loads of random things.

I agree with this, as a single person it was easier to just buy ready meals and junk food it worked out a lot cheaper. I have my own family now and junk food/ processed meals are not the cheapest to feed them on at all.

Rob sometimes feeds his kids chips and nuggets type meals for their dinner 9 times out of 10 they are hungry again and begging for snacks, I will cook them a proper dinner and they are satified and it costs much less.

IMO benefits should be used for essential items but vouchers could be demoralising. I couldn't imagine a life purely funded by benefits it can't be the nicest experience in the world.

Reply 62

ArtGoblin

No, people should spend their money on what they want. If they want to eat unhealthily, that's their choice. Food vouchers would be degrading, especially if people were only allowed to buy certain items. What if they tried to buy an item that wasn't covered by the scheme? Would the shop assistant have to tell them to put it back on the shelf? That's humiliating for everyone involved. (Unless the shop assistant is a bastard who likes watching people suffer.)

Most people who receive government benefits don't want to be in that situation, so encouraging them to get a job is pointless. How do you make a distinction between the ones who want to be in the situation and the ones you don't?

Reply 63

n00

Tefhel

Unless you are disabled, there is no reason you need to take benefits, you can get a job, you don't need qualifications to work for minimum wage.

Hmm so if you were highly qualified, out of work and money you would take a minimum wage job and possibly restrict your chances of finding/getting a job where your skills were more valuable, rather than accept benifits allowing you time to find jobs and attend interviews?

Reply 64

Tefhel

n00

I would live off my savings until I could find a job and maybe get more qualifications in the meantime, I wouldn't take benefits, assuming this is later on in life, not straight out of university, if that were the case then I'd live at home.

Reply 65

n00

Tefhel

And if your parents were as narrow minded as yourself and decided they shouldn't have to provide benefits to someone that is capable of going out and getting a minimum wage job?

Reply 66

Tefhel

n00

And if your parents were as narrow minded as yourself and decided they shouldn't have to provide benefits to someone that is capable of going out and getting a minimum wage job?

Fortunately for me that wouldn't happen - it'd take some pretty hard-hearted parents not to let you stay with them if you can't find a job after uni! What are you going to do? Sleep in a box?

Reply 67

CLEE_F

You've spelt benefits wrong.

Reply 68

n00

Tefhel

Fortunately for me that wouldn't happen - it'd take some pretty hard-hearted parents not to let you stay with them if you can't find a job after uni!

Yes fortunately for you, you have parents that can and will support you. Clearly not everyone is so lucky.

Tefhel

What are you going to do? Sleep in a box?

I thought you made that clear. They should get themselves a minimum wage job, no?

Reply 69

Tefhel

n00

I thought you made that clear. They should get themselves a minimum wage job, no?

I honestly have no idea what we're talking about now. Hopefully, I'll never be in such a situation, I can live with my parents after uni if necessary, and when I'm older, I'm going to save money and never get into debt so if I do get unemployed I'll still have a house and savings to use. In neither case would I take benefits.

Reply 70

n00

Tefhel

I honestly have no idea what we're talking about now.

This

Tefhel

Unless you are disabled, there is no reason you need to take benefits, you can get a job, you don't need qualifications to work for minimum wage.

Tefhel

Hopefully, I'll never be in such a situation, I can live with my parents after uni if necessary, and when I'm older, I'm going to save money and never get into debt so if I do get unemployed I'll still have a house and savings to use. In neither case would I take benefits.

Maybe it would be best if you did find yourself in such a situation, you're clearly in need of it to grow up.

Reply 71

Tefhel

n00

Maybe it would be best if you did find yourself in such a situation, you're clearly in need of it to grow up.

Grow up how?

Reply 72

A.R.E

L i b

Why?

No, really, why?

What do you gain out of dictating to people what they spend their benefits on?

I spend my money on a hell of a lot of stupid ****. When I'm short of cash, I'd probably rather buy booze than food sometimes. So what? I'm not doing you any harm by it.

I prefer luxury items to mundane things - if that's how I choose to live my life, it's none of your ******* business, even if you are paying for it.

Because we pay for you benefits, poor people can't have luxuries such as alcohol, all they need is the basics food shelter water heat

By poor I'm defining the people on benefits who buy alcohol and then go out an commit crimes.

The hardworking poor, the one that deserve the benefits, they are the ones that should be getting paid. Those scums that buy alcohol obviously don't appreciate what they are given and so should go to the hardworking poor with families

Reply 73

death.drop

A.R.E

are you actually kidding? poor to you means criminals who like to drink alcohol and are on benefits?

poor people can't have luxuries such as alcohol? surely if you're giving someone what's considered to be enough for a basic standard of living they can choose to scrimp a little on food and spend a few quid on a bottle of vodka in the week. you're saying that a single mum on a low wage, receiving income support and maybe part housing benefit isn't allowed to get herself a £3 bottle of wine in the week? because that would make her scum?!

Reply 74

cpj1987

death.drop

I'd consider that woman to be pretty terrible, personally. She's given money to survive, and if she's that poor that £3 may make a real difference to her children - especially if she makes the effort to save it each week.
Benefits are for essentials, not treats.

Reply 75

56gs47qr0ghe9454fe268st

The government do this with asylum seekers. In Bristol there is a scheme in place where people can buy the food vouchers off them for cost value, as they would be using the money to buy food anyway. The bastard government are now switching to credit card style things instead to make this impossible.

Reply 76

A.R.E

death.drop

no no that's not what I'm saying at all.

I wrote it completely messed up.
Basically,

I'm talking about the people that blow all their benefits on alcohol and drugs.

They should be monitored, because they are the ones that end up committing crimes and costing us even more money. However, a single mum shouldn't use the money for alcohol, you seriously think being a poor single mum living off benefits should even be thinking about drinking?

The poor that DO deserve our money are the ones that really want to do better but can't, as you said with the single mums. They should be given more money and shouldn't be monitored.

On a side note, I think bankers DO deserve their money, because they make the bank's profit. It's kind of like Those Disney stars, they make millions for what? What input do they do. But they make money for Disney, alot of it.

So I think it's just bull trying to refer everything back to the bankers, it's pathetic.

Your already taking 50% of their ******* salaries is that not enough?

Reply 77

morecambebay

How about a voucher system dictating what student grants can be spent on?

Reply 78

death.drop

cpj1987

well, frankly, you're a real hard ass. I think if a woman has sole responsibility of her children and is still pushing herself to work then she can treat herself to whatever she can afford, as long as her children are still taken care of.

Reply 79

cpj1987

death.drop

How can it be proven that she's trying to get work, though?

There's no real way of regulating who's trying to find work and who isn't, so why should people be able to spend their money on treats?