This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
Benefit payments should be in the form of meals, not money
Scroll to see replies
The main problem with this thread is that it involves the children of middle-class parents who have never come into contact with JSA nor its recipients. They don't know that the vast majority of people on JSA are off it within 6 months and why would they know that? The Sun doesn't tell them that. And they think people who have been on it longer than 6 months don't want to work and are lazy. You don't know what you're talking about. I have been involved with delivering employability courses aimed at people out of work for 6+ months and they are more desperate for work and despondent than you'll ever know. I know people who have to live on the miserly amount of money given to them by JSA to survive (whilst trying to find work). I know people who feel anxious every time they go to the Job Centre after applying for 40 jobs a fortnight and not knowing whether they will be sanctioned arbitrarily because their adviser needs to meet a quota. You will get lazy people, sure, and they need to be helped but to suggest that lazy people are characteristic of JSA recipients and the system needs to be reformed to stop them being lazy is just daft.
Life on JSA is not luxury and you don't know what you're talking about.
Life on JSA is not luxury and you don't know what you're talking about.
To look at it from another angle (playing devil's advocate here....is that the right term?), giving out social security in the form of money rather than food (or vouchers) is the smarter thing to do. Money that is pumped into social security ultimately finds its way around the economy. Whether that social security money is spent on food, bills, necessities, etc or clothes, TV's, gadgets, etc (which is what gets so many people upset). It is almost a form of government stimulus to the economy, it supports jobs and businesses and contributes to the consumption that keeps the economy ticking.
That said, it would be preferable to have 100% skilled employment, etc, but that's a lot easier said than done. In the interim, this is probably the best system.....economically speaking.
That said, it would be preferable to have 100% skilled employment, etc, but that's a lot easier said than done. In the interim, this is probably the best system.....economically speaking.
The people who are on benefits and are lazy are the ones who usually get attention when really so many people rely on them. Doing something like that would just widen the gap between the rich and poor. Doing that then increases crime rates and creates all sorts of problems.
Original post by SophieSmall
Many jobs require you to have your own transport, it's just ridiculous really to say as soon as you're on benefits you should sell you car. Most people aren't on benefits for that long, and then once they've got a job again (from the limited pool of ones they can apply for without a car) they've got no car, are paying and arm and a leg for public transport and likely have to pay more for a new car than they managed to get for their old car.
Sorry Reue. I agree with a lot of the things you say, but this one is silly
Sorry Reue. I agree with a lot of the things you say, but this one is silly
I didnt suggest all unemployed should ditch the car; but that some might be better served in doing so.
It all refers back to my initial reply that benefit payments should be made in voucher form. If those vouchers are redeemable against petrol for reasonable expenses then that seems like a good idea. Trying to redeem £100 worth of petrol a week would perhaps be not so much.
And indeed; perhaps some should be encouraged to ditch the car and walk/bike to places where appropriate. Both those on benefits and those not..
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Man.bear.pig
that word "lazy" to me in political discussion is just....that dammit itch you can't dammit scratch.
NOT on benefits, NOT from a council estate but I have friends and fam who are and you just never know what the situation is. I personally think it's not laziness as much as it is bad life choices like teen pregnancy, not going sixth form when it was a choice, bad habits like drugs, resorting to crime, inheriting substandard living conditions that conflict with developing self worth, lack of proper guidance that contribute to making bad choices...
all them sob stories.
Laziness is the wrong sob story.
NOT on benefits, NOT from a council estate but I have friends and fam who are and you just never know what the situation is. I personally think it's not laziness as much as it is bad life choices like teen pregnancy, not going sixth form when it was a choice, bad habits like drugs, resorting to crime, inheriting substandard living conditions that conflict with developing self worth, lack of proper guidance that contribute to making bad choices...
all them sob stories.
Laziness is the wrong sob story.
The skills gap is a thing but I would suggest much more important is the fact that there are less jobs than unemployed people. Not sure why people think education is going to change that. Also not sure in general why people immediately blame unemployment on the character flaws of a large group of people rather than the economic system. They must have put something really funny in the water in the 1980s when everyone lost their jobs and the unemployed underclass was created - or could it possibly have been due to the huge economic rebalancing we underwent at that time?
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by scrotgrot
2m unemployed
700k vacancies
Do the math.
Giving benefits as food or food stamps is a 100000% overkill moronic idea. The whole reason we use money is because it's flexible. So are the needs of the poorest, and a lack of flexibility could literally mean death for them - it's certainly not going to help them find a job or get out of poverty. Why also do they have less rights and autonomy than you or me?
Get your head out of the tabloids and propaganda documentaries and wait until you've lived unsupported on benefits and/or low wages before you go preaching and prescribing. You do realise you're not better than these people, don't you?
Also food stamps are a bung to corporations. No longer can you trade coin of the realm for cheap local produce, oh no, you have to go to Tesco like a good little drone. As for saving by buying in bulk, forget it. What if your cooker breaks? Tough, you can't divert money to pay for it and you can't buy microwave meals because some idiot bureaucrat/idiot voter who has watched too much Fat Camp and Benefits Street thinks you shouldn't be allowed to buy processed food.
Not even sure why we need to do anytjing with benefits. We can fford them, it's just government spin that we cannot. The only benefits that even come out of the Treasury, rather than the self-funding NI pot, are housing benefit (because of the crazy housing market making rents so expensive), pensions (ageing population) and tax credits (corporate subsidy for low wages).
700k vacancies
Do the math.
Giving benefits as food or food stamps is a 100000% overkill moronic idea. The whole reason we use money is because it's flexible. So are the needs of the poorest, and a lack of flexibility could literally mean death for them - it's certainly not going to help them find a job or get out of poverty. Why also do they have less rights and autonomy than you or me?
Get your head out of the tabloids and propaganda documentaries and wait until you've lived unsupported on benefits and/or low wages before you go preaching and prescribing. You do realise you're not better than these people, don't you?
Also food stamps are a bung to corporations. No longer can you trade coin of the realm for cheap local produce, oh no, you have to go to Tesco like a good little drone. As for saving by buying in bulk, forget it. What if your cooker breaks? Tough, you can't divert money to pay for it and you can't buy microwave meals because some idiot bureaucrat/idiot voter who has watched too much Fat Camp and Benefits Street thinks you shouldn't be allowed to buy processed food.
Not even sure why we need to do anytjing with benefits. We can fford them, it's just government spin that we cannot. The only benefits that even come out of the Treasury, rather than the self-funding NI pot, are housing benefit (because of the crazy housing market making rents so expensive), pensions (ageing population) and tax credits (corporate subsidy for low wages).
If a system was put in place like the one OP suggested it would literally leave my mum housebound. She is disabled and can't use the buses as they are too far of a walk for her, they took disability benefits off her so she can't afford upkeep on her mobility scooter (which is now broken) and the only way she can get around is by taxi. Which she has to SAVE up for from the sod all amount of money they give her.
The people who come out with this nonsense say it from a ridiculously privileged position. They have probably never had to struggle in their lives. Most likely have put little thought into the consequences of the system and almost definitely don't even care. And like you said this affects a lot more than just where they can buy their food or whether they can buy "fags", it stops them ever being able to put any money aside to pay for emergencies like a broken cooker.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Reue
I didnt suggest all unemployed should ditch the car; but that some might be better served in doing so.
It all refers back to my initial reply that benefit payments should be made in voucher form. If those vouchers are redeemable against petrol for reasonable expenses then that seems like a good idea. Trying to redeem £100 worth of petrol a week would perhaps be not so much.
It all refers back to my initial reply that benefit payments should be made in voucher form. If those vouchers are redeemable against petrol for reasonable expenses then that seems like a good idea. Trying to redeem £100 worth of petrol a week would perhaps be not so much.
I think it was just the tone of your posts, and just being used to seeing people say they should. Sorry if you don't actually think this should be the case.
I also disagree with the vouchers system for many reasons, but also because it hits home and would really **** with people's lives. See Scrotgrot's post, and my response to his if you're interested in these reasons. If not, good day to you.
Original post by SophieSmall
If a system was put in place like the one OP suggested it would literally leave my mum housebound. She is disabled and can't use the buses as they are too far of a walk for her, they took disability benefits off her so she can't afford upkeep on her mobility scooter (which is now broken) and the only way she can get around is by taxi. Which she has to SAVE up for from the sod all amount of money they give her.
The people who come out with this nonsense say it from a ridiculous privileged position, have probably never had to struggle in their lives. Most likely have put little thought into the consequences of the system and almost definitely don't even care.
The people who come out with this nonsense say it from a ridiculous privileged position, have probably never had to struggle in their lives. Most likely have put little thought into the consequences of the system and almost definitely don't even care.
Yes I know they are ****ing morons and shouldn't be allowed to vote.
What I don't get is apparently one in six people have a disabled person in their immediate family (fair enough I guess many are pensioners), so why hasn't there been more of an outcry?
The ignorance and complacency is astonishing: my brother is disabled, as in in a wheelchair and needing assistance with daily living, and both my parents and he himself are almost completely oblivious to the benefit cuts. (We are sheltered by being upper-middle-class in income terms.)
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by SophieSmall
I also disagree with the vouchers system for many reasons, but also because it hits home and would really **** with people's lives. See Scrotgrot's post, and my response to his if you're interested in these reasons. If not, good day to you.
I also disagree with the vouchers system for many reasons, but also because it hits home and would really **** with people's lives. See Scrotgrot's post, and my response to his if you're interested in these reasons. If not, good day to you.
I just have.
Clearly your mother is in the wrong situation under the current system; so I dont really understand why you're so against a change?
I think the key point of giving people vouchers instead of cash is that they can exchange them for things they need. In your mother's case it would be the upkeep on her mobility scooter.
I'd also argue that by moving to such a system it would stop the 'wastage' on fags/booze and so free up more of the welfare money to be put to use on those who genuinely need it like your mother.
We have to remember that there is only a set pot of money to go around. If you or someone you know is a genuine claimant who requires 100% of the funds they get.. surely you would support any system which seeks to cut the wastage and redistribute more of that pot towards the real needs?
Original post by Reue
I just have.
Clearly your mother is in the wrong situation under the current system; so I dont really understand why you're so against a change?
I think the key point of giving people vouchers instead of cash is that they can exchange them for things they need. In your mother's case it would be the upkeep on her mobility scooter.
I'd also argue that by moving to such a system it would stop the 'wastage' on fags/booze and so free up more of the welfare money to be put to use on those who genuinely need it like your mother.
We have to remember that there is only a set pot of money to go around. If you or someone you know is a genuine claimant who requires 100% of the funds they get.. surely you would support any system which seeks to cut the wastage and redistribute more of that pot towards the real needs?
Clearly your mother is in the wrong situation under the current system; so I dont really understand why you're so against a change?
I think the key point of giving people vouchers instead of cash is that they can exchange them for things they need. In your mother's case it would be the upkeep on her mobility scooter.
I'd also argue that by moving to such a system it would stop the 'wastage' on fags/booze and so free up more of the welfare money to be put to use on those who genuinely need it like your mother.
We have to remember that there is only a set pot of money to go around. If you or someone you know is a genuine claimant who requires 100% of the funds they get.. surely you would support any system which seeks to cut the wastage and redistribute more of that pot towards the real needs?
What do you mean by this?
Original post by scrotgrot
Yes I know they are ****ing morons and shouldn't be allowed to vote.
What I don't get is apparently one in six people have a disabled person in their nuclear family, so why hasn't there been more of an outcry?
The ignorance and complacency is astonishing: my brother is disabled, as in in a wheelchair and needing assistance with daily living, and both my parents and he himself are almost completely oblivious to the benefit cuts. (We are sheltered by being upper-middle-class in income terms.)
What I don't get is apparently one in six people have a disabled person in their nuclear family, so why hasn't there been more of an outcry?
The ignorance and complacency is astonishing: my brother is disabled, as in in a wheelchair and needing assistance with daily living, and both my parents and he himself are almost completely oblivious to the benefit cuts. (We are sheltered by being upper-middle-class in income terms.)
Honestly I have no idea.
Original post by HuggleyDuck
Just giving food instead of money implies that people on benefits only need food, when in fact they need anything from petrol to clothes.
Also it's a huge over-generalisation to say that all people on benefits are lazy. SOME are, but most are people who need support to get themselves on their feet, or extra help to make it through the month, or can't work because of disabilities or a lack of jobs in that area.
Also it's a huge over-generalisation to say that all people on benefits are lazy. SOME are, but most are people who need support to get themselves on their feet, or extra help to make it through the month, or can't work because of disabilities or a lack of jobs in that area.
Original post by Prince edmund
Lol, look at all these kids with no life experience coming up with stupid ideas because all they know about being on benefits comes from silly shows like benefit street
I hope some of you end up in bad situations and end up on benefits to see what it's really like
Posted from TSR Mobile
I hope some of you end up in bad situations and end up on benefits to see what it's really like
Posted from TSR Mobile
What's your opinion on having a fund set up for these people where you voluntarily pay into it? So that means the proportion of the population who want to pay for these people can while the rest don't.
It would work would it not?
Original post by SophieSmall
What do you mean by this?
This:
Original post by SophieSmall
so she can't afford upkeep on her mobility scooter (which is now broken) and the only way she can get around is by taxi.
Original post by Reue
This:
Yeah your sentence still doesn't make much sense.
What you mean she is in the wrong situation under the current system? Because you're not being at all clear, pointing out something I said earlier is not clearing up your sentence.
Original post by The two eds
What's your opinion on having a fund set up for these people where you voluntarily pay into it? So that means the proportion of the population who want to pay for these people can while the rest don't.
It would work would it not?
It would work would it not?
We already do by way of general election. If you don't like paying into something - vote for a party who wont pay so much into it.
Original post by SophieSmall
Yeah your sentence still doesn't make much sense.
What you mean she is in the wrong situation under the current system? Because you're not being at all clear, pointing out something I said earlier is not clearing up your sentence.
What you mean she is in the wrong situation under the current system? Because you're not being at all clear, pointing out something I said earlier is not clearing up your sentence.
As in that the current system wont fix/upkeep her mobility scooter and so she is having to resort to using (I guess more expensive?) taxis.
Original post by Reue
As in that the current system wont fix/upkeep her mobility scooter and so she is having to resort to using (I guess more expensive?) taxis.
The current system won't pay for her upkeep on her mobility scooter because they refuse to put her on disability.
Introducing a voucher system isn't going to change that, they still wouldn't help her because they don't believe she is entitled to disability to help. Which is frankly disgusting, and if you knew her and saw how she lives you'd have a hard time disagreeing.
Original post by Reue
If youre unemployed then your finances might be better served by selling the car and paying for a bus/train/taxi on the occasions that you need to attend an interview.
All of those are more expensive on a unit by unit basis compared to petrol for your car, if you have a ****ty old car you might get £200 tops that covers very few journeys and would leave you ****ed after 2 months
Original post by Reue
I just have.
Clearly your mother is in the wrong situation under the current system; so I dont really understand why you're so against a change?
I think the key point of giving people vouchers instead of cash is that they can exchange them for things they need. In your mother's case it would be the upkeep on her mobility scooter.
I'd also argue that by moving to such a system it would stop the 'wastage' on fags/booze and so free up more of the welfare money to be put to use on those who genuinely need it like your mother.
We have to remember that there is only a set pot of money to go around. If you or someone you know is a genuine claimant who requires 100% of the funds they get.. surely you would support any system which seeks to cut the wastage and redistribute more of that pot towards the real needs?
Clearly your mother is in the wrong situation under the current system; so I dont really understand why you're so against a change?
I think the key point of giving people vouchers instead of cash is that they can exchange them for things they need. In your mother's case it would be the upkeep on her mobility scooter.
I'd also argue that by moving to such a system it would stop the 'wastage' on fags/booze and so free up more of the welfare money to be put to use on those who genuinely need it like your mother.
We have to remember that there is only a set pot of money to go around. If you or someone you know is a genuine claimant who requires 100% of the funds they get.. surely you would support any system which seeks to cut the wastage and redistribute more of that pot towards the real needs?
Almost like... money then?
Personally as someone on disability benefits, I find myself quite capable of making my own financial decisions in terms of what is and isn't necessary to me. I don't smoke, don't drive, don't do illegal drugs. I do however spend a large proportion of my income on sex toys and mouse-keeping supplies. This is part of what keeps me a hell of a lot happier and healthier than if I were given a couple of vouchers and told 'no, you don't need hobbies, fun, or in fact any kind of a life'.
Original post by SophieSmall
The current system won't pay for her upkeep on her mobility scooter because they refuse to put her on disability.
Introducing a voucher system isn't going to change that, they still wouldn't help her because they don't believe she is entitled to disability to help. Which is frankly disgusting, and if you knew her and saw how she lives you'd have a hard time disagreeing.
Introducing a voucher system isn't going to change that, they still wouldn't help her because they don't believe she is entitled to disability to help. Which is frankly disgusting, and if you knew her and saw how she lives you'd have a hard time disagreeing.
So, with the greatest respects; having a voucher system or not would have no impact on your mother? This discussion is about having a voucher system or equivalent so why are you using your mother as an example against such a system when you say it's got nothing to do with the method of payment of benefit but more the fact that she had been judged to be illegible?
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
Children to no longer be prescribed puberty blockers, NHS England confirmsLast reply 5 minutes ago
Official Cambridge Postgraduate Applicants 2024 ThreadLast reply 8 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 8 minutes ago
Official: University of Bristol A100 2024 Entry ApplicantsPosted 9 minutes ago
Barclays Graduate Scheme with Graduate VisaLast reply 9 minutes ago
Oxford Economics Degree ApprenticeshipLast reply 13 minutes ago
OCR GCSE English Literature Paper 1 (J352/01) - 17th May 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 14 minutes ago
JK Rowling in ‘arrest me’ challenge over hate crime lawTrending
Last reply 1 hour ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 hour ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
