The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

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

Original post by FunkItsMechanics
food like an apple/banana/orange and a sandwich for a meal


I thought these were luxury foods. Count me in :biggrin:

Why do you assume people on benefits are lazy? Also I think the queuing idea would fail. It would give people a genuine excuse why they can't find work. And the family of the first diabetic to die from a hypo would sue the local authority for stopping them eat. So would anyone else who had an allergy cause you know the government would screw that up.

I'm not against change but don't think these ideas would work. It would lead to a Hunger Games scenario imho.
Reply 61
Avatar for Reue
Reue
20
Original post by scrotgrot
Why don't we put all this energy, money and sense of purpose into designing the sort of economy where everyone gets a liveable income? If we can't create enough jobs, why is that the fault of the unemployed?


I completely agree.
Reply 62
Avatar for Yawn!
Yawn!
7
Original post by leinad2012
That's great and all, but this is real life, not a 12 mark A Level economics question...


And what makes you more qualified to know what 'real life' is compared to me?

A level economics or university economics. It doesn't change facts. That social security funding supports jobs and businesses. Unless you'd care to contradict me with facts.

I don't really care that much about the debate, tbh. I was merely offering a different perspective on the subject, since thus far I have only seen simplistic ideas that a primary school student could come up with.
Reply 63
Avatar for Reue
Reue
20
Original post by scrotgrot
Just grow the **** up and give people the money they need to live on.


That's exactly what I'd like to happen.
Original post by FunkItsMechanics
I've paid 0. My parents have paid quite a lot though.


Well done to your parents. I'm sure they're very proud of their offspring's 'views'. :toofunny:

Seriously, why does other people's (not you) paying into the welfare state and some other/the same people (potentially you! :awesome:) getting a bit of money out again bother you so much?
Personally I think it should be like a student loan.


You get the benefits and then once you get a job you slowly repay it.


Also claimants should be more closely monitored to ensure they're actively seeking a job.
Benefits should be capped regionally to their bare minimum with a payment made to the landlord/council independently including energy and water (with limits) as well as food stamps, and perhaps a transport allowance for buses.

People who are unemployed (bar disabled) don't need anything more, anything less.
Original post by scrotgrot
Which is exactly why the welfare state was framed as a birthright. Otherwise you get people like you insisting that it's just another form of charity you have to behave "well" and jump through hoops to get.

Why don't we put all this energy, money and sense of purpose into designing the sort of economy where everyone gets a liveable income? If we can't create enough jobs, why is that the fault of the unemployed? We need to stop punishing the poor, unemployed, disadvantaged, disabled for the craven failures of our government and corporate class.


Why do you think there aren't enough jobs? Because you have people on the bottom of the food chain taht are expecting 10 pounds an hour to work since they can get more or less the same amount on benefits. Why are all the supermarkets replacing their employees with machines? Oh right, because of benefits, you get firms needing to pay so damn much just to hire a damn person because it's cheaper to be on benefits. Imagine if firms could hire most people for basic jobs for 4 pounds an hour. Then you wouldn't have people being replaced by machines in jobs!
Original post by orange crush
Personally I think it should be like a student loan.


You get the benefits and then once you get a job you slowly repay it.


Also claimants should be more closely monitored to ensure they're actively seeking a job.


They already do. It's called taxes.
Reply 69
Avatar for Reue
Reue
20
Original post by SophieSmall
And you could argue that the system wouldn't be a problem if everything like this was covered and people got what they were entitled too. But it's pretty obvious that people slip through the cracks, people get put on the wrong benefits and people who should be entitled to things aren't. And let's be honest, no system is perfect so it's likely to be the case that there will always be people who get put on the wrong benefits, or are wrongly misjudged. So in my opinion a vouchers system would do far more harm than good.


That would indeed be my argument, but with the added point that by cutting out wastage there would be more funds available to investigate and support those who had legitimately fallen through the cracks.

I do take your point though that perhaps it is better to have a wasteful system than a leaky system, and an excellent point it is.
Original post by Reue
That's exactly what I'd like to happen.


Well you'd better start arguing for the ending of sanctions and the reversal of the welfare reforms then hadn't you? Because at present benefits aren't enough to live on, as Sophie's example illustrates: her mum does not have an acceptable quality of life, and every hour Sophie or other carers take out of their day to go to the shops for her is another hour they can't earn money and thus reduce aggregate demand.
Original post by superwolf
Well done to your parents. I'm sure they're very proud of their offspring's 'views'. :toofunny:

Seriously, why does other people's (not you) paying into the welfare state and some other/the same people (potentially you! :awesome:) getting a bit of money out again bother you so much?


Tsh my parents have gave me over 1 million worth of 'junk' already lol. I could just sell that, won't ever need to be on benefits.
Reply 72
Avatar for Yawn!
Yawn!
7
Original post by orange crush
Personally I think it should be like a student loan.


You get the benefits and then once you get a job you slowly repay it.


Also claimants should be more closely monitored to ensure they're actively seeking a job.


That's a damn good idea. Bravo. :congrats:
Original post by scrotgrot

Just grow the **** up and give people the money they need to live on.


No. Benefits should be to survive, not live/thrive.

No one needs an iPhone, needs a car, needs movie tickets or expensive shoes.
Original post by FunkItsMechanics
Why do you think there aren't enough jobs? Because you have people on the bottom of the food chain taht are expecting 10 pounds an hour to work since they can get more or less the same amount on benefits. Why are all the supermarkets replacing their employees with machines? Oh right, because of benefits, you get firms needing to pay so damn much just to hire a damn person because it's cheaper to be on benefits. Imagine if firms could hire most people for basic jobs for 4 pounds an hour. Then you wouldn't have people being replaced by machines in jobs!


Can we all pause, take a minute, and really *appreciate* what you've just said there?
















...aaand breathe.

Good session folks, I think we've all learned something about ourselves today. :yy:
Original post by Reue
That would indeed be my argument, but with the added point that by cutting out wastage there would be more funds available to investigate and support those who had legitimately fallen through the cracks.

I do take your point though that perhaps it is better to have a wasteful system than a leaky system, and an excellent point it is.


That is completely my stance on it. Though to be honest I think your system would cost a lot more to implement and so in terms of saving money would be negligible at best.
Original post by SophieSmall
They already do. It's called taxes.


Erm, no it isn't....

By that same argument student loans should be replaced with grants since those with degrees will on average make higher tax contributions than those without them.
Reply 77
Avatar for Reue
Reue
20
Original post by scrotgrot
Well you'd better start arguing for the ending of sanctions and the reversal of the welfare reforms then hadn't you? Because at present benefits aren't enough to live on, as Sophie's example illustrates: her mum does not have an acceptable quality of life, and every hour Sophie or other carers take out of their day to go to the shops for her is another hour they can't earn money and thus reduce aggregate demand.


I'm arguing for a different system which cuts wastage so funds can be redirected to those who have genuine need. Nowhere have I suggested that welfare should be cut. Please don't attempt to suggest otherwise.
I think work related benefits should be given for only 6 months or so to encourage people to look for work as many get comfortable and stop working all together
Original post by FunkItsMechanics
Tsh my parents have gave me over 1 million worth of 'junk' already lol. I could just sell that, won't ever need to be on benefits.


Well thanks for proving the point of half the people on this thread: you have no conception of what you're talking about.


Now go play with your junk, little 'un.

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you