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

Should benefits be scrapped? Watch

  • View Poll Results: Should Benefits be completely scrapped?
    Yes
    11
    8.80%
    No
    70
    56.00%
    Restricted to certain criteria (e.g disabilities)
    44
    35.20%
    Im unsure
    0
    0%

    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    Arguably, the more people you catch, the less theft there should be.

    The costing argument is always propelled by those who seem to not want to take action, arguing that the costs of implementing a system will invariably outweigh the benefits.

    Crimes can be broken down into two main categories. The first category is those that have victims or where it is directed against a person. Specific cases include murder, assault/battery (S18.S20), some cases of arson and theft.

    Then you have your run-of-the-mill "victimless crimes" which are those perpetrated mostly against faceless organisations or those that one can justify as "it doesn't hurt anyone".


    Your former category (crimes against the person) should, by virtue of your costing reasoning, should not be investigated, the perpetrator not hauled before the courts, the judge should refuse to convict and all because the costs of action against the accused, outweigh any monetary benefits that one may gain.


    It is a preposterous notion to argue that we do not investigate, charge and convict people simply because it is not economical to do so.




    What figures?
    Firstly you did not answer my question.

    And secondly I never said we should not investigate, charge or convict. We already do that. I argued it would be pointless to further tighten the system and in turn further increase the costs of the system.

    They're government statistics.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    People in genuine need would suffer is the only thing on that list that I think is worth considering. I'd argue it is not right to make people who don't deserve it suffer for the sake of the country's finances - especially when it isn't at an unaffordable level for the country. I do however think it needs changes - sensible and humane changes. The problem with stopping benefits for all is it works under the assumption that full employment is possible and there will be 0 people without jobs. It might motivate some to want a job but I don't think it would have a significant impact on employment figures. If anything being at a weaker financial positions will worsen job prospects. Not only will they have to worry about getting a job now, but also how they are going to feed their family. It would lead to a nation full of people in debt, I'd imagine short term loans would increase and people would be in much more tricky financial situations.

    I agree there needs to be a rethink, I disagree with your suggestion however.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SophieSmall)
    Firstly you did not answer my question.
    I did, although I concede that it could have been clearer which I shall now do.

    At the moment, let's say that the theft costs the state £1 and it takes £2 to implement a system which will determine, investigate and reduce the theft.

    Over time, the theft from the state will reduce and correspondingly, the measures to counteract the theft will become more streamlined, more efficient and ultimately, reduce the cost to the state.

    There will be cost in the system (as people will still commit theft which would need investigating) but ultimately, the net difference will be made negligible.

    And secondly I never said we should not investigate, charge or convict. We already do that. I argued it would be pointless to further tighten the system and in turn further increase the costs of the system.
    We wouldn't need to tighten the system if people didn't commit theft but unfortunately, they do and if we want to stop it, we will have to pay.

    Crime doesn't pay (at least, not for those stopping it).

    They're government statistics.
    You mean that £1.2bn figure?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reue)
    Yup, that's exactly why :rolleyes:
    Why else would it be? The effect is the same - so what are you paying for?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheArtofProtest)
    I did, although I concede that it could have been clearer which I shall now do.

    At the moment, let's say that the theft costs the state £1 and it takes £2 to implement a system which will determine, investigate and reduce the theft.

    Over time, the theft from the state will reduce and correspondingly, the measures to counteract the theft will become more streamlined, more efficient and ultimately, reduce the cost to the state.

    There will be cost in the system (as people will still commit theft which would need investigating) but ultimately, the net difference will be made negligible.



    We wouldn't need to tighten the system if people didn't commit theft but unfortunately, they do and if we want to stop it, we will have to pay.

    Crime doesn't pay (at least, not for those stopping it).



    You mean that £1.2bn figure?
    And what evidence to you have for any of what you have said in bold?

    Not a single figure no, I'm talking about the fraud figures spanning over the past 10 or so years. You can look them up if you care to.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SophieSmall)
    And what evidence to you have for any of what you have said in bold?
    Logical thought process.

    Not a single figure no, I'm talking about the fraud figures spanning over the past 10 or so years. You can look them up if you care to.
    Well, the earliest figures (I found) for benefit fraud was around £900 million in 2008/9 and the latest figures suggest around £1.3bn or so.

    In case you haven't realized, that's an increase of £400 million in theft.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AceViva)
    Right so there is not even a single thing wrong with the current benefit system?
    That's not the point I was replying to a complete scrapping of benefits.

    As for the problems in the current benefit system I couldn't care less it's small change. Something like 2% of national spending is on jsa


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    No. Only a complete moron would say otherwise.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Devify)
    I think things should be changed, not specifically benefits tho.

    My friends family lives from benefits just because they get more than if they were working as two of the kids have slight disabilities that don't really affect them but qualify them for the extra money which they wouldn't get if the parents worked.
    In your opinion. I was reported for benefit fraud last year by someone who quite clearly didn't know me, claiming I wasn't that disabled. What they don't know is that I have pretty serious hearing problems, my sight is slowly going and that a lot of simple every day things you lot do (such as going out with friends and interacting with people) is almost impossible.
 
 
 
  • 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.

  • Poll
    Should Spain allow Catalonia to declare independence?
    Useful resources
  • 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.

  • 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.