Food tokens instead of benefit money? Watch

AKB2000
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#1
So I just read a thread about people abusing the system for benefits. I think the biggest problem is people are way too comfortable on benefits they can spend their (other peoples) money on whatever they like and still claim it not have enough money. I feel like we should give out the money in tokens so money can only be spent on food not alcohol, and also clothes tokens but only at certain stores like Tesco clothes or somewhere. This would ensure the money goes to the kids and motivates people to get off benefits. Maybe you get tokens after 4 months of being on benefits? So that if people are just unlucky and lost their job they don’t have to do this? Also this would only apply to people who don’t have a job and claim, and aren’t disabled. Idk I just don’t see why this isn’t a discussion in politics they must have thought about it.
0
reply
Violet Femme
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 year ago
#2
(Original post by AKB2000)
I think the biggest problem is people are way too comfortable on benefits they can spend their (other peoples) money on whatever they like and still claim it not have enough money.
I assume from this you are a kid with zero experience of running a household. Universal Credit is ~£60 a week. Take away food, utility bills, council tax, transports costs, etc. and you won't have enough left over to be living way too comfortably.

I feel like we should give out the money in tokens so money can only be spent on food not alcohol,
One of the problems with being unemployed for a length of time is people can quickly become socially isolated. It becomes a barrier to employment and impacts on their mental health. Do you really begrudge someone buying a pint so they can spend a couple of hours with friends?

Idk I just don’t see why this isn’t a discussion in politics they must have thought about it.
You are right, people have put thought into it. It is a clumsy bureaucratic system centred around micromanaging individual's behaviour. There are good reasons why there isn't a serious discussion about it in politics.
9
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 year ago
#3
Not this again...

Look, I'm on the centre-right. I've supported reforming the welfare system to reduce dependency and to improve the impetus into finding work.

But I really do wonder where people get off with this sort of idea. It's positively totalitarian. We give people enough to get by and live a fairly decent life, even if they don't have a job. For the poorest in our society, who live financially from day to day, this does necessitate choices. But we provide more than is required simply for a person to live.

Some people spend benefits on things that others disapprove of - I say "so what?". By the same token, they are having to make savings in other areas of their lives. You mention children - if a person is a terrible parent, whether they're using their child benefit money appropriately will be the least of a child's worries. Indeed, we already do pay a proportion of public funds directly to help in these circumstances, with free school meals and help with school uniform costs etc. These are best administered locally, because they can be provided as part of a package of support that includes intervention from social services to provide help where it is appropriate.

If you really want something to consider, look at personal debt. That is where people are often ending up with significant problems and the end result is that it is taxpayer's money that is (indirectly) keeping those vultures in the payday lending industry afloat - and then having to take action when the borrowers end up destitute too.

We already have record levels of employment in this country. Out-of-work benefits account for only a small proportion of our total social security budget. It seems to me that these inclinations to dole out food stamps - which, incidentally, wouldn't achieve the objective anyway - are less about helping people and more about a mean-spirited assurance that they're somehow not able to derive the simplest pleasures from anything in their lives.
6
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 year ago
#4
(Original post by Violet Femme)
I assume from this you are a kid with zero experience of running a household. Universal Credit is ~£60 a week. Take away food, utility bills, council tax, transports costs, etc. and you won't have enough left over to be living way too comfortably.
Universal Credit covers a whole range of former benefits and there are many elements to it. It's far form as straightforward as "Universal Credit pays X a week". For those reliant on UC as their sole source of income, they are likely to qualify under a number of criteria - and also be entitled to additional support, for example Council Tax Reductions.

I agree, in general, being on the dole isn't a comfortable living - but it shouldn't be a specifically uncomfortable one either. People do have choices. As I've said above, though, one of the biggest restrictions on autonomy is personal debt: you certainly won't be comfortable if half of your benefits payments are disappearing off to service some high-interest lending.
1
reply
Notoriety
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 year ago
#5
(Original post by L i b)
Universal Credit covers a whole range of former benefits and there are many elements to it. It's far form as straightforward as "Universal Credit pays X a week". For those reliant on UC as their sole source of income, they are likely to qualify under a number of criteria - and also be entitled to additional support, for example Council Tax Reductions.

I agree, in general, being on the dole isn't a comfortable living - but it shouldn't be a specifically uncomfortable one either. People do have choices. As I've said above, though, one of the biggest restrictions on autonomy is personal debt: you certainly won't be comfortable if half of your benefits payments are disappearing off to service some high-interest lending.
True.

Couple, two kids (child rate for that and CB), rent paid for. And LCW+WRA and PIP. Kids on DLA and receiving CA for that. Food banks so they don't have to cut Sky+. The only people on 60 quid a month are those under 25 with no kids and no housing costs -- hardly typical.
0
reply
ftfy
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 year ago
#6
(Original post by Notoriety)
True.

Couple, two kids (child rate for that and CB), rent paid for. And LCW+WRA and PIP. Kids on DLA and receiving CA for that. Food banks so they don't have to cut Sky+. The only people on 60 quid a month are those under 25 with no kids and no housing costs -- hardly typical.
Is your example typical though? I think it's probably rare to find a couple on all those things.
0
reply
3121
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 year ago
#7
The benefits argument should be over. You’re so 15 years ago, it was out of control but we had a good economy and wanted to reduce poverty of course people took advantage of this instead of using it to rebuild their lives. People on benefits now have horrible living standards thanks to people like you who think this is still 2007 and the last 8 years of cuts haven’t happened.

But I do agree, I think it should be an alternative not a replacement to universal credits. Tax breaks and other things could be offered to supermarkets like Tesco in exchange for a voucher scheme with limited categories of items. If negotiated correctly the government could pay less than the value of the actual tokens
1
reply
Notoriety
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 year ago
#8
(Original post by ftfy)
Is your example typical though? I think it's probably rare to find a couple on all those things.
No ****.

I wasn't saying it was common; the point is you can get a lot of money on benefits if you have the right circumstances and inclinations.
0
reply
ftfy
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 year ago
#9
(Original post by Notoriety)
No ****.

I wasn't saying it was common; the point is you can get a lot of money on benefits if you have the right circumstances and inclinations.
If 'the right circumstances' are as rare as the one you presented then your point is more or less meaningless!
1
reply
Notoriety
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 year ago
#10
(Original post by ftfy)
If 'the right circumstances' are as rare as the one you presented then your point is more or less meaningless!
Sorry you feel that way.

To be clear, it is not rare that people are a) in a couple b) having children c) having housing costs. In other words, they have more than £60 per week to play around with. It is also not rare that people use food banks.

Quite rare that you have DLA, PIP in one family. Not as rare to have at fewest one person with qualifying difficulties.
0
reply
ftfy
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 year ago
#11
(Original post by Notoriety)
Sorry you feel that way.

To be clear, it is not rare that people are a) in a couple b) having children c) having housing costs. In other words, they have more than £60 per week to play around with. It is also not rare that people use food banks.

Quite rare that you have DLA, PIP in one family. Not as rare to have at fewest one person with qualifying difficulties.
It makes sense that they would get more than £60; I don't think 4 people could survive on £60. Anyway, this whole issue of welfare spendings is crazy, once you realise what else the tax payer's money is spent on in proportions that make this look like peanuts!
1
reply
RickHolt
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 year ago
#12
They did (do?) a weekly milk and veg token for new parents. Some less than honest people sold their tokens or found a shop where they could buy things other than milk and veg with them.I'm not getting into the whole benefits argument because it's a waste of time.
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 year ago
#13
(Original post by Notoriety)
Quite rare that you have DLA, PIP in one family.
Not that rare. Any family with a disabled parent and a disabled child will have this. There is a high incidence of depression and anxiety amongst the parents of children with ADHD.

There are 3.7 million awards for PIP or DLA in payment split more of less equally with a further 1.4 million in receipt of Attendence Allowance. These are essentially benefits meeting the same needs for different age groups. I can't find any figures on the number of households receiving these benefits.

Psychiatric conditions are by far the most common primary disabling conditions for PIP claimants with 36% of the caseload.

The basic problem with PIP/DLA/AA remains that there is a poor correlation between receipt of these benefits and the incurring of additional costs through disability. Leaving aside problems with the assessment processes, the schemes are almost like lotteries. where if your numbers come up you recieve a substantial income boost, but if they do not, you are left very substantially out of pocket.
0
reply
paul514
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 year ago
#14
(Original post by AKB2000)
So I just read a thread about people abusing the system for benefits. I think the biggest problem is people are way too comfortable on benefits they can spend their (other peoples) money on whatever they like and still claim it not have enough money. I feel like we should give out the money in tokens so money can only be spent on food not alcohol, and also clothes tokens but only at certain stores like Tesco clothes or somewhere. This would ensure the money goes to the kids and motivates people to get off benefits. Maybe you get tokens after 4 months of being on benefits? So that if people are just unlucky and lost their job they don’t have to do this? Also this would only apply to people who don’t have a job and claim, and aren’t disabled. Idk I just don’t see why this isn’t a discussion in politics they must have thought about it.
Yea.....

People on benefits get next to nothing, I don’t thing we need to police how people spend their tenner a day
1
reply
paul514
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#15
Report 1 year ago
#15
(Original post by Notoriety)
No ****.

I wasn't saying it was common; the point is you can get a lot of money on benefits if you have the right circumstances and inclinations.
The right circumstances that things are officially bad enough for you to warrant getting those amounts.
0
reply
the beer
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#16
Report 1 year ago
#16
(Original post by nulli tertius)
Naughty Children Disease; sorry ADHD.
Bit rich coming from a homeopath.
1
reply
Reality Check
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#17
Report 1 year ago
#17
(Original post by nulli tertius)
children with Naughty Children Disease; sorry ADHD.
You didn't...
0
reply
Notoriety
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#18
Report 1 year ago
#18
(Original post by paul514)
The right circumstances that things are officially bad enough for you to warrant getting those amounts.
Well, whether you get a disability benefit, i.e. DLA/PIP/AA, depends on how you fill in a form and how you tell an HCP about your difficulties. The reason people get denied their claim is because of how they respond to questions -- if you have a reasonable response, which you have put some thought in to, you can hit many of the descriptors. Just look at people who lose their DLA/PIP/AA on review when their condition has remained the same or gotten worse.
(Original post by nulli tertius)
Not that rare. Any family with a disabled parent and a disabled child will have this. There is a high incidence of depression and anxiety amongst the parents of children with Naughty Children Disease; sorry ADHD.

There are 3.7 million awards for PIP or DLA in payment split more of less equally with a further 1.4 million in receipt of Attendence Allowance. These are essentially benefits meeting the same needs for different age groups. I can't find any figures on the number of households receiving these benefits.

Psychiatric conditions are by far the most common primary disabling conditions for PIP claimants with 36% of the caseload.

The basic problem with PIP/DLA/AA remains that there is a poor correlation between receipt of these benefits and the incurring of additional costs through disability. Leaving aside problems with the assessment processes, the schemes are almost like lotteries. where if your numbers come up you recieve a substantial income boost, but if they do not, you are left very substantially out of pocket.
MH issues are also the most difficult to get the DWP to accept.

I don't know the stats, but I have met only a few clients doing the classic CAB bollox who had PIP for themselves and DLA for a child. You certainly see many adults within the same family on PIP, for example -- who are claiming CA for one another.
0
reply
paul514
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#19
Report 1 year ago
#19
(Original post by Notoriety)
MH issues are also the most difficult to get the DWP to accept.

I don't know the stats, but I have met only a few clients doing the classic CAB bollox who had PIP for themselves and DLA for a child. You certainly see many adults within the same family on PIP, for example -- who are claiming CA for one another.
They also ask your GP to fill out a form about your health too.
0
reply
Notoriety
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#20
Report 1 year ago
#20
(Original post by paul514)
They also ask your GP to fill out a form about your health too.
Who doesn't have a health condition of some sort.

It is on you to apply and it is on you to explain what difficulties you are facing because your disabilities.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Would you turn to a teacher if you were being bullied?

Yes (65)
23.21%
No (215)
76.79%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise