Benefit changes yay or nay?

[BobF64]

If people can't make sensible choices for themselves, the state must do it for them i.e only benefits for up to 2 kids. If you are poor you should be sensible to do the math that you can't afford more children. You see in the old days people used to have 5 or more children because of benefits and more money rather than because they wanted kids, it's a joke really.

This is something that often comes up, the difference between working and benefits families is that those that work are required to make choices, those on benefits seem to manage to avoid it.

Just seems to come down to a lack of acceptance of responsibility, that being on benefits you have more "freedom" to just keep doing things because you just get given more money.

Simple solutions should involve controlling what the benefits money can be spent on, requiring that its spend on kids, stopping it being spent on luxury items, including alcohol and tobacco.

If you want to enjoy everything that life and society offers, you need to put in the effort to contribute properly.

[Terbinator]

Simple solutions should involve controlling what the benefits money can be spent on, requiring that its spend on kids, stopping it being spent on luxury items, including alcohol and tobacco.

I don't agree with controlling what it is spent on. That isn't going to teach skills in management of money, priorities, etc. Maybe items essential for children should be subsidised/discounted in some way (like they are now to an extent, with VAT free kids clothes and certain foods) to encourage the benefits are spent on the necessities first.

As someone firmly in the Mill camp, though, saying what people can and can't have is wrong, more so when its 'luxuries' like alcohol and tobacco which are so engrained in our society its hardly a luxury. Most of the people who smoke probably "learnt" at school, and now their addiction is being punished because anti-smoking measure weren't enforced enough, really, either by the state or their parents.

By all means, tax it as high as possible so that if the person in question saves they can buy some cigs as a luxury in a few weeks. Saying they can't have it as a fundamental rule whilst the majority of the country plod on with them is ridiculous.

[melon]

I don't agree with controlling what it is spent on. That isn't going to teach skills in management of money, priorities, etc. Maybe items essential for children should be subsidised/discounted in some way (like they are now to an extent, with VAT free kids clothes and certain foods) to encourage the benefits are spent on the necessities first.

As someone firmly in the Mill camp, though, saying what people can and can't have is wrong, more so when its 'luxuries' like alcohol and tobacco which are so engrained in our society its hardly a luxury. Most of the people who smoke probably "learnt" at school, and now their addiction is being punished because anti-smoking measure weren't enforced enough, really, either by the state or their parents.

By all means, tax it as high as possible so that if the person in question saves they can buy some cigs as a luxury in a few weeks. Saying they can't have it as a fundamental rule whilst the majority of the country plod on with them is ridiculous.

Single person should have choice as its just himself - but not families ( including absent fathers ) who have responsibilities to others - kids should be priority .

m

[mmh]

By all means, tax it as high as possible so that if the person in question saves they can buy some cigs as a luxury in a few weeks. Saying they can't have it as a fundamental rule whilst the majority of the country plod on with them is ridiculous.

I'm sorry, I can't get behind that. Saying that they can only spend the money WE are giving them, as working tax-contributing members of society, is EXACTLY what we should be doing. As has been said previously, Alcohol, Cigarettes, SKY TV, a new car are all Luxery Items, and those of us with jobs often struggle to buy these things, and keep a roof over our heads. So whilst we're slaving away giving nearly 40% of what we earn directly to the tax man, these people who have never given a penny into the system in their lives (and I know of a few of them personally) get to go and have items we have to save to afford from working. Its not a fair system, its broken. So why is it we should pay for these people who do not work to have nice things? That's not poverty, its a sense of entitlement, one which should be squashed immediately.

If you want something in this life you have to work for it. Why is it that in the UK this statement does not ring true yet it does for the entire population of the planet elsewhere?

I also agree with a 2 kids maximum cut-off on benefits.

No more "I'm getting the council to build me a custom house for my 8 kids from different fathers" that I read the other week which made me sick. No, vile creature, you want the kids, YOU pay for them, don't have the money, exercise some self restraint, or maybe use some contraception, its widely available enough. Stop draining the society we live in and taking money from the systems that could help us all.

[melon]

I'm sorry, I can't get behind that. Saying that they can only spend the money WE are giving them, as working tax-contributing members of society, is EXACTLY what we should be doing. As has been said previously, Alcohol, Cigarettes, SKY TV, a new car are all Luxery Items, and those of us with jobs often struggle to buy these things, and keep a roof over our heads. So whilst we're slaving away giving nearly 40% of what we earn directly to the tax man, these people who have never given a penny into the system in their lives (and I know of a few of them personally) get to go and have items we have to save to afford from working. Its not a fair system, its broken. So why is it we should pay for these people who do not work to have nice things? That's not poverty, its a sense of entitlement, one which should be squashed immediately.

If you want something in this life you have to work for it. Why is it that in the UK this statement does not ring true yet it does for the entire population of the planet elsewhere?
.

Or you sacrifice your food for those extras ( but only if your alone ) families on the dole should not have that luxury - in other words you cant get the drugs while using kids as your mugs.

m

[TheAnimus]

I don't agree with controlling what it is spent on. That isn't going to teach skills in management of money, priorities, etc. Maybe items essential for children should be subsidised/discounted in some way (like they are now to an extent, with VAT free kids clothes and certain foods) to encourage the benefits are spent on the necessities first.

As someone firmly in the Mill camp, though, saying what people can and can't have is wrong, more so when its 'luxuries' like alcohol and tobacco which are so engrained in our society its hardly a luxury. Most of the people who smoke probably "learnt" at school, and now their addiction is being punished because anti-smoking measure weren't enforced enough, really, either by the state or their parents.

By all means, tax it as high as possible so that if the person in question saves they can buy some cigs as a luxury in a few weeks. Saying they can't have it as a fundamental rule whilst the majority of the country plod on with them is ridiculous.

It really doesn't work like that thou. We have some terribly unfair ideas, pre-pay meters for example offer terrible value against regular bills, thou apparently this is changing/changed now.

But on the whole a large number of people on the dole have a lot of money for things most people don't. If I don't smoke, don't have sky, why should my income be reduced to pay for someone else to have them. I don't consider them a necesisty, I consider them things I can't afford.

Half the time I worry that we are giving money to a lot of people who simply don't know how to manage their lives. This by no way extends to all, but to quite a sizable number based on my first hand experiance in the Thames Vally area.

These people need life guidance more than they need £5 a week. The problem is the cost of giving them such things is far more expensive than just throwing them an extra £5 a week.

[Terbinator]

I'm sorry, I can't get behind that. Saying that they can only spend the money WE are giving them, as working tax-contributing members of society, is EXACTLY what we should be doing. As has been said previously, Alcohol, Cigarettes, SKY TV, a new car are all Luxery Items, and those of us with jobs often struggle to buy these things, and keep a roof over our heads.

So how do we decide where this money should be spent? A certain shop chain, brand of food etc?

Single person should have choice as its just himself - but not families ( including absent fathers ) who have responsibilities to others - kids should be priority .

m

I agree, but taking the above is why i suggest ti should be encouraged rather than enforced. Its well and good saying it should be limited to food stamps or whatever, but it means having to get the providers (shops) onboard too.

It really doesn't work like that thou. We have some terribly unfair ideas, pre-pay meters for example offer terrible value against regular bills, thou apparently this is changing/changed now.

But on the whole a large number of people on the dole have a lot of money for things most people don't. If I don't smoke, don't have sky, why should my income be reduced to pay for someone else to have them. I don't consider them a necesisty, I consider them things I can't afford.

Half the time I worry that we are giving money to a lot of people who simply don't know how to manage their lives. This by no way extends to all, but to quite a sizable number based on my first hand experiance in the Thames Vally area.

These people need life guidance more than they need £5 a week. The problem is the cost of giving them such things is far more expensive than just throwing them an extra £5 a week.

Absolutely, which is why i said the whole management side of people who are severe claimers should perhaps be encouraged rather than just a case of 'here are some vouchers'.

But i don't know, perhaps my experience of the dole is different. We never had the internet/VM before my mum managed to get back into employment. The only people i know who did have Sky, nice cars and other luxuries were those who are claimers and dealers, or worked and claimed.

[csgohan4]

Another example of why people cannot be trusted and need things doing for them. I am absolutely for food stamps and vouchers for which allow users to spend the money for what they were originaly intended for.. basic needs

[kalniel]

But why vastly restrict the freedoms of a majority due to the actions of a small minority?

[TheAnimus]

Another example of why people cannot be trusted and need things doing for them. I am absolutely for food stamps and vouchers for which allow users to spend the money for what they were originaly intended for.. basic needs

"By them paying the money directly to me it created temptation to use it for other things which has resulted in me being in arrears and possibly being evicted. "

How do you treat someone like an adult, when they don't behave like one. But then again I consider it immoral to spend money which isn't yours, or on a purpose other than it was intended.

[csgohan4]

But why vastly restrict the freedoms of a majority due to the actions of a small minority?

Well what is the problem with using benefits for what they were intended for? why should they be able to use it for gambling, cigarettes and Sky TV. Anyone on benefits shouldn't be using it for them anyways restricted or not, how would you like it when your working, contributing and not having these luxuries and paying for other people to have them???

[pipTheGeek]

But having it enforced and having no say in what our 'Donations' from Tax form in providing help is completely different dont you think? I would rather give money to a homeless charity to provide hot meals to them than give them money directly for fear of use for the wrong reasons e.g drugs e.t.c, or maybe give them food stamps would be much more pertinent

In theory we have a say in how tax is spent by voting. I realise it isn't much of a say but it's the best we've come up with at the moment.

Much as I love the idea of "...should be case by case. Those out of work by choice should be punished more than those who are not able to find a job,..." I think rules are probably fairer overall. If things are being done on a case by case basis then there would be some person making a judgement call on how much help you deserve and different people will decide different things, meaning that there will be endless appeals and re-assessments.

As for food stamps etc, it appears the government is going in the opposite direction. All benefits are going to be combined into one single monthly payment. Hopefully, if they do it right it will be an end to the "better off out of work" situation. Sadly it will probably mean that some parents decide to spend the rent money on beer, fags etc and we end up with more homeless families.

[TeePee]

Bring back the workhouse.

Well, sort of.

If an able-bodied adult wants a handout from the taxpayer, they should be required to work for it. Simple menial work, like 18 hours a week picking up rubbish at the side of the road, or similar community service. This should not be work that benefits a private company, but society in general. It provides them with a reference, they show a willingness to work to potential employers, and so few hours shouldn't distract someone from job hunting. In return, they get enough money to survive without cable and cigarettes. The taxpayer then gets at least some benefit from the money they are forced to pay. We should provide the minimum for survival with every equal oppourtunity for self-betterment.

There are enough soup kitchens and food banks to ensure that no child should go hungry for any reason except parental negligence.

[MaddAussie]

The Australian government has started giving out a welfare credit card that can only be used for certain purchases, its currently a voluntary scheme. Sounds like a good idea to me.

[BobF64]

The Australian government has started giving out a welfare credit card that can only be used for certain purchases, its currently a voluntary scheme. Sounds like a good idea to me.

Yea, I read about that a while back, and I've always thought it was a good idea, the usual resistance to it is that it "stigmatises and embarrasses" those using the cards.

I'm almost certain that were the UK to try that, it would be about 5minutes until someone started shouting about how it breached their human rights.

[csgohan4]

Yea, I read about that a while back, and I've always thought it was a good idea, the usual resistance to it is that it "stigmatises and embarrasses" those using the cards.

I'm almost certain that were the UK to try that, it would be about 5minutes until someone started shouting about how it breached their human rights.

Well if they didn't use them for their holiday to Barbados or theor plasma TV then we wouldn't need to go down that route would we?? Sometimes people don't do things that are good for them and need it doing for them as they are obviously not responsbible enough