Ah I see, thanks
. It's quite wrong that "we" should be funding a loan imo.
Hmmm.
We are and we aren't.
We are funding people to do all sorts of stuff with benefits no doubt, from illegitimate claims to legitmate claims that go on things like drugs and alcohol etc. The rest of the people will genuinely use it as intended.
You either do, or do not, accept that subsistance needs to be paid for those out of unemployment from the state.
If you do and payment is made, your commitment as a society or state is over. You are then down to the claiments personal priorities, which isn't a case for direct involvement [citation - level/can of worms]
What they in effect do with the money is trivial, society has met the basic requirements.
Should they want to secure a loan against future payments, and do so legally, to help themself in whatever situation is of no real concern to myself.
If you don't think the state should provide aid, then well I can see where this thinking comes from.
I don't necessarily think that state aid should be only money, but the practicalities of changing it to something like a voucher system or soup kitchen scheme also has its own benefits and pitfalls.
Not least upon cost.
This is all a lot of scope and focus on a very small minority in this country though, it's a shame that the tax dodgers who arguably cost the UK far more are let off in such an easy manner.
Although, I'll stop before my socialist green shoots start to sprout up in yet another thread..
