Poll: Benefit cap vote.

[div0]

Well if you are suggesting that people need alcohol to attain a basic level of living we have bigger problems then the benefit cap.

Who said anything about 'need'.

In this country people get to 'choose'. Are you suggesting that everyone on benefits should be dictated to?

I don't think people should be spending money on services such as Sky, or buying alcohol/cigarettes, when on benefits. Normal TV's okay, imo, given the cost of licence is pretty low... and that's hardly a massive restriction, given freeview provides a very good range of options.

Alcohol/tobacco/Sky are at the far end of the (ordinary) luxury scale, in the sense they're completely and utterly unnecessary. Someone on benefits shouldn't be spending surplus cash on those things. If they can afford to, they're either getting too much money, or not spending the money where they should (on their kids, on decent food, etc).

Or maybe they a prioritising in a different way? Maybe where you consider freeview/internet/phone to be acceptable, maybe they choose to save money there, to pay for something like Sky. Maybe they buy second hand clothes, to save money, where you'd not.

Yes I find it strange to read stories of people on benefits with Sky TV and a new car - while I have a good job and no Sky and currently drive a 10 year old car. But you have to remember that most of the stories you read are exceptions, with people who abused the system, sometimes to a huge extent. Don't let the Daily Mail fool you into thinking that life on benefits is an easy option for anyone who is actually used to living a comfortable life.

 

[grimm]

I think that benefit levels should be no higher than the minimum wage anyway to encourage people to get back to work and stop claiming benefits.

They certainly should not be increasing more than National Average Earnings.

 

[chriscubed]

^^^ this tbh...

If we didn't still have paper money then perhaps a smart card system would be viable... it would be much easier to monitor and control spending then as you'd have a better idea of what claimants were (in general) spending benefits on and whether the level of benefits being paid out were sufficient to meet their needs.

Why couldn't benefits simply be put on a smart card system, so they could only be spent on essentials? Doesn't need to be the whole paper money system converted.

 

[dowie]

They can spend it on whatever they want, the government gives them a set amount, if they spend it all on fags, sky and beer who are you to tell them not to.

'who are you to tell them not to'

erm we're the people funding it... its money we've paid in tax/NI that they're spending... if there are savings that can be made in any areas of government spending then I'd quite like them to be made...

Its not just benefits claimants - On the other side of the coin I think we need to beef up HMRC... currently senior HMRC staff have an unhealthy incentive to be friendly to big corporates and large accountancy firms as they might well be their next employer. I think we could increase revenue by increasing the budget of HMRC... setting targets, giving more performance related pay, actively recruiting tax specialists from the private sector on competitive wages to catch out people using schemes they might have been involved in/are aware of.

 

[Gilly]

Well if you are suggesting that people need alcohol to attain a basic level of living we have bigger problems then the benefit cap.

I think to have a decent standard of living some modest amount of money needs to be available to spend on non-essentials, whatever that may be.

I don't think people should be spending money on services such as Sky, or buying alcohol/cigarettes, when on benefits. Normal TV's okay, imo, given the cost of licence is pretty low... and that's hardly a massive restriction, given freeview provides a very good range of options.

Alcohol/tobacco/Sky are at the far end of the (ordinary) luxury scale, in the sense they're completely and utterly unnecessary. Someone on benefits shouldn't be spending surplus cash on those things. If they can afford to, they're either getting too much money, or not spending the money where they should (on their kids, on decent food, etc).

I disagree with you, but I can see that I am in the minority here that holds the viewpoint that everyone should be able to have some level of disposable income.

Not vast amounts of cash to be rolling in it, just enough to be able to live a life. If everyone was means tested as I suggested earlier then it would be simple to see who needed payments and who did not.

Agreed. Some people in this thread seem to want to demonise their own viewpoint though. Claiming that benefits is pocket money from the government to spend on whatever they wish.

You have misunderstood everything that has disagreed with your view if that is what you have taken from it (though you are right in one aspect, the money is for the recipients to spend, howsoever they see fit).

 

[dowie]

Why couldn't benefits simply be put on a smart card system, so they could only be spent on essentials? Doesn't need to be the whole paper money system converted.

Well with the presence of paper money its much easier to circumvent a smart card system.

 

[Gilly]

'who are you to tell them not to'

erm we're the people funding it... its money we've paid in tax/NI that they're spending...

Why are you defining it as 'us' and 'them'? Do you hold the belief that welfare recipients have never paid tax/NI?

 

[chriscubed]

You have misunderstood everything that has disagreed with your view if that is what you have taken from it (though you are right in one aspect, the money is for the recipients to spend, howsoever they see fit).

It might be the case that it can be spent however they see fit, but that doesn't affect my opinion of how it should be used.

 

[elmarko]

Why couldn't benefits simply be put on a smart card system, so they could only be spent on essentials? Doesn't need to be the whole paper money system converted.

Systems like that don't work.

It creates a black market in which people with money take advantage of the poor by buying food for a reduced rate (effectively reducing the income of the poor).

The kind of person who spends everything on beer & fags isn't going to simply switch to buying low-fat yoghurt because his new card only works in Tesco, behaviour can't be changed with such a simplistic approach.

Ironically in the long term you simply push these families further into poverty & decrease the chances of the children growing up with the things they need & create another generation of the people which are so commonly hated.

We know what are the contributing factors which create the kind of person who lives on benefits doing nothing of economic value - believe it or not, childhood poverty is one of those factors.

In essence what's being suggested is to solve the attitudes which make people dependent on state welfare - we need to cut state provisions further & create more poverty which created the very problem they were trying to solve in the first place.

It's actually so stupid it's funny, oddly otherwise intelligent people buy into this flawed ideology.

 

[dowie]

It's lamentable, but it's in the bracket of being a necessary evil. Just give everyone their benefits on a card which they can spend in x, y and z places. If everyone on benefits has a card which they can take to their supermarket of choice, and buy groceries/household necessities, it could work. The usual argument against is that it stigmatises, but if everyone's using the cards that's hardly an issue (everyone from those absolutely surviving on benefits, to those who earn a good wage but still get child benefit... it wouldn't be the case that a minority would have them).

could be a good way of saving money... make sure the amount has to be spent each week or it expires... there are enough prissy middle class people who'd simply not use the cards for child benefit out of embarrassment that someone might think they were doleys that you'd probably save more money than implementing a child benefit cap.

 

[chriscubed]

Well with the presence of paper money its much easier to circumvent a smart card system.

How?

 

[Third Opinion]

This is a disgrace as well. Instead the tax payer pays a fortune to put homeless families in private accomodation.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ies-impact-immigration.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

 

[chriscubed]

Systems like that don't work.

It creates a black market in which people with money take advantage of the poor by buying food for a reduced rate (effectively reducing the income of the poor).

The kind of person who spends everything on beer & fags isn't going to simply switch to buying low-fat yoghurt because his new card only works in Tesco, behaviour can't be changed with such a simplistic approach.

Genuine question, do you have any examples of systems like that which haven't worked? I'd like to read more about it.

Obviously there is some potential to create a black market, but if the cards are only usable by the claimant, are you suggesting that people with money will get the poor to do their weekly shop for them? Or that they'll go shopping together so that the claimant can pay for the shop?

 

[div0]

It's none of your business, what if someone goes to a cheap supermarket and stocks up on no frills food and spends the rest on luxuries.

If you ever lose your job and I hope not, please come here and make a post about it and we will tell you what you can and can't spend your money on, I'm pretty sure you would tell us to **** off.

Exactly.

What next? Big Brother watching out in case someone on benefits gets a taxi, instead of the bus?

Yes, we'd al like to think that every parent is out there doing the best for their kids and feeding them healthy food and spending time bringing them up properly.

Sadly there are some people who'd rather feed them a burger and chips every night, while they sit in front of Sky TV. We don't dictate to these people, if they've got a job, so why would we do it for some people on benefits?

It also completely ignores that fact that there are 'good' parents on benefits, who make the 'right' choices. If we dictate to all people on benefits, then we'd be dictating to all of these people too. How would you like to be told that you must shop in Asda, because your local butcher was a 'luxury'?

 

[dowie]

How?

because it acts as a form of exchange that isn't tracable

 

[div0]

It'd be great if people could actually budget like that, but they can't. There's a big worry about benefits moving to a monthly system, because people are literally unable to budget like that. They can't do it. Loads of people are going to blow their money early in the money, then be screwed by the end of it!

I also think that fags/booze/Sky are ultra luxuries, in the normal sense. Obviously they're not diamonds and yachts, but for normal people they're the luxuries. Who on Earth needs Sky, above freeview?! Freeview's awesome.

But people can, and do! Some don't, but others do.

Who are you (or anyone else) to decide who's capable of budgeting properly?

I agree with you about fags/booze/sky - in that I'd choose to lose those things before anything else. but it's just that, my choice! I wouldn't want someone else telling me how to live my life.

The solution to the problem is education, not a mini-dictatorship!

 

[chriscubed]

because it acts as a form of exchange that isn't tracable

It's a smart card, how are you exchanging paper money with a smart card?

 

[chriscubed]

But people can, and do! Some don't, but others do.

Who are you (or anyone else) to decide who's capable of budgeting properly?

I agree with you about fags/booze/sky - in that I'd choose to lose those things before anything else. but it's just that, my choice! I wouldn't want someone else telling me how to live my life.

The solution to the problem is education, not a mini-dictatorship!

Education would be useful for everyone, not just those on benefits.

IMO the solution is creating a decent economy with enough jobs to go around. Not something that this or recent governments have done that well with.

 

[elmarko]

Genuine question, do you have any examples of systems like that which haven't worked? I'd like to read more about it.

Obviously there is some potential to create a black market, but if the cards are only usable by the claimant, are you suggesting that people with money will get the poor to do their weekly shop for them? Or that they'll go shopping together so that the claimant can pay for the shop?

For one, in World War II in the UK when rationed & told what they could or could not use created a black-market, in which alcoholics & other poor people with low self control were exploited.

I've seen homeless people trade food for lager, known of people who got food stamps trade in meat for beer in pubs (obviously at a reduced rate).

Not to mention the enormous cost of maintaining the system would vastly outweigh the potential financial benefits (as believe it or not, most people on benefits don't spend it all on beer & cigarettes).

IMO the solution is creating a decent economy with enough jobs to go around. Not something that this or recent governments have done that well with.

This x1000.

Until we have a jobs surplus it's actually retarded to label all the out of work as "lazy" - even those on long term JSA.

 

[dowie]

Why are you defining it as 'us' and 'them'? Do you hold the belief that welfare recipients have never paid tax/NI?

everyone pays tax, even if its just in the form of VAT

it was in answer the the statement 'who are you to tell them not to'

if you're drawing money, in the form of out of work benefits, that everyone has contributed towards then its not unreasonable for anyone to have an opinion on the level of money being given out and/or whether it should be spent in a certain way