Poll: Benefit cap vote.

[Sharlaw]

If people decide to spend their money on beer and cigs rather than food, then they're the ones who will suffer for it. They won't get more just cos they ran out.

But the fact is that even people on modest incomes are finding it harder and harder to make ends meet, just look at the statistics on the number of people and families that are having to use food banks over the last couple of years.

And if that is the case? how can we expect people who are either unable to work, or for whatever amount of time are out of work to survive on such a pittance.

Or would you rather have the poor and unfortunates of this coutry starve as a solution??

The funny thing is, that most people believe a very large percentage of people on benifits are playing the system somehow dishonestly, which I doubt is the case.

And on the luxury spending topic, how many people would see internet access as a luxury?

 

[div0]

The people earning their own money are earning their own money.

The people on benefits are taking money from the state.

There's an obvious difference, if I'm not mistaken...

A system that many of them have paid into, sometimes for years.

If I lost my job and had an existing sky/mobile/broadband subscription, should I be forced to cancel, even if it cost me more money? Just because they are considered luxuries?

Has anyone said that? Nope...

Yes, some people seem to think that they can dictate what people on benefits do with their money.

Why is it ok to suggest that they don't have Sky, but not ok to insist that they shop in a particular place?

 

[dowie]

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

I'm not sure if you're being deliberately silly

goods have a value

other people have money

other people can give you money to buy your goods at a discount

you then have money to spend on other things you were previously restricted from due to your smart card

If paper money exists, which it does, then this is a very easy circumvention of the smart card system. If paper money doesn't exist then you'd have to barter/exchange goods directly (harder) or have payments coming into your bank account which could then be flagged up.

Smart cards as a means of controlling spending are less feasible at them moment as its trivial to circumvent.

 

[chriscubed]

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).

Thought you might. WW2 didn't have smart cards. Any more modern systems?

Trading meat for lager is possible of course. But it's very different to being able to spend your benefits directly on beer in terms of culture.

Cost might be prohibitive, sure. Especially as it would be government run. But the technology is already there, in use by banks.

 

[div0]

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

Unlike some people, I don't have an 'us and them' attitude. So yes, education for everyone.

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.

While 'jobs for all' is probably a nice target to aim towards, there will always be some people in need of assistance. Full-time caring for a disabled relative, for example.

People just need to stop thinking of 'benefits' as just being for lazy people, who do nothing more than pop out kids, whilst smoking and boozing in front of Sky TV all day.

It's hard to have a rational debate about a subject where people's opinions are already skewed by a handful of sensationalist tabloid headlines.

 

[Spook187]

The people earning their own money are earning their own money.

The people on benefits are taking money from the state.

There's an obvious difference, if I'm not mistaken...

But your missing the point and classing everyone the same, some on benefits it is their own money they have paid into the system.

 

[chriscubed]

I'm not sure if you're being deliberately silly

No, just getting you to give a reason.

Reasons.

Perhaps, but as I said in a previous post, you change the culture. If people break the rules, fine. Not going to suggest big brother.

Unlike some people, I don't have an 'us and them' attitude. So yes, education for everyone.

Might be hard to see from my posts, but I don't have an us and them attitude. I see a whole system and post my comments on it. Obviously having different experiences would likely change my opinion, but I'm only here to give you my own. Glad you agree on the education for everyone thing.

While 'jobs for all' is probably a nice target to aim towards, there will always be some people in need of assistance. Full-time caring for a disabled relative, for example.

Don't disagree here. I possibly am guilty of thinking everyone's talking about JSA type claimants rather than all benefits, but I'm fully aware that benefits cuts would affect more than just JSAs.

People just need to stop thinking of 'benefits' as just being for lazy people, who do nothing more than pop out kids, whilst smoking and boozing in front of Sky TV all day.

It's hard to have a rational debate about a subject where people's opinions are already skewed by a handful of sensationalist tabloid headlines.

I don't read tabloids Where is there to get a decent picture of what's going on, though?

 

[Gilly]

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

Yes it is. It is completely unreasonable.

 

[div0]

I think the link I posted about half of teachers needing to take food into their schools to feed hungry children shows, quite starkly, that people aren't capable of doing the very basics. It's shocking, and horrible to have to say, but I'd rather sound like a big evil person, rather than watch kids going hungry (and therefore learning ineffectively/being generally malnourished/etc).

But grouping all people in the same basket and dictating to them isn't the solution. Education is.

Interestingly enough, your survey also states that, of the teachers surveyed - 41% cited benefit cuts and 35% said cost-of-living pressures, as a reason for the growing number of pupils going hungry.'

 

[dowie]

Yes it is. It is completely unreasonable.

Why? You're airing an opinion on it yourself, yours just happens to be in favour of not capping benefits?

 

[chriscubed]

Yes it is. It is completely unreasonable.

Wow, unreasonable to have an opinion? Then it must be fact!

What if your opinion is they don't get enough? Are you not allowed an opinion then? Or is it only if they disagree with you?

 

[Gilly]

Why? You're airing an opinion on it yourself, yours just happens to be in favour of not capping benefits?

Capping or not capping is different to 'you must spend money on X and not on Y and Z'.

 

[Efour]

This goes way beyond jobseekers allowance and fraud of that which is a pitifully small amount in the whole cost of providing the social security.

Savings need to be made but this is one hell of a draconian ill thought out way to achieve them.

The media has twisted peoples opinion of the welfare state to a point where anyone who rightfully uses it is branded a layabout money grabbing work shy scumbag by a large proportion of ill informed brainwashed people. This forum usually really highlights it well. of course there are abusers but they really attribute for a pittance, they just make a great scapegoat.

Pensions are spiraling out of control, working tax credits cost a fortune, the women on todays daily politics summed it up quite well (bbc2 midday today) Im really mirroring her insight but i agreed strongly.

 

[dowie]

Capping or not capping is different to 'you must spend money on X and not on Y and Z'.

I don't see why its unreasonable to hold an opinion on either... benefits are something that nearly everyone has the potential to have to access at some point or another. Whether you believe they should be there for subsistence purposes or whether they should afford a certain standard of living including some luxuries is completely a matter of opinion.

 

[Freakbro]

I’m happy with a freeze. Prove that you have to get an increase or just shut up and tighten your belt just like the rest of the country. It’s about time “some” of these people faced the realities of the real world.

Hmm...seems not everyone is having to tighten their belts...

the bosses of FTSE 100 companies enjoyed an average 12% rise in their take home pay last year [2011], while their employees barely received any pay increases.

 

[Gilly]

I don't see why its unreasonable to hold an opinion on either... benefits are something that nearly everyone has the potential to have access to at some point or another. Whether you believe they should be there for subsistence purposes or whether they should afford a certain standard of living including some luxuries is completely a matter of opinion.

I suppose holding an opinion is one thing, but sharing that opinion is another.

No-one tells you how to spend your money, so you should afford that same freedom to others.

 

[dowie]

No-one tells you how to spend your money, so you should afford that same freedom to others.

Not necessarily. I don't see an issue in principle (if it were feasible to implement) with controlling the spending of benefits recipients.

 

[Gilly]

Not necessarily. I don't see an issue in principle (if it were feasible to implement) with controlling the spending of benefits recipients.

...and therein lies my disagreement with you. That is what is completely unreasonable.

 

[dowie]

...and therein lies my disagreement with you. That is what is completely unreasonable.

But you were stating before that it was completely unreasonable to hold the opinion. You're opposed to the idea, that's fine, to indicate that even holding the idea is unreasonable simply because you disagree with it is a bit ridicules.

 

[Gilly]

But you were stating before that it was completely unreasonable to hold the opinion. You're opposed to the idea, that's fine, to indicate that even holding the idea is unreasonable simply because you disagree with it is a bit ridicules.

It was more the thought that you'd be trying to dictate to those people in receipt of benefits that I didn't like, not the fact that you had an opinion at all.

You can have any opinion you want as long as you keep them to yourself.