Kansas legislates what welfare claimants can spend their money on..

So if one day you found yourself out of work for 6 months, for what ever reasons and you had to go through all this you would be completely happy about all aspects of it?

What Rroff said. There is never a sensible approach.
 
Whilst i would like to know the money that long term unemployed are getting is being spent on what they actually need rather than 20 Lambert and Butler and Maccy D's any scheme to try and enforce the spending on essentials will cost a fortune, be totally unenforceable, create a black market and will no doubt effect some genuine claimants negatively.

I do however feel if the working man and woman is paying for someone to sit on their ass for 2 years sponging that there should be something in place to make them earn their benefit so we get some value for money rather than none.
 
Easy fix. Pay bennies via Dole Scum Vouchers that are only redeemable in Government stores and execute anyone caught trading DSVs for cash or non-Government supplied groceries.
 
To be fair, it would cost a lot to administer over here and there would be significant resistance.
Ultimately, though, we aren't talking about "the government's" money that's being given away. Its OUR money, and the government has (or should have) a responsibility to ensure it is being spent as intended. Labour love spending money, so this should be right up their alley. Imagine all the civil service jobs that this would create!
The only downside is that it would create a sense of shame amongst claimants. Perhaps you could be exempt from this if you're on contribution based JSA.
Long term benefits claimants have proven that they're unable to look after themselve, so we should absolutely mandate what they spend money on.
Additionally, we need to scrap JSA for those that have been on it for two years.
 
Efour said:
So if one day you found yourself out of work for 6 months, for what ever reasons and you had to go through all this you would be completely happy about all aspects of it?
Click to expand...

Considering that many people working who receive no benefits have to make sacrifices, and are unable to spend their wages on:

"body piercings, massages, spas, tobacco, nail salons, lingerie, arcades, cruise ships or visits to psychics.
[...]
theme parks, dog or horse racing tracks, a "sexually oriented business or any retail establishment which provides adult-oriented entertainment in which performers disrobe or perform in an unclothed state for entertainment, or in any business or retail establishment where minors under age 18 are not permitted."​

It seems pretty fair.

I don't spend any of my money on any of those things anyway, as I have bills and tax to pay, so it wouldn't really affect me, and If I lost my job and had to live on ~£70/week, I know the last thing I would be doing is using that money to book a trip to Alton Towers with a couple of strippers and a crate of beer, as I'd be too busy... I don't know... trying to find another job?
 
Last edited:
There are too many sides to this. You have people who genuinely should be on welfare, those born with disabilities or who become too ill to genuinely work should receive IMHO, an effective yearly wage and be allowed to spend it on what they want, also getting an effective pension contribution(though maybe smaller). People who actually can't work shouldn't be punished, we should be in a society which the rich and able pay for the weak and infirm.

But people who choose not to work, or get fired from jobs constantly who end up on benefits shouldn't get as much in welfare and I'm not sure I'd disagree with limiting what and how they can spend the money they get.

However this isn't being done for those reasons, it's not to encourage people back to work, it's to balance a budget in which the rich aren't paying their fair share. It's about rich people paying off politicians and power to keep every last penny they can make. AS the images above, trickle down economy should be how it works, but absolutely isn't.

Kansas is doing everything they are doing for completely the wrong reasons, but that doesn't mean the idea itself doesn't have merit as long as the reasons and circumstances were different.

If the rich were paying a massive amount of tax, and people who should be on welfare are getting their fair share, then encouraging people who CAN get off welfare to do so isn't a bad thing. However if rich people were paying their taxes, and education system had more money in it, and the health care system, and public works/infrastructure had money, then there would be many more jobs with better pay and welfare payouts to those out of work without genuine reason would be pretty low anyway. But if you can save a little there and put that saved money into even more education/healthcare, why not.

With heavy taxation you end up spending loads on public works which creates jobs, improves infrastructure and that creates even more jobs, which reduces welfare payments. When you allow the rich to keep their money they just add it to a bank account. Going from 60 to 80million really doesn't fundamentally change your life, nor 600 to 800million, or 6 to 8 billions. One guy getting a bit richer at that level will live in the same house, have the same number of staff, basically do everything they same but have more money in their bank account. They are hoarding money rather than putting it back in the economy.

But people keep voting in corrupt politicians who vote for these changes that screw the people voting for them. No one learns, no one educates themselves, no one organises and nothing changes.
 
If the person receiving welfare is spending money on whatever then let them. If they do not have money to eat at the end of the week as they have been in a strip bar then that's down to them.

I do not have a problem with this if the person has children and they are going to school dirty/hungry/dressed in rags while mum always has a pack of fags in her pocket or she is bigger than a house because she eats KFC from the bucket daily those people deserve to have restrictions put in place to ensure that the children are not living in poverty because of the greediness and ability of their parents to manage money.
 
Ah ocuk and the old benefit scum merry go round. Lazy, workshy, lieing cheating filth ;)

By the same token I have no idea why my tax money is going to be used to help people get a house. Some people need to just accept they can't afford to own their own property, work harder or move to a cheaper area and commute like the rest of us. Why are they deserving of a handout because they have failed? ;)
 
The thing is, back home, we value people that create wealth. Perhaps unfairly, but that is the culture. That is why we have lower taxes for "wealthier" people compared to a lot of places in the world. It encourages others to create wealth of their own and demonstrates socioeconomic mobility.
My problem with the welfare state in general is that the money given away to these folks (and I'm not talking about the infirm) is that the money given to them is OURS. Doesn't it seem unfair that we, who have earned this money, have it taken from us so that someone who has no positive affect on the world can go down to the bookies.
Benefits are for NEEDS, not WANTS.

I suppose ultimately it comes down to whether we want to government to take care of us. Personally, I don't believe its their job - it's our job to look after us. This is best achieved by letting people keep their salary so they can spend it as they see fit.
 
dannyjo22 said:
By the same token I have no idea why my tax money is going to be used to help people get a house. Some people need to just accept they can't afford to own their own property, work harder or move to a cheaper area and commute like the rest of us. Why are they deserving of a handout because they have failed? ;)
Click to expand...

Completely agree ;p I looked around at buying where I am, and saw that everything was far more than I could afford. Solution? Not buying for now and will consider buying when I can afford to/in an area I can afford.
 
Sudden said:
Completely agree ;p I looked around at buying where I am, and saw that everything was far more than I could afford. Solution? Not buying for now and will consider buying when I can afford to/in an area I can afford.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. Somehow we've fallen into the trap of demanding the government support us. The reality is that we are not all economically equal, and some people can afford "better" lives than others...
 
Munky1080 said:
Couldn't agree more. Somehow we've fallen into the trap of demanding the government support us. The reality is that we are not all economically equal, and some people can afford "better" lives than others...
Click to expand...

Exactly, I don't see why I should support people saving for a house. For me the sense of entitlement these people seem to have is no different. I would like a nice 4 bed bungalow on a good plot of land in cambridge. How about you all chip in for that?

I'm all for us all chipping in to help first time buyers buy a percentage of a home, a percentage that stays the same when they sell it for profit that we all get back but giving free money, no thanks.
 
A few simple questions.

1. What does it intend to achieve?.
2. How will it measure it's success?.
3. Based on the above, does it fit the evidence as being a plan likely to work?.
4. What are the expected repercussions?
5. Do the above repercussions end up costing more than the money saved?.
6. Does in the increase in crime negate the perceived public gain?.

Every single political change should look at the above before being considered, let alone passed into law.
 
Munky1080 said:
The thing is, back home, we value people that create wealth. Perhaps unfairly, but that is the culture. That is why we have lower taxes for "wealthier" people compared to a lot of places in the world. It encourages others to create wealth of their own and demonstrates socioeconomic mobility.
My problem with the welfare state in general is that the money given away to these folks (and I'm not talking about the infirm) is that the money given to them is OURS. Doesn't it seem unfair that we, who have earned this money, have it taken from us so that someone who has no positive affect on the world can go down to the bookies.
Benefits are for NEEDS, not WANTS.

I suppose ultimately it comes down to whether we want to government to take care of us. Personally, I don't believe its their job - it's our job to look after us. This is best achieved by letting people keep their salary so they can spend it as they see fit.
Click to expand...

What about the billions given to Large corporations each year in subsidies, tax-breaks and in the case of the banks bail outs? Is that not "our" money too?
 
estebanrey said:
What about the billions given to Large corporations each year in subsidies, tax-breaks and in the case of the banks bail outs? Is that not "our" money too?
Click to expand...

They employ people though, subsidise industry, creates more jobs, less people on welfare.

Fully support this, why should the state pay for 'treats' for those unemployed, people on minimum wage can't afford luxuries so why should the unemployed?
 
ZXSpectrum said:
If the person receiving welfare is spending money on whatever then let them. If they do not have money to eat at the end of the week as they have been in a strip bar then that's down to them.

I do not have a problem with this if the person has children and they are going to school dirty/hungry/dressed in rags while mum always has a pack of fags in her pocket or she is bigger than a house because she eats KFC from the bucket daily those people deserve to have restrictions put in place to ensure that the children are not living in poverty because of the greediness and ability of their parents to manage money.
Click to expand...

Well, lets look at this on a more personal level shall we?

Your best mate comes up to you, distraught, saying he's just lost his job, and can't afford to feed his kids this month, please could he have £200?

You can't really afford that £200, as you're on a bit of a tight budget yourself, but you work out that if you scrimp a bit on your own food shop this month, and don't buy those new clothes you need until next month, you can just afford it, and after all, you don't want his kids to go hungry as it's not fair on them, so you give him the money.

A week later, you see him bragging on Facebook about his new £180 graphics card, meanwhile, your kids are coming home asking why the guy's son looks like he hasn't eaten for a week...

The next month he comes to you asking for another £200 to feed his kids... would you give him the money? Or would you offer to buy the food for him? (Or would you just tell him to do one...)

Yes, this is an extremely simplistic way of looking at it, but ultimately it's a very similar situation
 
Well I would obviously adopt the boxing stance and put my fist under his chin till he started to cry. ;)

No in all seriousness if that situation occurred I would tell him to get his act together and send the graphics card back and get my money back.. Then contact social services. If people are using money they receive, from however means, to buy non essentials with the result being that a child is starving, then regardless of how much a friend he is, I would be getting the authorities look into it.
 
Haggisman said:
Well, lets look at this on a more personal level shall we?

Your best mate comes up to you, distraught, saying he's just lost his job, and can't afford to feed his kids this month, please could he have £200?

You can't really afford that £200, as you're on a bit of a tight budget yourself, but you work out that if you scrimp a bit on your own food shop this month, and don't buy those new clothes you need until next month, you can just afford it, and after all, you don't want his kids to go hungry as it's not fair on them, so you give him the money.

A week later, you see him bragging on Facebook about his new £180 graphics card, meanwhile, your kids are coming home asking why the guy's son looks like he hasn't eaten for a week...

The next month he comes to you asking for another £200 to feed his kids... would you give him the money? Or would you offer to buy the food for him? (Or would you just tell him to do one...)

Yes, this is an extremely simplistic way of looking at it, but ultimately it's a very similar situation
Click to expand...


The problem is that is far too simplistic.
To be clear, no one at all likes it when benefits are spent on unnecessary luxuries but there isn't an easy way to mitigate that which doesn't have many negative effects.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom