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

[Munky1080]

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.

Simple - stop giving dole scroungers cash. Give them vouchers or a debit card type of thing that have certain product categories (booze, gambling, etc) blacklisted. Additionally, do not give the recipients the ability to take cash out using this card. Job Done. We love a large civil service in this country, so it would create more government jobs.

Do keep in mind, I'm not talking about the elderly / infirm.

To give you an idea, I went out to dinner last night with a friend (weatherspoons because I'm poor). He's not worked in 8 years due to "depression" and "If I don't have a job I love then I ain't working". He's somehow managed to save up £9k in the bank. Not paying child support for either of his kids. Not paying Lloyds Bank back the £10k loan he took out ages ago (to be fair, he pays £1 / week). This guy was just offered a warehouse job yesterday, not far from his house, and turned it down because "I'd kill someone if I worked in a warehouse." Is that the world we've created? Where we let the moochers and leeches hold us to ransom with threats?

He also works cash in hand - even though he claims he's unable to work. It's frustrating. I don't know what the answer is, but I do know what it ISN'T, which is to continue to give cash out to people who don't have the common decency to thank us workers for providing for them due to their own laziness.

 

[Haggisman]

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.

I agree that it's far too simplistic, and I know it's not easy or straightforward to police without a huge negative impact on people who are trying to do the right thing.

It was more to point out why many people aren't happy about it, and why they feel they have a right (to some extent) to dictate how the money they are donating is spent.

After all, it is essentially their money, (which they may not really be able to afford), which is being donated for a specific purpose (to provide necessities for those in need), which isn't being used for that purpose.

I'd love to have my income tax reduced by the percentage which is used for benefits - that way I would maybe be able to afford to go on holiday every couple of years, BUT I do realise that for the greater good, that money is better spent providing for the needy.

That doesn't mean I don't resent the fact that the money I earn is given to people to buy themselves luxuries that I can't necessarily afford myself (and yes, I realise this is a minority)

 

[Haggisman]

Simple - stop giving dole scroungers cash. Give them vouchers or a debit card type of thing that have certain product categories (booze, gambling, etc) blacklisted. Additionally, do not give the recipients the ability to take cash out using this card. Job Done. We love a large civil service in this country, so it would create more government jobs.

Except that's not simple.

If Davey McDole wants to buy a crate of Stella, he'll simply find someone to sell his vouchers to (say £15 worth of vouchers for £10 cash).

Need ID to use the vouchers?

No problem, he'll just go to his mate Steve and offer to buy his £50 weekly shop for him using the vouchers if Steve gives him £40.

 

[Munky1080]

Except that's not simple.

If Davey McDole wants to buy a crate of Stella, he'll simply find someone to sell his vouchers to (say £15 worth of vouchers for £10 cash).

Need ID to use the vouchers?

No problem, he'll just go to his mate Steve and offer to buy his £50 weekly shop for him using the vouchers if Steve gives him £40.

I'm actually ok with that, in a perverse sort of way. If Davey does that, then he will not have adequate money to last him until his next top up. He can starve. If his children can't eat because of that, then they get taken away.

I know I'm being a bit sensationalist here, but the reality is that people are on JSA because they have proven that they cannot take care of themselves. Therefore, we need to mandate to them what to do to survive.

An alternative, which I actually am is favour of, is capping JSA at two years. With that being said - I think the moment someone moves onto Income Based JSA, we should 100% mandate that they go to school to learn a vocation / trade / skill. That way , after two years, they are employable and can take an entry level position and work their way up.

 

[Angilion]

[..]
I'd love to have my income tax reduced by the percentage which is used for benefits - that way I would maybe be able to afford to go on holiday every couple of years, BUT I do realise that for the greater good, that money is better spent providing for the needy.

That doesn't mean I don't resent the fact that the money I earn is given to people to buy themselves luxuries that I can't necessarily afford myself (and yes, I realise this is a minority)

Since almost all of the benefits budget goes to pensioners, people unable to work and businesses, the tax reduction you'd get even if all people under 67 who could work but didn't have a job were executed would be very small. The tax reduction you'd get from somehow preventing any of those people buying anything deemed to be a luxury would be trivial and probably outweighed by the tax increase needed to pay for the resulting increase in administration costs.

Your resentment is understandable, but misplaced. There are other far larger financial issues that increase your taxes by far more.

 

[CREATIVE!11]

"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

Lyndon B. Johnson

 

[Glaucus]

." Is that the world we've created? Where we let the moochers and leeches hold us to ransom with threats?

Very much is the world we have created. My uncle worked in total less than a year before retiring.
Majority of people seem to think that they are due a perfect job. No you are only as good as what you can get. Now get up and go get a job. Basic jobs are easy to find.

Your resentment is understandable, but misplaced. There are other far larger financial issues that increase your taxes by far more.

No, they all need to be looked at and weighed up. All these little wastes, soon add up.
I would live to know how much we waste on vehicle licensing, both administrating and enforcing. When it could be added on to petrol and simplified massively and people abroad when they come here would pay it as well.
And a dozen other similar wasteful taxes which seem designed just to employ pen pushes and cost massive amounts to run and enforce.

 

[Tefal]

Didn't they try something similar with "food stamps", which just led to a black market where people got paid a fraction of the face value of the food stamps.

As for limiting the cash they can draw out, that's going to require the people probably have a "state debit" card or something which has a chance of stagmatising the users, but also costing the state more to provide.
And probably more importantly it'll mean that people won't be able to say go down to a market and get fresh produce, or goods from smaller retailers easily (especially if they're making low value transactions).

Surely your last point would be what the cash with drawl would be for...

 

[Angilion]

[..]
An alternative, which I actually am is favour of, is capping JSA at two years. With that being said - I think the moment someone moves onto Income Based JSA, we should 100% mandate that they go to school to learn a vocation / trade / skill. That way , after two years, they are employable and can take an entry level position and work their way up.

That would have made some sense in the past, back when there were ample bottom-end jobs. The idea that everyone could work their way up is obviously ludicrous and always has been, of course. That's just an ideological fantasy. But the bottom-end jobs were there.

In the past. Not in the present and not in the future. Nowadays you're lucky and good if you can get a bottom-end job with a 25 hour contract. The last time my employer offered that, there were over 500 applicants for the one job. Competition is hard for jobs. Of course, even the people lucky enough and good enough to get a minimum wage job with a 25 hour contract will have to remain on benefits because it's impossible to survive in this country with an income of £163.75 a week.

 

[D.P.]

Simple - stop giving dole scroungers cash. Give them vouchers or a debit card type of thing that have certain product categories (booze, gambling, etc) blacklisted. Additionally, do not give the recipients the ability to take cash out using this card. Job Done. We love a large civil service in this country, so it would create more government jobs.

I've suggest the very same thing on this very same forum and was going to mention it in my post. There are several problems with that alone though.
First there is a lot of stigma attached to such food vouchers. I think a better solution would be to give every adult a credit-card that can only be used for non-VAT payable items. This allows things like children clothes, fresh food, but not microwave pizzas and fast-food. If everyone has such a cad then there is no stigma, we will have to raise taxes to help fund it.

Another issue is there are many expenses that are non-food related and harder to control. E.g. unemployed people still need internet and phone access to get a job, but how do you separate what is a necessary internet/phone package form a luxury one? People need to buy clothes, they can't look like a tramp if they are trying to get a job. That might require buying a suit or smart shoes that would otherwise be a luxury, so again, how can you differentiate.

Then there are things like you ban sky-TV packages form the benefits, alcohol, fags etc. Now what will people do for entertainment or to get their fix? Do you think they will all be happy reading a book or educating themselves at the library? i would hope so but the reality is people will end up turning to crime or misusing their resources. E.g. they can buy food and children's clothes with their benefits card, so they buy them and sell them on ebay for cash to then spend on alcohol. There will be an entire back market for trading the benefits credit cards/vouchers.

And it all requires a fair amount of administration costs.

in the end I just don't see it as a workable solution.
Instead I think money is better spent on things like reduced public transport costs for the unemployed (can't abuse that easily) and proving education opportunities, along with greater assistance getting the CV's up to spec.

 

[Munky1080]

That would have made some sense in the past, back when there were ample bottom-end jobs. The idea that everyone could work their way up is obviously ludicrous and always has been, of course. That's just an ideological fantasy. But the bottom-end jobs were there.

In the past. Not in the present and not in the future. Nowadays you're lucky and good if you can get a bottom-end job with a 25 hour contract. The last time my employer offered that, there were over 500 applicants for the one job. Competition is hard for jobs. Of course, even the people lucky enough and good enough to get a minimum wage job with a 25 hour contract will have to remain on benefits because it's impossible to survive in this country with an income of £163.75 a week.

Definitely NOT blowing my own horn here, but what you've said is impossible was exactly how I've managed to work my way up...

I moved here 10 years ago with two suitcases and no formal qualifications. I worked in a kitchen for 2 years, then a warehouse for a year. From there I managed to get an entry level office job, and two years later got a hefty promotion and a pay raise. Now I'm "management" (although I don't feel like one, but that's another post!). It is possible if you work hard and keep your head down.

Don't get me wrong, there was a lot of grief getting to where I am now; having a "career", rather than a "job". I still have no qualifications.

The problem is that people expect the state to subsidise their lifestyles, drinking, night's out, etc. A flippant party lifestyle has somehow become a human right.

I'd actually go a step further and drug test JSA claimants.

And to those that say it would cost a lot of money to enforce - does that mean that we let the pound note influence our sense of morality or ethics? If so, why bother enforcing any laws? (rhetorical statement)

 

[Tefal]

Best way to save the economy for the next 30 years shoot everyone on thier 65th birthday

 

[D.P.]

I'm actually ok with that, in a perverse sort of way. If Davey does that, then he will not have adequate money to last him until his next top up. He can starve. If his children can't eat because of that, then they get taken away.

I know I'm being a bit sensationalist here, but the reality is that people are on JSA because they have proven that they cannot take care of themselves. Therefore, we need to mandate to them what to do to survive.

An alternative, which I actually am is favour of, is capping JSA at two years. With that being said - I think the moment someone moves onto Income Based JSA, we should 100% mandate that they go to school to learn a vocation / trade / skill. That way , after two years, they are employable and can take an entry level position and work their way up.

You are completely failing to understand the massive increased costs to society when things like that happen.

Taking his children away, even when the parents are evidently not at all fit for the purpose, is a huge cost to society. It is certainly not in out best interest to re-house children as it will likely result in even worse outcomes for them.


It is sometimes sad to think this way but part of the benefits advantage is to keep people calm, out of trouble and stumbling along without too much friction.




Something I would much rather see is that benefits are paid on top of income. If someone can find a part time job paying a living wage for say 12 hours a week, then if they can add that money on top of their benefits then they clearly see the value of working and are now more productive and will have higher employment prospects in the future. There is a horrible benefits trap where it simply doesn't make sense for people to work.

 

[Angilion]

Definitely NOT blowing my own horn here, but what you've said is impossible was exactly how I've managed to work my way up...

You are now claiming to be everyone.

Did you really intend to make that claim? I think you probably didn't because that claim is insane and you don't seem to be insane.

 

[Rroff]

That would have made some sense in the past, back when there were ample bottom-end jobs. The idea that everyone could work their way up is obviously ludicrous and always has been, of course. That's just an ideological fantasy. But the bottom-end jobs were there.

In the past. Not in the present and not in the future. Nowadays you're lucky and good if you can get a bottom-end job with a 25 hour contract. The last time my employer offered that, there were over 500 applicants for the one job. Competition is hard for jobs. Of course, even the people lucky enough and good enough to get a minimum wage job with a 25 hour contract will have to remain on benefits because it's impossible to survive in this country with an income of £163.75 a week.

Indeed a lot of people don't comprehend the implications of the fact that we've shifted dramatically away from being a manufacturing led industry to a service one.

Definitely NOT blowing my own horn here, but what you've said is impossible was exactly how I've managed to work my way up...

I moved here 10 years ago with two suitcases and no formal qualifications. I worked in a kitchen for 2 years, then a warehouse for a year. From there I managed to get an entry level office job, and two years later got a hefty promotion and a pay raise. Now I'm "management" (although I don't feel like one, but that's another post!). It is possible if you work hard and keep your head down.

Don't get me wrong, there was a lot of grief getting to where I am now; having a "career", rather than a "job". I still have no qualifications.

The problem is that people expect the state to subsidise their lifestyles, drinking, night's out, etc. A flippant party lifestyle has somehow become a human right.

I'd actually go a step further and drug test JSA claimants.

And to those that say it would cost a lot of money to enforce - does that mean that we let the pound note influence our sense of morality or ethics? If so, why bother enforcing any laws? (rhetorical statement)

Thing is not everyone is the same and none the least you had motivation that a good many don't have. If your not a reasonably outgoing person naturally that kind of stuff is a LOT harder than if you have a reasonable level of self confidence (or just don't care) and have good social skills - working hard is just one part of the puzzle.


EDIT: No doubt there are a lot of time wasters and scroungers on JSA but there are some living off those kind of benefits through force of circumstance - in my old job there was a lad who was there "voluntarily" doing some course related to JSA whose self confidence was completely shattered by an incident in his life (and left with a disability that meant he lost his old job but didn't stop him being able to do other jobs) and it took him quite awhile to get back on his feet.

 

[platypus]

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?

On that note I'd much rather my money went to welfare rather than propping up the housing market with this FTB nonsense.

 

[FishFluff]

I'm actually ok with that, in a perverse sort of way. If Davey does that, then he will not have adequate money to last him until his next top up. He can starve. If his children can't eat because of that, then they get taken away.

You've not really thought this through have you? I suggest you go look up the costs of keeping children in care...

 

[NexusK]

Pretty sure they either trialled something like this here in the UK recently or had planned to.

 

[jkb]

Kill all the poor people and burn the bodies as biofuel to heat the wealthy's mansions in the winter?

Better to use them for medical experiments instead of helpless animals.

 

[elmarko]

Best way to save the economy for the next 30 years shoot everyone on thier 65th birthday