+ Post New Thread
Page 10 of 14 FirstFirst ... 67891011121314 LastLast
Results 136 to 150 of 197
General Chat Thread, The Big Benefits Row in General; what is required of most benefit louts is a kick up the arse. It helped me. I'd give benefits for ...
  1. #136

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    South West
    Posts
    1,826
    Thank Post
    217
    Thanked 268 Times in 217 Posts
    Rep Power
    68
    what is required of most benefit louts is a kick up the arse. It helped me.

    I'd give benefits for 6 months using food stamps not cash after that it's to the "Workhouse".

  2. Thanks to chazzy2501 from:

    mthomas08 (5th February 2014)

  3. #137


    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,236
    Thank Post
    151
    Thanked 243 Times in 168 Posts
    Rep Power
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by LosOjos View Post
    <SNIP>

    In principal I agree but the reality is families are being billed for bedrooms "they don't need" (there's another argument there I'll skip) and at the same time being told there's nowhere else for them to go. They're willing but unable yet they get taxed anyway. It's a disgrace.
    I've said before on here somewhere that the only way out of our current housing crisis is to reinstate the old Council Housing system that Margaret Thatcher dismantled in the 80's. It worked. Flawed, like everything else, but it worked. There was no need to dismantle it other than blatant electioneering and vote-garnering.

    That's why people with 'more bedrooms than they need' don't have anywhere to go. But this, too, is probably a topic for another time, another thread.

  4. #138

    tmcd35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    5,878
    Thank Post
    879
    Thanked 958 Times in 790 Posts
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    339
    Quote Originally Posted by Garacesh View Post
    Biometrics would certainly be over-stepping I'd say, however I don't think photographic ID would, as it really doesn't cost that much to make.
    That's interesting given the last Labour Government's success in rolling out a national ID card...

    Quote Originally Posted by Garacesh View Post
    but so far as I see it, benefits shouldn't be 'giving them money', rather, 'giving them access to the essential things money would buy them'. Nobody cares about money - money on its own is just useless paper - what they care about is what that money can get them.
    The problem is limiting what is considered essential and where it can be purchased from. Who decides what is essential? Is it the same for everyone? What if I need something that is not on the approved essential list? Or is available form an unapproved source? What about Internet purchases?

    Quote Originally Posted by sted View Post
    fair point but there is something too it. It does seem daft that a family who needs it cant get a council house with enough rooms for their kids as someone who could happily live in a 2 bed has 4.
    No there is nothing too it! We give benefits because without them the reciepent would be below the poverty line, can't affor to live. Now if you live in a council house and are on benefits then you have some of that money taken away because the council housed you in a home larger than your needs. Where's the logic in that? Those who live in council houses and not recieving benefits are not paying any extra for uneeded rooms. No only the poor, who need the money, are being targeted and forced below the poverty line. Wrong solution to the wrong problem!

    Quote Originally Posted by mthomas08 View Post
    I guess the simple solution is just to scrap the entire system and say be gone with it.

    Again as I said before if it can't be fixed it will be scrapped then people cant abuse something that doesn't exist.
    So, are you advocating a return to the workouses, slums and homelessness of the past? I'd rather a broken system open to abuse than no system at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Earthling View Post
    I've said before on here somewhere that the only way out of our current housing crisis is to reinstate the old Council Housing system that Margaret Thatcher dismantled in the 80's. It worked. Flawed, like everything else, but it worked. There was no need to dismantle it other than blatant electioneering and vote-garnering.
    There's nothing wrong with the right to buy. Thatcher was right on that. It's what happened councils where and weren't allowed to do with the money gained from these sales that caused the problem.

    What we need is a 30's style mass social housing build. Doesn't really matter if it's councils or housing associations in charge of the stock. We just need the stock.

  5. Thanks to tmcd35 from:

    ButterflyMoon (5th February 2014)

  6. #139


    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,002
    Thank Post
    1,129
    Thanked 451 Times in 329 Posts
    Rep Power
    230
    Quote Originally Posted by tmcd35 View Post
    That's interesting given the last Labour Government's success in rolling out a national ID card...
    Wasn't that because of the the huge levels of opposition, given the stupid amount of invasive information on them?

    The problem is limiting what is considered essential and where it can be purchased from. Who decides what is essential? Is it the same for everyone? What if I need something that is not on the approved essential list? Or is available form an unapproved source? What about Internet purchases?
    Admittedly this would be an issue, I wouldn't dream of springing up a plan like this overnight. Could you use your food card at the supermarkets that are selling more-than-food? If so, what kind of control would be in place to ensure you didn't go to Asda and buy the latest xbox game with your food card? Receipt audits wouldn't help because it would just say "Tesco, £39.99". What if you were buying that game and food? We had a pre-paid card system when I was at high school and if you were on free school meals like I was, certain products (such as chocolate bars) were not able to be purchased with the free school meal credit. Something like that could be put in place, but would require a huge infrastructure overhaul of major companies and nobody would be best pleased with that.

    Unfortunately, changing an already-established infrastructure is never an easy task. If I were to start my own country, I could apply this without issue (provided I had the appropriate funds) and say "This is how it works. If you want to sell here, your stores, at least in this country, must be compatible with this system", maybe I'd even be able to have a pre-built system written that companies just added their products to and 'uploaded' to their internal product database (which would provide programming jobs for some people, and more jobs is good, right? :P). IsFood=True/False. Tills query each item (as they do for price) and when it comes to paying, the food card would only pay for the portion of the shop that was food and they would need to provide alternate payment for the non-food (as detailed earlier, some of their funds would be entirely unrestricted, which yes, people could still spend on drugs, but £15-20 is better than £80)
    Last edited by Garacesh; 5th February 2014 at 12:19 PM.

  7. Thanks to Garacesh from:

    mthomas08 (5th February 2014)

  8. #140

    tmcd35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    5,878
    Thank Post
    879
    Thanked 958 Times in 790 Posts
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    339
    I'll say it again - vouchers are a red herring. It actually doesn't matter whether you use vouchers, bank transfers or cold hard cash - it's the same amount of money being given to the exact same people, including the benefits cheats. All vouchers do is frustrate the honest users of the system.

    The real questions are how divide the money. How to decide who gets what. How to decide who is eligable. Think unemployeed Joe down the road is getting too much because he can afford a 100" TV? Then it's the answers to these questions that will adjust that balance.

    This is why I'm in favour of a single household means tested payout that takes into account the total household income and it's occupancy and compares that to the requirements of an agreed standard of living - whatever that is.

    The only question for me is, if you are giving everyone enough money to live in handouts, how do you encourage people out to work? I think there's an answer somewhere involving the national minimum wage so that even at it's lowest the wage earned should be worth more then the benefits received.

    EDIT: Also vouchers are the thin edge of the wedge. In this thread we've already jumped to photo ID's cards and biometrics! Seriously - big brother - 1984.
    Last edited by tmcd35; 5th February 2014 at 12:30 PM.

  9. #141


    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,236
    Thank Post
    151
    Thanked 243 Times in 168 Posts
    Rep Power
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by tmcd35 View Post
    That's interesting given the last Labour Government's success in rolling out a national ID card...



    The problem is limiting what is considered essential and where it can be purchased from. Who decides what is essential? Is it the same for everyone? What if I need something that is not on the approved essential list? Or is available form an unapproved source? What about Internet purchases?



    No there is nothing too it! We give benefits because without them the reciepent would be below the poverty line, can't affor to live. Now if you live in a council house and are on benefits then you have some of that money taken away because the council housed you in a home larger than your needs. Where's the logic in that? Those who live in council houses and not recieving benefits are not paying any extra for uneeded rooms. No only the poor, who need the money, are being targeted and forced below the poverty line. Wrong solution to the wrong problem!



    So, are you advocating a return to the workouses, slums and homelessness of the past? I'd rather a broken system open to abuse than no system at all.



    There's nothing wrong with the right to buy. Thatcher was right on that. It's what happened councils where and weren't allowed to do with the money gained from these sales that caused the problem.

    What we need is a 30's style mass social housing build. Doesn't really matter if it's councils or housing associations in charge of the stock. We just need the stock.
    I agree entirely on the housing build, but Housing Association rents are bordering on extortionately higher than council rents. The difference between the HA flat I was offered and the Council flat I was given was a staggering £147 pm. The Council flat that I took the tenancy on has more living-space, is in a nicer part of town, better appointed and a much nicer aspect when you look out the window. I can only assume the extra £147 goes to profit and to pay someone's over inflated salary. Multiply that by 48 flats in the block and you have a healthy sum of money extra every month. The Site Manager of the HA block, when I asked why it was so much more expensive than council, said 'Well, there's the lift maintenance'. The block where I live has two lifts. Next answer, please?

    I'm afraid it DOES matter who's in charge of the stock.

  10. Thanks to Earthling from:

    ButterflyMoon (5th February 2014)

  11. #142


    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,002
    Thank Post
    1,129
    Thanked 451 Times in 329 Posts
    Rep Power
    230
    Quote Originally Posted by tmcd35 View Post
    I'll say it again - vouchers are a red herring. It actually doesn't matter whether you use vouchers, bank transfers or cold hard cash - it's the same amount of money being given to the exact same people, including the benefits cheats. All vouchers do is frustrate the honest users of the system.

    The real questions are how divide the money. How to decide who gets what. How to decide who is eligable. Think unemployeed Joe down the road is getting too much because he can afford a 100" TV? Then it's the answers to these questions that will adjust that balance.

    This is why I'm in favour of a single household means tested payout that takes into account the total household income and it's occupancy and compares that to the requirements of an agreed standard of living - whatever that is.

    The only question for me is, if you are giving everyone enough money to live in handouts, how do you encourage people out to work? I think there's an answer somewhere involving the national minimum wage so that even at it's lowest the wage earned should be worth more then the benefits received.

    EDIT: Also vouchers are the thin edge of the wedge. In this thread we've already jumped to photo ID's cards and biometrics! Seriously - big brother - 1984.
    I'm still not seeing the 'thin edge of the wedge' provided you're opposed to any and all feature creep. Biometrics I personally think is a step too far, though photographic ID not so much. If the system is "We're going to use pre-paid(ish) cards and photo ID" and then they try to say "We want fingerprints now" then give the all-resounding "NO!".

    My idea of the limited cards is admittedly only tackling the problem of what benefit money is used to purchase, and not the problem of over/under payment. But a review of each claimant that takes into account those factors would need to be done to appropriate the correct level of funds, so it's not too far off what you're suggesting.

  12. #143

    tmcd35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    5,878
    Thank Post
    879
    Thanked 958 Times in 790 Posts
    Blog Entries
    9
    Rep Power
    339
    Quote Originally Posted by Garacesh View Post
    I'm still not seeing the 'thin edge of the wedge' provided you're opposed to any and all feature creep. Biometrics I personally think is a step too far, though photographic ID not so much.
    Because each time a problem is identified, the scheme gets more complicated to solve the problem spending cash anywhere didn't have. How much power do you want to give central government in your daily life? If you said yes to an ID card, how quickly would someone at GCHQ suggest some form of tracking? How meny times do you acquiese before you wake up living in North Korea? A bit extreme, but as far as I'm concerned central government has no business telling me what to spend the money on.

    My idea of the limited cards is admittedly only tackling the problem of what benefit money is used to purchase, and not the problem of over/under payment. But a review of each claimant that takes into account those factors would need to be done to appropriate the correct level of funds, so it's not too far off what you're suggesting.
    But then simply reducing the amount paid in child benefit might have the same result you are looking for (stopping unemployeed Joe buying his TV) and would be much cheaper/simpler to implement.

    The fact remains we are judging someone elses finacial situation by peering through the letterbox; we're not in full posession of all the facts. He might have been saving £5 a week for a couple of years. He may be paying Provident 1000% APR on a street door loan. Or he's in recept of benefits he's legitamately entitled to that are not being properly means tested thus we the tax payer are legitametely giving him too much. Is that his fault?

    Don't look for a complicated solution when a simple one will do.
    Last edited by tmcd35; 5th February 2014 at 12:52 PM.

  13. Thanks to tmcd35 from:

    ButterflyMoon (5th February 2014)

  14. #144

    abillybob's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Shropshire
    Posts
    2,968
    Thank Post
    397
    Thanked 397 Times in 277 Posts
    Rep Power
    235
    My girlfriends dad has 1 50-60 inch TV and a full surround sound kit with blu ray player and Full Sky package.... Though he has taken out all that on a lease from Bright House costs him a fortune, he could have just gone out and bought a 32" one from amazing for around £200 with no monthly costs but no. It's all about prioritising what you buy. I don't care keep the system the same I just hate the people that don't have decent sense of money and thus creating a rubbish lifestyle for their own children. Half the time more children is just a new source of more income for them anyway. The children that do suffer like this in my opinion should be given a better home to live in and gain a better upbringing, education etc.. because of it.

    Though of course I have never been in a benefit situation so I am an outsider looking in and that my perspective to date.

  15. #145


    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,002
    Thank Post
    1,129
    Thanked 451 Times in 329 Posts
    Rep Power
    230
    Quote Originally Posted by tmcd35 View Post
    Because each time a problem is identified, the scheme gets more complicated to solve the problem spending cash anywhere didn't have. How much power do you want to give central government in your daily life? If you said yes to an ID card, how quickly would someone at GCHQ suggest some form of tracking? How meny times do you acquiese before you wake up living in North Korea? A bit extreme, but as far as I'm concerned central government has no business telling me what to spend the money on.
    Once. You acquiesce once, when the scheme is originally put in place. I'm quite certain that GCHQ would suggest some form of tracking, in this day and age I'd put good money on it (not benefit money, mind you ), to which you respond "No. Why didn't you put that in the initial spec? Why now? Justify yourself!". Of course, this is in 'an ideal world' where the public actually work together and challenge their government.

    Quote Originally Posted by tmcd35 View Post
    But then simply reducing the amount paid in child benefit might have the same result you are looking for (stopping unemployeed Joe buying his TV) and would be much cheaper/simpler to implement.
    Or maybe Joe just spends less on his child so he can still afford the TV. Making that child benefit not able to be spent on the TV is the more logical option. Still abusable - Joe buys lots of childrens clothing, sticks them on eBay, uses money to buy TV, but that's a lot more effort for Joe and would dissuade a lot of people.

    Quote Originally Posted by tmcd35 View Post
    The fact remains we are judging someone elses finacial situation by peering through the letterbox; we're not in full posession of all the facts. He might have been saving £5 a week for a couple of years. He may be paying Provident 1000% APR on a street door loan. Or he's in recept of benefits he's legitamately entitled to that are not being properly means tested thus we the tax payer are legitametely giving him too much. Is that his fault?

    Don't look for a complicated solution when a simple one will do.
    Yes we are - I agree we can't know all the facts. Which is why I suggested case-by-case reviews when you sign on (with the ability to request changes/re-reviews as circumstances invariably change). Maybe Joe has been saving up weekly, which is fine, because he's been allocated some 'unrestricted' money per week that he can do what he wants with, he can save that up as much as he likes. But his kid hasn't gone cold/hungry/etc during this saving up because it's not been (easily) possible for Joe to withdraw or move that money.

  16. #146

    nephilim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Dunstable
    Posts
    12,281
    Thank Post
    1,670
    Thanked 2,018 Times in 1,467 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    451
    I got my 32in TV 5 years ago with no payments or anything, just paid outright. Its on its last legs. In that time I have had people asking me (when unemployed) how I could afford the TV etc. They don't see that I paid for it when I was working, they just saw an unemployed guy with a flatscreen.

    It is a tough one but people dont have the ins and outs of every situation. If they did it would be very different.

    However I am a firm believer that they should be using either pre-paid cards or pay direct to creditors for the money so that it doesn't get pissed away. In the job centre you see genuine people and they do struggle, then you see the people who drink and drug their way through life and it is frustrating as they get more help than the average Joe who is trying desperately to get his life on track.

  17. 2 Thanks to nephilim:

    ButterflyMoon (5th February 2014), simpsonj (6th February 2014)

  18. #147


    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,002
    Thank Post
    1,129
    Thanked 451 Times in 329 Posts
    Rep Power
    230
    I think maybe I need to clearly state: I am not against people on benefits having nice things. I am against those nice things being purchased with money appropriated for 'living costs' such as food, rent and travel.

  19. #148


    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,236
    Thank Post
    151
    Thanked 243 Times in 168 Posts
    Rep Power
    155
    Quote Originally Posted by Garacesh View Post
    I think maybe I need to clearly state: I am not against people on benefits having nice things. I am against those nice things being purchased with money appropriated for 'living costs' such as food, rent and travel.
    Oh. You mean like having your moat cleaned and drained on expenses, like Douglas Hogg did?

    Or watching a porn movie in a hotel, like Jacqui Smith's husband?

    And the countless other misappropriations of our money, but hey, let's all beat-up on the Benefit Claimants, because they're an easy target for all of us

  20. Thanks to Earthling from:

    ButterflyMoon (5th February 2014)

  21. #149
    mthomas08's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,628
    Thank Post
    139
    Thanked 173 Times in 149 Posts
    Rep Power
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by alexbillbridgnorth View Post
    It's all about prioritising what you buy. I don't care keep the system the same I just hate the people that don't have decent sense of money and thus creating a rubbish lifestyle for their own children.
    Children, another part of the problem. The kids are being brought up in a day and age its okay to live off the benefits, its okay to not consider the bigger picture when having kids. Having been in Keystage departments who deal with troubled children and several times the kids actually admit to not caring about working. They have actually admitted to wanting to simply quit school, get pregnant and take the benefits. That also has a lasting effect on their kids (like my sister who has 3 daughters) and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to predict how their life is going to turn out and I feel utterly sorry for them.

    We have created a benefit culture and people can pretend it doesn't exist with fingers in their ears and humming very loudly but it doesn't solve the problem. Simply saying "Oh it will get abused, get abused, get abused" to every idea is not helping the situation. As I said before I fear the government will simply say enough is enough, if you want benefits you go ahead and jump through all these hoops to do it. Which isn't the way I would prefer it but it does need to be fixed and so far only those who have had enough of the system abuse are willing to say ideas.
    Last edited by mthomas08; 5th February 2014 at 02:29 PM.

  22. #150


    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,002
    Thank Post
    1,129
    Thanked 451 Times in 329 Posts
    Rep Power
    230
    Quote Originally Posted by Earthling View Post
    Oh. You mean like having your moat cleaned and drained on expenses, like Douglas Hogg did?

    Or watching a porn movie in a hotel, like Jacqui Smith's husband?

    And the countless other misappropriations of our money, but hey, let's all beat-up on the Benefit Claimants, because they're an easy target for all of us
    Nope, I don't like any of those things either. You seem to think I only dislike people misappropriating their benefit money. I don't. I dislike all misappropriations. Like I've said to you previously, I'm keeping in context with this thread, which is about benefits. Please stop dredging this up.

  23. Thanks to Garacesh from:

    mthomas08 (5th February 2014)

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread

Similar Threads

  1. Anyone Attend any of the big Lan Events?
    By ChrisH in forum Gaming
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 17th October 2011, 05:18 PM
  2. Recycle the big Konica Minolta cartridges
    By dgsmith in forum How do you do....it?
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 15th November 2008, 09:03 PM
  3. The Big Bang Machine
    By beeswax in forum General Chat
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 1st July 2008, 06:53 AM
  4. The big 300
    By Dos_Box in forum General EduGeek News/Announcements
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 6th February 2006, 01:19 AM
  5. The big debate?
    By StewartKnight in forum Hardware
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 3rd August 2005, 02:15 PM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •