The Big Benefits Row

[Earthling]

And what about the shops and shopkeepers willing to turn a blind eye to photo id's? Oh, right you'll strike them off the 'List'.

 

Good Luck, with that, the Inspectors (there'd have to be Inspectors, there always has to be) will probably be over-worked, understaffed and unable to visit any shop more than once every three years. Sound familiar?

 

An anecdote, which I hate, but it's relevant.

 

I had to go to the local Royal Mail sorting office to collect a delivery before Xmas (it was my Secret Agent Maya Meerkat, if anyone's interested or even if no one's interested). I had to take identification, passport, utility bill, blah blah. I handed in the card they left through my door, showed my (closed) passport, didn't even hand it over and the guy behind the counter said, 'OK' and gave me my parcel.

 

That was Royal Mail, where, historically, I believe, any interference with items or theft of, or deliberate mis-delivery was, strictly speaking, almost a treasonable offence. Things have probably changed since I were a lad and used Royal Mail every day, but it's still some kind of offence.

 

If they didn't work at Royal Mail, why do you think photo id's will work in Asda or Tesco's or anywhere else, especially small shops, under pressure to turn some kind of profit? My underlying point in this is that a voucher system will cost us millions more, because changes like this always cost us more and ultimately, it'll be just as open to abuse as the current system.

 

Plus ca change, plus ca le meme chose. Or, as Al Stewart, said in 1974-ish, 'Oh, the more it changes, the more it stays the same'.

[abillybob]

They might not as I said nothing you integrate into the system will be 100% people will always get around the system although it's a lot more work for them to go and get a black market voucher. Plus it means they can't by effectively drugs with it but only essentials so at least if they do feel the need to get naughty vouchers they can still only spend it on essentials and not loads of luxuries. Plus I'm sure the government would keep something like this recorded so the can see the vouchers that have been redeemed by which people so if voucher 001 was given to Mrs Smith and she used a 001 voucher and a 002 voucher in the same week something's up as they only gave her 001 to use. Plus it's the same for alcohol some shops ID children others don't but it's the scare factor of them potentially being ID'd that stops most of them doing this.

And what about the shops and shopkeepers willing to turn a blind eye to photo id's? Oh, right you'll strike them off the 'List'.

 

Good Luck, with that, the Inspectors (there'd have to be Inspectors, there always has to be) will probably be over-worked, understaffed and unable to visit any shop more than once every three years. Sound familiar?

 

An anecdote, which I hate, but it's relevant.

 

I had to go to the local Royal Mail sorting office to collect a delivery before Xmas (it was my Secret Agent Maya Meerkat, if anyone's interested or even if no one's interested). I had to take identification, passport, utility bill, blah blah. I handed in the card they left through my door, showed my (closed) passport, didn't even hand it over and the guy behind the counter said, 'OK' and gave me my parcel.

 

That was Royal Mail, where, historically, I believe, any interference with items or theft of, or deliberate mis-delivery was, strictly speaking, almost a treasonable offence. Things have probably changed since I were a lad and used Royal Mail every day, but it's still some kind of offence.

 

If they didn't work at Royal Mail, why do you think photo id's will work in Asda or Tesco's or anywhere else, especially small shops, under pressure to turn some kind of profit? My underlying point in this is that a voucher system will cost us millions more, because changes like this always cost us more and ultimately, it'll be just as open to abuse as the current system.

 

Plus ca change, plus ca le meme chose. Or, as Al Stewart, said in 1974-ish, 'Oh, the more it changes, the more it stays the same'.

[Garacesh]

No, your anecdote is perfectly valid - I don't think I've ever had to show ID at my sorting office, just take the card. You're right, some shops will turn a blind eye to no ID, and some shops will serve alcohol/tobacco on food/rent cards without a care in the world. We'd bundle them in with the shops selling other restricted products outside of their legal range (such as alcohol, knives or fireworks to the under-age) and investigate them as they were reported.

 

I can't see 'legitimate' (granted, a difficult term to pin down) benefit claimants being fussed that the money they're spending on food can only be spent on food. If those terms were given to me when I was claiming, that would have been acceptable. For example, I had my housing benefit paid directly to my landlord. What's the point of dropping it in my bank if I'm only going to send it to him anyway? Not an entirely identical scenario, admittedly, but my point being I wasn't going to ever use it on anything else, therefore I did not mind the government having control over where the money was going.

 

Probably not the way you intend to come across, but it sounds to me like you're saying "If we can't make the system foolproof, let's not change it at all".

 

You're right - maybe it would cost way too much to implement now. My assumption (though I admit it is based only on assumption) is that the current benefit system was originally created around 'the code of honour' (I'm not aware of any restrictions on the old food stamps, but I haven't extensively researched it so I may be wrong), which now sadly seems to exist in very few places. Regardless, there are problems with the system. Other methods could handle the system better than it is currently handled. Whether or not it is feasible to switch to new methods is another problem, 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.

 

Yes, tax dodgers are a huge issue, too. Go ahead and start a thread on that and I'll be right there supporting you when you say let's tackle those, too.

[Earthling]

No, the way I want to come across is that whatever changes we make, nothing will ever be foolproof, it'll just cost US more money, because changes always cost US more money. My biggest fear is that, that 'More Money' will go to private companies and no tangible improvement in security or verification of voucher spend or claimants will result.

 

My biggest disappointment is that no one mentioned my Secret Agent Maya Meerkat. Fanboy heaven, that is. Second only to my 'Pulp Fiction' wallet.

 

I think the tax-dodging/evasion/avoidance issue is inextricably bound up in any government expenditure issue. It's entirely relevant in this thread, unless the thread REALLY is about 'He's got a bigger TV than I have etc'. Working Families Tax Credits as was, I think they've been binned, correct me if I'm wrong. I'm as certain as can be that somewhere in Amazon, Starbucks, Vodafone and the rest of them, there were employees claiming and being paid Working Families Tax Credits. Public money going to subsidise low-wages so multi-nationals can keep down their costs, maximise their profits, while paying no more tax on billions of profits (proportionately) than you and I pay on our salaries.

 

You cannot separate the two. Benefits are paid from taxes, so collect those taxes from everyone, not just from under-paid Joe Public. If you're going to change the benefits system, you have to change the tax system too.

[abillybob]

Question: If you could avoid paying tax and you where a multi million pound company would you?

No, the way I want to come across is that whatever changes we make, nothing will ever be foolproof, it'll just cost US more money, because changes always cost US more money. My biggest fear is that, that 'More Money' will go to private companies and no tangible improvement in security or verification of voucher spend or claimants will result.

 

My biggest disappointment is that no one mentioned my Secret Agent Maya Meerkat. Fanboy heaven, that is. Second only to my 'Pulp Fiction' wallet.

 

I think the tax-dodging/evasion/avoidance issue is inextricably bound up in any government expenditure issue. It's entirely relevant in this thread, unless the thread REALLY is about 'He's got a bigger TV than I have etc'. Working Families Tax Credits as was, I think they've been binned, correct me if I'm wrong. I'm as certain as can be that somewhere in Amazon, Starbucks, Vodafone and the rest of them, there were employees claiming and being paid Working Families Tax Credits. Public money going to subsidise low-wages so multi-nationals can keep down their costs, maximise their profits, while paying no more tax on billions of profits (proportionately) than you and I pay on our salaries.

 

You cannot separate the two. Benefits are paid from taxes, so collect those taxes from everyone, not just from under-paid Joe Public. If you're going to change the benefits system, you have to change the tax system too.

[sted]

thanks @jbailey

the dreadful bedroom tax needs sorting out as well.

 

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. There is limited council housing stock (thank you maggie) so i dont think its totally wrong to try and persuade people to downsize (the way they go about it might be wrong (no first hand experience but my aunt and uncle lived in a 3 bed house for decades and never had kids or any need for the extra space and imo the property could of better served a family with kids)

[LosOjos]

Question: If you could avoid paying tax and you where a multi million pound company would you?

 

Whatever the answer the problem is the same; the tax system is currently open to abuse so certain companies abuse it (like benefits!). Close the tax loop holes, solve (or at least reduce) the problem. Instead we just keep getting politicians banging on about what a disgrace it is without actually doing anything to stop it. Clearly, they have another agenda...

 

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. There is limited council housing stock (thank you maggie) so i dont think its totally wrong to try and persuade people to downsize (the way they go about it might be wrong (no first hand experience but my aunt and uncle lived in a 3 bed house for decades and never had kids or any need for the extra space and imo the property could of better served a family with kids)

 

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.

Edited February 5, 2014 by LosOjos

[sted]

Whatever the answer the problem is the same; the tax system is currently open to abuse so certain companies abuse it (like benefits!). Close the tax loop holes, solve (or at least reduce) the problem. Instead we just keep getting politicians banging on about what a disgrace it is without actually doing anything to stop it. Clearly, they have another agenda...

 

 

 

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.

 

thats because they inserted a lot of the loopholes for they friends in business and get large consulting fees for it why would they take out something they are being payed to put/keep in?

[mthomas08]

I guess the simple solution is just to scrap the entire system and say be gone with it.

 

If each time people come up with an idea and its blown out of the water because it "could still be abused" or tax payers would have to pay Company X to gain X amount of profit from the scheme. On the other hand Company X would have to employ more staff, get more people in to jobs and employment which will cut down the requirement of the vouchers or "scheme".

 

How about everyone who is so Anti Changes of the system simply say HOW TO FIX IT. People like me offer ideas and if they don't work, they don't work. At the end of the day I want the system to stay and work.

 

Again as I said before if it can't be fixed it will be scrapped then people cant abuse something that doesn't exist. That's what I fear will happen if it's not solved, we have created a benefit culture because we either pretended it didn't exist or we just didn't care because life was good for us.

 

I don't see it being fixed in all honesty. What I see happening is that people who actually need the benefit to feed their family, pay their bills or simply be able to survive those poor souls will have to bend over backwards to prove they deserve it. Personally I don't want that kind of a system but if that's the only way to stop the abuse then what can we do? Although the fact that this becomes such a heated discussion every 6-12 months on here maybe that goes to show that there is something fundamentally wrong with the benefit system and it really does need fixing.

[Earthling]

Whatever the answer the problem is the same; the tax system is currently open to abuse so certain companies abuse it (like benefits!). Close the tax loop holes, solve (or at least reduce) the problem. Instead we just keep getting politicians banging on about what a disgrace it is without actually doing anything to stop it. Clearly, they have another agenda...

 

^^^ What he said.

 

Tricky one. Obviously I'd like to say 'No, my social conscience would prick me too much' but I'd probably have shareholders and other investors to consider so I'd probably say 'Yes, of course I would'.

 

If I were a private multi-millionaire, then I'd probably set-up some kind of tax-reducing foundation while donating money to my favoured charities. At my time of life, I've realised that NO ONE needs multi-billions or multi-millions to live on. One of the saddest things about my 'Win The Lottery' fantasy, is that I would probably buy some land and build a walled compound for my family to live in, in our separate dwellings. You know, soon as you get rich, you start cutting yourself off, separating yourself, from the real world.

 

What we have to do is change the tax system to remove all those avoidance tactics, or as many as possible. Plug the loopholes which allow blatant under-assessment. Why does the tax system have to be so sacrosanct? Why can't we make those changes? We're told, stridently, that these companies 'Will move somewhere else, damaging our economy, losing vast numbers of jobs etc etc.'..............let's call their bluff, why not? Would our economy really be better off or worse off without, for example, the rate-fixing, fraud-committing bankers?

 

I heard the same thing in the 70's about equal pay for women and in the 80's and 90' about a minimum wage. None of it happened, and now Georgie Oz has gone on record saying he'd like to see the Minimum Wage increased. In the year before an election. How socially conscious of him, the cynics amongst us are forced to think.

[chazzy2501]

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".

[Earthling]

 

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.

[tmcd35]

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...

 

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?

 

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!

 

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.

 

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.

[Garacesh]

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? ). 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)

Edited February 5, 2014 by Garacesh

[tmcd35]

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.

Edited February 5, 2014 by tmcd35

[Earthling]

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.

[Garacesh]

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.

[tmcd35]

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.

Edited February 5, 2014 by tmcd35

[abillybob]

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.

[Garacesh]

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.

 

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.

 

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.

[featured_spectre]

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.

[Garacesh]

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.

[Earthling]

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

[mthomas08]

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.

Edited February 5, 2014 by mthomas08

[Garacesh]

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.