Jobs

[ricky2tricky4city]

Nobody on benefits should be able to smoke / drink, have the latest technology in their homes

The benefits should be for essentials, food, water, utilities end of

Exactly, anything else is just 'shopping'

Vouchers for food is a good idea, with a rule of no booze or cigarettes. Also couldn't the gov could bulk purchase water and energy at favourable rates and take over your utility bills while on benefits? Key meters are a tinkle take.

Also a complete ban on taking out any finance/loan/cc (inc payday) while on benefits. To educate in money management and learn how to make things stretch when you're time rich, cash poor is valuable skill for anyone.

 

[Roy1983]

Everyone?

I assume you don't actually mean everyone. Those who are unable to work for instance.



For those on Jobseekers i agree though. Vouchers would be the way forwards.

Hold on a sec. Yes I mean everyone. Firstly, whether you choose to work or not why should you have money other than for food, electrics etc?

Before you tell me how much you disagree blah blah blah tell me which type of unemployed you believe would be entitled to what they currently receive.

 

[Seedy Ron]

What about people with disabilities which render them unable to work?

 

[Spursalot]

Hold on a sec. Yes I mean everyone. Firstly, whether you choose to work or not why should you have money other than for food, electrics etc?

Before you tell me how much you disagree blah blah blah tell me which type of unemployed you believe would be entitled to what they currently receive.

The unemployed who are physically or mentally unable to work. Disabilities. As i mentioned in my previous post.


I'd also add some sort of travel vouchers to the electric/food and things for those on jobseekers. At times it is not cheap getting to interviews, and you don't want to stop people getting into jobs because they can't get to the interview.

 

[Richie]

What about people with disabilities which render them unable to work?

I don't think anyone in this thread is talking about the disabled.

However, I would add that just because someone is disabled doesn't mean they are unable to work. A friend of a friend is deaf and he chooses not to work full time when he is able to becuase he would lose some of his benefit. I don't have a huge problem with it, but it's a flaw in the system IMO.

Now this isn't to say someone who is deaf is undeserving of governement support, but just because someone has a disability doesn't automatically mean they shouldn't work. It's a very tough issue.

 

[Spursalot]

I don't think anyone in this thread is talking about the disabled.

The comment was that Everyone on benefits should get vouchers.


The disabled are on benefits no?



I then asked for clarification and Roy clarified that he did actually mean everyone on benefits.

 

[Richie]

The comment was that Everyone on benefits should get vouchers.


The disabled are on benefits no?



I then asked for clarification and Roy clarified that he did actually mean everyone on benefits.

It seems to me that this thread is about out of work benefits and not things like disability living allowance, because he mentions the unemployed. You asked a loaded question IMO

 

[Spursalot]

It seems to me that this thread is about out of work benefits and not things like disability living allowance, because he mentions the unemployed. You asked a loaded question IMO

A loaded question?


I even mentioned if he meant people who were unable to work should also get vouchers.


And if that's not what he meant, i'm sure he can come and damn well tell me himself rather then having someone else trying to guess at what he meant.


If it's not what he meant, that's fine.


Edit: There is also zero about benefits in the first post. This thread was about the availability of work.

 

[P.D.]

Couldnt the govt also go down some kind of preferred supplier route for essential food items etc and then hand out vouchers which can be redeemed against it e.g. Kellogs agree that for people on benefits cornflakes cost £1 because they know that they would sell x amount of them near enough guaranteed.

Not sure if in practice it would really work as working people could justifiably complain that people are not only getting stuff for doing nothing but they get it at a cheaper rate than those in work.

 

[Spursalot]

Couldnt the govt also go down some kind of preferred supplier route for essential food items etc and then hand out vouchers which can be redeemed against it e.g. Kellogs agree that for people on benefits cornflakes cost £1 because they know that they would sell x amount of them near enough guaranteed.

Not sure if in practice it would really work as working people could justifiably complain that people are not only getting stuff for doing nothing but they get it at a cheaper rate than those in work.

Biggest issue i can think of with vouchers is thus.


So you have a £50 voucher for Electricity for a month. Just an example, ignore the actual values. You use £65 worth of electricity for the month.


Then what?

 

[Roy1983]

Disabled is a separate point but it still raises the question: If your out of work, voluntarily or not, why should you be given luxuries like fags or booze. You don't NEED them do you?

You still get your vouchers for food etc.

 

[Roy1983]

Biggest issue i can think of with vouchers is thus.


So you have a £50 voucher for Electricity for a month. Just an example, ignore the actual values. You use £65 worth of electricity for the month.


Then what?

You get told you can only use £35 the next month and don't take the tinkle!

 

[SpursLodge]

Biggest issue i can think of with vouchers is thus.


So you have a £50 voucher for Electricity for a month. Just an example, ignore the actual values. You use £65 worth of electricity for the month.


Then what?

I'd say they don't get £50 for electricity, they get a credit card that has a limit the same as the current amount of benefits that they get but it can only be used on essentials, any left over at the end of the month goes back into the governments purse.

The only issue I can see is people going up the petrol station or shops and buying essentials and selling them on, I guess you'd have to have an audit system to check that isn't going on, other than that I can't see a downside.

 

[Paxtonloudmouth]

1. Competitive Capitalism needs some level of unemployment. It needs it so owners or bosses of companies can keep wages low,so profits are high. So next time you slag off those on welfare remember that the economy needs them.

2. That people are given 'dole' money not out of the goodness of tax payers hearts. No it is because capitalism needs people to spend. If people do not spend then no one makes any money. There are more poor people than rich people. If only the rich spent,then the economy dies. Thus the second lie is that we should spend within our means. If we spend money on only the things we really need than the economy dies.

Do not let people fool you.

 

[Roy1983]

The economy NEEDS people who don't work does it? Do you realise how ridiculous that sounds?

 

[Richie]

1. Competitive Capitalism needs some level of unemployment. It needs it so owners or bosses of companies can keep wages low,so profits are high. So next time you slag off those on welfare remember that the economy needs them.

2. That people are given 'dole' money not out of the goodness of tax payers hearts. No it is because capitalism needs people to spend. If people do not spend then no one makes any money. There are more poor people than rich people. If only the rich spent,then the economy dies. Thus the second lie is that we should spend within our means. If we spend money on only the things we really need than the economy dies.

Do not let people fool you.

Everything you have written is absolute nonsense.

 

[Richie]

I'd say they don't get £50 for electricity, they get a credit card that has a limit the same as the current amount of benefits that they get but it can only be used on essentials, any left over at the end of the month goes back into the governments purse.

The only issue I can see is people going up the petrol station or shops and buying essentials and selling them on, I guess you'd have to have an audit system to check that isn't going on, other than that I can't see a downside.

For your first point, I don't believe benefits should be use it or lose it. That will only create wastage. People will waste money on rubbish because there are no negative consequences to doing so. I have no fundamental problem with someone spending their benefits responsibly and saving. If anything, I'd support the government paying a small rate of interest on the money benefit claimants do not spend to further incentivise rational spending.

As to your point about people buying food and selling it on, I really don't see a problem with that. All it would do is increase the supply of necessities (food) in the poorest areas and thus reduce the cost. For example you buy a tin of beans from the supermarket and decide to sell it on, you're going to have to sell it on cheaper than you bought it or the buyer could get it cheaper from the supermarket themselves. Furthermore, if everyone has a card with which they can buy these items, why would they use their cash (which is much more versatile) to buy food from others? I'd be interested to see how it would work in a pilot scheme.

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

1. Competitive Capitalism needs some level of unemployment. It needs it so owners or bosses of companies can keep wages low,so profits are high. So next time you slag off those on welfare remember that the economy needs them.

2. That people are given 'dole' money not out of the goodness of tax payers hearts. No it is because capitalism needs people to spend. If people do not spend then no one makes any money. There are more poor people than rich people. If only the rich spent,then the economy dies. Thus the second lie is that we should spend within our means. If we spend money on only the things we really need than the economy dies.

Do not let people fool you.

There is some truth in the points paxtons has made. Sadly it is also reveals some flaws and ridiculousness of the capitalist system. No system is perfect but this one really has shown itself up in recent times.

Regarding the benefits debate, beyond the monetary side of it, there is a moral and ethical side that doesn't even register with many that receive it.

If more people realised that the best things in life aren't 'things' we'd probably be in a better place.

 

[Paxtonloudmouth]

Everything you have written is absolute nonsense.

Point out where I am wrong,without making yourself look totally ignorant of economic theory. Richie even your hero Milton Friedman agreed that in any labour market there must be some unemployment. All honest capitalists know it to be true.

 

[Paxtonloudmouth]

Yes Roy the economy does need people who do not work. Simple economics. Full employment would lead to excessive inflation in wages.