do "we" have the right to say what benefit claimants spend the money on?(329 Posts)
In the news today, a think tank suggests that many would support restrictions on what benefit claimants can spend the money on.
What do you think?
I think that not all benefit claimants spend their money on booze, fags, drugs, gambling etc.
The idea that they do, quite frankly fucks me off.
When I was on full benefits, due to a nervous breakdown and loss of my job through to ill health I regularly had to decide between gas or electric payments.
David Cameron and his cronies are so far removed from reality it is embarrassing.
Wonder how much Mastercard would be paid if the 'card' spoken of in the article is introduced
Just did a search to see if I needed to start a thread on this!
I am shocked and disgusted by this type of thinking, and at how prevalent it seems to be in this day and age. There is a certain twisted logic to it, after all, it's our taxes that pay for these benefits so why should the claimants get to spend them on whatever they fancy?
So, let's dehumanise or infantalise them by telling them what they can and can't do with OUR money, that they can only buy fruit and veg, and not frozen pizzas. That they are not allowed a cheap bottle of wine. Or even to buy a lottery ticket, as the lottery is gambling, you know. They lottery fund would pretty much collapse overnight, as it's probably the biggest tax on the poor that there is.
Why why why does "the average person in the street" find it so hard to understand that most people who claim benefits do so because they are in work but are earning such pitiful wages that they need help? Or because they are disabled/ a carer, NOT because they are feckless wasters who want to do fuck all and live the high life?
I am sooooooooooooooooo !!!!!
How is this thread so slow? This is the kind of topic that usually gets MN going like the clappers!
Good grief, of course 'we' don't, any more than we have the right to tell pensioners what to spend their money on, or the local bobby, or the local doctor.
hi im new here and didnt know where else to ask this question.
here goes sorry if its long!
i am in the middle of a mutual exchange to another area in my town everything my end was approved yesterday and today the other girls housing officer told us both we could move and on thursday could we come and exchange tenancies. then this afternoon i received a phone call from my h/o saying that the other h/o had said that he is refusing on the grounds that i dont need a 3 bed because i have 2 boys. it is a 3 bed for a 3 bed swap. my h/o said to get a letter from my doctor which i have stating that my youngest is disruptive at night and keeps the eldest child awake half the night making him tired for school which he does and is already in his own room. my doctor stated this in a letter which i have to take down 1st thing in the morning to my housing executive then my h/o will sort it with triangle housing.
i am so worried as they said yes then a while later no! i have an appointment in the morning for the new school they were supposed to be changing to and i just dont know what to do. sad and could cry i want this so badly
wiki page on Demos suggests they were running out of cash and people - perhaps they are desperate to catch some headlines and generate some interest?
'Over the summer of 2008 Demos cut back its workforce (from 23 full-time staff in January 2008 to 17 by September 2008) and did not attend any political party conferences, leading to speculation that it was in financial difficulty.
Following his appointment in 2010 as Special Adviser to the Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, Richard Reeves stepped down as Demos' Director and was replaced by former Economic Secretary to the Treasury, Kitty Ussher. She then left Demos and the new director is David Goodhart.'
Oh that means I would get a budget for work clothes then. Because I might receive tax credits, but I hold down a job too.
Are we allowed to spend money on cars, or will we have to ride our goats?
Do we get to tell pensioners who never worked outside the home how to spend their state money, too?
emmapenny, you need to start a new thread. Go to the top of the page on the left, where it says 'Talk', click on 'All topics' and choose the one that seems to suit your question the best. I think there are property topics...
And those on benefits.... That includes everyone who claims any child benefit of working tax credits..? Don't forget, these are 'on benefits' too
Someone told me years ago that they did this in Canada. Gave vouchers that could only be spent in certain shops instead of cash. Some countries have bottle stores and booze, fags are separate to supermarkets.
In general, no i probably wouldn't support this, but I would be lying if I said that I agree with people on benefits (especially those with children) who spent a significant amount of their income on fags, alcohol and drugs. And it happens, and despite what the collective on mn might believe, I don't just think its the odd person here and there.
Jesus fucking christ, yet more shite from are millionaire tory government friends! We're on full benefits atm, as DH was made redundant back in July. Should we not be allowed to buy little luxuries like chocolate or pizza? God forbid we might save up and buy some christmas presents for the kids, or even shock horror buy them new boots from Primark. FFS!
I think it would apply to 'out of work benefits' where families are wholly reliant on state money and unwaged.
Many pensioners are wholly reliant on state benefits and many never worked outside the home.
So why aren't they included in these plans?
Stacee, more likely the vouchers won't buy booze and fags, rather than chocs and boots.
It's very scary, even more scary that some people think this is a good idea.
Sorry, i should have made it clear, I mean the long term out of work benefits, but as this would be impossible to police, then theres nothing to be done about it other than accept it. I dont consider someone who is working but still needing to claim benefits to be able to afford a basic lifestyle the same as someone who chooses not to work. (And because this is mn, i mean people who choose not to work, not those who are unemployed and actively looking for work but just haven't found any, or the disabled, and those unable to work).
Well it shouldn't tressy
All claimants should be treated the same.....
Ok.... Where are all these people choosing not to work? Where?
Oh, here we go again! The 'choses not to work' line.
See the only way this could work, and I am not saying it is a good idea in fact I think it is almost akin to a police state not just telling people what to do, think, buy, eat, etc. They would also have the means to check up that you were obaying the rules as each card or voucher unlike individual notes or coins could be traced back to the individual and a check kept on what it was used for.
But that is not my main point, which is the only way this could work in practice is if the vouchers were only redeemable in a telco or asda or aldi. As well as the obviouse things like food, milk, nappies, etc. You will also need to allow people to buy things like, lightbulbs. Plates, cutlery, medicines like pain killers or threat lozenges. Sanitary wear, condoms, birthday cards, phone top ups.
It will only be the large stores that could supply the range of things, plus have the ready made technology to cope with people buying a range of items off one card. It would still prevent booze, lottery, and smokes. So my real point is this. The tax payer becomes the biggest customer of Tesco, thats not a free and open market, nor is it going to promote competition for everyone. So we subsidise the big companies and watch every single independent shop die or only exist in very rich areas.
Join the discussion
Already registered? Log in with:
Please login first.