To be agreeing with new conservative benefits proposal re alcohol etc

[Tigerthebreadroll]

They will cut benefits for people that haven't paid into the system and been unemployed for over 6 months (don't quote me on that number ) by 30 % and it will be given on a prepaid type card. Meaning it won't be accepted by betting shops, for alcohol or cigarettes. I feel that's right . Why should tax payers money be spent on funding cigarettes etc but I have no problem with funding the basics like food etc.
Thoughts?
Basically you will claim full benefits if you've worked and paid into the system. Should reduce generational unemployment hopefully

When they increased the pension age to 67, people had to work for longer, thus less jobs available for the kids fresh out of school. Perhaps if people were encouraged to retire at 60, and paid a decent pension, more jobs would be available for the youngsters? I know quite a few people in their mid 60's who are desperate to retire, but have to keep soldiering on.

A lot of people have to use part of the standard allowance of UC to top up their rent, because the housing costs element is below their actual rent.

Giving this in vouchers would make that impossible, leading to rent arrears and risk of eviction.

Today it'll be drink and cigs, tomorrow it'll be chocolate and anything else vaguely pleasurable, because really all you need to survive is lentils, pulses, legumes, potatoes, bread, cereal, and some fruit and veg, correct? And then you might have some bad luck and be out of a job. And then you won't be able to spend your benefits money on a bar of chocolate to cheer yourself up.

Still, I expect with your attitude, you're well-off enough that that is never going to be you. It's always people who are safely insulated from the problems that poor people face who hate poor people the most.

Not at all. They should be out focusing on getting a job! The problem is that too many spend 24/7 at home in front of the tele

I used to teach in a very deprived area for many years.

The layabout, generational unemployed families were very much in the minority. There were one or two maximum in each class.

Most had parents working long hours in very low paid jobs, immigrant families included, and their pittance they were trying to survive on very much was spent on raising happy, well educated children.

Things in reality are not as the right wing press want you to believe.

They won’t get in any way so there’s no point thinking about it.

Benefit scroungers will always find a way to evade work. They will just claim to have anxiety and get disability benefits instead.

We need to increase the minimum wage to incentivise people to work, and support low earners with some of the same benefits that go with UC .

We all know about the high energy prices.

Do you now encourage government support?

Ratcliffe could start paying his taxes in the UK

It sounds all very well on paper and on principle, but then once implemented where does it stop?

Plus people will work around it as always and just get creative. Ie pay for food for their friend and their non benefits friend will buy the other stuff. Theres always a black market for everything.

I was turned down three times for LCWRA. I suffer from anxiety depression and PTSD.

Agreed. IMO you've hit the nail on the head re Reform - this isn't about saving money (as you point out, it's unlikely to save much if any), it's about appeasing the Daily Mail and neutralising Reform with what they hope will be a populist policy.

hang on let me take notes...

poor.. people.. don't.. deserve.. anything.. nice..
Got it 🙄

Most people on UC are either working, disabled or caring for someone who is unable to work.

Less than 15% of people on UC are not working, not disabled, and do not have caring responsibilities.

Most of that 15% are classed as "short term unemployed" this could be anything from supply teachers over the summer holidays, to a new graduate to someone who has just been made redundant.

When you calculate the amount of UC that this group collects as a total it is £9 billion, when you remove the housing element (that goes straight to the pockets of the already wealthy) it is £4 billion.

HMRC estimates the total "tax gap" (unpaid tax) for all wealthy individuals was £3.6 billion.

Yes please lets tax wealth and not strip the vulnerable even more.

Why give them any choice at all? A ration of porridge, three carrots and one and a half eggs should be dropped off on a weekly basis. Whilst we are at it, pensioners can probably make do on the same. Why would they need anything more than subsistence?
(No, I do not support this at all)

YES! If you want to go out on the lash you fund it yourself!!!

We lived in a part of London that had houses for people who owned or had a mortgage. Then a few of them (or flats therein) were council houses.

We were young professionals working all hours, commuting on the tube, on repeat. We couldn’t afford £80pm on sky tv (or whatever it was), we couldn’t afford more than 2 children when the time came. But I’d see these families in the council houses, most had more than 2 kids, they All had satellites on the side of the council house, and most of them didn’t seem to work. Usually they had a newish car too.

How do you know? You do understand that someone in the all work group on UC has to evidence to their work coach that they are looking for work or risk a sanction

Without debating the merits of this specific issue, do you think our government should do something to create jobs or continue to borrow and tax to fund benefits.

If they can invest in job creation, then people can get jobs.

When did I say I go out on the lash?

It's a crazy idea. Interesting that it's polling here as a majority reasonable proposal, on a forum that prides itself on being liberally inclusive and without prejudice.
It's illustrative I think of the classist attitudes of many; their charitable consideration doesn't stretch to the 'under classes'.

Policies like this won't benefit these faux middle class types anyway, they'll still be skint and living off aldi own brands in order to fuel their cars and put the heating on.

Also - there are lots of jobs available. Just jobs that people don’t want.

Is this a radical perspective?
Not radical, but a bit in line with fascist and totalitarian thinking. What's wrong with a bit of social care for our own society? A bit of help for the less fortunate? People who are sick, impoverished, in emotional pain, etc? Who are unable to be high earners and may not even want to be?

He doesn’t have too and he thinks they’re too high here. Why would he? He’s an international businessman. He doesn’t ’live’ anywhere more than a few weeks a year. Why would he choose to pay tax here? It makes no sense for him to do so.

People going out on the lash is good for the the hospitality industry and the economy. That benefit money gets funnelled back to government coffers. Win win!

I do think we need more social clubs. But free community groups for all ages, not giving money to people to go to the pub with.

I also agree with this and find it quite depressing. I do think Kemi Badenoch is an intelligent, competent woman and I had (perhaps naively) hoped she would be a serious leader of the opposition, with serious, pragmatic ideas about how to tackle the problem’s the country is facing. I find this kind of performative, populist nonsense from her really disappointing.

They'd still be applicable for DLA, carers allowance, higher band for council housing etc. They wouldn't be left without anything.