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

Or your kid needs new school school shoes and uniform or equipment and yet your benefits only buy food.

@TheFishFish - did you miss the point that food cards only apply to unemployed people on benefits?

If you are working, you can spend your wage/salary to fix your car.

WTF should taxpayers pay for your car repairs?

How else would some people get to work?

I can’t believe how many posters have fallen for it. It’d make sense if it was April Fools day. Let’s marginalise the already marginalised. That’ll help bring about a cohesive and caring society. Let’s shame people. Let’s make people feel worse than they do. How many posters on here will be furiously filling in the UC forms when AI snaffles their jobs.

It not punishing anyone. Some people aren't capable of deciding how to spend money. This is proven by poor decisions like smoking or gambling over feeding their kids. We pay adequate benefits that no child should be hungry going to school yet it still happens due to poor decision making.

I don't have issues with a community worth scheme personally.

But it needs to be non-punitive in nature (so not pointless jobs or unduly menial ones), and for a limited number of hours so they still have time to job search and would be effectively 'paid' a rate through benefits that's minimum wage.

Ideally all apart from those with significant disabilities would be found a placement doing something, as everyone has something to contribute - it's just a matter of finding what they can do.

However whether it's economically viable is another matter as it would have to be properly organised and administered. We could theoretically have thousands of gardeners whose task is to make verges and roundabouts pretty, and who learn gardening skills. The properly vetted could do the elderly's gardens. They could (again with vetting) help run after school clubs in schools, to keep the costs to parents down. They could have charity work like helping in soup kitchens validated to count.

But in the short/medium term it would cost more than it would save.

public transport. Walk. Run. Cycle?

They are not "paying for your car repairs". The payment helps provide a minimum income, which means the poster can afford to run a car, which is necessary for their job, thereby keeping them in employment and presumably paying Tax themselves.

This is the problem with this zero-sum slash all benefits stupidity. It's utterly short-sighted, rooted in nothing but spite and vindictiveness, and is entirely counter-productive in any case.

If they have a job they can pay for their own car running costs!

Well, i came here with no skin in the game, to find a range of views, and i haven't been disappointed. I can see how and why this could be a headline grabbing, popular policy - until you scratch the surface.

It's a slippery slope, isn't it, state controlled definitions of the things that are deemed to be luxury items, or harmful to health? If we have the means of restricting items like this, then it's not that much of a stretch to see the list being extended - which foods are they allowed to buy? Which subscriptions are they allowed to have? What transport must they use? Before you know it, you've created an underclass of underclass. Only the poweful get to decide how the underclass can spend money, and only they get to decide what is harmful to those who can't afford it.

I don't think you can introduce systems like this without tackling the root causes of long term unemployment and addiction. And i certainly can't see the Conservatives doing much of that. I'd love to say they'd redirect the money to more 'deserving' causes, or spend it on improving outcomes in other ways for society - such as investment in mental health services, or prevention services. But they won't. Because while the working and middle classes have a common enemy (however small that enemy actually is), they can continue to pretend that everyone has the same life opportunities.

Honestly? I don't smoke and don't drink much. I'm reasonably affluent, I spend my money as I like. I don't particularly like the thought of others engaging in habits that are bad for their health, at my expense. But I'm not the Government, and I believe that Government policies need to go beyond quick fixes and sensationalist headlines to enable sustainable, long term societal change and health outcomes.

Something needs to be done to break those on benefits who see that income as a lifestyle choice. Benefits are meant to be a safety net, not for luxuries (alcohol and cigarettes are not essentials). However there are people who absolutely need help and will probably be life long receivers who should not be penalised.

We could all end up in need, however there is a vast swathe of people who know how to play the system and see benefits as free money that other people pay for. Those people make things worse for those in need.

You can not be this stupid? Surely....

That's some assumption. I'm on UC and I wouldn't do that. What makes you think everyone on UC smokes and drinks ?

How do you know it's vaste

Nearly 800 illegal immigrants arrived on one day this week, a record for this year. 800 people holding out the begging bowl. They need to tackle this, but Tories didn’t when they were in power. We have a seemingly bottomless pit of cash when it comes to illegal immigrants and all they need. They won’t have paid into the system.

The state has just decided to tax private school parents, to cheers from the left; done for no financial benefit, just pure envy and spite, and huge cost to children.

You reap what you sow.

If you want to dish out financial attacks on one part of society, you then need to expect a backlash in return.

They did talk about it while in power and scrapped the idea for exactly the reasons put forth on this thread

It won't work and it'll cost more to implement than it will save.
No idea why it's come up again when they already KNOW it's a non starter

They should pay for their own food, clothing, toiletries, water, heating, electricity, their share of the council tax where a single-person discount has been lost because they’re living at home, their own mobile phone costs, transport costs, and haircuts at the very least.

Do you understand that there are family situations (usually single mothers) who literally CANNOT afford to subsidise an extra adult?

You do realise we have computers that can imitate and out think humans now, and you are wondering how we could possibly as a country set up a computer system with controls over spending via an app or a card.
I think you need to get up to date with where technology is up to, you are being left woefully behind.

Exactly, sell the car and get the bus. Plenty of working people can't afford a car.

"The car is necessary for the job" is apparently too complicated for multiple posters to grasp.

It couldn’t work that way. Tesco are not going to check your shopping for an alcopop. It would have to be restricted to individual small shops where the shopkeeper packs your shopping. So no petrol. No clothes. Only expensive groceries.

Are you happy for that benefit to be cut by 30%?