Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To be agreeing with new conservative benefits proposal re alcohol etc

858 replies

Tigerthebreadroll · Today 07:26

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
6
DuncinToffee · Today 14:14

PinkFruitbat · Today 14:01

Not a tax loophole. Until 2020 under EU rules education cannot be taxed with VAT as education is deemed a merit good. This is ideological. Labour hate private schools and private thinking. Thank God private schools are protected by the ECHR.

Edited

The Right to education is protected and removing VAT is compatible with the ECHR

The UK left the EU, sovereignty remember?

Maomee · Today 14:14

I would focus on spending on migrants, we have millions and there are more arriving daily. Reducing the benefits foreign people are entitled to (and yes many of them are, I literally work with them) would not only cut the bill but would deter more from coming. However, since we already have so many it would be impossible to do this safely without pumping loads of money into policing, as crime would then skyrocket. So you either spend here or there really.

Ponderingwindow · Today 14:14

I think sometimes people need to step back and ask themselves ‘what really is the intention of benefits?’

Is the goal really to help people or is it ultimately to help preserve the status quo and prevent a rebellion. I would argue it is the later. Governments and societies as a whole are not that generous. Providing a pittance to the lowest classes keeps them from being so deprived that the entire capitalist system collapses.

Taking away any sense of comfort from the lowest classes could backfire and inspire a rebellion.

TheFishFish · Today 14:15

BIossomtoes · Today 14:11

I’d do exactly what the government is doing. Focus first on the million under 25s who have no jobs. Incentivise employers to provide apprenticeships and training schemes. Create a generation that expects to work. Then I’d get rid of the triple lock because 55% of the benefit bill is pensions.

Obviously the fact that pensions are by far the biggest benefits bill is something the tories and their aging voter base would rather you didn't bring up.

x2boys · Today 14:15

ruethewhirl · Today 14:10

What makes you think there are so many of them out there? It's harder than you might imagine to get and stay on benefits. You're talking as though vast droves of people are turning round the the DWP and saying 'Nah, can't be arsed working' and still getting awarded benefits. It doesn't work that way.

No and they are expected to spend hours everday looking for work too.

3wouldbegood · Today 14:16

I'm fully supportive although we may need increased provision for alcoholic withdrawal.

DuncinToffee · Today 14:16

Maomee · Today 14:14

I would focus on spending on migrants, we have millions and there are more arriving daily. Reducing the benefits foreign people are entitled to (and yes many of them are, I literally work with them) would not only cut the bill but would deter more from coming. However, since we already have so many it would be impossible to do this safely without pumping loads of money into policing, as crime would then skyrocket. So you either spend here or there really.

You work with them, you mean they are contributing to society in the same way you do?

XDownwiththissortofthingX · Today 14:17

PinkFruitbat · Today 14:09

Reinstate the child benefit cap. Why are we paying people to have 8 kids?

Again, you betray your total ignorance. Nobody is being "paid" to have 8 children .

People with 8 children are often subsidised because

1- having children is expensive

2 - having children is in the long-term interest of the country

3 - most people agree that children living in penury should be a historical reality and not a current one.

Please point me to the part where DWP says "we will pay you to have more children".

Maomee · Today 14:17

DuncinToffee · Today 14:16

You work with them, you mean they are contributing to society in the same way you do?

Sorry, not as colleagues. I work with them as in, in support of them.

HairsprayBabe · Today 14:18

@dustabsorber why are you talking about the people that cost 0.9% of the total benefits budget? It won't make a dent in the overall budget

Dragonscaledaisy · Today 14:19

CorporalJohn · Today 11:12

YABU. They will stop paying the tax on booze and cigarettes under that proposal. So the new "benefit" will be a 100% cost to the State instead of some of it being clawed back.

Yet another example of the Tories total inability to argue from cause to effect.

As a previous poster pointed out, many people are buying those things on the black market so there's no benefit to the government from them anyway.

drspouse · Today 14:19

Lurkingandlearning · Today 13:53

How would it work in the shop?

Would it be shop staff having to refuse to sell cigarettes and alcohol once the card is presented for payment? I wouldn’t want to be in that position.

If shop staff aren’t prepared to do that how would prohibited purchases be detected? How much is all this going to cost to set up and ongoing salaries for those monitoring the scheme.

Yes, the tills won't sell them if the form of payment is that card, so it's more automatic than the Think 25 system (where the customer could theoretically argue with the seller that they are in fact 50 and only a blind aardvark could think they weren't). More like the under-18 till operators I assume, where the till operator can't sell alcohol under their login, so the customer can argue as much as they like until a supervisor sorts it out.

TheLiftedLash · Today 14:20

I don't think you should restrict what benefits are spent on, but I think you should be made to work for your benefits.

So, if you are an able bodied person, who isn't a carer, you should be made to work 20-25 hours a week for your benefits. There should be a national team of recruitment job centre officers where local needs (charity shops, helping in care homes etc.) are channelled through the job centre. If you don't do the work, and do it willingly, then you get your benefits stopped. You get a reference where needed from the centre.

No one should be getting "paid" nearly the same as a working person, for doing nothing.

Also, if you come here as an immigrant, then you should not be allowed to claim any benefits at all. If you cannot afford to live here, then you should leave. I have been an immigrant in 4 other countries and was not entitled to one single benefit, and rightly so. I don't understand why we are giving money away to non British citizens.

Dragonscaledaisy · Today 14:21

BIossomtoes · Today 14:11

I’d do exactly what the government is doing. Focus first on the million under 25s who have no jobs. Incentivise employers to provide apprenticeships and training schemes. Create a generation that expects to work. Then I’d get rid of the triple lock because 55% of the benefit bill is pensions.

Labour is now spending million to try and fix a problem they created - soaring youth unemployment. It's laughable. It would be difficult to find a more clueless bunch of idiots attempting to run the country.

Myremoteislost · Today 14:21

Even working people are struggling and having to cut back, but no one seems to call that discrimination. This has been such an expensive month for me and I'm on the bones of my arse. I'd love a takeaway tomorrow night as I'd rather not cook after a long week, but I can't afford it so I won't be getting one. People who work are often seen as having a 'choice' in what they can buy, but that's not always the case.

DuncinToffee · Today 14:22

Maomee · Today 14:17

Sorry, not as colleagues. I work with them as in, in support of them.

Do they know that you think they shouldn't be receiving benefits?

5128gap · Today 14:22

Thezookeepersneice · Today 14:12

Like I say, I don’t have particularly strong opinions on VAT on private schools. Maybe there was an ideological element to it, although a quick google search shows it does seem to have raised revenue as intended: www.parallelparliament.co.uk/question/HL3141/private-education-vat

But all the evidence suggests the reforms the Conservatives are touting today won’t do what they are intended to do: the evidence from Australia suggests they won’t encourage people back into work, and there’s plenty of evidence to suggest they’ll put additional strain on our already struggling public services, costing the tax payer money.

Policy that doesn’t achieve its intended aims is bad policy. Once upon a time, the Conservatives were considered to be the party most capable of making pragmatic, competent policy decisions. This kind of knee jerk, ideological populism suggests otherwise.

The VAT on schools almost certainly had an ideological element. Many people believe private education is a bad thing for society overall.
However, it was also politically astute as it was largely popular, even amongst right wing voters, with even 36-47% of Tory and Reform voters approving of it. Of those who didn't actively approve, robust opposition was a small minority as only 6% of children are privately educated, so the numbers of voters impacted was small.
The PP who suggested this policy is the reason for benefit bashing is deluded both as to the importance of it and opposition to it in the mainstream.

BIossomtoes · Today 14:22

TheLiftedLash · Today 14:20

I don't think you should restrict what benefits are spent on, but I think you should be made to work for your benefits.

So, if you are an able bodied person, who isn't a carer, you should be made to work 20-25 hours a week for your benefits. There should be a national team of recruitment job centre officers where local needs (charity shops, helping in care homes etc.) are channelled through the job centre. If you don't do the work, and do it willingly, then you get your benefits stopped. You get a reference where needed from the centre.

No one should be getting "paid" nearly the same as a working person, for doing nothing.

Also, if you come here as an immigrant, then you should not be allowed to claim any benefits at all. If you cannot afford to live here, then you should leave. I have been an immigrant in 4 other countries and was not entitled to one single benefit, and rightly so. I don't understand why we are giving money away to non British citizens.

Edited

So you think unpaid labour is positive? We punish people who commit minor crimes with community service so how does that fit with your theory? I absolutely despair sometimes.

EasternStandard · Today 14:24

Dragonscaledaisy · Today 14:21

Labour is now spending million to try and fix a problem they created - soaring youth unemployment. It's laughable. It would be difficult to find a more clueless bunch of idiots attempting to run the country.

Yep hammer with NI and other policies first.

Lou7171 · Today 14:24

I don't agree with it. I'm happy they're not going to be in power anytime soon.

DuncinToffee · Today 14:24

TheLiftedLash · Today 14:20

I don't think you should restrict what benefits are spent on, but I think you should be made to work for your benefits.

So, if you are an able bodied person, who isn't a carer, you should be made to work 20-25 hours a week for your benefits. There should be a national team of recruitment job centre officers where local needs (charity shops, helping in care homes etc.) are channelled through the job centre. If you don't do the work, and do it willingly, then you get your benefits stopped. You get a reference where needed from the centre.

No one should be getting "paid" nearly the same as a working person, for doing nothing.

Also, if you come here as an immigrant, then you should not be allowed to claim any benefits at all. If you cannot afford to live here, then you should leave. I have been an immigrant in 4 other countries and was not entitled to one single benefit, and rightly so. I don't understand why we are giving money away to non British citizens.

Edited

Work for your benefits?

Why not pay a proper wage for the work?

TigerRag · Today 14:24

TheLiftedLash · Today 14:20

I don't think you should restrict what benefits are spent on, but I think you should be made to work for your benefits.

So, if you are an able bodied person, who isn't a carer, you should be made to work 20-25 hours a week for your benefits. There should be a national team of recruitment job centre officers where local needs (charity shops, helping in care homes etc.) are channelled through the job centre. If you don't do the work, and do it willingly, then you get your benefits stopped. You get a reference where needed from the centre.

No one should be getting "paid" nearly the same as a working person, for doing nothing.

Also, if you come here as an immigrant, then you should not be allowed to claim any benefits at all. If you cannot afford to live here, then you should leave. I have been an immigrant in 4 other countries and was not entitled to one single benefit, and rightly so. I don't understand why we are giving money away to non British citizens.

Edited

Why not employ them and give them a proper wage?

XDownwiththissortofthingX · Today 14:24

Dragonscaledaisy · Today 14:21

Labour is now spending million to try and fix a problem they created - soaring youth unemployment. It's laughable. It would be difficult to find a more clueless bunch of idiots attempting to run the country.

I must have imagined 3.1million unemployed thanks to Margaret Thatcher's policies precipitating a catastrophic recession. Thanks for putting me straight that this never happened and nobody was out of work prior to Labour fucking everything up. 🙂

Lurkingandlearning · Today 14:24

drspouse · Today 14:19

Yes, the tills won't sell them if the form of payment is that card, so it's more automatic than the Think 25 system (where the customer could theoretically argue with the seller that they are in fact 50 and only a blind aardvark could think they weren't). More like the under-18 till operators I assume, where the till operator can't sell alcohol under their login, so the customer can argue as much as they like until a supervisor sorts it out.

So the cards would only work in big supermarkets, not small shops with one or two staff?

Allisnotlost1 · Today 14:25

Ireallycantthinkofagoodone · Today 13:31

@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.

Do you think only employed people have cars? What about people who have recently been made redundant, who still need to take their children to school or attend hospital appointments or out of town supermarkets or attend job interviews?