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

Well this is really the elephant in the room.

If there is any truth to the claim that Welfare is undermining the financial wellbeing of the UK, it's seems rather odd then to have constant back-and-forth about snipping off the comparatively tiny spends on the periphery, while totally refusing to contemplate doing anything much at all to the single largest spend.

Of course, nothing at all to do with the fact that Pensioners are one of the most politically active cohorts (in terms of actually voting) there is.

The data shows the current incline started in 2021. It has continued under Labour, but I’m not sure you can say they directly caused it in 2021.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06705/

How can that possibly be logical when virtually every country in Europe is seeing the same trend? I note that you haven’t presented any evidence.

He was funded his alcohol use by his abusive father who found it easier to share his beer ( bought from his wages) with an 11yr old when dealing with the horrific death of his wife (this guys mother) rather than parent him. He was arguably an alcoholic by 13.
He worked when he was younger, in trades where heavy drinking after work was the norm.

Quick to jump to assumptions there weren't you? Perhaps you should be better informed before making demands about changes to systems.

You mean the "problem" of roughly a 0.5% net rise, taking it back to where it was around the time of the tail-end of David Cameron's government?

This would seem to be a fairly typical natural fluctuation given history, but it's apparently "soaring" and a "problem" because there is an incumbent Labour government. 🙄

No, it doesn’t. I can only talk for me. I don’t judge others. 👍

The problem is businesses especially SMEs were clear on what increasing costs would do to hiring and Labour were cloth eared.

You can see the impact on threads on here with people stressing about their dc getting jobs. I think some are immune to that and don’t know anyone trying to get work.

Where is this overwhelming evidence?

Well, perhaps more younger people should drag themselves away from their screens and vote then?

If it’s based on votes, then go for it. 👍

A good start would be a massive social housing building programme @HareBrewery .

A lot of households would be off UC entirely if they were in a council property at £150pw instead of a private rent at £1500 a month. The taxpayer is paying off the mortgages of BTL landlords.

This is what FDR did in the Great Depresssion. He prioritised 'workfare' to try and retain a sense of purpose and dignity- not all jobs were great but there were some good programs. A good idea overall imo.

Diamonds and caviar are only for rich people - is that ok? Alcohol and cigarettes actively make you less healthy and less able to enjoy life. Not sure why it’s beneficial to poorer people to try to protect their access to these drugs?

The point was that you do get housing benefit if you are in the benefit system! As in a benefit helping you to cover part of whole of your rent that working people don't get, they have to find the full rent from their employment. So there is no incentive to work if you would lose your housing benefit. People I work with are so accustomed to the fact that they pay hardly any rent and can't see what it's like in the 'real' world.

Some working people get the housing element of universal credit.

I'm in agreement with your basic point, nowhere near enough of the general population do actually participate. However, the reason I don't think it's as simple as all that, is that if we accept that politicians deciding policy and general approach to problems based upon what is most electorally expedient for them as politicians is the preferable approach, then the problems aren't being tackled in any meaningful way because the onus is then entirely about running the country in the way most likely to get you voted back in, and not what's most likely to be the best for the country itself.

That short-termism is part of the reason why the UK is struggling, but the solutions to it aren't obvious, simple, or likely to be popular and be reflected in the public voting. On the contrary. Any Government that does make difficult choices intended to see longer-term benefit is just likely to be punished for it come polling time.

😜You don’t know anything about government IT programmes do you? How much money do you want the government to spend to administer a system that limits the items a small proportion of benefits claimants can purchase? 20m? 50m? 100m?

She of course didn’t bother to cost the proposals, but the Independent had a go.

They estimated between £150 million and £400 million upfront, followed by £50 million to £150 million annually in operational costs.

You could have used technology to find that out yourself. Careful you don’t get left behind.

He provided paid work, not work for benefits.

If there are jobs to be done, proper wages should be paid.

Or capping rents…

What rubbish

Labour haven’t just come back

They have been in office for two years… and they have had fourteen years to work out what to do.

The population has both grown in size and age. You would expect the benefits bill to grow in both real and nominal terms.

If they don’t have money paid into their account, how will they pay their bills?

I realised that they must cost a fair bit, but it never occurred to me it might be that much. I wonder if that includes the cost of the tribunals where the DWP concedes at the last minute?

The welfare rights team I worked in only ever lost one PIP tribunal, and that was years ago. When I retired last year, our appeals spreadsheet had over 500 appeals on it, nearly all of them for PIP.

Yes, I agree, and no, the problems aren't going to be solved by bar stool, or forum preachers. But, voting is the only thing we have, so best use it. Not voting just means you aren't considered. 😉

How do you know they're new? Smart phones all look pretty much the same now.

Not just working people. I'm a pensioner that rents, on no means tested benefit, so I have to pay my full rent.

No worries, but it's not just younger people affected. 😉

I really resent the comments about 'lefties' hating this. I think anyone who is a critical thinker can see why it's an absolute shit show.
Yes, it's 'unfair' that someone on benefits can afford 20 B&H and beer and hard working tax payers can't, let's just accept that.
So then, because it's 'unfair' we introduce a complicated card system (that I guarantee costs more than it will save) to stop this unfair equality of opportunity in the UK.
And what probably happens as a result:

• alcohol, gambling and cigs become.a black market activity. They continue to be purchased via the sale of heavily discounted groceries, probably exacerbating the scarcity of food in those households
• mental health crises increase for people with heavy drink dependency
• increased crime and deprivation
• then the government will whip them away, when the cost to administer them becomes apparent
• anyone who did have a safety net via the cards (ie: household spending on drink reduced due to stigma/difficulty in obtaining it) loses that net, and drinking suddenly spirals again.