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

I was specifically replying to a poster who said ‘if you can’t use your benefits to repair your car, you might lose your job’. I simply pointed out that this use of benefit money would not apply if you were working.

It’s so annoying when others jump to erroneous conclusions.

Many people don’t have cars for myriad reasons. Amazingly they manage with alternative means.

Well, in my experience, no one (sensibly) will willingly starve to death.

If they don't get the funds legally, they will resort to crime to get what the need/want.

No easy answers to all this really. 🤷‍♀️

@dustabsorber
@PinkFruitbat
After 37.7 UC claimants being in work, 37% are in the disability group. That means 25% are not working, but there will be a percentage who are carers. Also a percentage who are disabled but they don't qualify for PIP etc. Which brings up the question if PIP is going to be the same.
There's a lack of full time work. There's lots of jobs, but they start from 7 hours a week. Hospital jobs are 15-20 hours and supermarkets similar. The areas were there are a lack of jobs are the ones were asylum seekers are dumped. Seasonal work is three months. There's a massive lack of jobs for 58+ year olds. Best get the military funded because things will explode. Someone has already brought up the system in the US. Are they getting hundreds of arrivals, being totally funded, while things get removed from the citizens? This is from the Tories, who told their friends to maximise the use of hotels and charge what they want. As well as the inflated contract prices across all public services. The Tories who allowed themselves to be overcharged by the Bibby Stockholm company, for millions. They were happy to pay £840 per person, per week. Then there's was the £715 million to Rwanda.
Gambling and alcohol are good sources of revenue. They employ people and are one of the reasons why people are still walking to their high streets.
So are we ok with going completely cashless? Can't see the issue, except Europe is preparing for war and it's going to be cyber attacks. It's going to cost community groups for cash machines for donations etc. It'll put an end to pop up local selling markets and visiting small fair rides. Life is going to get shit for many people. They'll need the army on the streets.

What are proper wages ?

Minimum FT wage is around £25k-26k.

How much more do you want?

A start might be abolishing the rub-off lottery cards. You see claimant types buying 10 rub off lottery cards at a time.

I've worked with clients who need a car to get to their job centre appointments, because public transport is so pisspoor here. |

Ridiculous - and to be clear, I am not out of work and I don't smoke or drink... so this wouldn't affect me (though with the way systems creep up, it might eventually).

• People WILL trade them for cash.
• Many of the people targeted will already be buying their booze and fags on the black market so they'll just trade in their tokens/stamps/vouchers/whatever one way or another
• This will make them even poorer in the long term which will affect their kids
• This will cost MORE to admin and deliver than just giving people money costs.

So it will make a portion of voters feel good that the ne'er do wells and scruffers aren't enjoying a smoke or a drink on them... whilst actually costing taxpayers more and doing nothing for those most affected by poverty - children.

slow handclap

Single people over 25 get 434 pounds a month on UC. How does that equate to being richer than someone in work

Actually hilarious. Do you think there are enough charity shops to accommodate everyone out of work ?

Helping in care homes for 100 quid a week. 25 hours. 4 quid an hour? A third of min wage. There's a name for that. Slave labour

The point i made was relating to child benefit being restricted so you could only buy food for it. Child benefit is paid to plenty of people in full-time employment, and it was an example of how a seemingly harmless restriction of benefits can have hugely damaging repercussions leading to people requiring more state help than would ever be saved.

So yeah, annoying when others don't bother to read posts properly and jump to erroneous conclusions, eh.

"claimant types". You mean scum like me as someone called people on benefits earlier?

@EasternStandard - this was a reply to you, edited as failed to quote you - sorry.

My question was to a PP about where this overwhelming evidence that unemployment has soared under Labour is, because I personally haven’t seen evidence to back that up, and I do think it’s important discussions like this are grounded in reality and pragmatism.

But I absolutely agree with you that - whoever is in government - they should listen to the expert opinion of those affected by their policy choices. So, if SME employers are saying tax raises are having consequences for employment then I hope the government listen and look at that. But equally, I hope the Conservatives listen to experts about the consequences of these proposals - because I think what they’ll find is these suggestions are unworkable and incredibly costly to the tax payer.

When it comes to youth unemployment in particular, I do have a bit of faith in Andy Burnham - he has a good track record in Manchester of the public and private sector working together for social good, and I like the way he talks about improved vocational training, and better links with local employers.

Pay enough without the need of benefit top ups. That would lower the welfare bill.

In this context I mean at least the minimum FT wage as opposed to the benefit rate,

You wouldn't want to undercut jobs, would you?

Ponoka7

Well, I expect we'd both agree that the Tories sodded it up.

But, so are Labour. We cannot just keep throwing money, we have to borrow, at everyone.

Andy, running around, as a 'man of the people for all seasons' doesn't really do it. 🙄

This may have just won the conservatives my vote

Social services has a high ceiling nowadays- if a child has a bed, is clothed and basically fed and clean ( ish) they don’t get involved- or the parents refuse SS help.
We have many kids at our school who are either not given breakfast or a very nutritionally inadequate one- think chocolate milk/ crisps and need feeding again by 9.30. Somehow these children manage to be taken on holidays abroad- I suspect in a few cases the parents would rather save money and have the school foot the breakfast bill. But at the end of the day you have to feed a child and if we have to feed them then we feed them- if is not their fault.

Not to mention the true unemployment figures being hidden by claimants being migrated to sickness benefits for the flimsiest of reasons so they wouldn’t count.

How much is that then as an annual wage?

How much is £25k NMW + UC + all the rest of it?

Not just for the rich but for people who have earned the right to choose what they spend their hard earned money on.

I worked for the (old) DHSS then.

We were told by Thatchers government to put literally everyone we could onto the then incapacity benefit/IVB. For the silliest of things.

It lowered the unemployment numbers, politically expedient, gave the claimants more money, so they were happy, and doctors were cheerful about signing medical certificates.

But, it's had the effects of unexpected outcomes now.

I can't answer that, you could try googling and anyway I explained the context which you are ignoring

Do you think people should work for the lower benefit rate?

What does a "claimant type" look like? Do tell.

Don't give them ideas 😂

Ive worked and been on UC at the same time several times. My money was hard earned

Right, and I pointed out that your helpful observation doesn’t translate to the wider population of people on benefits. You can get annoyed when people engage with your posts but it seems a bit silly.

Of course, many do, and many live in areas where there is insufficient public transport and have no choice if they wish to do more than survive.

The purpose of child benefit is to help parents with the cost of rearing their children, so I’m not sure why you think parents should be allowed to use it to buy alcohol or cigarettes??

Very puzzling.