do "we" have the right to say what benefit claimants spend the money on?

[DizzyHoneyBee]

In the news today, a think tank suggests that many would support restrictions on what benefit claimants can spend the money on.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19792066

What do you think?

I would like to stipulate what my taxes are spend on, actually.

I would cancel trident and spend it all on metaphorical fish and chips for kids at the seaside.

I find the culture in the UK towards those without has shifted. Policies are not helping resolve the issue of lack of employment. Labour did no one any favours by creating government jobs. The business environment has not allowed small and medium sized businesses to flourish for more than a decade. Instead we have a horrible concentration of jobs in the South East while the rest of the country makes do with low income jobs.

What I think would be a good idea is for benefits to have a supplemental food program for those in need. Here in the US they have the WIC program for pregnant women and children under 5. There are strict guidelines around what you can and cannot buy. Food stamps is a program that is in addition to the other programs out there to support those on low incomes. The amount of benefits paid out to people is not a lot and child benefit doesn't properly support a child in a low income household having a proper diet with fresh fruit, veg and decent meat plus all the other expenses associated with raising a child.

In addition, I would like to see is a shift to creating real jobs, supporting families and supporting the less fortunate. I think it is appalling that the government want to introduce quotas for women in the workplace yet are doing nothing to address the issues preventing women getting ahead in the first place. If Cameron was serious about helping women he would have introduced state provided childcare for all families regardless of income. It is sad that I would need to earn GBP50K a year to be able to stay in work with two preschool children. That is far too high a breakeven point. Don't get me started on the appalling way that disability is handled in the UK either..... The current set of policies make me ashamed to be British.

Yes its obtained legally. Thanks Saskia :)

And MrsBucket, we did earn that treat. We have paid our taxes and NI just like you have.

Try getting a job nowadays without access to the internet.

This is a terrible idea.

We have healthy Start vouchers for pregnant women and children under 4 in the UK.

"As for the park, stuff the over 60s and have a fun around."

I can't do that! There are dozens of them, and they're armed with cricket bats and bowling balls, and some have those mobility scooters - what if they turned nasty and started chasing me?

As for the effects of subsistence living, I would guess that the main one would be the effect on the mental health of people who have to do it long term. Yes, it might be ok for a few week or months, but year after year with no let up would be extremely depressing which puts more stress on the NHS. And of course, people with depression often neglect themselves physically too, so that would lead to physical illnesses as well.

well then wannabe its your money not the states, you are taking out of a system you have paid into thats what its there for

Thats how I see it sock.

MrsBucket sees it as scrounging. We are lazy according to her.

"MrsBucketxx Wed 03-Oct-12 16:59:10
benefits are meant to be short term thing not for years and years.

this is why the internet is a luxury, you can get what you need on your phone now without the need for broadband.

its shocking that people on here think its acceptable live on hand outs. when you are capable to work (that doesnt include disability benefits i might add). the whole system should be squeezed so that claimants can jyst about get buy therefore ensuring more people would have no choice but to earn money which everway they can."

Most people do not think it is acceptable to live on hand outs if you have the option of being able to get a job, if you can.

But the majority of good people would think it is disgusting and going to far to start controlling what and where people can spend their money. So you want people to "just" about get by....well, fucking wake up, most people do just about get by living solely on benefits, squeeze them much more and they will give up there and then. And yes they can get the internet on the phone, but in your little world were the poor come bowing and scraping I am sure they would not be allowed a phone that has internet, they can all have nokia 3210 and play snake, and that shall be their sole source of entertainment, as tv is a luxury, so get rid of that, books - no they cost money and god forbid you read for enjoyment, burn them for heat to save on electric and to boil your water over to have your asda price t bags.

And people will have to resort to anything to earn money anyway they can, anything..really? Literally anything!?

I don't know much about the US but frankly I wouldn't want a safety net system that in any way resembles the system in a country that has 6 million homeless children, many living in cars, a country where many people have rely on charity health clinics.

That's not a good example for anyone and the US should be ashamed of how it fails the poor.

i am insured for serious illness several times over, if i got ill (god forbid i wont) i would be better off, i would have no mortgsge and a larger income than i do now. i also have other assets i can sell.

i didnt have dc when i danced. i was working full time in the week too.

Sorry but can I just say, my dignity is worth far more than I could earn "dancing."

You dont come across as sensible or prudent MrsBucket. You come across as greedy.

unless ofcourse your illness isant covered and youve allready sold your assests

i wouldnt have picked the word greedy

This is the list. I picked the last one. And what are the effects of sustenance living on people who have access to children's centres, museums, libraries, schools, parks etc for free?

It's subsistence living, not sustenance.

Also, while being poor does effect people (poor mental health, more general health problems), it's the economy I was actually thinking of. Welfare spending has a strong multiplier effect you see.

It's all sweetness and light and fuck youlot I'm alright, until it all goes pear shaped and then you will be moaning about all those out of touch judgemental fuckers calling you a sponge and treating you like criminal.

The multiplier effect.

''In the context of government expenditures, the multiplier effect refers to an increase in national income and consumption greater than the initial amount spent''

www.ehow.com/about_5410682_multiplier-effect-food-stamps.html

The site refers to the US but it still applies over this side of the Atlantic.

Like a criminal. This tablets trying to make me type all Yorkshire like, treat you like criminal after years up mill.

MrsBucketxx You do realise that insurance policies of that kind are notorious for not paying out? You might think you've covered yourself, but should the worst happen it's very likely that your claims will be disallowed due to clauses in the small print.

mad banners has not heard of libraries then psssst there free.

They are also getting closed left right and centre and have waiting lists for the computer, hardly useful if the jcp has just told you to apply for a job that finishes in a few days, not to mention the masses of anti virus stuff some places have all over their pc's that render it impossible to download application forms or apply for anything that opens things up in a pop up window.

"Welfare spending has a strong multiplier effect you see."

This is true. People who claim benefits tend to spend all their money because they don't have enough to tuck away for a rainy day. They also tend to spend a greater proportion of their money in local businesses because they don't have the option to travel very far to do their shopping. They also pay more than average for gas and electricity because they tend to be using prepayment meters.

Also, people who are unemployed or single parents are more likely than the average person to provide unpaid care for elderly or disabled relatives, or free childcare for friends who work for low incomes. That alone saves the economy a huge amount!

saskia im not stupid i read small print and consulted the right people when i took them out.

Wow mrsbucket you deserve a medal.

thank you gold of course ;)