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?

omg i have heard it all, its now entitled to treat your kids to fish and chips at the sea side once in a blue moon.

a mother on here the other month got slated because she couldnt even afford to take her kids to the beach for a day out. the company she used to work for went bust she had worked all her life was on contribution based jsa.

if anybody said that to me in real life i would probally tell them to fuck the fuck off to the far side of fuck and when they get there fuck off a bit more.

Mrsbucketxx if you are so determined that benefits, that everyone pays for should be a temporary thing until you get a job, no matter how many years you have paid into the system. Do you get tax credits and child benefit? If so when are you going to go get a job?.

"its shocking that people on here think its acceptable live on hand outs. when you are capable to work"

MrsBucket Firstly, people aren't getting 'handouts', they are receiving benefits they are entitled to due to paying tax and national insurance.

Secondly, I don't think it's acceptable for people to live on benefits, I just don't choose to bash those who are forced to. I reserve my anger for those who have systematically screwed up the economy over the last 30 years or so and then try to cast the blame onto the victims of their policies. You may think it's ok to kick people when they're down, but most people on this thread can see the bigger picture.

I didn't say it was entitled to do so, I said it was unreasonable to expect JSA to cover all of that. Plenty of people in work fret about affording things like that. If you hadn't given a great long list of things, then yes it is reasonable to be able to save a pound here or there to afford the odd treat (which is why vouchers are a bad plan), but not to have a treats element to what should be a safety net.

And I can't believe I'm on the same side of the argument as Hyacinth Bucket.

Oh and another question, bucket did you name change from xenia?

SunWukong I was wondering that too!

^^ What Saskia said.

I took my DD to the aquarium today. Its her last few weeks of having me all to herself before baby comes along.

Was that wrong? Because I am currently on benefits should she miss out?

I worked for years. As did my DP. His profession caused him to pay higher levels of NI. We both fully intend to work again asap until we are of pension age. So why are we made to feel like scum because the state of the country has us on our knees?

It's a terrible idea. It means benefit claimants wouldn't be able to buy anything with cash - so that rules out anything second hand - no car boot sales, charity shops, second hand book shops, jumble sales or school fairs.

It also rules out shopping at many local shops or the local fruit & veg market, or - like the poster above says - the local chippy.

And I suspect ebay would be no-go.

This would make it very difficult indeed to make your money stretch.

Who are 'we' anyway? I am sure those making the decision on who can buy what would have to have a change of heart if they were unfortunate enough to need benefits themselves

You wouldn't be able to sell on clothes or games on ebay because you wouldn't be able to buy postage stamps to send them.

That's just crackers.

i didnt give a great long list that was someone else i just commented on you targeting fish and chips and the sea side

i have savings to cover that if we have a bad month or so we use that. i dont and have never claimed a thing not even cb i dont need to dh and i work for ourselves.

i have in the past done ironing, dog walking, factory jobs, podium dancing, promo work any thing to make money.

this has always been my username too.

See, SmellsLike I don't think people on benefits should be given money to afford all those things. Yes people should not be in fear of loosing their home, the lights going off or not being able to eat, but that doesn't mean that the taxpayer should fund luxuries. Your argument looses a lot of strength if you think everyone has a right to fish and chips at the seaside.*

It's probably cheaper to give a bit extra money to afford small luxuries in life than it is to deal with the consequences of subsistence living.

wannabe you should look at earning the treats for your child the state should not be paying for this

For all those who are banging on about feckless, work shy, benefit scroungers, I suggest you read this article How many people are unemployed in the UK

'Counting every individual in each of the main categories above gives a total of just under 6.9 million people either looking for a job, or claiming they would like one ? though some are in some form of employment.

This is without including whichever people working multiple jobs are job-hunting, or the under-employed.

Such figures help to explain the huge application ratios many jobseekers report experiencing in a way just comparing the headline 2.67 million unemployed figure to 476,000 vacancies might not.'

So 6.9 million people applying for 476,000 jobs. Do the maths. Then shut the fuck up about feckless, work shy benefit scroungers. There probably ARE a few. But in the light of these statistics, I don't think it really matters. In fact I say good for them, less competition for the rest of us who do want to find a job

The restrictions idea is terrible, it will simply stigmatise benefit claimants even more than they are already by the press.

And what if that bad month turns into a bad six months, or a bad year? How long will your savings last? What if you or your DH have a serious accident or develop a chronic and debilitating illness? Will your savings cover you for that?

Seriously, you are either extremely naive, or an astroturfer for the Taxpayers' Alliance.

Did you claim child benefit when you were podium dancing? Or did you not have children then?

Just because a focus group full of resentful squeezed middle tax payers think it is a good idea doesn't make it one in practice.

I would hate to see this introduced. I live in an area with a high ratio of claimants. Burglaries and muggings would go up like a shot.

Why don't they just jump straight to putting people in a workhouse? And take total control over their lives and lifestyles?

no no no where is the insentive to work then

So you think in this day and age with on avarage 15 people chasing every vacancy, you or your dh would be able to get a job in a month or so? Good luck with that unless you have connections or training in a special field it's very hard, took me 11 years get my first job.

so people on benefits can't celebrate birthdays or Christmas, and if their washing machine breaks down they can't replace or get it fixed. They can't run cars, take their kids for days out, buy ice cream from an ice cream van, get fish and chips at the sea side.

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?

"wannabe you should look at earning the treats for your child the state should not be paying for this"

Wannabe I'm a tax payer, feel free to use my contribution to treat your daughter, and I hope you both have a lovely time :)

MrsHoarder Where I live, we've never had a museum, the library closed down six months ago, the park consists of a bowling green and cricket pitch and anyone under 60 is not made welcome. And going to school is a right, not a treat.

wannabe you spend your money if it is obtained legally and claimed correctly anyway you want.

You haven't explained what the effects are though.

I'm not saying those on benefits should be prevented from spending money on treats, just that the amount given should be intended to live on. That doesn't mean that with careful budgeting treats can't be saved up for.

School is a right, but it is also something which enriches children's lives and is free for them.

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

And yes, Wannabe, have a great time.