Alternative proposal for benefits allocation

[lovelydivot]

This is such a difficult issue...

The entire system has to be fixed.

[Pedro Sánchez]

Not at all , I'm saying that these people have to be written off as a loss in order for the system to exist, if they turn to crime because their JSA is removed then the tax payer is still paying for them if they end up in prison, some people are just never going to work.

If someone shows the initiative to find a job and a genuine desire to work, they deserve a chance. giving up on these people before they even start will allow the problem to embed itself for generations to come.

I'm talking about those where the education system has failed them and they have no desire to work not the ones who are finding it hard looking for work.

The education system failed me and I still got a job. People can change, and if we just say 'oh you havent wanted work for x amount of time so you always have to live like this' then that's a bit shit of us as a society.

Mate, some people DON"T WANT TO WORK and have no desire to even attempt, that's just a fact we have to deal with, I would rather they were given £71 a week than mugging old ladies to get money. I grew up around many people like this and their attitude was 'working is a mug's game, i'm not letting some prick tell me what to do' these are not the type of people I personally would want to share workplace with if they were forced to work, they are a liability at best.

[scspkr99]

Mate, some people DON"T WANT TO WORK and have no desire to even attempt, that's just a fact we have to deal with, I would rather they were given £71 a week than mugging old ladies to get money. I grew up around many people like this and their attitude was 'working is a mug's game, i'm not letting some prick tell me what to do' these are not the type of people I personally would want to share workplace with if they were forced to work, they are a liability at best.

I'd rather give them the £71 a week than the kid who does want to work but whose job is taken by someone who doesn't

1 years worth of JSA MP's were allowed to claim for attending Thatchers funeral stnuc

[Dystinkt]

Not at all , I'm saying that these people have to be written off as a loss in order for the system to exist, if they turn to crime because their JSA is removed then the tax payer is still paying for them if they end up in prison, some people are just never going to work.

If someone shows the initiative to find a job and a genuine desire to work, they deserve a chance. giving up on these people before they even start will allow the problem to embed itself for generations to come.

I'm talking about those where the education system has failed them and they have no desire to work not the ones who are finding it hard looking for work.

The education system failed me and I still got a job. People can change, and if we just say 'oh you havent wanted work for x amount of time so you always have to live like this' then that's a bit shit of us as a society.

Mate, some people DON"T WANT TO WORK and have no desire to even attempt, that's just a fact we have to deal with, I would rather they were given £71 a week than mugging old ladies to get money. I grew up around many people like this and their attitude was 'working is a mug's game, i'm not letting some prick tell me what to do' these are not the type of people I personally would want to share workplace with if they were forced to work, they are a liability at best.

I'm saying help the people that do want to work, and don't help those that don't want to work. Fucking hell I had to simplify that so much.

[scspkr99]

I'm saying help the people that do want to work, and don't help those that don't want to work. Fucking hell I had to simplify that so much.

You help the ones that do want to work by not forcing those that don't to work.

[Dystinkt]

I'm saying help the people that do want to work, and don't help those that don't want to work. Fucking hell I had to simplify that so much.

You help the ones that do want to work by not forcing those that don't to work.

HELP PEOPLE THAT DO WANT TO WORK, STOP SUBSIDIZING PEOPLE THAT DON'T.

[scspkr99]

HELP PEOPLE THAT DO WANT TO WORK, STOP SUBSIDIZING PEOPLE THAT DON'T.

Why? and How?

[Genevieve]

Seeing enjoyment, recreation and fun as a purely materialistic thing is exactly what's wrong with society.

You can escape routines and recharge your batteries without taking wealth from one person and giving it to another. We don't see it because we're raised so materialistically, but you don't have a right to drugs, a big screen tv, a gaming computer or an expensive festival because other people can afford it and you can't. And saying it's not only ok but NECESSARY to extort wealth out of people so that those less well off can enjoy the same superfluous luxuries is a reinforcement of the disgusting new lows that materialism has taken in society.

It's hypocrisy plain and simple. The wealthy are hated for their materialism and their relentless pursuit of aquiring more pointless luxuries. But then, those same people feel that everyone should have access to those same luxuries to be happier? To get more enjoyment? Has consumerism become the norm so much that even its most vocal opponents have subconsciously adopted it as the norm? It reminds me so much of feminism, where masculinity is seen as evil, but the clasically masculine 'ideal' of the provider is glamorized and something that should be forced onto women.

Wealth doesn't make you happier and doesn't make life more fun. Instead of reinforcing the idea that you need to spend money on gadgets to have fun, we need to raise our children with the knowledge that fun comes from within and is shared between you and your loved ones. Not you and and the latest piece of technology and media.

I am against vouchers for one of the reasons expressed previously; it creates another class that can be discriminated against (and I believe that this is the actual reason why someone suggested the implementation of it. If you create a class that you can control, you gain political strength). But saying it's a neccessity for people to spend their benefits money on luxuries that don't contribute to the overal quality of their lives is a confirmation of the same consumerism that the top 1% gets so much flack for.

[scspkr99]

So there's 2.52 million unemployed

there's about .5 million job vacancies

there's 2 million people you're going to have to pay entitlements to. Me I'd rather give the money to those that don't want to work allowing those that do to do than force people into employment they don't want at the expense of those that do.

The cost to society of people who don't want to work is largely a myth and that it's taken up so much discussion is indicative of people not really understanding that

[lovelydivot]

...we just need to pay those that work - significantly more than those that don't.


welcome to the American Health insurance benefits being connected to employment method...



don't worry - that is also failing...because uninsured go to the hospital instead of clinics
costing 6 times as much...and wasting serious hospital resources...

At least with Obamacare - we can get them out of the hospital with their common cold sniffles...


The last time I went to the walk-in clinic was for severe poison ivy - and it cost $120 just for the visit

next up - insurance AND tort reform...

[lovelydivot]

I'm gonna hit you with this one...

When I first went to college I knew of exacty TWO people my age who owned their own businesses...

Both were Mexican-Americans from California...
and both got their money from being hit by city busses...

One owned a skate shop - was a grafitti artist
The second owned a building that had a shop on the first floor, artist studio rentals on the second


What's that Eminem song...Here it is.. Fucking Crazy

(Chorus)
Cause any man who would jump in front of a minivan
For twenty grand, a bottle of pain pills and a minithin
Is fuckin' crazy, you hear me?
Is fuckin' crazy (Hello? Hi)

[scspkr99]

...we just need to pay those that work - significantly more than those that don't.
.

apologies for the edit but yep raise the minimum wage

[lovelydivot]

...but then that's gonna raise prices for customers...

It would be ok if there was a system subsidizing everyone - but there's not
- because most of the world is functioning in that other reality.

The popular one - Popular Reality.



I'm going to come out of this thread now...it's making me depressed.

[Genevieve]

Ok here we go again...

I can understand - you got knocked up...
I can even understand...you want your kid to have a sibling...ok

BUT COME ON - THAT THIRD ONE??

You could have waited 5 years until you finished state funded dental hygenist school!!!

U kno, I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not, but I'd take it one step further. I once saw a report on TV where these mothers were complaining that the state doesn't give enough money to daycares. They were convinced that those jobs deserve more money, because they want a cheap daycare for their children.

And I'm thinking.. who forced oyu to have a kid in the first place? Like children are the most precious thing ever. There's no bigger JOY and responsibility in your life than a kid. In this day and age, you shouldn't just get knocked because you're living in a comfortable two-person household. People jump into the whole 'getting and raising a kid' thing without thought. They're in a relationship with someone for three years; like there's teen relationships that last that long and still break up. They have just enough cash to support themselves, and because they CAN and WANT a kid, they go ahead and do it. Even if having a child is the most economically irresponsible thing they could do. Then little Junior is born and suddenly those two incomes don't cut it and they didn't invent a machine that slows down time yet. And after all of that, those people had the nerve to complain that they can't live a comfortable life and put the responisibility for their choice on every other taxpayer.

And I think that's a major load of bullshit. Having a baby should be the most selfless act in the world and people turn it into the most selfish one. If you want a kid, be in a stable relationship and work out your own issues first. Not just economically but emotionally. Then, save the fuck up. No instant gratification. Depending on the income, save up for 5 to 10 years and put some money asside each month so that you know that for the first few years, you can comfortably raise, feed and clothe your child. Regardless of how the economy and your income is. Maybe then you cna afford to stay at home or pay for daycare.

This isn't just purely economical, it's mostly also for the baby's sake. If it can't be showered with love and affection and time and attention and all bare necessities, don't have it. And then when you have it, don't put the burden on the rest of society for your irresponsibility. People shouldn't work a particular job because it's more convenient to you.

There was a time when a single income could sustain a household of three. Let's investigate to see what enables that. Because the current system of deflation and pouring more money that isn't there to compensate for it is much like stabbing someone to distract them from the pain of a gunshot wound.

I'm not for like legislating against this obv, but Jesus people are so fucked up and arrogant when it comes to having children, without thinking how it could affect their own kid or the rest of society.

So that was my spontaneous rant that I'm sure everyone disagrees with.

[Mr Hyde]

^^^
People aren't always so calculating about having kids and knowing their futures for certain, there are certain time limits too. And kids don't necessarily need to cost a fortune to give a good upbringing

[lovelydivot]

I'm not against people having families - or even helping them...

But you are wrong if you think there are no BABY CRAZY girls out there...



We are not talking about mature people who for whatever reason find themselves with families...

We're talking about these types...The show is a wind-up but they actually exist...

<iframe src="/forum/video.php?url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofYdApYn5O8" frameborder="0" style="overflow:hidden; height:auto; max-width:540px"></iframe>

[Dystinkt]

HELP PEOPLE THAT DO WANT TO WORK, STOP SUBSIDIZING PEOPLE THAT DON'T.

Why? and How?

If someones looking for a job, support them financially until they find one and help them to find one. if they just sit on their arse all day and do nothing, give them nothing. pretty simple really. why should people pay for a fucking lazy arse scrounger who leeches off the state and never wants to change their behaviour, its fucking pathetic.

[scspkr99]

If someones looking for a job, support them financially until they find one and help them to find one. if they just sit on their arse all day and do nothing, give them nothing. pretty simple really. why should people pay for a fucking lazy arse scrounger who leeches off the state and never wants to change their behaviour, its fucking pathetic.

You're ignoring the point. Them being a lazy arse scrounger is of no consequence to anyone while there's fewer jobs than people looking for them. It's a myth and it's one that's perpetrated and perpetuated by people who haven't really thought it through.

[test_recordings]

I think that money is actually better as it allows people to create their own opportunities and manage their life more efficiently. Food stamps are good for survival but that's about it, how are you supposed to do other things like ring people up or buy shirts etc? You can live cheaper than the value of the food stamps if you look in the right places, that's not necessarily profiting from them but it's a way to get better value while you're in a bad situation.

The Birmingham thing is a fucking joke though, it really is slave labour. Consider that everyone on the Work Unfair scheme is classed as not on the dole then that's a big hole in the economy because people aren't spending money on things and the shareholders, execs etc are just pocketing the extra profit and dodging the tax.

What would probably be a better idea would be to allow people to earn money and keep a bit of their wage to encourage them to find work. Or even better, raise wages to stimulate demand because then there'll be jobs for people to do.

[Harkat]

Not supporting the voucher idea, but if I gave someone money to get them through the week and they spent it on an xbox and weed I'd be pretty fucked off

This is the crux of it, I think. People have very different relationships with the money they receive and people's priorities are as individual as their fingerprints. If you personally give a friend money for a specific purpose and they misuse it, you have the right to be pissed off, to ask for your money back and maybe to punch them in the face for the disrespect; but that isn't what's happening when the country gives money via the Welfare State.

Just about all benefits are means-tested these days now that child credits and family allowance have bitten the bullet; so people should only be given money that is earmarked for a valid expense. Of course, once the hits their account it's entirely up to them what to do with it... 'benefits' aren't gifts, they're not a savings scheme that you pay into whilst you work and then claim when you don't want to work anymore, they're a necessary insurance scheme that makes the country work. The unemployed don't have to steal from the employed. When a 'benefit' is paid to someone in need, it benefits everyone.

Benefits shouldn't be seen as gifts or "handouts". The country, society being a natural extension of the family, has an obligation to give its citizens opportunities; it's then up to the citizens what they do with those opportunities. We're all given education, we're all afforded a roof, we're all treated when we're sick, we're all given enough to survive if/when the worst happens, we're all allowed to vote to decide the government of the country. It's every person's right to waste every opportunity their given by their country (or, indeed, their parents) - I'm sure most of us have failed the odd exam, skipped a day's school or turned up the opportunity to vote - yet we don't ask for rights to be taken away from people that do this.... why are wasted cash 'benefits' seen as such a huge issue compared to the other things society lets us fritter away? A wasted education costs a LOT more than a family allowance wasted on Special Brew.... so why do we laugh at the naughty kid in class asking "What am I ever going to use Maths for?", but glare at the family he comes from? A high-stress career spent slurping espesso and yamming business dinners might lead to medical ailments that cause an unfair burden on a person's family and the NHS in later life; yet this sort of behaviour is lionised rather than regarded as selfish and short-sighted.

Everyone plays this game differently. All Government can do is prepare the playing field and let us get on with winning and losing at it.

The idea that poor people should have less fun than rich people is a DISTINCTLY WORRYING ONE. We all need to be able to socialise. We all need recreation time. We all need escape from our routines, even if they don't involve going to work. The poor are people; they can't be left sitting silently in their houses until a generous employer knocks on the front door and asks them if they want a job.

Gotta say you gave me a new perspective on this!