Some Benefits should be given in forms of vouchers instead of cash

Antispam

I am not missing the point I know how employees get remuneration, my point is that it doesnt make a scrape of difference whether you work, work with tax credits or get benefits you can quite easily eat unhealthy foods or have unhealthy lifestyle

What next we have enough rules/regulations, getting benefits doesn't mean everyone is leading a fag/McDonalds lifestyle

ILW wrote: »

You are missing the point, an employer CHOOSES to give an employee a salary in return for what the employee does. Taxpayers are FORCED to fund benefits and have no say in the matter, short of refusing to pay and possibly being put in prison.

bendix

The real issue is not whether we give people vouchers, but whether we give anything at all except to the very neediest, and even then under extreme tests.

At the very least, benefits should be slashed. Everyone else is taking a bath financially right now - why shouldnt the unemployed and unemployable?

This welfare dependency has gone on long enough.

dylansmum

bendix wrote: »

The real issue is not whether we give people vouchers, but whether we give anything at all except to the very neediest, and even then under extreme tests.

At the very least, benefits should be slashed. Everyone else is taking a bath financially right now - why shouldnt the unemployed and unemployable?

This welfare dependency has gone on long enough.

I'd be really interested in how you define the 'very neediest'. The minimum income standard (decided upon by large groups of ordinary folks across all income brackets in a huge piece of research recently done) was determined as that which those on income support get less than half. The income standard addressed needs not want (healthy food, basic goods and basic participation in civil society). Wonder how low you'd set IS at? Or pensions? Or min wage (which needs to go up to 6.88 to reach MIS). What would the consequences be for all of us?

I think people should name a benefit figure - an actual figure. How much of a slash and to whom?

bendix

dylansmum wrote: »

I think people should name a benefit figure - an actual figure. How much of a slash and to whom?

How about zero? That's a nice round number.

Curiously, if we offered that generous (in my opinion) allowance in place of incapacity benefit I'm convinced our very sick population will suddenly get better a lot quicker.

Just a hunch. I could be wrong.

mewbie_2

bendix wrote: »

How about zero? That's a nice round number.

Curiously, if we offered that generous (in my opinion) allowance in place of incapacity benefit I'm convinced our very sick population will suddenly get better a lot quicker.

Bit puzzled. How can zero be generous? Or are you thinking in terms of fining people for being unable to work. It's an interesting idea.

Perhaps those who take early retirement could just be given a slap on the wrist for a first offence.

BargainGalore

So just when people are loosing there jobs , I am sure they would be grateful of getting even less money on benefit than what they could get.

Have you ever had a benefit or are you just a Daily Mail reader living in cloud nine thing life must be wonderful smoking, drinking and watching sky tv every day

Fact is benefits are not generous for most people, if they take less, they may well have to do without essentials, and I dont mean sky,fags etc

bendix wrote: »

The real issue is not whether we give people vouchers, but whether we give anything at all except to the very neediest, and even then under extreme tests.

At the very least, benefits should be slashed. Everyone else is taking a bath financially right now - why shouldnt the unemployed and unemployable?

This welfare dependency has gone on long enough.

Not everyone on incapacity benefit is taking the Mick and may well be genuine claimants. But thats okay I am sure with your ideas we have no benefits, and maybe no health service either. If you can afford it you can pay, if you out of work or ill tough.

Thank God not everyone is like you.

bendix wrote: »

How about zero? That's a nice round number.

Curiously, if we offered that generous (in my opinion) allowance in place of incapacity benefit I'm convinced our very sick population will suddenly get better a lot quicker.

Just a hunch. I could be wrong.

dylansmum

bendix wrote: »

How about zero? That's a nice round number.

Curiously, if we offered that generous (in my opinion) allowance in place of incapacity benefit I'm convinced our very sick population will suddenly get better a lot quicker.

Just a hunch. I could be wrong.

Ok, ta. The very neediest get zero. Incapacity benefit is being substantially cut - but yes, let's go to zero. And zero pensions, tax credits, child benefit - and zero tax relief for business, savers and so forth. And zero tax - but you will then pay for education, health, ect privately. Zero sick pay, zero paternity leave, zero - nice round number.

cocktail

no benefits should be given to anyone. forget vouchers or cash.

mewbie_2

cocktail wrote: »

no benefits should be given to anyone. forget vouchers or cash.

I see now, it's given is the emotive word. Whereas actually it's people's right to expect the state or society to help them out when they need it.

cocktail

mewbie wrote: »

I see now, it's given is the emotive word. Whereas actually it's people's right to expect the state or society to help them out when they need it.

no, its given. expect society to help yes, not the state.