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

bendix

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.

Well, actually i was being facetious but people on here are so up themselves they take everything literally.

However, I'm completely behind the principle of cutting benefits and ALL public services.

I'm intrigued by your comment that it is people's right to expect society to help them when they need it? Really? Where does that right come from? Where is that stipulated? I don't recall seeing that in any written constitution.

dylansmum

bendix wrote: »

Well, actually i was being facetious but people on here are so up themselves they take everything literally.

However, I'm completely behind the principle of cutting benefits and ALL public services.

I'm intrigued by your comment that it is people's right to expect society to help them when they need it? Really? Where does that right come from? Where is that stipulated? I don't recall seeing that in any written constitution.

Glad, at least, you are honest about your principles. What would you do about those who could not afford private education, health care, police..oh and civil service? Mps? Where do public services stop? How much would it cost to scrap all state schools? Who would buy them? Are there enough profit margins for private schools given so many could not afford to send kids to school.

How would you police crime without a funded police force? A private force? Any rules - or do we also get rid of the courts?

If you are just being facetious , forgive me. But sounds rather like anarchy to me...let's give it a try.

We base our social contract on a long history of conflict and negotation; it is called humanity.

mewbie_2

bendix wrote: »

Well, actually i was being facetious but people on here are so up themselves they take everything literally.

However, I'm completely behind the principle of cutting benefits and ALL public services.

I'm intrigued by your comment that it is people's right to expect society to help them when they need it? Really? Where does that right come from? Where is that stipulated? I don't recall seeing that in any written constitution.

I don't think we have a written constitution? Unless the Magna Carta is it.

The way I understand the state functioning is that we work and pay taxes, in order fund a certain way of life that is acceptable to the majority - paying for the police, social security, the health service, defence, roads, etc. We as a society in the main accept that a proportion of our taxes will go to those unable to work through illness, circumstance, lack of jobs, etc. And unfortunately, as in any walk of life, there will be some who will abuse that. From greedy politicians claiming for bath plugs, through workers on a 'free' day out at a 'business' golf event, to claimants making a 'lifestyle' choice that it's better to claim than to work.

However, without spending a fortune on checking every claim with a fine tooth comb then I guess the politics and economics dictate that a few get lucky and get away with claiming stuff they are not entitled to.

So back to my 'rights'. I have a right to be treated by the NHS, to send my kids to a paid for school, and, if I am unlucky, to claim sickness, disability benefit, or simply JSA. In the meantime I will continue paying my taxes and hoping I don't need it.

bendix

dylansmum wrote: »

Glad, at least, you are honest about your principles. What would you do about those who could not afford private education, health care, police..oh and civil service? Mps? Where do public services stop? How much would it cost to scrap all state schools? Who would buy them? Are there enough profit margins for private schools given so many could not afford to send kids to school.

How would you police crime without a funded police force? A private force? Any rules - or do we also get rid of the courts?

If you are just being facetious , forgive me. But sounds rather like anarchy to me...let's give it a try.

We base our social contract on a long history of conflict and negotation; it is called humanity.

You misread my comment. When I said cutting ALL public services, I didnt mean cut all public services totally. I mean all public services should be cut and pared back - not to a minimal but to a manageable level.

But since you're asking, I would pare benefits to no more than subsistence level. I would get a lot more severe on IBs. I would overhaul public health and get rid of the nonsensical middle management levels. I would ensure the farcical politically correct positions generated by local government are scrapped. I would cut defence spending. I would eliminate vast swathes of the civil service . . . get the picture?

It's called living within our means. A strange concept, but there you go.

dylansmum

bendix wrote: »

You misread my comment. When I said cutting ALL public services, I didnt mean cut all public services totally. I mean all public services should be cut and pared back - not to a minimal but to a manageable level.

But since you're asking, I would pare benefits to no more than subsistence level. I would get a lot more severe on IBs. I would overhaul public health and get rid of the nonsensical middle management levels. I would ensure the farcical politically correct positions generated by local government are scrapped. I would cut defence spending. I would eliminate vast swathes of the civil service . . . get the picture?

It's called living within our means. A strange concept, but there you go.

Then that level appears to be less than current Income Support - in terms of what many people (from all incomes) have said in relation to the large-scale research done by JRT recently. So, perhaps those who have inputted to this research need to cut back their needs (healthy food, ability to participate in civil society, basic goods) in order for the Min income standard to be remeasured? You can't have benefits that are substinance level unlesss you define what that is, in figures. JRT did just that by looking at prices and what a huge range of folks spend for basic stuff. If you have a concrete figure based on large scale research, economic trends - then grand!

bendix

To be frank, I'm not interested in research done by some well-meaning research company has done to determine how much is enough.

My measure would be simple. Enough to keep people alive, fed, warm and housed. It doesnt include money for extras - it is basic subsistence, designed to cover life costs until (and to motivate too) get back on a sounder economic basis.

Anything extra leads to what we have now . . a welfare dependent society where tens of thousands of people and families CHOOSE it as a way of life.

Welfare is not meant to be a lifestyle choice. It's meant to provide the bare minimum. Sadly, our idea of bare minimum seems to have shifted in recent years.

LilacPixie

I really don't see how paying child benefit/ tac credits makes things simpler. The costs assosiated with such a scheme would be massive. AFAIK child benefit is availible to everyone with one or more children no matter what income. Are you suggesting Mr & Mrs middle class with the 5 bed detatched home with room for a pony should be given an £10 lidl voucher just to make sure they feed their kids??

A_fiend_for_life

bendix wrote: »

My measure would be simple. Enough to keep people alive, fed, warm and housed. It doesnt include money for extras - it is basic subsistence, designed to cover life costs until (and to motivate too) get back on a sounder economic basis.

Fair enough but to keep people alive, fed, warm and housed you might need to increase benefits not reduce them.

There were around 5 million people living in fuel poverty this winter many having to decide whether to heat or eat.

dylansmum

bendix wrote: »

To be frank, I'm not interested in research done by some well-meaning research company has done to determine how much is enough.

My measure would be simple. Enough to keep people alive, fed, warm and housed. It doesnt include money for extras - it is basic subsistence, designed to cover life costs until (and to motivate too) get back on a sounder economic basis.

Anything extra leads to what we have now . . a welfare dependent society where tens of thousands of people and families CHOOSE it as a way of life.

Welfare is not meant to be a lifestyle choice. It's meant to provide the bare minimum. Sadly, our idea of bare minimum seems to have shifted in recent years.

I love that. Not interested in what a large amount of ordinary people have siad - but you can't name a figure yourself. So who do you think should name it? JRT, the civil service, a think tank? Who? To set a level you need a figure. It can't be arbitary. Name the figure or name who should set the figure.

bendix

What am I? The prime minister?

I dont care who sets it. I'm not an expert at these things.

I do know, though, that the current levels are wrong. The linked article on this thread of the 40stone 24 year old mother who feeds her triplets on packets of wotsits and lets them snack on her pizzas and macdonalds is damning proof of that.

It seems the poor lady is too busy to shop and cook properly.

If you want to discuss specifics, how about taking existing levels and slashing them 20%, whilst at the same time removing nonsense IB levels which lead to hundreds of thousands of people receiving benefits because they are 'too depressed' to work.