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

ninky_2

bendix wrote: »

Enough to keep people alive, fed, warm and housed. .

problem is when housing benefit is paid direct to private landlords then the cost of housing reflects nothing genuine. until we change the ridiculous benefit setup that actually benefits private landlords more than people in housing need we won't address the fact that people can effectively earn more on benefit than they can for low wage job.

once you take skewed costs of housing benefit funded rents out of the equation suddenly paid employment becomes more financially beneficial.

cybermum

Firstly,there are people who suffer from severe depression/mental health issues that are not 'fiddling' the system.
I have a family member with the above who is unable to work due to the severity of the condition.

Those that feign depression actually should be ashamed as having seen first hand the devastation it causes I would wish it on nobody.

Secondly,the woman from the quoted link is despicable and the classic stereotype we associate with benefits.
She clearly uses the money handed to her very very unwisely.
But what about those who do need the help and do not spend the money in that way?
Those that are on the poverty line and doing the best they can?
Should they be punished because of people like that?

How do we ensure those who truly need help get it whilst at the same time ensure those who sponge off the state are dealt with accordingly?

chewmylegoff

dylansmum wrote: »

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

or taxation.

bendix

ninky wrote: »

problem is when housing benefit is paid direct to private landlords then the cost of housing reflects nothing genuine. until we change the ridiculous benefit setup that actually benefits private landlords more than people in housing need we won't address the fact that people can effectively earn more on benefit than they can for low wage job.

once you take skewed costs of housing benefit funded rents out of the equation suddenly paid employment becomes more financially beneficial.

All of which leads to the logical conclusion. Get rid of benefits altogether, then there can be no room for cheating the system.

See ninky, i knew you were a closet libertarian deep down. You just needed to be led to it.

chewmylegoff

bendix wrote: »

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.

surely the response of last resort in this matter would be to take the children away from her on the grounds that she clearly is not a fit parent. it's not to bin all benefits for all people, just because of her abhorrence (if in fact this isn't just fabricated by this quality daily).

mbga9pgf

A_fiend_for_life wrote: »

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.

So tell me, why are there so many chav, unemployed 3rd generation families then?

They must have been pretty cold this christmas based of their waist size! :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

bendix

cybermum wrote: »

Firstly,there are people who suffer from severe depression/mental health issues that are not 'fiddling' the system.
I have a family member with the above who is unable to work due to the severity of the condition.

Those that feign depression actually should be ashamed as having seen first hand the devastation it causes I would wish it on nobody.

Secondly,the woman from the quoted link is despicable and the classic stereotype we associate with benefits.
She clearly uses the money handed to her very very unwisely.
But what about those who do need the help and do not spend the money in that way?
Those that are on the poverty line and doing the best they can?
Should they be punished because of people like that?

How do we ensure those who truly need help get it whilst at the same time ensure those who sponge off the state are dealt with accordingly?

Oh yes . the old 'i know genuine people in need' retort. Impossible for me to comment of course, so I'll let it pass except to say it's amazing how many depressed people there are now that you can get IB for it, compared to how many there were when you didnt get benefits for it.

Must be something in the water.

What some people call depression, others call 'not being able to cope'. I'd love to have the luxury of being depressed. Sadly, I need to earn a living and save for the future and, of course, to pay 62% of my income to pay for these people. Now if you want a reason to be depressed, try that for size.

Here's a cure for unemployment and all the associated ills of society keeping people down. Pull the comfort blanket from under them. It happened before under Thatcher and, indeed, in NZ under Ruth Richardson. In both cases, drastic cuts to benefits led - bizarrely - to people getting back into jobs or creating small businesses for themselves. Funny that, huh?

I'd also venture to suggest those economies that don't have benefit cultures have a lot less depressed people too.

But what do I know? I'm just a depressed taxpayer supporting numerous families and being despised as a 'fat cat' for the privilege.

bendix

A_fiend_for_life wrote: »

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.

You forgot to complete your last sentence. Let me do it for you.

" . . . having to decide whether to heat or eat pizzas, takeaways or upgrade their mobile phone or sky HD package."

ninky_2

bendix wrote: »

I'm just a depressed taxpayer supporting numerous families and being despised as a 'fat cat' for the privilege.

tbf, as an employee it's not really you creating tax revenue it's the company you work for. if you weren't donig the job you do someone else would be and that revenue would go to the country via the taxman anyway. in that way, it's not really 'your' money to moan about.

out of interest, has no one in your family (parents etc) ever claimed benefits or been housed in social housing? (sneaky tactic from the hippy there).

cybermum

bendix wrote: »

Oh yes . the old 'i know genuine people in need' retort. Impossible for me to comment of course, so I'll let it pass except to say it's amazing how many depressed people there are now that you can get IB for it, compared to how many there were when you didnt get benefits for it.

Must be something in the water.

What some people call depression, others call 'not being able to cope'. I'd love to have the luxury of being depressed. Sadly, I need to earn a living and save for the future and, of course, to pay 62% of my income to pay for these people. Now if you want a reason to be depressed, try that for size.

Here's a cure for unemployment and all the associated ills of society keeping people down. Pull the comfort blanket from under them. It happened before under Thatcher and, indeed, in NZ under Ruth Richardson. In both cases, drastic cuts to benefits led - bizarrely - to people getting back into jobs or creating small businesses for themselves. Funny that, huh?

I'd also venture to suggest those economies that don't have benefit cultures have a lot less depressed people too.

But what do I know? I'm just a depressed taxpayer supporting numerous families and being despised as a 'fat cat' for the privilege.

No,not the 'old retort' actually.
As you said you cannot comment on it and so I will bite my tongue not knowing you personally.
The person in question worked and paid taxes for over 26 years until suffering a full mental breakdown.
What are you saying,that this person should have received no help when they genuinely needed it??
They never asked for anything in life,was so ashamed to have to ask for help that it took months and months of living on whatever savings they had until it ran out.
No option but to swallow pride and ask for assistance.

You wish you had the 'luxury' of being depressed??
Well come back and tell me that after spending time with a genuinely mentally ill person and seeing the horrors of a mental ward.

I find your comments highly offensive and frankly ignorant.