should anyone who is on benefits that wins the lottery be forced to give 90% of

Percy1983

ILW wrote: »

There should not be any room for savings in benefit payments. They are supposed to be a safety net, not a way of life. (Excluding disability etc)

Exacty with you on this.

Benefits should be based on the cheapest way to eat, lets be honest the unemplyed are the ones with enough time to go a couple of supermarkets and get the best deals, they also have more than enough time for batch cooking and food preparation.

We manage it most of the time while holding 2 full time jobs.

Graham_Devon

ILW wrote: »

There should not be any room for savings in benefit payments. They are supposed to be a safety net, not a way of life. (Excluding disability etc)

You simply HAVE to have the ability to save while on benefits. Theres a cap at 6k...that needs looking at as it prevents saving further...but you need to save.

If you only let people live hand to mouth each week, how are they ever supposed to better themselves? How are they supposed to cater for unexpected items?

I'd class myself as someone against long term benefits. But I certianly wouldn't want to see people stripped of everything and only given enought to live hand to mouth each day.

Removing benefits from those who DO try to cut corners and do their best to make their money go as far as possible (hence being able to save)....well, you may aswell remove their dignity while you're at it.

Daedalus

ILW wrote: »

There should not be any room for savings in benefit payments. They are supposed to be a safety net, not a way of life. (Excluding disability etc)

Yes but you are wanting something that can't be delivered. Saving a fiver or tenner a week is hardly a way of life. You can't provide benefits on an individual basis, a large male gets the same amount of money as a small female. Yet the male needs more food than the female. So the female should buy more expensive food just so she has nothing left? Or should she save the £5 a week, maybe buy business clothes. Surely it is better they did that then rely on crisis loans etc.

Your thinking is what is wrong with many companies, the idea that if you don't use all your budget it should be cut the following year leading to people 'wasting' money to keep their budget high.

ILW

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You simply HAVE to have the ability to save while on benefits. Theres a cap at 6k...that needs looking at as it prevents saving further...but you need to save.

If you only let people live hand to mouth each week, how are they ever supposed to better themselves? How are they supposed to cater for unexpected items?

I'd class myself as someone against long term benefits. But I certianly wouldn't want to see people stripped of everything and only given enought to live hand to mouth each day.

Removing benefits from those who DO try to cut corners and do their best to make their money go as far as possible (hence being able to save)....well, you may aswell remove their dignity while you're at it.

Get a job?

Percy1983

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You simply HAVE to have the ability to save while on benefits. Theres a cap at 6k...that needs looking at as it prevents saving further...but you need to save.

If you only let people live hand to mouth each week, how are they ever supposed to better themselves? How are they supposed to cater for unexpected items?

I'd class myself as someone against long term benefits. But I certianly wouldn't want to see people stripped of everything and only given enought to live hand to mouth each day.

Removing benefits from those who DO try to cut corners and do their best to make their money go as far as possible (hence being able to save)....well, you may aswell remove their dignity while you're at it.

I can say if I needed benefits it really wouldn't bother me.

1, I would see jobloss coming so have some savings already.
2, All my current entertainment items would still be working so I don't need extra money, I just can't upgrade my TV or buy another bluray until i get a job again.

Not really hardship is it.

grizzly1911

The_White_Horse wrote: »

exactly - benefits should be on a prepaid card and only certain items should be allowed.

Would need more of your beloved public servants to administer th minutiae at ever greater expense.

In answer to your question - No

Why on;y 90% anyway why not all but £1, or simply ban them from the lottery or any form of gambling full stop.

Graham_Devon

ILW wrote: »

Get a job?

If life was as simple....

ILW

Graham_Devon wrote: »

If life was as simple....

If you don't have a job you should not be using other peoples money for gambling. Is that unreasonable?

Graham_Devon

ILW wrote: »

If you don't have a job you should not be using other peoples money for gambling. Is that unreasonable?

Gambling and saving are two different things.

I don't think a £1 ticket on the lottery or whatever is enough to be seen as a reason for removing someones diginity, just because they don't have a job.

Were always going to have the work shy scrounger. BUT, not everyone on benefits is that.

We have MANY single parents on benefits who would LOVE to work. But do you honestly realise just how hard this is? I have tried to help before, but honestly, I had to give up. All they can do is apply and apply, and apply again. But the number of jobs they can apply for is tiny....they need jobs that caters for school hours. In effect, thats a 9.30-2.30pm job.

Anything outside of that requires care for the kids. It REALLY is difficult. And I don't think people really recognise this until they have walked a mile in someone elses shoes.

So these people who don't drink or smoke heavily. Cook from scratch, use their time to explore markets for low cost food....should we remove their entire dignity and ban them from spending a couple of pounds on a lottery ticket....a couple of pounds in the hope of changing their, and their families lives?

Come on. It's just soundbite hatred against people on benefits.

People get a certain amount of money to spend as they wish. I do wish we would stop protecting those who waste it. But for all those who don't? It's simply inhumane to strip them of their dignity to make the taxpayer "feel better".

I don't think many would be on the side of making them live hand to mouth each day and not allowing people to save / spend their money on certain items.

ILW

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Gambling and saving are two different things.

I don't think a £1 ticket on the lottery or whatever is enough to be seen as a reason for removing someones diginity, just because they don't have a job.

Were always going to have the work shy scrounger. BUT, not everyone on benefits is that.

We have MANY single parents on benefits who would LOVE to work. But do you honestly realise just how hard this is? I have tried to help before, but honestly, I had to give up. All they can do is apply and apply, and apply again. But the number of jobs they can apply for is tiny....they need jobs that caters for school hours. In effect, thats a 9.30-2.30pm job.

Anything outside of that requires care for the kids. It REALLY is difficult. And I don't think people really recognise this until they have walked a mile in someone elses shoes.

So these people who don't drink or smoke heavily. Cook from scratch, use their time to explore markets for low cost food....should we remove their entire dignity and ban them from spending a couple of pounds on a lottery ticket....a couple of pounds in the hope of changing their, and their families lives?

Come on. It's just soundbite hatred against people on benefits.

People get a certain amount of money to spend as they wish. I do wish we would stop protecting those who waste it. But for all those who don't? It's simply inhumane to strip them of their dignity to make the taxpayer "feel better".

I don't think many would be on the side of making them live hand to mouth each day and not allowing people to save / spend their money on certain items.

Could part of the reason that we have MANY single parents be that benefits are too generous?