Dubstepforum.com

yeah that was deffo a top post from Magma. Agree with everything you say Mag.
The %age of people who "scrounge" benefits as opposed to those who are genuinely seeking work is very small anyway. It's insignificant enough for us to basically be able to "ignore" it. Of course, this comes back to your point that a man who has literally nothing to lose is more dangerous to society than a man who at least has a roof over his head and can support his family with very basic food provision etc.

I don't think it's fair to dictate to people what they should get from a benefits system, what one person might consider a luxury is another's necessity and vice vera. There are also too many different factors that contribute to people who live off benefits for long periods of time to simply pigeon hole them all as "scroungers". If you're brought up around that culture it's often the case that people don't know anything else and don't have the ambition/ability to improve their situation as it's what they are used to.

The main focus needs to be on children so that they can make decisions on the direction they take with their life and more importantly have the opportunities available to make the most of it.

if poor people have less fun that rich people - that's the incentive to work

will need a better equipped, more heavy handed police force to keep them in line though

Richard Ross wrote:if poor people have less fun that rich people - that's the incentive to work

will need a better equipped, more heavy handed police force to keep them in line though

More of an incentive to point a shotgun at the back of upperclass Joe's head while he sobs the safe number to you, tells you where the keys to the Audi are and pleads for you to not harm the kids.

How about a different way of looking at it? The money that is given out as benefits - this money should not be seen as belonging to or a right of the beneficiaries. The pot of money that the benefits come from belongs to the nation. Why should the beneficiaries have the right to do whatever they want with this money that doesn't belong to them? The benefits system was introduced to help people get on with living. Surely then it should be used specifically for things that will help them survive? Not to download the latest apps, buy a new t-shirt, replace the broken tv, buy cigarettes or any other non-essential item?

Also, I do not think you necessarily need to have money to spend in order to have fun. It may restrict the avenues of fun you might be able to pursue, but perhaps that should be something to work towards as a reward rather than seen as a human right. Maybe we've just grown too accustomed to the idea that money = fun.

I think the vouchers idea might be a bit over-restrictive. It might make more sense to use a split vouchers and cash approach. Say 50-75% in vouchers that can only be used to buy food, pay bills. And the remainder for flexible use. This way, you can ensure that at least some of the money goes towards survival. And having some cash in hand could also make it less appealing to go through the bother of having a black market.

Pedro Sánchez wrote:

Richard Ross wrote:if poor people have less fun that rich people - that's the incentive to work

will need a better equipped, more heavy handed police force to keep them in line though

More of an incentive to point a shotgun at the back of upperclass Joe's head while he sobs the safe number to you, tells you where the keys to the Audi are and pleads for you to not harm the kids.

have curfews and gun rights linked to income

we've been half arsing capitalism for too long

kay wrote:How about a different way of looking at it? The money that is given out as benefits - this money should not be seen as belonging to or a right of the beneficiaries. The pot of money that the benefits come from belongs to the nation. Why should the beneficiaries have the right to do whatever they want with this money that doesn't belong to them? The benefits system was introduced to help people get on with living. Surely then it should be used specifically for things that will help them survive? Not to download the latest apps, buy a new t-shirt, replace the broken tv, buy cigarettes or any other non-essential item?

Also, I do not think you necessarily need to have money to spend in order to have fun. It may restrict the avenues of fun you might be able to pursue, but perhaps that should be something to work towards as a reward rather than seen as a human right. Maybe we've just grown too accustomed to the idea that money = fun.

I think the vouchers idea might be a bit over-restrictive. It might make more sense to use a split vouchers and cash approach. Say 50-75% in vouchers that can only be used to buy food, pay bills. And the remainder for flexible use. This way, you can ensure that at least some of the money goes towards survival. And having some cash in hand could also make it less appealing to go through the bother of having a black market.

How about treating people like adults

As an aside if my house is burgled do the people who are also insured with my insurer get to tell me how to spend the money I receive.

Those payments do not belong to the nation any more than than the salaries of those that are paid by the state.

scspkr99 wrote:How about treating people like adults

BINGO

Every time you treat the majority of the earnest poor like untrustworthy children because of an unpleasant minority you attack the personal pride that they take in society. People stop feeling like it's their society and instead start feeling like they're a nuisance, a burden to the country, a lower class of life.... it's no wonder some end up showing the system scant respect; respect is bi-directional.

magma wrote:

scspkr99 wrote:How about treating people like adults

BINGO

Every time you treat the majority of the earnest poor like untrustworthy children because of an unpleasant minority you attack the personal pride that they take in society. People stop feeling like it's their society and instead start feeling like they're a nuisance, a burden to the country, a lower class of life.... it's no wonder some end up showing the system scant respect; respect is bi-directional.

This is the thing for me. I'd obviously prefer a society in which everyone wanted to and was able to contribute. As it is a lot of people through no fault of their own are able. I'd be more concerned with them than the smaller number of those that don't want to work given that the ones not wanting to work aren't actually costing anyone any more than they would do if they did want to work.

A bit more of this and it may be clearer where the problem is

http://www.jrf.org.uk/blog/2013/05/work ... uffer7015c

scspkr99 wrote:A bit more of this and it may be clearer where the problem is

http://www.jrf.org.uk/blog/2013/05/work ... uffer7015c

Goes to show how easily statistics can be abused

Not sure where people keep getting this information about benefits not costing taxpayers much, seems to cost quite a big amount of a standard tax bill, your tax could be halved if everyone saved for their own pension and benefit insurance:

Tax breakdown for £25,500 salary
• £2,080 Pensions and Benefits
• £1,094 on the NHS
• £824 on Education
• £339 on Defence
• £160 on the Police
• £44 on Prisons
• £92 on Roads
• £71 on Railways

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-16744819

Mr Hyde wrote:Not sure where people keep getting this information about benefits not costing taxpayers, seems to cost quite a big amount of a standard tax bill:

Tax breakdown for £25,500 salary
• £2,080 Pensions and Benefits
• £1,094 on the NHS
• £824 on Education
• £339 on Defence
• £160 on the Police
• £44 on Prisons
• £92 on Roads
• £71 on Railways

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-16744819

That's twisting it a bit; people are saying that falsely claimed or 'wasted' benefits don't cause as much of a hit on the taxpayer as is made out rather than the Welfare State is magicked out of thin air. Of course the benefit system costs the tax payer, it's the main reason we're taxed at all!

Of course, the taxpayer receives benefits in return. Lower crime, safer streets... we could direct that money to putting up more CCTV and stopping and searching everyone not wearing a business suit in an urban area, but I'm not sure that'd be the best route for a harmonious society.

Some people will always cheat - it's the same for the gainfully employed too... look at the way bankers have behaved over the last few decades... they show as little or less respect to society as someone claiming too much Housing Benefit, but we can't take their benefits away!

I'd also want a breakdown to tell me how much of that is pensions.