Mr Prime Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 what if the tag doesn't report their location as wetherspoons all the time? does that mean they not drinking? what would tagging a sex offender acheive? you'd know where they are but not what they're doing. and, how much would it cost to keep an eye on someone just so we can 'slash' htheir cash by a few pounds? If it doesn't report it as Wetherspoons it will probably report it as the off licence, chicken shop or other Mos Eisley type place. Only a minority would have to be monitored so cost doesn't come into it. Besides it's whether you want to reinforce societal standards of decent behaviour or allow parasitism because of cost. Tagging sex offenders would be a deterrent from responding to their urges because the tag would place them at the location of the offence. Shouldn't really have to explain that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 ... how much would the monitoring cost? Probably many times more than the benefits paid out. The benefits paid out would be cut as the cheats were exposed. That is the point of the exercise. If the total payout in benefits was reduced as cheats are exposed, then the cost of monitoring all the people on benefits to expose a (comparatively small) number of benefit cheats) would be even more times the cost of the benefits paid out. There is an alternative. Pay benefits in vouchers which are exchangeable only to pay for that which for they are intended. (Mainly clothes vouchers and food vouchers.) - There are no vouchers for colour TVs, X-boxes, mobile phones etc ... If you want those go and earn the money to buy them. Unemployment Insurance in Germany (an amount payable for a fixed period of time and proportional to work record and previous salary) is paid in cash. (Most of the) Unemployment Assistance (means-tested, but paid indefinitely when UI has expired) is paid in vouchers. In the event of rent, I understand the money for that is paid directly to the landlord. The recipients can't use them in the pub (Nor indeed, can they use them in a supermarket to buy items such as booze, tobacco and coffee.) It doesn't eliminate benefit fraud - but it does reduce it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manofstrad Posted March 3, 2011 Author Share Posted March 3, 2011 very expensive exercise, sir. too expensive, i'd say. Initially yes, but as the hemorrhaging of money spilling into the hands of benefit cheats is gradualy stemmed, the initial outlay will be far outweighed by the money recouped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 very expensive exercise, sir. too expensive, i'd say. I don't believe the majority of benefit users are parasites, only a hardcore of 5000 would need to be tagged perhaps. Seriously, the households where no one has worked since the 70's despite the boom years, why should they not be tagged? If not tagged then just give them vouchers. "But what about the indignity?!" Wails Mr Muesli. Well since benefits are only a temporary measure during involuntary periods of unemployment there is surely no shame and therefore no indignity? They are jobseekers so only have to put up with vouchers while seeking work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 Money should never come into the equation in the war against society's parasites. Otherwise let's just close down the prisons and send them on their way because it costs 42K per prisoner apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 I don't believe the majority of benefit users are parasites, only a hardcore of 5000 would need to be tagged perhaps. ... How many people would you need to monitor 5000 people at all times? How many people could one person monitor at once? If the people monitoring the tagged individuals suspect that they are in a pub (for instance) what then? What if such a person claimed he went to the pub 'to see a man about a job'? The onus would lie with the prosecution to prove he didn't. Vouchers would be simpler. And no beer vouchers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 I like your way of thinking. Ditto mate, if you suggest dealing with blatant jokers harshly you're a fascist apparently! That also trivialises fascism. Shame none of the muesli brigade think of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 How many people would you need to monitor 5000 people at all times? How many people could one person monitor at once? If the people monitoring the tagged individuals suspect that they are in a pub (for instance) what then? What if such a person claimed he went to the pub 'to see a man about a job'? The onus would lie with the prosecution to prove he didn't. Vouchers would be simpler. And no beer vouchers. Fair enough, I'd just like to see something done to stop jokers. It disgusts me walking to work and seeing a bunch of wasters hanging out and then seeing them 10 hours later doing the same, almost everyday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manofstrad Posted March 3, 2011 Author Share Posted March 3, 2011 Some very good points raised so far. The main objection seems to be the amount of money needed to finance the tagging of benefit claimants. Perhaps this can be overcome by outsourcing the production of tags to the Far East?, a tactic successfully deployed by numerous Western electronic's companies for at least three decades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 Some very good points raised so far. The main objection seems to be the amount of money needed to finance the tagging of benefit claimants. Perhaps this can be overcome by outsourcing the production of tags to the Far East, a tactic successfully deployed by numerous Western electronic's companies for at least three decades? Better still, deduct the cost of tagging from those being tagged since they are only being tagged because of their years of work avoidance. The muesli's will go mad of course but if you don't want to be tagged or pay for tagging get a job. I accept that it is difficult in the current climate but it never was between 93-07. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.