Tories call for Welfare Card for benefit claimants

[juniee]

I agree with you it was in London. but was just quoting examples of what could happen

If these masters have their way we all be poor and die of something ie hunger, hypothermia cos you cannot afford to heat your homes. stilll trying to work out what will be classeD as non essentials.also sorry if someone had brought up workhouses before was really just thinking aloud. and thank you for reading the post and replying to it in the spirit it was written.

hope all of you have had a nice day and santa has brought you nice things

peace and goodwill to all of you

[WeX]

going back to the original debate about welfare card payment,

who decides what is a non essential item?

having your hair cut is not essential so you will not be able to do that

how would you pay your bus fares as that is a cash transaction

what happens if your washer,oven, etc breaks down how do you pay for that

how much would you be allowed for gas and electric

you will not stop druggies and winos by this system you will just increase the crime rate

talk about victorian values, wonder when they are going to build the workhouses

remember at one time (victorian) one in three women were on the game is this want we really want and here we go again the old tory game of divide and conquer

 

From my understanding and forgive me if I am wrong, but this card is not about what you are allowed, its about what you are not allowed. It doesn't drill down to how much you spend on x or y, but prevents you from spending on items that are 100% unnecessary, such as Alcohol. Bus travel is going to be free to the people on JSA anyway, so that question has already been answered.

 

This is nothing to do with Victorian values. its about people using money which is meant to help them get by and look for work being used for everything but.

 

I agree this wont stop alcoholics, but speeding fines do not stop people speeding, that doesn't mean we should not have speed limits does it. Anything that makes it more difficult for alcoholics or those that gamble away their benefits is a good thing if it stops even a handful and breaks the cycle.

[juniee]

so i cannot have my silly flutter of 1 pound a day because somebody else may gamble all their money away, nor can I have a half glass of beer because someone else is reckless.

druggies and winos will just go mugging and housebreaking to get money for their fixes,

[I1L2T3]

so i cannot have my silly flutter of 1 pound a day because somebody else may gamble all their money away, nor can I have a half glass of beer because someone else is reckless.

druggies and winos will just go mugging and housebreaking to get money for their fixes,

 

The thing about it is that at the end of the day it's not personal against you. It's even worse. You get benefits so in the eyes of Tory policy makers, many of whom are millionaires many times over, the moment you claim benefits you are a feckless scrounger.

 

Policy is to stigmatise being on benefits yet it is being done with the support of many of the people who are going to suffer as a result, i.e. those who rely on various benefits and credits to top up their wages who haven't yet twigged what is going to happen to them in the next year.

[juniee]

so the poor person who has worked most of their life ie leaving school at fifteen worked till 59 and then made redundant has got to suffer this terrible idea

just think of comet closing down and yes it could be you tomorrow who knows

the biggest part of the welfare bill is going to the people in work to make their wages and the next group are pensioners

[juniee]

so where do you think tomorrws nurses and doctors are going to come from when you are old and ill, god help you with your ideas.

so you desire a world where there are no cleaners, no catering staff, no bar staff these are all low paid jobs but people do them, not as has been claimed sitting home watching the vile Jermey Kyle show,

ever heard of the word compassion, oh well do not come crying when you have been burgled

[maxmaximus]

Bit in bold - you are absolutely right that this is what we need to achieve. Sadly you have the wrong reasons.

 

The reason benefits are so high is because living costs are so high. This is the second time in a week I've found myself agreeing with a right-wing free market think tank but the solution is very clear:

 

More houses, not more housing benefits - Guardian

 

Benefits, especially housing benefits, create a poverty trap for the working poor.

 

We need to fix our very broken housing market as a first step.

 

As for preventing the poor from having any discretionary spending power careful what you wish for. Preventing people spending in the wider economy in that way would potentially collapse thousands of small businesses.

 

The reason living costs are high is demand from too many people with the ability to pay, fewer people with the ability to pay would cause prices to drop.

[Shogun]

so the poor person who has worked most of their life ie leaving school at fifteen worked till 59 and then made redundant has got to suffer this terrible idea

just think of comet closing down and yes it could be you tomorrow who knows

the biggest part of the welfare bill is going to the people in work to make their wages and the next group are pensioners

Ive no sympathy for comet one bit they spoiled the TV and electrical trade and put a lot of small shops out of business I feel sorry for the people that worked for them though loosing a job is not very nice for any one but comet did put the cybosh on a lot of small independent TV and electrical shops. .

[I1L2T3]

The reason living costs are high is demand from too many people with the ability to pay, fewer people with the ability to pay would cause prices to drop.

 

Two things.

 

1. House prices are not necessarily based on ability to pay any more. Many mortgagees are in financial trouble, behind with payments, trapped in negative equity, subject to forbearance agreements or could not cope with even a slight rise in interest rates. If house prices were based on genuine ability to pay they would be much lower.

 

2. We are simply not building enough of the right types of houses, in the right places in the country. There is an urgent need to deal with that now.

 

If you could magically cut the population by 10% things might improve but reduction isn't going to happen so in terms of short-medium term policy planning population reduction is not a factor.

[maxmaximus]

Two things.

 

1. House prices are not necessarily based on ability to pay any more. Many mortgagees are in financial trouble, behind with payments, trapped in negative equity, subject to forbearance agreements or could not cope with even a slight rise in interest rates. If house prices were based on genuine ability to pay they would be much lower.

 

2. We are simply not building enough of the right types of houses, in the right places in the country. There is an urgent need to deal with that now.

 

If you could magically cut the population by 10% things might improve but reduction isn't going to happen so in terms of short-medium term policy planning population reduction is not a factor.

 

Low interest rates are allowing people to keep what they can barely afford, if interest rates went up some people would be forced to sell which would result in lower house prices and a lower deposit would be required.

 

There is no reason to cut the population by 10%, just stopping it from increasing with a very slow decline would address the problem.

 

Lowing living standards whilst increasing housing supply would just encourage population expansion.