Universal Credit

[onewheeldave]

So because people in receipt of benefits are incapable(in these cases) of managing money, it's the Governments fault.

 

Yes. Prior to their policy change there wasn't a problem (as the money, sensibly, went straight to the landlords)- now there is a problem. Why make a problem where there didn't need to be one?

[NorthernStar]

Yes. Prior to their policy change there wasn't a problem (as the money, sensibly, went straight to the landlords)- now there is a problem. Why make a problem where there didn't need to be one?

 

They knew it would cause problems, nothing gives a Tory more pleasure than the sight of a bailiff banging on his neighbours door.

[andygardener]

Yes. Prior to their policy change there wasn't a problem (as the money, sensibly, went straight to the landlords)- now there is a problem. Why make a problem where there didn't need to be one?

 

Which makes sense to me. What I don't understand is why paying money meant for housing direct is progressive but paying money meant for food and utilities in vouchers is regressive. A more sensible system would be to ask claimants if they want to be responsible for their money or not. If not then direct hb payments and vouchers, if they do then zero recourse to public funds if they fail to manage their money and get evicted/cut off/starve etc as a result.

[iansheff]

The next step is to build huge complexes for those people incapable of managing their free money, a bit like army barracks in which everything is provided leaving them with no need for money.

 

Didn't they use to call them workhouses?

[onewheeldave]

Which makes sense to me. What I don't understand is why paying money meant for housing direct is progressive but paying money meant for food and utilities in vouchers is regressive. A more sensible system would be to ask claimants if they want to be responsible for their money or not. If not then direct hb payments and vouchers, if they do then zero recourse to public funds if they fail to manage their money and get evicted/cut off/starve etc as a result.

 

Housing payments direct to the landlord are a well established system.

 

Food vouchers/utlities is new, so an issue there. And, there is a stigma attached to it. Then the genuine issues concerning where the vouchers can be used- people want to get their food from the establishments they choose (as opposed to 'participating stores'), whether it's cos it's cheaper, or, in their eyes, more ethical etc, etc.

 

IMO, they should leave things alone- direct payments for rent work well, so don't change what works for something that doesn't, and, let people get their food from where they want.

[andygardener]

Housing payments direct to the landlord are a well established system.

 

Food vouchers/utlities is new, so an issue there. And, there is a stigma attached to it. Then the genuine issues concerning where the vouchers can be used- people want to get their food from the establishments they choose (as opposed to 'participating stores'), whether it's cos it's cheaper, or, in their eyes, more ethical etc, etc.

 

IMO, they should leave things alone- direct payments for rent work well, so don't change what works for something that doesn't, and, let people get their food from where they want.

 

Why is there no stigma attached to being judged so irresponsible that you will use money provided to keep a roof over your head on other things, but there is a stigma attached to being judged so irresponsible that you'll waste money provided for essentials on booze, fags or drugs?

 

Either they can manage the money we give them or not, they can't have it both ways.

[MrSmith]

Didn't they use to call them workhouses?

 

No.

 

In England and Wales a workhouse, colloquially known as a spike, was a place where those unable to support themselves were offered accommodation and employment.

 

 

In areas such as the provision of free medical care and education for children, neither of which was available to the poor in England living outside workhouses until the early 20th century, workhouse inmates were advantaged over the general population, a dilemma that the Poor Law authorities never managed to reconcile.

 

 

Doesn't look like a bad idea though.

Why would providing food, accommodation, employment, medical care and education be a bad thing?

[Chris_Sleeps]

The rest of the article is here, just to give a deeper understanding.

 

wiki - Workhouse

 

They weren't wonderful places to be, and that is why they ended.

[onewheeldave]

Why is there no stigma attached to being judged so irresponsible that you will use money provided to keep a roof over your head on other things, but there is a stigma attached to being judged so irresponsible that you'll waste money provided for essentials on booze, fags or drugs?

 

I don't know- there just is: though the stigma I was referring to was nothing to do with 'being judged so irresponsible that you'll waste money provided for essentials on booze, fags or drugs'- it was the stigma attached to having to use food vouchers to get your food.

 

 

Either they can manage the money we give them or not, they can't have it both ways.

 

Well they can- they obviously have for the past several years.

[MrSmith]

The rest of the article is here, just to give a deeper understanding.

 

wiki - Workhouse

 

They weren't wonderful places to be, and that is why they ended.

 

But they could be if run correctly, the accommodation I was in when serving her majesty could be described as a workhouse, everything I needed including work was provided, and have to say it was a very enjoyable part of my life, food when I wanted it, medical care when I needed it, companionship with like mined people, education and training and a job that was second to none.