What would happen if people on benefits were given more money?

[Staunton]

What would happen if people on benefits were given an increase? I suspect that many forum contributors might point out that the beer-swilling, cigarette-smoking TV adicted unemployed would spend their extra on more booze, more fags and bigger flat-screens for their living room.

 

Well, supposing this were indeed the case, then what would be the problem? The government should embrace such a plan, after all it would be doing what tories like best - putting public money into private pockets - more business for the brewers and distillers, cigarette companies, tobacconists, electrical goods importers and retailers, haulage contractors and marketing firms, and more income for HM Revenue and Customs too.

 

People on benefit tend to spend the whole of their income – they have little choice when the money coming in is insufficient to cover their basic needs.

 

This government is busy putting public money into private pockets by placing the NHS, prisons, schools and other state assets in the hands of the multinationals, who will favour profit over service delivery, strip assets, make redundancies, drive down wages, terms and conditions, and offshore their takings to avoid tax.

 

However, this same government is unwilling to increase benefits in line with inflation, meaning that the poorest in our society are being hit the hardest by the austerity plan that is being used to justify their privatisation policies.

 

But this should be no surprise. The coalition government, assisted by their friends in the mainstream media are engaging in a coordinated strategy to demonise the poor in order to distract ordinary people. If we noticed that our schools, hospitals, infrastructure and services were being taken over by big business, and understood the implications, there would be overwhelming resistance. So they simply rehabilitate the rhetoric of 'deserving and undeserving poor', encourage a few 'scrounger' headlines, and observe with detached amusement as ordinary people blame each other for the ravages of their Westminster engineered austerity policy.

[I1L2T3]

They would spend it.

 

The recent legislative change to deny the 130m repayment of illegally withheld benefits was a golden opportunity missed. That money would have been immediately spent providing an economic boost benefiting many businesses.

[Vague_Boy]

...after all it would be doing what tories like best - putting public money into private pockets

 

*Ahem!* Just where do you think that this "public" money comes from?

 

HINT: The government has no money of its own. (Except the money it creates out of thin air of course.)

 

A good explanation of why this is a plan of unparallelled foolishness can be found here [LINK]. Skip to time index 25:30.

[Happ Hazzard]

Most of them would spend it on rubbish instead of investing for the future.

[julado]

Most of them would spend it on rubbish instead of investing for the future.

 

What would you suggest would give a better return on the extra money....stock exhange, property or gold

[Anna B]

This might be a contravertial view but it might actually help some of the unemployed get work.

 

I think to job search effectively you need a phone (pay as you go) and acces to the internet, (yes I know you can use the library if there is one open near you, but you often have to move fast) also money for transport (by bus) and to some extent maybe money to network a bit.

 

It's very difficult to do with no money at all, and on £70 a week it's difficult to claw your way out of the hole without support, financial or otherwise. Living on £70 a week can become a survival exercise which takes precedence over all else.

[Tradescanthia]

What would happen if people on benefits were given an increase? I suspect that many forum contributors might point out that the beer-swilling, cigarette-smoking TV adicted unemployed would spend their extra on more booze, more fags and bigger flat-screens for their living room.

 

Well, supposing this were indeed the case, then what would be the problem? The government should embrace such a plan, after all it would be doing what tories like best - putting public money into private pockets - more business for the brewers and distillers, cigarette companies, tobacconists, electrical goods importers and retailers, haulage contractors and marketing firms, and more income for HM Revenue and Customs too.

 

People on benefit tend to spend the whole of their income – they have little choice when the money coming in is insufficient to cover their basic needs.

 

This government is busy putting public money into private pockets by placing the NHS, prisons, schools and other state assets in the hands of the multinationals, who will favour profit over service delivery, strip assets, make redundancies, drive down wages, terms and conditions, and offshore their takings to avoid tax.

 

However, this same government is unwilling to increase benefits in line with inflation, meaning that the poorest in our society are being hit the hardest by the austerity plan that is being used to justify their privatisation policies.

 

But this should be no surprise. The coalition government, assisted by their friends in the mainstream media are engaging in a coordinated strategy to demonise the poor in order to distract ordinary people. If we noticed that our scholols, hospitals, infrastructure and services were being taken over by big business, and understood the implications, there would be overwhelming resistance. So they simply rehabilitate the rhetoric of 'deserving and undeserving poor', encourage a few 'scrounger' headlines, and observe with detached amusement as ordinary people blame each other for the ravages of their Westminster engineered austerity policy.

 

Don't waste your time mate, the 'I'm better than you' perspective shared by many forum members keep them blinkered by the Torys. Cameron, just like Maggie, deploys a 'divide and rule' trick, conning the people into believing the poor are making THEM poorer. You might as well knock your head against a brick wall.

[Staunton]

*Ahem!* Just where do you think that this "public" money comes from?

 

HINT: The government has no money of its own. (Except the money it creates out of thin air of course.).

 

Vague_Boy is correct to point out that the government has no money of its own. But I would caution against paying too much attention to Mr Durkin's documentary. His hostility towards the National Health Service is well known, and his ability to misrepresent data is legendary.

 

The government collects revenue via taxes, or fails to do so. Ordinary people are paying their taxes whilst multinationals such as Tesco, Cadbury, Starbucks, Amazon and many thousands of other high profile brand names are simply rubbishing our society by walking away from their obligations to the state.

 

We can structure a fair society in which enterprise is rewarded, where individuals are valued, and where the state provides services to those in need, or we can follow the USA and become a polarised nation in which the few live a life of astonishing wealth whilst the majority struggle to survive.

[Tradescanthia]

Most of them would spend it on rubbish instead of investing for the future.

 

Here's one of the 'hard of thinking', It didn't take long............

[El Cid]

 

What would happen if people on benefits were given an increase?

 

This is a trap that the Tories are wanting people to fall into.

 

"People on benefits" includes people that are working, those that cannot work due to ill health or dis-ability and those that are seeking work.

 

The people that we need to help more are those on long term benefits. Even people in wheel chairs can work, those that cannot work is a very small minority.