'Troubled' Families Could Be Legally Banned From Spending Benefits On Alcohol And Tobacco

page: 10
21
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by Stevie777
 


It's not a simple question though, is it? Your ignoring very pertinent facts which would determine whether it was actually someone ripping off the state or not.

Getting your mate to do it as a one off is not ripping off the state. Like I said, he has to have revenue of £77k or more per year before he is liable to be paying VAT, which is the only tax you would pay on a "proper" garage doing it.

And I have grassed people in for benefit fraud, my own sister included.



Your own sister, how can you live with yourself! Your Mother must be so proud. Didn't anyone ever tell you not to klype? For all the tea in China i would never do such a thing.

I seriously hope thats just an idle remark because thats low dude!

Whats wrong with this world??? How far we have fallen!!!
edit on 15-10-2012 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by eletheia
 


I've never contested the fact that New Labour left us with a very large debt - but I think by discussing the rights and wrongs or why's of that we'll end up completely derailing this thread.

But what was your point?

salamanda stated that parks and other public places could be cleaned by those on benefits if they wanted 'luxuries' - my point was that people used to be paid wages to do such jobs, a lot of these people have now been made redundant as a result of the 'austerity cuts' - telling people to do such jobs in return for benefit payments is simply wrong no matter which way you look at it.

If you want to discuss the cuts and anything and everything related to them then please start a thread and I'll gladly contribute.
edit on 15/10/12 by Freeborn because: grammar and clarity



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


The sad fact is you are correct. I remember when I was a kid there were people around my town who would give me and my friends food stamps to go in and buy a candy bar so they'd get the change, then they'd turn around and buy beer and cigarettes.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by andy06shake
 


Not sure if someone posted this yet or not but here goes"alcohal and tobacco" two substances which unfortunatly or fortunatly keep a great many of us from going postal due to being subjigaged by the very system that is seeking to circumvent access to these substances which they are soly responcible for allowing them to be purchased in the first place.

Sounds like a recipe for riots if you ask me....more theater shootings perhaps? Take a persons right to subdue their own emotions and you will be left with the rest.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   
This is a fantastic idea because I thought of it! It’s to stop people under-feeding their kids which is actually effecting the lower income groups brain size. It’s also to stop people having children they don’t care about. There’s nothing big brother about it because it’s not their money, National Insurance hasn’t gone anything specific for over 50 years, and it’s highly popular with the UK public.

I posted the idea on another site (way more important than ATS) a while back, I would give a link –just to show off, but don’t want to contaminate it with the people of ATS who since about 2007 have been disproportionately left-wing, and are increasingly representative of a paranoid (rather than self-thinking) few.
Just shows though, what a powerful tool the internet is for all great & popular ideas. Yep I don’t believe in modesty!!



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by twohawks
reply to post by andy06shake
 


Not sure if someone posted this yet or not but here goes"alcohal and tobacco" two substances which unfortunatly or fortunatly keep a great many of us from going postal due to being subjigaged by the very system that is seeking to circumvent access to these substances which they are soly responcible for allowing them to be purchased in the first place.

Sounds like a recipe for riots if you ask me....more theater shootings perhaps? Take a persons right to subdue their own emotions and you will be left with the rest.


It does sound like recipe for disaster. I cant understand why people cant see that its the rich that created this mess in the first place! Why try and tax the poor? Oh thats right because crap rolls downhill!
edit on 15-10-2012 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sostratus



At the same time, this would be one step for the government in taking away people's right to decide how they spend their money.


It's not their money and even though I don't mind my money helping the less fortunate, I do not want my money being spent on alcohol & tobacco for the less fortunate.


once the gov hands it over to them it is their money
once you fork it over to the gov it is no longer your money

you and the ones who starred your post are like the darwin award winner
who upon seeing the mugger that stole from them buying from a dealer
shreik:

YOU CAN"T USE MY MONEY TO BUY DRUGS!!!!!!!!

i know it's difficult, but do TRY to deny ignorance
edit on 15-10-2012 by DerepentLEstranger because: (no reason given)
edit on 15-10-2012 by DerepentLEstranger because: fixed bbcode


Originally posted by twohawks
reply to post by andy06shake
 


Not sure if someone posted this yet or not but here goes"alcohal and tobacco" two substances which unfortunatly or fortunatly keep a great many of us from going postal due to being subjigaged by the very system that is seeking to circumvent access to these substances which they are soly responcible for allowing them to be purchased in the first place.

Sounds like a recipe for riots if you ask me....more theater shootings perhaps? Take a persons right to subdue their own emotions and you will be left with the rest.

edit on 15-10-2012 by DerepentLEstranger because: added edit and comment


maybe that's the point.
then they can take benefits away period. with the peoples "approval"
some publicity wit might come up with a slogan like : don't feed the animals
edit on 15-10-2012 by DerepentLEstranger because: forgot the comment



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   
Its a good idea but in the long run wont help. Ive seen people use foodstamps to buy marijuana before. Theyre on a smartcard, just buy soneones groceries for them for cash or "vitamins". Two dollars on food stamps are worth one in cash on the street



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 06:56 PM
link   
You don't need a crutch. Moderation in all things; minus man-made drugs which are addictive, expensive and bad for you whereas those from nature are not addictive, not bad for you 'in moderation' and free. El' Creatoure doesn't make mistakes; people do; no?

Just be yourself while respecting your neighbors and their unseen and most often unrealized potential/s.
Just at this Maty.
It's about the Soul of 'you', not the shell/container you may find yourself in. Good times.

If you miss that point, you missed the point of your very Creation; an opportunity to shine as only 'you' can, if given that chance. Most seem 'caught up' with whom they are supposed to be?
edit on 15-10-2012 by Bluemoonsine because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 


You have quid, I have a card.

I buy you food, you buy me smokes and booze.

It'll start a blackmarket subsystem, in my humble. . .


True.... but they don't really care how the less fortunate spend their money. At all.

Neither I might add, should anyone else - all those who made or starred self-righteous moral comments to that effect are simply fools.

Any time one sees new rules being implemented which are couched in moral concerns and language it is a sure bet one is dealing with an alternate agenda.

All those who are in favour of such measures might simply ask themselves whether a cashless society is in their best interests.

Personally I think I'll pass.

edit on 15-10-2012 by D377MC because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Seems a few things need to be clarified..

Firstly, this is not about the USA. In fact, for those that posted such comments within the context of the USA, it just proves people don't read the OP or the article that goes with it.

Secondly, this will not be a blanket ban on anyone in receipt of benefits not being able to buy drink or fags. This is to specifically target known "problem" families that are already known to Social Services, the sort of families where the kids go to school hungry while Dad is down the bookies or buying White lightning or Mum is smoking 90 a day and can't be bothered to cook a proper meal.

We all know those sorts of families, the one's that are happy to send their kids to school in the winter without a coat, or shoes or even breakfast while making sure they have a few bottles of cheap Whisky lying about..

The genuine unemployed, poor or "needy" that aren't in this category will still be able to spend "their" money as they see fit...


For now, certainly.

Unfortunately though, once the door is ajar it's only a matter of time before it's standing wide open, and if you will forgive me for saying so, that particular door is best left closed.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 08:15 PM
link   
Reply to post by detachedindividual
 


It is not their money?

Right now i'm about to claim JSA since I haven't had any luck getting a job in this tiny town. I've worked since I was fourteen, never had a time since then that I haven't worked, until now.

I've paid thousands in tax and National Insurance ... I'm sure most other benefit claimants are the same,so yes, it is our money, even if like me, it hasn't been claimed yet.

Ee pay tax, so that the money can then be spent back into society, tax and NI are there to help the country AND ourselves through hard times.

Yes, there are those that are taking the system for a ride, but they aren't as many as the news and Cameron would like to make out.

Let's not forget, between 3-4million jobless, and only between 400K-600K jobs available, there are going to be at least 2-3million without jobs and claiming benefits even if all positions are filled. Pisstake.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 08:20 PM
link   
I am a working man of 36. But only in employment for 6 years or so. We are a working family. I have claimed welfare benefits in the past since leaving school and I certainlky did spend some of it on drugs and acohol. I got married to a high school friend we have 5 adorable children and a grandchild and we could not be happier.

My point is the UK government are the bone idle ones that need a restructure. They have no backbone, it's embarrassing !



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 09:50 PM
link   
This idea is right and it is also wrong for a few reasons:


People that genuinely need handouts - the ones that cannot support themselves and their dependants on their own, I dont think should be allowed to spend their wellfare $$ on Smokes & Alcohol.

I'd prefer a system where they dont recieve money AT ALL.

The wellfare "money" is put straight into paying rent, then power, water bills.

Rather than money to buy food, your given a box with a weeks work of food allready set out into portions. Toilitries included. A card that allows them to use public transport up to XX ammount. Perhaps a $20-50 cash as well, to allow for say change to use the coin wash, or to buy a needle & thread to repair some clothes, etc.


They have eveything they need to get by comfortably. They have shelter, they have food, access to transport.


It's not what they WANT, its what they NEED.



And why the above even tho i think it would work great, is also flawed so badly because of the following:


There are alot more people on wellfare because they have been put there forcefully (job cuts to save a few more $$ to make the investors happy, Detroit is another good example)

People that are fully capable of working, supporting themselves and others, that could wake up tomorrow go to work and work well, are getting caged into the wellfare system becuase there is no out, there just are not jobs avaliable, and its not because there is no work to be done, its because of greed.

-------------

The people whom are genuinly in the poo would think of a "cashless" wellfare system is great, because it does exactly what its designed to do - keep things going when they cant afford to. Because they have no choice/freedoms when it comes to their wellfare paycheque, it gives ALOT of incentive to get off ones arse and get a job so they do have those freedoms again.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 11:56 PM
link   
Here, you get food vouchers, etc, instead of cash and it works fine. It specifies what the money is for "groceries", "milk" etc.

But it all reminds me of a story that happened while I was working in a grocery store.
The father is buying groceries and 1 donut, no other treats.

His, about 7 year old daughter, runs up to the till with a small lollipop. "Can I get this daddy?".. He says "No." Then looks at me and asks for a pack of cigarettes. As he leaves, he takes a bite out of the donut.
I tried not to jump to conclusions, but it seemed pretty cold to me.



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 02:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stevie777
Very nice of you....let me rephrase the question...Bobby down the street signs on the dole, but does car repair on the grip/side/whilst claiming benefits and not declaring his extra income...would you get him to repair your car for the £500 mentioned so you could save £500 without sticking him in to the authorities....how hard can this question be....it's always the one's who repeatedly avoid the simple questions who have something to hide....is anyone else here failing to understand my original questions or is it just StuMason....????


Ah, see now we have some meat on the question. Before, it was just some matey with no further detail on his employment status. Now it's a chap who is claiming benefits and doing work on the side while not declaring his income, you didn't say that before which actually has a large impact on what my answer would be.

Now you have qualified your question, I would say No, I would not use him. I despise benefit fraudsters, so if I knew he was on the take, I wouldn't give him my cash and I would grass him up in the process.

Besides, who's to say he'd do a decent enough job and not cost you another £500 putting it right. I'd rather use a reputable garage where I can kick up a stink if something went wrong anyway.

From your "How very nice of you" remark, am I correct to assume you think my dobbing in was wrong?



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 03:01 AM
link   
And still it goes on. Brit and American both...

They've got us angry at how the peasants are using the fallen crumbs on the floor - but ignoring the gluttony of those who sit at the table.

I think most of us do this because we see ourselves at the table as well. Only, in reality, we're not. We are just closer to the table and get the bigger crumbs.

Social gravity at work, I suppose. Easier to spit on those beneath us than those who sit higher.

~Heff



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 03:15 AM
link   
Explanation: S&F!

OL is just wondering what my fellow members percieve would be a FAIR level (% wise) of welfare benefits that can be spent on MORALE boosting LUXURIES.

I posit that anybody who sets that level at 0% is a bastard who doesnt care about peoples sense of self worth and nor do they care about the wider society AND they also see themselves as better than somebody else, in an unfair manner.

Survival is VERY WILD and without some of the good things in life IS NOT WORTH LIVING in the mid to long term [more than 1yr].

Needs MUST include some luxuries or we might as well go back to the jungle and its laws!

Personal Disclosure: % wise... I feel 5% is not unreasonable.

edit on 16-10-2012 by OmegaLogos because: Edited to fix spelling.



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 03:17 AM
link   
reply to post by domasio
 


Unemployment is more like 2.5 Million, not 3-4 million... And you'll never get full employment. Even during the boom years, say in 2007 pre-crisis, unemployment ran at 1.7 million.

You also seem to be unaware that the total unemployment figures include many different types of people who are "economically inactive". Most unemployed are also only short term unemployed (less than 6 months) who do find work. During the last quarter, 250K more people were in employment than the previous quarter. The total claiming jobseekers is actually around 1.6 Million.

It is interesting though that you say "I haven't had any luck getting a job in this tiny town".. Might I suggest you look elsewhere? I may well come across badly here, but surely if you can't get a job locally, you move? Whilst some area's don't have many jobs going, others have thousands.

My missus has the same sort of mentality, she can't get full time work, but only looks in a few mile radius from home and we live in a small town with few businesses. I suggest she try looking in Reading, only 7 miles away, where there are squillions of jobs, but she refuses to commute the 1/2hr needed to get there....

At the end of the day, you can't expect to find a job on your doorstep.



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 03:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by Stevie777
Very nice of you....let me rephrase the question...Bobby down the street signs on the dole, but does car repair on the grip/side/whilst claiming benefits and not declaring his extra income...would you get him to repair your car for the £500 mentioned so you could save £500 without sticking him in to the authorities....how hard can this question be....it's always the one's who repeatedly avoid the simple questions who have something to hide....is anyone else here failing to understand my original questions or is it just StuMason....????


Ah, see now we have some meat on the question. Before, it was just some matey with no further detail on his employment status. Now it's a chap who is claiming benefits and doing work on the side while not declaring his income, you didn't say that before which actually has a large impact on what my answer would be.

Now you have qualified your question, I would say No, I would not use him. I despise benefit fraudsters, so if I knew he was on the take, I wouldn't give him my cash and I would grass him up in the process.

Besides, who's to say he'd do a decent enough job and not cost you another £500 putting it right. I'd rather use a reputable garage where I can kick up a stink if something went wrong anyway.

From your "How very nice of you" remark, am I correct to assume you think my dobbing in was wrong?

The original question was just fine, i'm sure you knew what i was talking about the first time, but decided to act all dumb....
as far as my "How very nice of you remark" goes, yeah, i think "Dobing" your sister in was wrong...i'll bet she's still wondering who did it....did you warn her first or did you just phone the confidential hotline, leave her details and slither off into the night..??





new topics
top topics
 
21
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum