Forum home Road cycling forum The cake stop

Not very well thought out.

Frank the tankFrank the tank Posts: 6,806
edited March 2013 in The cake stop
A trial for universal benefit to replace six existing benefits is being piloted in Wigan amongst other places.

Whilst I appreciate that simplifying the system is in theory a good idea, the reality I feel may be problematical at best, at worst disasterous.

The new credit is only accessible on line. According to the artical 20% of those receiving the benefit have no access to a pc and 40% have no workable bank account.

Add to that it'll be paid monthly and I think we're going to see a lot of folk being @rsed out of their homes through none payment of rent. I know!!!!! "Well that'll be their fault then". However a lot of these people being on low incomes and at some point (possibly) be faced with the choice do I feed my family or pay the landlord? Which is the more pressing growling bellies or the rent bill a week away?

There are not jobs for everyone and a lot claiming these benefits are possibly in low paid jobs aswell.

As I say, I appreciate the idea but I feel it will ultimately lead to a lot of unneccessary hardship and the taxpayer will just pay the price in some other way.
Tail end Charlie

The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.
«1

Posts

  • Labrat6Labrat6 Posts: 5
    According to the artical 20% of those receiving the benefit have no access to a pc and

    Banks of them in my local library
    40% have no workable bank account.

    Seems a strange definition - "workable" can you explain more?
    [/qute]Add to that it'll be paid monthly and I think we're going to see a lot of folk being @rsed out of their homes through none payment of rent. I know!!!!! "Well that'll be their fault then".

    Anything stopping them paying the rent the day after the money comes through - sort of like most of us do when our wages come through, and we pay the mortgage/rent by direct debit - its a basis element of budgeting that everyone in normal life deals with
    However a lot of these people being on low incomes and at some point (possibly) be faced with the choice do I feed my family or pay the landlord? Which is the more pressing growling bellies or the rent bill a week away?

    Again - pay it when you get the money, job jobbed.
    There are not jobs for everyone and a lot claiming these benefits are possibly in low paid jobs aswell.

    People in all sorts of jobs have to budget, and pay their rent.
    As I say, I appreciate the idea but I feel it will ultimately lead to a lot of unneccessary hardship and the taxpayer will just pay the price in some other way.

    Learning to budget on a monthly basis if, I'm afraid, part of the reality that affects working people up and down the country on a daily basis - its not always easy - but in the case of people who have never had to deal with that then perhaps teaching a man to fish is the first step to helping them in the longer run.
  • Frank the tankFrank the tank Posts: 6,806
    I assume the term workable bank account is media speak for a bank account.

    It's ok having banks of pc's in the library but I would assume if you have no pc you're not going to be very computer literate.

    Yes I agree with what you say, it is about being able to budget as indeed I've had to and still do. However, in my life I've been fortunate enough to have good well paid employment and not been in a position of owing "door step lenders" money as a lot of these people may well have to do. Without wanting to be patronizing/condecending when money is very tight life tends to be lived more on a day to day basis. And some people will just be unable to cope and so paying the "rent" as it is now would still be the best way.

    Not everyone understands the systems in place.
    e.g.
    On Friday my elderly mother-in-law was asking me how the bedroom tax would effect her (she was worried) I explained she owns her home and she needn't worry. (I know that's OT but where there is change some folk struggle, that's not to say there should never be any change)
    Tail end Charlie

    The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.
  • Cleat EastwoodCleat Eastwood Posts: 8,191
    Also the landlord has his mortgage to pay off - you pay him/her when you said on the contract. Because the application is online it doesnt follow the applicant will be given the benefit. I've a friend who works in the CAB and there are 2 people who have already been told to leave their accomodation as teh landlord doesnt want the hassle of waiting to see how the new system pans out.
    The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns
    momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself.
  • SpainSteSpainSte Posts: 181
    At least they're trying to do something about it.

    The welfare bill for the taxpayer needs to be reduced and the process of claiming needs to be simpler for the claimant.

    There will always be reasons not to do something (inconsiderate landlords, no internet access etc etc), there comes a time where people have to just MTFU and take responsibility for themselves. Cant use a computer? Learn.
  • fast as fuppfast as fupp Posts: 2,277
    youre all heart!

    i remember when cycling was a working class sport- nowadays its infested with heartless tory gobshites! :D
    'dont forget lads, one evertonian is worth twenty kopites'
  • sophidogsophidog Posts: 180
    as regards bank accounts, if they don't have one the Post Office has the Post Office Card Account into which benefits can be paid. The customer gets a card and can access the cash with that, simples.
    The benefits agencies can even request the PO to set an account up for them; all the customer has to do is wait for their card & PIN.
    Road: Rose CDX-3000 Cannondale CAADX 105 2011
    Turbo: Fuji Nevada Mountain Bike(Y2K)
  • CiBCiB Posts: 6,098
    Whilst I appreciate that simplifying the system is in theory a good idea, the reality I feel may be problematical at best, at worst disastrous, so rather than make any attempt at fixing it which might in turn cause short term problems, let's carry on regardless throwing money away on a system that's quite clearly no longer fit for purpose.
    FTFY, including the disastrous typo. No probs FTT.
  • SpainSteSpainSte Posts: 181
    youre all heart!

    i remember when cycling was a working class sport- nowadays its infested with heartless tory gobshites! :D


    Because left wingers are known for their ability to not to talk rubbish? Hmmm......


    Its nothing to do with party politics and everything to do with getting the mess that is the welfare system under control. Welfare will only get worse, with an aging population etc etc. Something needs to be done.

    Similarly, claiming from welfare is much too complicated, it needs to be much simpler, not quite sure how this makes me a gobshite.....
  • Cleat EastwoodCleat Eastwood Posts: 8,191
    SpainSte wrote:

    Similarly, claiming from welfare is much too complicated, it needs to be much simpler, not quite sure how this makes me a gobshite.....

    Actually it isnt - its really really simple - at those at the other end of the phone or behind a desk are only to keen to help - if you have reading difficulties they'll even take you aside and help with forms - those who have deal at the sharp of peoples lives often have a greater compassion.

    And just in case people believe that spnishateves view is prevalent - I know of a district judge who refused to make a woman homeless when the housing corporation wanted her evicted for delayed payment of rent - he said ts not the job of the law or society to put people on the streets.

    The good people aren't silent in these attacks on the less well off - they're just not posting on bike forums. :lol:
    The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns
    momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself.
  • Frank the tankFrank the tank Posts: 6,806
    CiB wrote:
    Whilst I appreciate that simplifying the system is in theory a good idea, the reality I feel may be problematical at best, at worst disastrous, so rather than make any attempt at fixing it which might in turn cause short term problems, let's carry on regardless throwing money away on a system that's quite clearly no longer fit for purpose.
    FTFY, including the disastrous typo. No probs FTT.
    Have I not said in your chosen and modified "quote" simplifying the system is a good idea?

    I just think the way it's being modified could be better thought out.
    Tail end Charlie

    The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.
  • Frank the tankFrank the tank Posts: 6,806
    What a great job the media are doing. While I appreciate there are "scroungers" within the benefits system that need weeding out, the vast majority of people claiming benefits are doing so legitimately through genuine need.

    This is a cycling forum and I would think we're all reasonably intelligent but, some of the vitriol poured out in the direction of some in society less fortunate is horrible. The popular press and this tory lead coalition have done a good job turning those next to bottom on them at the bottom.

    Why don't we just gather everyone up who are out of work, unable to work for whatever reason and exterminate them, deport everyone without a British passport. Anyone disabled, anyone without blonde hair and blue eyes, anyone who name ends in ski/kov/nev or looks a bit swarthey. Homosexuals, leftist thinking, jewish, catholic, islamist. single mothers, anyone who has been on Jeremy Kyles show, drug dealers,rapists, murderers, white van drivers. Oh and people who were born on a date with an even number 2nd/4th/6th of the month etc.

    And burn the [email protected]@rds.

    That should just about leave room for all the self righteous and decent upstanding folk.

    By all means feel free to add to the list If I've missed anyone out. :roll:
    Tail end Charlie

    The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.
  • fast as fuppfast as fupp Posts: 2,277
    can i add.................kopites? :D
    'dont forget lads, one evertonian is worth twenty kopites'
  • lucan2lucan2 Posts: 295
    This is a cycling forum and I would think we're all reasonably intelligent ...

    I'd like to point out your first mistake.

    It's a bit black and white in your world, is it Frank? We're either Nazis or "self righteous and decent upstanding folk"?
  • Frank the tankFrank the tank Posts: 6,806
    lucan2 wrote:
    This is a cycling forum and I would think we're all reasonably intelligent ...

    I'd like to point out your first mistake.

    It's a bit black and white in your world, is it Frank? We're either Nazis or "self righteous and decent upstanding folk"?
    I wish it was.

    I just can't get over how intollerant and unsympathetic some people (on here appear to be) towards their fellow man.
    Tail end Charlie

    The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.
  • ballysmateballysmate Posts: 14,142
    I think people are generally sympathetic and are content in supporting people in genuine need. Sympathy runs thin when living on benefits becomes a lifestyle choice. When people see benefits being used to buy drugs, booze and fags, people are entitled to ask wtf is going on.
    People will no doubt reply that this is a minotity and an exaggeration of the 'tory press', but go and spend an evening working in a local convenience store and look at the clientelle.
    A better system would be to issue vouchers to be exchanged for food, heating, clothing etc, life essentials, instead of money.
  • ballysmateballysmate Posts: 14,142
    Don't know what to make of the post above. Someone has serious issues.
    But, leave lesbians alone! I have lesbian tendencies myself.
  • lucan2 wrote:
    This is a cycling forum and I would think we're all reasonably intelligent ...

    I'd like to point out your first mistake.

    It's a bit black and white in your world, is it Frank? We're either Nazis or "self righteous and decent upstanding folk"?
    I wish it was.

    I just can't get over how intollerant and unsympathetic some people (on here appear to be) towards their fellow man.

    I can completely understand how some people are unsympathetic, but I don't find it right either. Saying that, I dropped most of my circle of friends after I got out of teenage years because most, if not all of them, got benefits and ended up not working at all. 5 years have gone by, and they are still sitting at home smoking weed in a council house with money handed to them every month.

    While there are tons of people legitimately claiming benefits in the UK, the truth is there are also extremely high numbers of benefits abuse. I'd be all for a health check to claim benefits, where if you pass the health check you must find work within a given amount of time or your benefits will stop. This will allow the people who need the help desperately (disabled, elderly....) to retain their benefits while weeding out the scroungers.

    It is also shocking to see the new statistics about how many immigrants are about to come from Romania and attempt to scrounge benefits. This will only strain our system more, and cost me more money.
  • ballysmate wrote:
    Don't know what to make of the post above. Someone has serious issues.
    But, leave lesbians alone! I have lesbian tendencies myself.

    Same, I am full on lesbian!
  • CiBCiB Posts: 6,098
    CiB wrote:
    Whilst I appreciate that simplifying the system is in theory a good idea, the reality I feel may be problematical at best, at worst disastrous, so rather than make any attempt at fixing it which might in turn cause short term problems, let's carry on regardless throwing money away on a system that's quite clearly no longer fit for purpose.
    FTFY, including the disastrous typo. No probs FTT.
    Have I not said in your chosen and modified "quote" simplifying the system is a good idea?

    I just think the way it's being modified could be better thought out.
    You probably did.

    What makes me laugh is the endless stream of one-sided 6th Form opinion* here and elsewhere presented as fact, where only those of a socialist or left leaning bent can possibly be correct when it comes to identifying and resolving the ills of the country, and that Cameron, Boris and esp George "let's use a witty pseudonym for him" Osborne are all so rich and so much a product of wealth that they can no have no possible grasp of what the less well off feel, and then by extension anyone who fails to fall into line with this liberal left socialist ideology is either a UKIP fruitcake, Tory scum or a card-carrying BNP racist. The left don't have a monopoly on knowing exactly what's wrong with the country and what needs doing and how some sectors of society need more help than others, but to read some of the comedy gold posted on here as political fact you'd be hard pushed to realise that.

    *not necessarily this particular thread's opening stance.
  • ballysmateballysmate Posts: 14,142
    +1 for CiB

    My in laws always vote Labour - no matter what. Their fathers always voted that way.
    They would never consider voting Tory because they are rich.
    Watch the TV, read the newspapers and see/hear the snide remarks reference the Tory members backgrounds.
    Would snide references be tolerated if they were directed against any other group.
    eg 'What does he know about running anything, his family were miners, roadsweepers etc'
    Of course it wouln't and rightly so.
  • capt_slogcapt_slog Posts: 3,362
    ballysmate wrote:
    A better system would be to issue vouchers to be exchanged for food, heating, clothing etc, life essentials, instead of money.

    They don't have this system because it's thought to be demeaning.


    The older I get, the better I was.

  • MonkeypumpMonkeypump Posts: 1,528
    Capt Slog wrote:
    ballysmate wrote:
    A better system would be to issue vouchers to be exchanged for food, heating, clothing etc, life essentials, instead of money.

    They don't have this system because it's thought to be demeaning.

    And it's open to abuse - vouchers would just be sold for cold hard cash.
  • ballysmate wrote:
    I think people are generally sympathetic and are content in supporting people in genuine need. Sympathy runs thin when living on benefits becomes a lifestyle choice. When people see benefits being used to buy drugs, booze and fags, people are entitled to ask wtf is going on.
    People will no doubt reply that this is a minotity and an exaggeration of the 'tory press', but go and spend an evening working in a local convenience store and look at the clientelle.
    Really? your empirical data to back up your claims comes from the suggestion of spending an evening at a convenience store? That's the funniest example of how to misinform yourself I've seen in quite a while.

    The Tory press may paint many myths about society but even they wouldn't be so stupid as to try and suggest that spending a couple of hours in a convenience store will reveal a representative cross section of society upon which to base policy, even if their policies give that appearance
  • Drfabulous0Drfabulous0 Posts: 1,539
    Capt Slog wrote:
    ballysmate wrote:
    A better system would be to issue vouchers to be exchanged for food, heating, clothing etc, life essentials, instead of money.

    They don't have this system because it's thought to be demeaning.

    Isn't that what money is?
  • I strangely like the idea of vouchers which can be given out for supplies. I would also carry that on to say the vouchers can only be redeemed upon proof of identification if needs be, to stop people just selling them on. The ones who would do the selling on are the ones basically saying I don't want food, heat or shelter, i'd rather have x. At the point when basic needs get pushed to the back burner over having a car or a nice new smartphone, or whatever have you, I think the demeaning part should not even matter. Those types of people are demeaning themselves.
  • SpainSteSpainSte Posts: 181
    CiB wrote:

    What makes me laugh is the endless stream of one-sided 6th Form opinion* here and elsewhere presented as fact, where only those of a socialist or left leaning bent can possibly be correct when it comes to identifying and resolving the ills of the country, and that Cameron, Boris and esp George "let's use a witty pseudonym for him" Osborne are all so rich and so much a product of wealth that they can no have no possible grasp of what the less well off feel, and then by extension anyone who fails to fall into line with this liberal left socialist ideology is either a UKIP fruitcake, Tory scum or a card-carrying BNP racist. The left don't have a monopoly on knowing exactly what's wrong with the country and what needs doing and how some sectors of society need more help than others, but to read some of the comedy gold posted on here as political fact you'd be hard pushed to realise that.

    *not necessarily this particular thread's opening stance.


    Exactly this.
  • bdu98252bdu98252 Posts: 171
    The problem with all of this is that in life I have to make choices to live within my means. I don't have sky, smoke fags, take recreational drugs or buy the latest gadgets. I instead spend that spare money on bikes, boats and other pastimes.

    Are benefits to provide a good standard of living for people or the basics to keep them alive. Currently we are talking about a reduction in benefits so that that those on benefits albeit the full package including social housing are less well off than those working 40 hours a week on minimum wage.

    I remember reading a sign in Alcatraz that said, "You are entitled to food, shelter and basic medical care. Anything else is a privalege." The current system makes a mockery of the low paid workers knocking their pans in for a minimal wage whilst living in areas with high unemployment and wondering what they are doing it for. Not everyone can be the brain surgeon.
  • Frank the tankFrank the tank Posts: 6,806
    SpainSte wrote:
    CiB wrote:

    What makes me laugh is the endless stream of one-sided 6th Form opinion* here and elsewhere presented as fact, where only those of a socialist or left leaning bent can possibly be correct when it comes to identifying and resolving the ills of the country, and that Cameron, Boris and esp George "let's use a witty pseudonym for him" Osborne are all so rich and so much a product of wealth that they can no have no possible grasp of what the less well off feel, and then by extension anyone who fails to fall into line with this liberal left socialist ideology is either a UKIP fruitcake, Tory scum or a card-carrying BNP racist. The left don't have a monopoly on knowing exactly what's wrong with the country and what needs doing and how some sectors of society need more help than others, but to read some of the comedy gold posted on here as political fact you'd be hard pushed to realise that.

    *not necessarily this particular thread's opening stance.


    Exactly this.
    I don't actually believe that "the left" have all the answers no more than "the right".

    I do believe that when you look at the house of commons not too many of them are actually common. Most are very well heeled (regardless of the colour of their rosette) and are as such becoming ever more removed from the common man, and their everyday plight. The country has for too long been governed by the "right" since Thatcher came to power and it's her legacy that we are now reaping the benefits of.

    There is no such thing as community. She made sure of that by shutting down communities without having any policies to replace the jobs in the ailing industries and areas that were being closed down. As a result of that 100s of thousands found themselves having to live on benefits and having no real stake in society and being made to feel worthless. Massive amounts of the council housing stock were sold off and have not been replenished (hence the bedroom tax due to not enough social housing) It's taken 20 odd years for the chickens to come home to roost but come home to roost they have.

    I don't profess to have the solution, indeed a fair few on here would say I'm part of the problem (Bompington I assume that with there being no "smilie" on your post you're either trolling or atotally despicable individual) But I would go about sorting it a different way. And some would perhaps be suprised at how radical I could be if I were given a whip hand.

    I can understand how people draw the conclusion of "They're poor little rich boys who don't know the price of milk".
    and as such how can they appreciate the struggle of people on low budgets. Drawing on my life experience I'm no millionaire and I've lived on very tight budgets but I've never had to exist on benefits. If you're on a decent wage you can budget 'cos you can generally find places to trim back however if after paying all my bills I was left with less than £20/weel to spend on food stc that would be something I couldn't comprehend.

    As for vouchers, I'd have quite happily accepted them in lieu of child benefit as the CB I recieved was spent on the children anyway.
    Tail end Charlie

    The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.
  • ballysmateballysmate Posts: 14,142
    [quote="BillyMansellReally? your empirical data to back up your claims comes from the suggestion of spending an evening at a convenience store? That's the funniest example of how to misinform yourself I've seen in quite a while.

    Well Billy, my missus has worked at such a store for 17 years and friends ran a store for many years. She knows all the druggies that go in and knows the customers by what they buy. eg the grants man or the cider woman, who come in each day.
    To see shoppers put food back out of their basket is pitiful, when they choose to pay for the booze instead. There are people that go to top up their gas by just a few quid, as that's all they've got and then spend nearly 8 quid on a packet of fags.

    If you are going to mock, please explain how it is possible to misinform yourself. You can absorb information and draw the wrong conclusion, but that isn't the same as deliberately imparting false information is it?
  • rhextrhext Posts: 1,639
    I reckon there's two views of welfare:

    1) It's a safety net. It's there to provide a bare minimum subsistence for people who can't work. As long as they're not freezing or starving, job done!

    2) It's a wealth redistribution mechanism. It's there to ensure that, no matter what your personal circumstances and/or inclination to work, everyone is entitled to receive a minimum standard of living.

    It seems to me that it definitely started out as the former, but over the years it has gradually morphed into the latter. Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming that life on welfare is in any way easy. But compared with what it was like 50 years ago it's come on a long way (Orwell's 'The road to Wigan Pier' paints a very graphic picture).

    The thing about wealth redistribution, however, is that the more comfortable the minimum standard becomes, the less inclined people are to put themselves out to strive for anything better. And if they're not striving for something better, the whole of society suffers because there's a larger and larger unproductive burden for them to carry. That was the inherent problem with communism, and the appalling lack of productivity that blighted that economic model.

    The problem with our welfare system is that it's very easy to let the costs drift up, but very difficult to make them come down again without enlisting the help (I say 'enlisting' but 'forcing' is probably a more accurate description) of the people who claim. The housing benefit bill has shot through the roof over the last few years: who benefits from that? It's not the claimants: it's the private landlords who have been merrily jacking up their rents safe in the knowledge that as long as they remain below the upper quartile, the taxpayers will have to continue to pay them. But how do you reverse that trend without reducing the amount that people are able to claim (and therefore causing short-term discomfort)?

    As someone who pays tax, I reckon the Government is not doing its job if it doesn't take reasonable steps to bring the bills down. Living in a house that's larger than you need, while other families are living in overcrowded accommodation? Can't find a job within 20 miles of where you live? Why shouldn't you have to move? Why should everyone else have to pay more tax just so you are protected from an unpleasant experience that many of them have had to go through themselves? Society is full of people (myself included) who moved to where the work was rather than sitting back and expecting it to come to them. I just don't see why people who rely on welfare should also be protected from all the other things that make life difficult. None of the rest of us are!
Sign In or Register to comment.