What should be covered by benefits?

OK everyone lets hear what you think benefits should provide.

Tough one sphinx.

Very tough.

A basic lifestyle, and part of the money should be paid in food vouchers.

If anything else can be paid in vouchers too, it should be.

What is a basic lifestyle though?

sphinx wrote:What is a basic lifestyle though?

Starving on the streets?

Catman wrote:

sphinx wrote:What is a basic lifestyle though?

Starving on the streets?

What? Is that what you think benefits should cover? Dont you think they should cover more than that?

sphinx wrote:

Catman wrote:

Starving on the streets?

What?  Is that what you think benefits should cover?  Dont you think they should cover more than that?

I was being pedantic, that's what the Tories want in reality for the poor.   

load of bull cat.

Catman wrote:

sphinx wrote:

What?  Is that what you think benefits should cover?  Dont you think they should cover more than that?

I was being pedantic, that's what the Tories want in reality for the poor.   

But that is not what this thread is about - you want to look for a thread entitled "what do the tories want for the poor" to give that opinion.

This thread is about what you think benefits should cover.

OK, here's what I think benefits should cover, mind you these would all be basic/cheaper things, not pricey ones:

* Housing
* Food
* Utilities
* Phone
* Health care
* Public transportation
* Small discretionary stipend (maybe the equivalent of U.S. $100/month)

Mind you, in the U.S. these ideas are considered communist.

sphinx wrote:

Catman wrote:

I was being pedantic, that's what the Tories want in reality for the poor.   

But that is not what this thread is about - you want to look for a thread entitled "what do the tories want for the poor" to give that opinion.

This thread is about what you think benefits should cover.

It's a stupid question really, benefits should provide enough money to heat and light your home, feed yourself and your family etc...All the things that benefits used to just about cover, before this evil coalition got in and went on a mindless mission to destroy the poor....They will get their cumuppance, best hope that it isn't a revolution though, the rich won't come off lightly in that event.

OK I am asking this from a UK perspective so we already have health care.

What sort of housing? What sort of accommodation be covered for a single person/a couple/a family? Should there be limits on size? Cost?

How much heating/lighting? What sort of temperature? For what portion of the day?

What sort of food? How much of it?

Also who should be entitled to it?

sphinx wrote:OK I am asking this from a UK perspective so we already have health care.

What sort of housing?  What sort of accommodation be covered for a single person/a couple/a family?  Should there be limits on size? Cost?

How much heating/lighting?  What sort of temperature?  For what portion of the day?

What sort of food? How much of it?

Also who should be entitled to it?  

Sphinx,

Instead of a tidal wave of questions coming back after an answer ir provided why don't you say what you think benefits should cover and then people can add their comments or add to the debate?

Once all the changes are brought in by the present government, will there be a huge amount of families without money to heat and light their home, feed themselves and their families?

Mr Catman has made out that benefits now don't cover these things.

Mr Catman, when did this change occur and how many families are now without these things?

I would say at least 5,000 square feet per person as far as housing goes, in low-crime, affluent neighborhoods. Price shouldn't be considered.

Heat and light? As much as they want to use. Temperature should always be quite comfortable, all day long.

Food -- really nice organic stuff, enough to provide each person receiving benefits with at least 4,000 calories per day. Groceries from upscale retailers, and plenty of fine dining, too (at least three or four times a week).

Who should get it? Primarily non-whites and immigrants, particularly non-white Muslim immigrants (it's only fair if you think about it). If they hate the U.K., are environmentalist extremists, and want to teach schoolchildren that they should be gay, they should get extra-special treatment. Double benefits to gay African Muslims who worship at militant anti-Western mosques.

sphinx wrote:OK I am asking this from a UK perspective so we already have health care.

What sort of housing?  What sort of accommodation be covered for a single person/a couple/a family?  Should there be limits on size? Cost?

How much heating/lighting?  What sort of temperature?  For what portion of the day?

What sort of food? How much of it?

Also who should be entitled to it?  

I gave a fairly vague answer because it's such a difficult one to answer.

I could keep on answering your questions and more and more would come, then the left wing apologists would come on and tear each answer apart by talking about a particular individual who had different needs.

A basic lifestyle, with food paid in vouchers and anything else which can be paid in vouchers, paid in vouchers!

That's the answer.

Ben_Reilly wrote:I would say at least 5,000 square feet per person as far as housing goes, in low-crime, affluent neighborhoods. Price shouldn't be considered.

Heat and light? As much as they want to use. Temperature should always be quite comfortable, all day long.

Food -- really nice organic stuff, enough to provide each person receiving benefits with at least 4,000 calories per day. Groceries from upscale retailers, and plenty of fine dining, too (at least three or four times a week).

Who should get it? Primarily non-whites and immigrants, particularly non-white Muslim immigrants (it's only fair if you think about it). If they hate the U.K., are environmentalist extremists, and want to teach schoolchildren that they should be gay, they should get extra-special treatment. Double benefits to gay African Muslims who worship at militant anti-Western mosques.

I flipping well knew it.

It's Blaaaaair - get him!!!!!!!!!!!!

BigAndy9 wrote:Once all the changes are brought in by the present government, will there be a huge amount of families without money to heat and light their home, feed themselves and their families?

Mr Catman has made out that benefits now don't cover these things.

Mr Catman, when did this change occur and how many families are now without these things?

It started when the Tories, and their masters, the bwankers fucked up the world economy..That caused a massive worldwide deficit, then the government started to slash welfare benefits instead of punishing their masters, the bwankers, that caused the worldwide problem in the first place.   

The problem is being made worst by the cost of living crisis, because China is consuming more of the worlds resources.

I will defeat you with the power of my man-boobs!!!!!

BigAndy9 wrote:

sphinx wrote:OK I am asking this from a UK perspective so we already have health care.

What sort of housing?  What sort of accommodation be covered for a single person/a couple/a family?  Should there be limits on size? Cost?

How much heating/lighting?  What sort of temperature?  For what portion of the day?

What sort of food? How much of it?

Also who should be entitled to it?  

I gave a fairly vague answer because it's such a difficult one to answer.

I could keep on answering your questions and more and more would come, then the left wing apologists would come on and tear each answer apart by talking about a particular individual who had different needs.

A basic lifestyle, with food paid in vouchers and anything else which can be paid in vouchers, paid in vouchers!

That's the answer.

Vouchers!   

We live in the 21st century FFS!

  

Irn Bru wrote:

sphinx wrote:OK I am asking this from a UK perspective so we already have health care.

What sort of housing?  What sort of accommodation be covered for a single person/a couple/a family?  Should there be limits on size? Cost?

How much heating/lighting?  What sort of temperature?  For what portion of the day?

What sort of food? How much of it?

Also who should be entitled to it?  

Sphinx,

Instead of a tidal wave of questions coming back after an answer ir provided why don't you say what you think benefits should cover and then people can add their comments or add to the debate?

Isnt it sufficient that people are already debating each others answers to my questions?

Why do some people react so badly to these questions?

Catman wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:

I gave a fairly vague answer because it's such a difficult one to answer.

I could keep on answering your questions and more and more would come, then the left wing apologists would come on and tear each answer apart by talking about a particular individual who had different needs.

A basic lifestyle, with food paid in vouchers and anything else which can be paid in vouchers, paid in vouchers!

That's the answer.

Vouchers!   

We live in the 21st century FFS!

  

So bloody what?!

Stop it with that cr4p!

"a decent living"

"living, not just surviving"

Catman wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:

I gave a fairly vague answer because it's such a difficult one to answer.

I could keep on answering your questions and more and more would come, then the left wing apologists would come on and tear each answer apart by talking about a particular individual who had different needs.

A basic lifestyle, with food paid in vouchers and anything else which can be paid in vouchers, paid in vouchers!

That's the answer.

Vouchers!   

We live in the 21st century FFS!

  

Why shouldnt vouchers be used?

sphinx wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Sphinx,

Instead of a tidal wave of questions coming back after an answer ir provided why don't you say what you think benefits should cover and then people can add their comments or add to the debate?

Isnt it sufficient that people are already debating each others answers to my questions?

Why do some people react so badly to these questions?

I'm not reacting badly but at the point where I suggested that you had already had a few answers and each time it generated a wave of new questions from you.

It's a bit like a teacher posing questions to her class to see how much they know.

sphinx wrote:

Catman wrote:

Vouchers!   

We live in the 21st century FFS!

  

Why shouldnt vouchers be used?

....Would cost too much to administer, so last century....Electronic transfer of money, direct into peoples bank accounts as is the case now is the best way all round.

Irn Bru wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Isnt it sufficient that people are already debating each others answers to my questions?

Why do some people react so badly to these questions?

I'm not reacting badly but at the point where I suggested that you had already had a few answers and each time it generated a wave of new questions from you.

It's a bit like a teacher posing questions to her class to see how much they know.

I was reprimanded earlier and almost posted, sorry miss!   

Irn Bru wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Isnt it sufficient that people are already debating each others answers to my questions?

Why do some people react so badly to these questions?

I'm not reacting badly but at the point where I suggested that you had already had a few answers and each time it generated a wave of new questions from you.

It's a bit like a teacher posing questions to her class to see how much they know.

Or it is exactly what I put at the start an attempt to find out where everyones baseline is because it is impossible to debate when people have a different meaning for the same word or concept.

Catman wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Why shouldnt vouchers be used?

....Would cost too much to administer, so last century....Electronic transfer of money, direct into peoples bank accounts as is the case now is the best way all round.

What about if the money is then spent on things other than food heating etc and the person has no food or warmth? What would happen then?

sphinx wrote:

Catman wrote:

....Would cost too much to administer, so last century....Electronic transfer of money, direct into peoples bank accounts as is the case now is the best way all round.

What about if the money is then spent on things other than food heating etc and the person has no food or warmth?  What would happen then?

People must be trusted to spend their money how they see fit, you're all for people having to pay their own rent to their landlord, which is a cost cutting exercise, so why would you and others of your ilk suggest an outdated voucher scheme?

To humiliate the poor even further, which is the Tory way after all.     

Catman wrote:

sphinx wrote:

What about if the money is then spent on things other than food heating etc and the person has no food or warmth?  What would happen then?

People must be trusted to spend their money how they see fit, you're all for people having to pay their own rent to their landlord, which is a cost cutting exercise, so why would you and others of your ilk suggest an outdated voucher scheme?

To humiliate the poor even further, which is the Tory way after all.     

I have not said I am for vouchers I have just asked what is wrong with them. You have told me the cost and now added they humiliate the poor.

So you have trusted someone to spend their money as they fit - they are now in debt and cannot afford to buy food or have a roof over their head. You are presumably happy that they are given no more money that that which they are already getting.

sphinx wrote:

Catman wrote:

People must be trusted to spend their money how they see fit, you're all for people having to pay their own rent to their landlord, which is a cost cutting exercise, so why would you and others of your ilk suggest an outdated voucher scheme?

To humiliate the poor even further, which is the Tory way after all.     

I have not said I am for vouchers I have just asked what is wrong with them.  You have told me the cost and now added they humiliate the poor.

So you have trusted someone to spend their money as they fit - they are now in debt and cannot afford to buy food or have a roof over their head.  You are presumably happy that they are given no more money that that which they are already getting.

Their benefits should be at a rate that takes into account inflation and the rise in the cost of living, the Tories have slashed benefits and frozen them for the next three years in an attempt to eradicate the the poor in the long term, a modern day holocaust, nothing more and nothing less.

There will be massive riots in this country before too long, unless the RW expect people to starve to death willingly, i don't think they will do that, they will take the food that they need to feed themselves and their families by force!  

Catman wrote:

sphinx wrote:

I have not said I am for vouchers I have just asked what is wrong with them.  You have told me the cost and now added they humiliate the poor.

So you have trusted someone to spend their money as they fit - they are now in debt and cannot afford to buy food or have a roof over their head.  You are presumably happy that they are given no more money that that which they are already getting.

Their benefits should be at a rate that takes into account inflation and the rise in the cost of living, the Tories have slashed benefits and frozen them for the next three years in an attempt to eradicate the the poor in the long term, a modern day holocaust, nothing more and nothing less.

There will be massive riots in this country before too long, unless the RW expect people to starve to death willingly, i don't think they will do that, they will take the food that they need to feed themselves and their families by force!  

I am not asking about rates Phil I am asking if a person who has received the correct rate and either got into debt or spent in on other things and is now unable to afford food or shelter should be given more money or just continue getting the amount that is set.

sphinx wrote:

Catman wrote:

Their benefits should be at a rate that takes into account inflation and the rise in the cost of living, the Tories have slashed benefits and frozen them for the next three years in an attempt to eradicate the the poor in the long term, a modern day holocaust, nothing more and nothing less.

There will be massive riots in this country before too long, unless the RW expect people to starve to death willingly, i don't think they will do that, they will take the food that they need to feed themselves and their families by force!  

I am not asking about rates Phil I am asking if a person who has received the correct rate and either got into debt or spent in on other things and is now unable to afford food or shelter should be given more money or just continue getting the amount that is set.

   It's always been the case that once the claimant receives their benefits, if they then spend all of their money, then they don't get any more money.

With the current situation of falling living standards and inflation, coupled with cuts in benefits....People are getting in debt because their benefits haven't been able to keep up with current circumstances, that needs to be addressed.

Catman wrote:

sphinx wrote:

I am not asking about rates Phil I am asking if a person who has received the correct rate and either got into debt or spent in on other things and is now unable to afford food or shelter should be given more money or just continue getting the amount that is set.

   It's always been the case that once the claimant receives their benefits, if they then spend all of their money, then they don't get any more money.

With the current situation of falling living standards and inflation, coupled with cuts in benefits....People are getting in debt because their benefits haven't been able to keep up with current circumstances, that needs to be addressed.

I am not asking about what is happening now or has happened in the past I asking what should happen.

However we are back at what benefits should cover and I still have no idea what you think they should cover because you still have not told me.

Well, as you posed the question, what do you think they should cover?

sphinx wrote:

Catman wrote:


   It's always been the case that once the claimant receives their benefits, if they then spend all of their money, then they don't get any more money.

With the current situation of falling living standards and inflation, coupled with cuts in benefits....People are getting in debt because their benefits haven't been able to keep up with current circumstances, that needs to be addressed.

I am not asking about what is happening now or has happened in the past I asking what should happen.

However we are back at what benefits should cover  and I still have no idea what you think they should cover because you still have not told me.  

Yes i have, as others have done.

Many people are out of work because it was government policy to make people out of work.   They said so.   Therefore, as far as they are concerned, these people are providing a service to government by not having their jobs.   The government, who are supposed to be there to serve the people, cannot then say, we have put you out of work as a deliberate policy, but we are going to make you life uncomfortable and make you feel worthless.   Which is what they are doing now.  It is not just about the amount of money they get, it is the attitude to them getting it.   The Rowntree report showed that their are very few permanently unemployed in this country, and even they want a job.   The government cheered about the number of civil servants being made redundant etc and did it as a deliberate policy.   Therefore, they have a duty to them, because it wasn't just them who lost their jobs, it was the people who ran the services that that the public sector used as well.

OK people it seems everyone is missing the point here. In order to debate things effectively people need to understand what other people mean when they use certain words.

So several people have said benefits should cover "a basic standard of living" but nobody will define "basic standard of living" other than in terms equally vague.

So what accommodation should benefits provide for a single person/couple/family (for sake of discussion keep it at healthy able people.

How much heating/lighting should be covered?

What types of and how much food should be covered?

What if any extras should be allowed?

So for a single person are we talking lodgings, room in shared house, bedsit or flat?

All day heating sufficient to be comfortable in a t shirt indoors or no heating whatsoever?

24/7 100 watt light or 12 hours 60 watt?

Basic diet of bread soup veg rice pasta porridge or a different meat potatoes and 2 veg, plus dessert every day each week?

Money to spend on phone, transport, leisure activities?

Actually, I think you are the one missing the point. The point is, 99% of people out of work are there through no fault of their own and many of them are there through deliberate government policies. The Rowntree Foundation report proved that. Who the hell are we to say what sort of a diet etc they should have or how long they should have the lights on etc. I find you post quite weird to be honest.

Sassy wrote:Actually, I think you are the one missing the point.   The point is, 99% of people out of work are there through no fault of their own and many of them are there through deliberate government policies.  The Rowntree Foundation report proved that.   Who the hell are we to say what sort of a diet etc they should have or how long they should have the lights on etc.    I find you post quite weird to be honest.

How can I be missing the point on a thread I started asking a question I wanted to know the answer to? This thread is nothing to do with why people are out of work or even for what reasons people might be claiming benefits this thread is about what should be provided by benefits.

Each person has in their head a picture of what they mean by "basic standard of living" but none of us know whether our picture is the same as anyone elses or in what way the pictures differ. Until everyone knows what everyone else means when they say "basic standard of living" any discussion or debate is pointless because the language being used is meaningless.

thing is Sphinx, you could ask 1000 people that question and get 1001 different answers
it would also be conditions by peoples perception of WHY you asked the question
vis
ask a L/W who assumes you are asking this on behalf of unemployed folks and you will get an entirely different response to the R/W
likewise ask the l/w who assumes you are asking this in the context of "are the rich too rich" and again you will get an entirely different answer to the R/w er

Its one of those questions where the reasonable man is required, sadly the reasonable man is purely a legal fiction and few are capable of putting themselves in his place.

the best i suspect you could hope to end up with from this kind of poll would be

housing suitable for his needs (and they may vary from individual to individual)
sufficient and decent quality food of reasonable and sufficient variety...I mean I KNOW beans on toast are sufficient nutrition but who the hell wants to eat em every day???
lighting and heating of sufficient level and type to ensure reasonable comfort (again to some extent this will vary between individuals)
a bath and or shower
sufficient money to buy the other necessary items of life (soap, cleaning materials, basic home care products)
a reasonable amount of suitable clothing (whatever that might me...me I'm happy in a scruffy old shirt, jeans and overalls...oh and undies...dont forget the undies) shoes etc
reasonable transport costs (and I would seriously consider road tax in that, but not fuel in general) having a vehicle servicable and ready to use is a great asset when job hunting)
and a bit left over for the odd bit of pleasure...(a beer here or a packet of fags or whatever REASONABLY gets you through the day)

A tall order...perhaps, but we are talking about people...you know folks just like you and me, and you cant sling them into penury just because they lost their job or became disabled or whatever.

Sassy wrote:Well, as you posed the question, what do you think they should cover?

Exactly. Just a flurry of questions after questions which is hardly a debate and more a case of trying to pick holes in someone's opinion without revealing what they think themself.

I think what we have in the UK is ample, what people need to answer is why people in the same situation can manage and others cannot.

Once you have realised this then you will understand the money is adequate and it is people being irresponsible with money that is the problem in the vast majority of the cases, not all but most.

This is a point the left are always unable to answer

If we say give them food vouchers the spongers complain that we're treating them like babies.

If we give them money they blow it on cider and cigarettes then go along to food banks.

Then complain they are having to use food banks.

They're very clever and devious - they just don't want things sorted out, they want somebody to point the finger at.

Give them vouchers - then we know they have enough to eat.

grumpy old git wrote:thing is Sphinx, you could ask 1000 people that question and get 1001 different answers
it would also be conditions by peoples perception of WHY you asked the question
vis
ask a L/W who assumes you are asking this on behalf of unemployed folks and you will get an entirely different response to the R/W
likewise ask the l/w who assumes you are asking this in the context of "are the rich too rich" and again you will get an entirely different answer to the R/w er

Its one of those questions where the reasonable man is required, sadly the reasonable man is purely a legal fiction and few are capable of putting themselves in his place.

the best i suspect you could hope to end up with from this kind of poll would be

housing suitable for his needs (and they may vary from individual to individual)
sufficient and decent quality food of reasonable and sufficient variety...I mean I KNOW beans on toast are sufficient nutrition but who the hell wants to eat em every day???
lighting and heating of sufficient level and type to ensure reasonable comfort (again to some extent this will vary between individuals)
a bath and or shower
sufficient money to buy the other necessary items of life (soap, cleaning materials, basic home care products)
a reasonable amount of suitable clothing (whatever that might me...me I'm happy in a scruffy old shirt, jeans and overalls...oh and undies...dont forget the undies) shoes etc
reasonable transport costs (and I would seriously consider road tax in that, but not fuel in general) having a vehicle servicable and ready to use is a great asset when job hunting)
and a bit left over for the odd bit of pleasure...(a beer here or a packet of fags or whatever REASONABLY gets you through the day)

A tall order...perhaps, but we are talking about people...you know folks just like you and me, and you cant sling them into penury just because they lost their job or became disabled or whatever.

That is a very good very answer - I would hope everyone reads it and takes it one board. Then considers the implications it has when considering how people debate things.
The flip side of it is that if 2 people can say the same thing meaning totally different things then 2 can say 2 totally different things meaning the same thing.
How many times do you see 2 people in a debate sticking doggedly to their opinion which they think is different from the other persons when actually they both have exactly the same end point in mind.

I would like it if when debating people took a pause to explain exactly what they meant and why.

Irn Bru wrote:

Sassy wrote:Well, as you posed the question, what do you think they should cover?

Exactly. Just a flurry of questions after questions which is hardly a debate and more a case of trying to pick holes in someone's opinion without revealing what they think themself.

Would you like to show me where in this thread I have tried to pick holes in someones opinion without revealing what I think? I opened this thread for a stated reason and I have stuck to that stated reason as my answer to grumpy above shows. So maybe you could now explain why you have felt the need to attack me and accuse me of doing something I was not - all without answering my original question anyway.

BigAndy9 wrote:If we say give them food vouchers the spongers complain that we're treating them like babies.

If we give them money they blow it on cider and cigarettes then go along to food banks.

Then complain they are having to use food banks.

They're very clever and devious - they just don't want things sorted out, they want somebody to point the finger at.

Give them vouchers - then we know they have enough to eat.

 ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: 

Ben_Reilly wrote:I would say at least 5,000 square feet per person as far as housing goes, in low-crime, affluent neighborhoods. Price shouldn't be considered.

Heat and light? As much as they want to use. Temperature should always be quite comfortable, all day long.

Food -- really nice organic stuff, enough to provide each person receiving benefits with at least 4,000 calories per day. Groceries from upscale retailers, and plenty of fine dining, too (at least three or four times a week).

Who should get it? Primarily non-whites and immigrants, particularly non-white Muslim immigrants (it's only fair if you think about it). If they hate the U.K., are environmentalist extremists, and want to teach schoolchildren that they should be gay, they should get extra-special treatment. Double benefits to gay African Muslims who worship at militant anti-Western mosques.

HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR!!

Good post Benny my boy.Good post.

And with any luck that lot you refer to will all die ASAP.

Oh yeah,while I'm here.....What are these benefits you refer to?