• 🇬🇧󠁿 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
    European & African
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: Pissed_and_messed | Shinji Ikari

The UK benefits system

Errr, where have I even mentioned anyone 'abusing' the system? You're another person making assumptions about my beliefs.

I'm in no way an expert on monetary policy but I'm doing a degree with an economics conponment so I am in no way ignorant.

As for the issue of people receiving social housing relating to the sppecific situation I mentioned. Yes it is a better position to have your own place than to be living in shared accomodation. I don't know where you've got this notion that people working and living in shared accomodation are necessarily living in better neighbourhoods than those receiving social housing has come from. There are just as many law-abiding people living in shitty neighbourhoods as there people who have commmited a crime and then been given socialised house as part of the rehabilitation process.

I see no logic at all in giving someone their own place to live as part of the rehabilitation process when there are people who are either working or studying with a view to broadening the country's skill base and living in shared accomodation. Why would we not choose to house such people in shared accomodation and redirect money saved to those who are on low incomes who haven't commited offences. The rehabilitation process is essential but I would much rather see that rehabilitation take place in a shared accomodation situation, the same as millions of other people have to deal with, and use the saved money to benefit those who are more deserving of it. What kind of a society gives their criminals better living conditions than their students?
 
omen_owen mk2 said:
I see no logic at all in giving someone their own place to live as part of the rehabilitation process when there are people who are either working or studying with a view to broadening the country's skill base and living in shared accomodation. Why would we not choose to house such people in shared accomodation and redirect money saved to those who are on low incomes who haven't commited offences. The rehabilitation process is essential but I would much rather see that rehabilitation take place in a shared accomodation situation, the same as millions of other people have to deal with, and use the saved money to benefit those who are more deserving of it. What kind of a society gives their criminals better living conditions than their students?
Click to expand...

Off the top of my head, we all know criminals breed crime - first time offender in prison learns a lot, makes friends and contacts - is it really wise to reinforce that situation by making people continue to live labelled as a criminal with other people also labelled as criminals? The people I've known on probation or on licence who get given a flat are usually monitored - but they also have some level of independence and have to manage things like finances themselves but with the support and advice being available to them cos they're in supported accommodation. This seems a far better idea than just chucking ex-cons together and see what comes out of that. We know what comes out of that - recidivism. At least independent living - ideally with support as is often (not always I'm sure) the case - gives at least some realistic chance of breaking the cycle so that person can better themselves and their situation. It's an investment not a handout.

Students living together may be for financial reasons but it's also quite good fun from those I've know who did it. It's an irritation and a frustration perhaps but it's hardly the end of the world - you have more choices than the ex-con cos they get what they're given if they are even considered for anything. It's not everybody who gets that type of support - plenty are just left to their own devices which tends to mean skint and homeless. Wonder how that may affect their immediate future prospects and wider society?
 
I think the benefit system is screwed up in this country. Its supposed to be there to support people in times of need yet when you really need it you would be lucky to receive the support required. Last winter I was left to get by on £60 a week and could not afford to eat as had to have heating due to poor health. I have worked when ever it has been possible for me too and hope to return to work as soon as I am capable so it would be deemed apparent for such a developed country to support those that actually need when they need it, this will never happen though as they don't have the man power to work through things case by case so they use blanket regulations/systems to stop the few whom will from taking advantage of the support. Its always a few who ruin it for the masses, I don't know anyone who wants to be on benefits or live in a council house, a life on benefits would be shite but it seems a few are quite content with that. I am signed off due to my mental health but I would swap what I have for a job and a mortgage at the drop of a hat.
 
Shambles said:
Off the top of my head, we all know criminals breed crime - first time offender in prison learns a lot, makes friends and contacts - is it really wise to reinforce that situation by making people continue to live labelled as a criminal with other people also labelled as criminals? The people I've known on probation or on licence who get given a flat are usually monitored - but they also have some level of independence and have to manage things like finances themselves but with the support and advice being available to them cos they're in supported accommodation. This seems a far better idea than just chucking ex-cons together and see what comes out of that. We know what comes out of that - recidivism. At least independent living - ideally with support as is often (not always I'm sure) the case - gives at least some realistic chance of breaking the cycle so that person can better themselves and their situation. It's an investment not a handout.

Students living together may be for financial reasons but it's also quite good fun from those I've know who did it. It's an irritation and a frustration perhaps but it's hardly the end of the world - you have more choices than the ex-con cos they get what they're given if they are even considered for anything. It's not everybody who gets that type of support - plenty are just left to their own devices which tends to mean skint and homeless. Wonder how that may affect their immediate future prospects and wider society?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't suggest chucking ex-cons in houses together for one second, where did that idea come from? What would be wrong with financing them to the degree that they are able to live in a shared house with other regular members of society who have to live in shared accommodation? Surely re-intergration in to society in that fashion would not only be cost effective but also a beneficial part of the rehabilitation process?

I don't see where the logic lies in supporting people on JSA/housing benefit (with the exlusion of those who are on disability allowance, they should be given something around the modal standard of living imo) to the extent that they end up in a better housing situation than many who work. Would it not make a lot more sense to give the support to those who are working to try and move them in to a position of not having to live in a shared house through saving money by housing people who aren't working in shared accomodation, with the added benefit of it being a motivating factor for them to find work?
 
omen_owen mk2 said:
Would it not make a lot more sense to give the support to those who are working to try and move them in to a position of not having to live in a shared house through saving money by housing people who aren't working in shared accomodation, with the added benefit of it being a motivating factor for them to find work?
Click to expand...

They system does support people who work, the ones with kids anyway, with tax credits. It seems to actually be one benefit that has worked IMO.

Secondly, the idea that people on benefits need motivating to work is the idea that is being used to justify treating people like shit. If you're talking about housing then isn't it housing benefit you're talking about ?
Fairly sure that'll vary from council to council. But I think the amount people can claim should be high enough to rent a decent place. After all a lot of people will be happily working and renting then get made redundant or get ill. It seems fair that they are able to claim enough to keep their place rather than have the added stress of downsizing, finding a place, deposit etc.
 
I can't recall the figures but a large proportion of housing benefit is actually claimed by people in work, benefits don't just get paid out to the unemployed
 
^ That is also true. Also Tax Credits are basically a form of welfare payment cos wages aren't enough to cover basic cost of living - it's not just scroungers who eat up tax money. It's anybody who is below the poverty line which includes many people in work.

omen_owen mk2 said:
I wouldn't suggest chucking ex-cons in houses together for one second, where did that idea come from? What would be wrong with financing them to the degree that they are able to live in a shared house with other regular members of society who have to live in shared accommodation? Surely re-intergration in to society in that fashion would not only be cost effective but also a beneficial part of the rehabilitation process?
Click to expand...

I must've plucked the ex-cons together thing from my own anus - often happens 8)

Is this maybe another regional thing? Where I used to live and knew a con or two it was no cheaper in shared accommodation that it was to rent a bedsit or one bed flat (not a nice one - a shitty one - nice ones cost more). Rent was the same for each. No idea what the situation is now but that was the situation I was basing my thoughts on cos that's what I know of.

I can't say I've ever known of anybody personally who genuinely has a better level of accommodation from the social/HA/council than somebody who can pay privately. Have known people who can't afford the best housing even though working but that's another matter. That's a problem with wages and rents not with social housing and HB. People are having to be uprooted and shifted across the country cos the councils can't keep up with rents but that doesn't mean that those on benefits live in palaces whilst everybody else gets shitholes. Just means rents are too high.
 
I've never lived anywhere where the available benefits would allow me to have my own place to live on the wage I was earning. Like you say if you have kids you're likely to be in a better position, but what if you don't feel like adding to the world's population problem? Or you feel that having kids when you're already struggling yourself is a stupid idea and that it's not right to rely on the state to provide for your family? Should these people be penalised?

The idea about people needing motivating to work....let's be honest here, there are a significant portion of claimants (by no means a majority) who are quite happy to stay unemployed and living from the state because if they work they will be either in the same financial position, or even worse off. That is clearly a ridiculous state of affairs. Things cannot be right when the working man on a low wage often ends up no better off than those who are not working.
 
I agree but from the other - more realistic I'd argue - perspective that the problem is insanely low wages not insanely generous benefits. Benefits are by no means generous - could you live on £50/pw and pay all your bills and feed yourself? It's wages that are the problem along with stupidly high rents and horribly mismanaged housing policies. Entire streets of empty houses because some landlord (often the council) have decided they're can't make enough money to justify renting them out. And all the time people having to sleep rough cos the same council won't accept they need housing badly enough to be funded. And then if they are funded they choose to send them to B&Bs at £300/pw rather than a bedsit or one bed flat for a fraction of that (outside of London anyway). The whole system is screwed but benefits are not the problem it's everything else.
 
It's not even scroungers, whoever they are, or people below the poverty line who eat up the single largest chunk of taxpayers money paid out in benefits.

It's private landlords. Y'know. The people Thatcher made benefit millionaires out of.

In 2013/14 the single biggest part of the welfare benefit bill, a whopping 30% of the whole total, went to private landlords. In cash terms?

23.8 billion pounds

Debate that.
 
StoneHappyMonday said:
Nobody plans to be on the dole their whole lives. I've NEVER met a young person without aspiration of some sort. That's a ridiculous thing to say. Why don't you go the whole hog and call them chavs SexNCandy?
Click to expand...

Me neither, I've never had anyone say that to me. Nonetheless i've met people, and observed others, who seem very comfortable in their situation and entirely unwilling to get a job and put in 40 hours a week only to receive a little more. It's just my personal opinion.

maxalfie said:
What the fuck?
Click to expand...

You might think that's a baseless assumption to make. And it is, I can't really know for sure. It's just my opinion that some people who are clearly gaming the system, asking you to help them pretend they are looking for a job when they aren't, and yelling and being rude to you when you refuse to sign are willing to put in a lot of effort to stay on the dole and very little or no effort in getting out of it.
 
There's a hella lot more money floating round the coffers of the system than they spend on benefits, & if their figures make it look like Benefits are bankrupting them it's because they're fiddling the figures. Why are normal down to earth, drug using British citizens trusting anything they get from their government? I never have. We're nothing to them, they don't give a fuck about us & they'll lie & cheat us out of everything we've got left if we allow ourselves to be divided over petite squables over a system none of us has the slightest real control over.
 
omen_owen mk2 said:
Errr, where have I even mentioned anyone 'abusing' the system? You're another person making assumptions about my beliefs.

I'm in no way an expert on monetary policy but I'm doing a degree with an economics conponment so I am in no way ignorant.

As for the issue of people receiving social housing relating to the sppecific situation I mentioned. Yes it is a better position to have your own place than to be living in shared accomodation. I don't know where you've got this notion that people working and living in shared accomodation are necessarily living in better neighbourhoods than those receiving social housing has come from. There are just as many law-abiding people living in shitty neighbourhoods as there people who have commmited a crime and then been given socialised house as part of the rehabilitation process.

I see no logic at all in giving someone their own place to live as part of the rehabilitation process when there are people who are either working or studying with a view to broadening the country's skill base and living in shared accomodation. Why would we not choose to house such people in shared accomodation and redirect money saved to those who are on low incomes who haven't commited offences. The rehabilitation process is essential but I would much rather see that rehabilitation take place in a shared accomodation situation, the same as millions of other people have to deal with, and use the saved money to benefit those who are more deserving of it. What kind of a society gives their criminals better living conditions than their students?
Click to expand...

We are forced to make assumptions when you don't bring anything into the debate other than "it's not fair, it's distributed all wrong, it's a fucking joke".

You might be learning some economics but clearly not developmental economics. It's not about whether or not you agree with it, it's the rationale behind it.

And again, you just don't know what you are talking about. There must be good reasons why they chose to give some people their own place, maybe it has do with what the other poster said, keeping them separated from other potentially bad influences. Either way, it's not a better living condition than anyone elses really. It's not their place, they can't do what they want with it, they are monitored, there are agents of the state checking up on them, they have to ask permission to do certain things... it's far from ideal. You seem to want the government to allocate them to somewhere shitty and much more modest, out of some desire of revenge or belief that it is just unfair. But rehabilitation has nothing to do with fairness. If giving them a good place is more likely to help them turn the table, (and someone clearly thinks so if this is being done) then by all means do give them a good house and let's hope for the best.

I've lived in shared accomodation for a long time. I had rights, I could do whatever I wanted within what the contract allowed me, I chose the place and neighborhood, I chose the people I wanted to share with, I didn't answer to anybody... it's very different than the situation of some guy who might even have been living near me in a better house but had to continually answer to the state and live within its boundaries. They surely don't get to choose anything.


If you truly think this is so great, then go fucking rob people down the street, go through all the legal procedures and then ask for this special housing, i'm sure you will have the time of your life.
 
Si Ingwe said:
There's a hella lot more money floating round the coffers of the system than they spend on benefits, & if their figures make it look like Benefits are bankrupting them it's because they're fiddling the figures. Why are normal down to earth, drug using British citizens trusting anything they get from their government? I never have. We're nothing to them, they don't give a fuck about us & they'll lie & cheat us out of everything we've got left if we allow ourselves to be divided over petite squables over a system none of us has the slightest real control over.
Click to expand...


Yes, very good. Start a thread about it if you want to discuss that and not this.
 
sexNcandy said:
Me neither, I've never had anyone say that to me. Nonetheless i've met people, and observed others, who seem very comfortable in their situation and entirely unwilling to get a job and put in 40 hours a week only to receive a little more. It's just my personal opinion.
Click to expand...

Again, isn't that a problem with low wages not with high benefits? Benefits are not high - nobody could conceivably argue that if they are actually aware of the sitution beyond Heil headlines. If wages actually covered the basic cost of living that would be a start. They don't - certainly not minimum wage or anywhere around that level - and to actually encourage people who actively choose not to work cos they're better off not working (or no different) you need to pay them enough to make it worth their while. Who would choose to slog their guts out to be worse off? The jobs you are talking about are bottom of the barrel stuff - not the kinda thing you can expect to climb any ladders in. You end up having to claim Tax Credits anyway so are still a drain on the system and aren't being paid enough to pay tax either. Low wages, not overly generous benefits. Why is it so many people choose to blame those who have least choice over their situation? Living on benefits is not any kinda fun - it's boring as fuck and you can't afford anything without sacrificing something more important that you know is gonna bite you in the arse further down the line.

sexNcandy said:
We are forced to make assumptions when you don't bring anything into the debate other than "it's not fair, it's distributed all wrong, it's a fucking joke".

You might be learning some economics but clearly not developmental economics. It's not about whether or not you agree with it, it's the rationale behind it.

And again, you just don't know what you are talking about. There must be good reasons why they chose to give some people their own place, maybe it has do with what the other poster said, keeping them separated from other potentially bad influences. Either way, it's not a better living condition than anyone elses really. It's not their place, they can't do what they want with it, they are monitored, there are agents of the state checking up on them, they have to ask permission to do certain things... it's far from ideal. You seem to want the government to allocate them to somewhere shitty and much more modest, out of some desire of revenge or belief that it is just unfair. But rehabilitation has nothing to do with fairness. If giving them a good place is more likely to help them turn the table, (and someone clearly thinks so if this is being done) then by all means do give them a good house and let's hope for the best.

I've lived in shared accomodation for a long time. I had rights, I could do whatever I wanted within what the contract allowed me, I chose the place and neighborhood, I chose the people I wanted to share with, I didn't answer to anybody... it's very different than the situation of some guy who might even have been living near me in a better house but had to continually answer to the state and live within its boundaries. They surely don't get to choose anything.


If you truly think this is so great, then go fucking rob people down the street, go through all the legal procedures and then ask for this special housing, i'm sure you will have the time of your life.
Click to expand...

This I do agree with though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top