Using your benefit money for gambling

[anonymous-user]

You have forgotten the real pee take in that these layabouts are usuall full time carers for each other as well.

[reggie82]

GOATever said:

Joey Deacon said:

Instead of the rent going direct to the landlord it is a better idea to give it to the benefit claimant and let them give it to the landlord. After all, what could go wrong?

This was pure genius, from the idiot politicians that brought it in. Mind you, it keeps high court bailiffs, house clearance companies, and refurbers in business.

I rent a property and my tenants get housing benefits. I’m glad it gets paid directly to them, as if it got paid to me as the landlord, guess who the government would chase for the money back if it turned out any benefit fraud was being committed.

[TTmonkey]

Nothing more devious than an addict.

[Spare tyre]

Algarve said:

steveo3002 said:

repercussions for those that trash council houses /make the street a sthole

What repercussions can you realistically put in place when its 2 jobless losers living with several completely innocent kids?

I think unfortunately we just need to accept that the tiny scumbag minority can do as they please

Take away the kids (horrific but would hopefully change the kids lives for the good / break the cycle) adults could be put into less desirable accommodation with strict conditions and forced to do a job like recycling sorting. If they don’t do the job properly they get sanctioned (a bit like the real world)


We really really really need to break the cycle of kids being a way to benefits and free housing. Around ten years ago I purchased my first house (moved up from a flat). I’d done well, many of my friends couldn’t get on the ladder

House on a reasonable estate, surrounded by people who’d been given everything on a plate, never worked in their lives. Their kids will more than likely follow in the footsteps as they won’t be raised properly.

Meanwhile my poor friends visit only to see the knob heads having fun in nice houses that they will never get kicked out of.

I had to move from that place, constant disruptions in the middle of the night, random damage to cars etc. But mainly just the sheer frustration of working a 60 hour week to come home and find that the benefit brigade puppy breeders next door were off to Florida for two weeks in September (to take the kids)

My favourite was their tales of having to sublet their other council property (the boy friends)


Pizzas, latest mobiles, new sofas, massive tellys, motability cars, nice nails, designer clothes, taxis, motorbikes, designer dogs, free time, parties - this is a list of stuff I had paid for for them as a tax payer, that I could t afford myself.

Edited by Spare tyre on Saturday 30th November 08:00

[chemistry]

I like this approach:

https://www.dss.gov.au/families-and-children/progr...

“ The Australian Government is considering the best possible ways to support people, families and communities in places where high levels of welfare dependence co-exist with high levels of social harm.

The Cashless Debit Card is testing whether reducing the amount of cash available in a community will reduce the overall harm caused by welfare fueled alcohol, gambling and drug misuse.

While it is not the only solution, it is a useful tool operating alongside other reforms to address the devastating impacts of drug and alcohol misuse and problem gambling.

The Cashless Debit Card looks and operates like a regular bank card, except it cannot be used to buy alcohol or gambling products, some gift cards or to withdraw cash.”

[ChevyChase77]

We have a half way house over the road - lots of dodgy people come and go - none work, but they all have phones to phone their drug dealers who turn up in cars, they get in, go around the block then get back out......they also have new trainers a lot of the time, some own dogs, they get taxi's places, mainly at night......why work for a living eh?

[CrgT16]

Whilst I do not wish to swap lives with these people there a few things that grate.

Why should they be better off them a couple with 2 kids earning the minimum wage? Why should they not take some responsibility? Why should we help them to the point we are perpetuating that lack of responsibility?

It’s a shame because some families really need the benefits and use it as intended. Great I am really happy we can help this families. As for the others there needs to be a cull and they cannot always blame others for their predicament. Sure some had no chance to study, get good jobs but they could try break the mould, lots do.

That money wasted could go into many things be it the NHS, plug state pension holes, etc. It is money completely blown why should it be allowed?

I am more in favour of a system where you register your benefits and instead of receiving the cheque through the post you receive weekly essential goods, be it good, toiletries, etc. You still receive some leisure money but most of the benefits you will receive on goods. if you sell the goods and are found you will receive less.

It would cost more in logistics but could be easily done and at least it would reduce the benefit claimants. I suspect a proportion of benefit users are on benefits because they receive money, goods would be less interesting for them.

Once I was getting out of a supermarket and there was a homeless guy in his late thirties. I offered him food he insulted me and declined...then asked me for a fiver...

[BigMon]

I've got pretty much a full house at PH Bingo here.

I have no love for spongers and scroungers but some of the posts on here are laughable.

Quick hands up then. How many of the posters on here have visited a food bank and 'walked out with carrier bags of food'?

[Nickbrapp]

I’ve long since said that all benefits should be paid direct to the companies involved like the gas, electric and water, and anything left should be paid in food stamps, and other stamps you can only use for essentials and not For booze or fags.

It’s seen as a incentive now and if the freedom of money was taken away then maybe the would actually learn that to have nice things you have to earn your own

[xyyman]

chemistry said:

I like this approach:

https://www.dss.gov.au/families-and-children/progr...

“ The Australian Government is considering the best possible ways to support people, families and communities in places where high levels of welfare dependence co-exist with high levels of social harm.

The Cashless Debit Card is testing whether reducing the amount of cash available in a community will reduce the overall harm caused by welfare fueled alcohol, gambling and drug misuse.

While it is not the only solution, it is a useful tool operating alongside other reforms to address the devastating impacts of drug and alcohol misuse and problem gambling.

The Cashless Debit Card looks and operates like a regular bank card, except it cannot be used to buy alcohol or gambling products, some gift cards or to withdraw cash.”

This idea has been floated here in UK a few times over the years as a quicker, more efficient and cost effective way of distributing benefits. It is entirely possible to block spending within certain merchant categories, even down to individual merchant level. It is also possible to allow cash access but in a controlled way so if an emergency occurs there is a solution. These are all flexible limits so individual circumstances could be accommodated. It would also allow the cardholders to pay for things on line and get any discounts and other benefits.

No Government of the day has dared to innovate in such a way, possibly, for fear of losing votes. It is no coincidence that the level of rent arrears has increased, in certain sectors, since the abolition of paying housing benefit direct to the landlord, that's both private and local authority.

[slipstream 1985]

bobtail4x4 said:

I went to a pair of houses being knocked into one the other year, they had 2 "familiys" of about 8 kids each,

bloke openly told me he cant afford a job as he is on £40k+ in benifits,
"no one is going to pay him that much"

if the minimum wage is xyz that should be the benifits maximum,

Licence to have kids. Have the licence you get childcare etc.
It would cause a riot but you are living in my dictorial future.

[stuartmmcfc]

BigMon said:

I've got pretty much a full house at PH Bingo here.

I have no love for spongers and scroungers but some of the posts on here are laughable.

Quick hands up then. How many of the posters on here have visited a food bank and 'walked out with carrier bags of food'?

A lot of posters on here have no idea how a food bank works but it doesn’t stop them having opinions on it.

[talksthetorque]

stuartmmcfc said:

A lot of posters on here have no idea how a food bank works but it doesn’t stop them having opinions on it.

And some allude to having the knowledge yet don’t feel the recipients would be worthy of it being shared.

[funkyrobot]

stuartmmcfc said:

BigMon said:

I've got pretty much a full house at PH Bingo here.

I have no love for spongers and scroungers but some of the posts on here are laughable.

Quick hands up then. How many of the posters on here have visited a food bank and 'walked out with carrier bags of food'?

A lot of posters on here have no idea how a food bank works but it doesn’t stop them having opinions on it.

This thread isn't about those in genuine need. It's about the gits who p*ss their benefit away gambling then complain they don't get enough money.

[Ruskie]

The Tory is strong in this thread.

[talksthetorque]

Ruskie said:

The Tory is strong in this thread.

Insightful. Is that you Kuenssberg?

[purplepolarbear]

bobtail4x4 said:

I went to a pair of houses being knocked into one the other year, they had 2 "familiys" of about 8 kids each,

bloke openly told me he cant afford a job as he is on £40k+ in benifits,
"no one is going to pay him that much"

if the minimum wage is xyz that should be the benifits maximum,

A way around this is to have another tax option:

You can receive everything an unemployed person would get as benefits and all the other things you get with being on benefits like free prescriptions and work and be paid for it. However, you pay tax on 50% of everything you earn from working.

This would help people with irregular income as they would not need to sign on and off and they would be assured of at least the benefit income so they would not go through periods waiting for claims to be approved (which I hear is a common cause of needing to use food banks). Anyone can opt to pay tax in this way (but higher earners would be better off paying the current way). Any work you can do would result in you being better off by 50% of the gross wage so there is always an incentive to work. Tax credits for lower earners would be abolished.

To be eligible for this you have to spend 40 hours (if health permits) a week working, commuting, looking for work, in voluntary work, in training or education or caring for dependents. If at the end of a year you are worse off than you would have been paying tax the normal way you can claim back the difference.

[Jakg]

bobtail4x4 said:

if the minimum wage is xyz that should be the benifits maximum,

Except someone on minimum wage is highly likely to be receiving benefits anyway.

[OddCat]

funkyrobot said:

On a slightly different note, one of my younger brothers is in a good NHS job and earns more than me and my wife. Yet he is now back at home with mum and dad at nearly 40 years old because he can't handle money

What does this mean ? Do you mean he spent it all ?

[silverfoxcc]

I often wonder why something along these lines has not been implemented by now.

And let me say at once i think immigrantion is welcome with certain caveats

Get the govt to realise that an illegal immigrant is NOT an economic migrant,as the BBC so quaintly describe them, the clue is in the word ILLEGAL.anyone picked up in the channel or arriving in the backs of lorries are returned to the country from whence they came in from. no ifs or buts. Dont be a rescue service to those sitting in lilos just take them back on the French Coast ,At the moment the Border Force is just a waterborne free Uber service, esp ,if true, one captain of said boat said the the latest lot he picked up off the French coast 'welcome to the UK', and we are playing into the hands of the traffikers..'Dont worry if the boat sinks, you will be rescued and taken the rest of the way'

One the good side, If they arrive at Heathrow/Dover or any other recognised port of entry with correct papers. Out comes the welcome mat
However we should,like several other counties, have certain stipulations about money ( a bond?) for a return trip home, NO benefits until working here for 12 months with fully paid up stamp, Have Health insurance in place for that 12 months ( and in my world all visitors to have insurance in place, no ins no entry) If someone arrives from say Australia they are back on the next flight on the airline they come in on. ( makes the airline a bit more attentive)
If UK people need visas to enter a country, then reciprocal terms apply
And lastly have a job lined up that no existtng person resident in the UK could do
No doubt the snowflakes will be out wring hands bleating on human rights

Now the idea for the current unemployed

There might well be flaws and loopholes but it might just work, AND only applies to those who are habitual work shy, not genuine physically or mentally impaired people

First of all the normal moans about immigrants taking our jobs

OK they may well be but the job was there to be filled prior to them arriving

and why should i work?
I get more on benefits than taking a job

So for the couch potatoes who use this as the reason

A hypothetical example And please note, no moans about smoking/drinking/gambling. People who work do these activities IF they can afford them after paying all the bills/food/clothes etc

At the moment Lazy Bill gets 250 pw ( just a guess it could be more/less) from the govt/council for doing nothing. He is 100% fit in mind and body. He claims he 'wants' to work' and has no known reason not to, just he gets more than some people for sitting on his arse 24/7
DHSS offer him a job at 175pw. He turns it down he has a very convincing reason for not taking it, as most of us might

However there is a small carrot Govt say to him. 'You take this job at 175pw and we will give you the difference, so money wise you are not out of pocket and have some self respect etc etc'

Now at a stroke the payout to Bill is reduced from 250pw to 75pw Govt saves money, Bill has a purpose in life, unemployment reduced
,
Ahh now Bill doesnt like this ideas and gets sack/resigns. Govt go through the cycle but now say You do realise if this happens three and can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt it is 'self inflicted' times your maximum benefits will drop to minimum wage rates, or even worse, to that of a pensioner!!

This on the fact the there are people managing on minimum rate. Now Bill is in charge of his income and realises that he cannot go to govt to get more if he runs out before end of week/month. Millions of others manage why should he be different?

Please point out the holes and how they can be plugged, but theorectically it isnt totally unworkable, but could be a base on which to start, the main point is that Bill is no worse off, which is normally the sticking point