Aye, even fancypants qualified-to-the-hilt jobs are at a ratio of 1:85 to applicants. There's more people of working age than jobs.
Food vouchers for use in participating food stores. AFAIK council tenants get things fixed for them and the rest can use some portion of the voucher (which would be a card) for other services. It's not the practicalities that make this difficult.
How much is some portion? What if the bill is bigger than the value of that portion, or even the total value of the voucher?
What if the bloke doesn't participate? This voucher mustn't work in a cash machine, else it'd defeat the object?
It is, by far, the practicalities making it difficult.
I meant limiting it to children already in existence. i.e. stopping (or rather not starting) it for any children conceived whilst on the dole.
Is this going to be backdated nine months? People can't see into the future, find out they're going to get made redundant in a week or so, then use the foreknowledge to go buy a pack of jonnies.
I'm still concerned about what happens to the sprog in this scenario?
If you can't afford to pay for them why should I?
First, you're not. Welfare comes from state funds, earned through taxes. If you'd like "your part" of the tax income to not go on welfare, then maybe you should write your MP.
Tell him to get on the case of closing tax loopholes, where big companies like starbucks dodge theirs. Then, you can sleep easy at night, knowing someone else is paying for welfare. Try not to think about if they then go ahead spending your taxes on nukes or something.
Second, it's called progressive taxation.
You are taxed based on your ability to pay, with the intent of keeping the level just below that which would negatively impact your quality of life.
In exchange, you get loads of stuff. Like a police force, hospitals, and safe roads. Welfare ties into this because it stops you from having to step over the corpses of starved paupers on your walk to work.
It's something you agreed to by making use of any of that stuff. If you'd like to opt out, there's loads of under regulated, totally free market companies that will put you on a Big Metal Bird somewhere else.
It clearly is sustainable with around 3m on one form or another.
Thanks to over reliance on food banks, etc. Which is also welfare, except taken from kindness rather than taxation.
It's far higher than that once you factor in zero hour contracts, etc. While we're on the topic, how does the upswing in unemployment whenever the economy collapses fit into your "they're all lazy" theory?
First world problems. Unless you're elderly a couple of months of a cold house won't kill you.
And what if we were an elderly couple? You said it yourself, it'd kill us.
And remind me again why people working for a pittance have to go without so people on the dole (by choice or otherwise) can heat themselves?
If people working can't afford to heat the house, that is part of the problem.
This is wonderful rhetoric this, "let's make work pay by cutting benefits" logic. Punishing the out of work because those in work don't have it very good.
Here's a dead clever idea, I found it on a penguin wrapper: If people in work have it crap, how about we make being in work better?
You can start with the bloody minimum wage/living wage gap. Are you happy that someone doing 40hours a week is, in your line of thinking, still having you pay for all their stuff?