Should people on state benefits be allowed to gamble?

Every time I walk past a betting shop you see your typical benefits receiver. I know not all are, but you can be sure IMO the majority are.

My point being should these people, if they are on benefits, be allowed to use their state hand outs to gamble? This money is intended for them to support themselves and or their families!

Now there could be one good use for the national ID card here. Make all betting establishments ask for this card and once swiped, they can tell if the person is on Job Seekers allowance or what ever its call. If they are, they must refuse to let them bet!

I see 2 people (so far) have voted for yes. Why? Why should people on state benefits be allowed to gamble.

Also Im not talking about people on sick leave or anything like that, just people who are receiving state benefit because they are out of work.

Im one of the people that have voted for yes.

If people on benefits want to gamble away their state money then thats up to them. Thatll teach them when theyve got no food.

I voted "yes" as they have got to have something to do all day and bingo etc. is good fun and gets you out of the house, which is nice, especially when it's sunny like today.

I haven't voted. I think that if you stopped them gambling i.e. spending their money on a pleasure activity, then shouldn't you also stop them smoking/drinking/going to the cinema and any other non-essential passtimes?

Originally posted by nick2
I voted "yes" as they have got to have something to do all day and bingo etc. is good fun and gets you out of the house, which is nice, especially when it's sunny like today.

True, plus I dont see why people on social cant use some of the money they get for social activities, and gambling can be classed as an activity just like going to the pictures or similar.

EDIT. sorry, posted this at the same time as TimmyR

I voted yes... at least that money goes back into the system and helps pay peoples wages... they could be spending it on worse things, like drugs.

I think people on benefits or not should have free choice on how they spend their money. Unless you have food and clothing vouchers how do you stop it.
Family allowance should be for the family but how would you police it.
I could say people who earn their money spend on stupid things, but it is none of my business.

I'm talking a small amount of gambling, the lottery which could transforrm their lives, give a little light at the end of the tunnel.
I know when my children were small and we were poor I had always the thought that we could win the pools. We didn't but the children grew and I got job and the thought had substained me thrugh a bad time.

hazel

I think they should get cheaper sandwiches/sausage rolls/crisps/fizzy pop too, so they can go on a nice picnic to get some fresh air and exercise.

Serapis......you ever thought of training as a Norland Nanny and going into politics?

Originally posted by serapis
I see 2 people (so far) have voted for yes. Why? Why should people on state benefits be allowed to gamble.

Also Im not talking about people on sick leave or anything like that, just people who are receiving state benefit because they are out of work.

what r we classing as gambling...
bingo
lottery
football coupons.
the fact that dearer sausage tastes better than cheapo stuff.
noeone tells you what to spned money on therefore no one has the right to stop the less well off wasting their cash.

(i think gambling per se is a total waste of time & money)

Originally posted by willman
what r we classing as gambling...
bingo
lottery
football coupons.
the fact that dearer sausage tastes better than cheapo stuff.
noeone tells you what to spned money on therefore no one has the right to stop the less well off wasting their cash.

(i think gambling per se is a total waste of time & money)

But then again, I earn my money and so I have a right to spend what I earn.

We're not taling about 'the poor' per se. We're talking about people receiving money from state benefits - i.e. ultimately from other taxpayers.

I think it would be churlish to ban gambling in this way but at the same time there is a world of difference between soemone earning money and someone being given it, even if they are given that money as a right under the social contract.

Joe

Message to NICK2 ...... what are you on today..... too much vino at the weekend I suppose .... :suspect:

Originally posted by JoeP
But then again, I earn my money and so I have a right to spend what I earn.

We're not taling about 'the poor' per se. We're talking about people receiving money from state benefits - i.e. ultimately from other taxpayers.

I think it would be churlish to ban gambling in this way but at teh same time there is a world of difference between soemone earning money and someone being given it, even if they are given that money as a right under teh social contract.

Joe

how do we qualify who isn't or hasn't been a taxpayer. redundant people get state benefits,sacked people get benefits.
don't forget if they win big, they will pay more tax than most people on here & stop claiming benefits. result all ends up.

I enjoyed reading the arguements written by 'yes' voters on this thread, and I think some valid points have been made, but I still voted 'no' myself.

I don't pay my taxes to fund unemployed people to sit in the betting shop all day instead of trying to get a job, taking their kids out or whatever.

I think playing the lottery once a week is a little different, but state benefits are intended to put food on the table and clothe the kids, not bet on horses.

Originally posted by willman
how do we qualify who isn't or hasn't been a taxpayer. redundant people get state benefits,sacked people get benefits.
don't forget if they win big, they will pay more tax than most people on here & stop claiming benefits. result all ends up.

When you work you are not paying in to a 'pot' that you later draw from with your tax and NI. What you pay immediately goes out the door to pay for the current needs of teh state.

I am self-employed, and hence cannot pay benefits if I stop working because I'm deemed to have made myself redundant. So, if I lose my business I have to find money to eat from my own resources, let alone gamble.

I wasn't aware we taxed lottery wins? The only tax that will be paid is that on gains from investments that are made with the money. Indeed, that might be a fair amount - or it might be nothing at all if the winnings are small or the investments aren't made. People will only stop claiming benefits if there is a big win involved.

Joe

I voted yes simply because you can't start dictating on how ANYONE spends their money, regardless of who they are or where they get it from in my opinion.

Originally posted by JBee

I think playing the lottery once a week is a little different, but state benefits are intended to put food on the table and clothe the kids, not bet on horses.

Why should they be allowed to put a 'bet' on the lottery, but not place a 'bet' on the horses? A bets a bet

Originally posted by spyro2000
Why should they be allowed to put a 'bet' on the lottery, but not place a 'bet' on the horses? A bets a bet

Yeah, I know what your saying, but I do think there's a difference between someone who puts £1 on the lottery every Saturday in the vain hope of winning a better life for their family, and someone who sits in a betting shop all day squandering every last penny and then moaning that they can't afford to buy food.

I freely admit that it would be very difficult to draw a legal line though, or police such a law.

still don't agree Joe it should either be a blanket ban or accept it as it is.
u can debate the validity of tax & Ni & the definition of self employed paying tax against PAYE,pensions contributions all day long.
what is the difference between an existing taxpayer (me) and an ex taxpayer (my neighbour) being allowed to gamble,we can't dictate free will.

(i did say BIG win in the text even i'm not naive enough to think 10k would stop 'em claiming)

I voted no. I don't think it is fair to waste public money in such a way

Originally posted by JBee
Yeah, I know what your saying, but I do think there's a difference between someone who puts £1 on the lottery every Saturday in the vain hope of winning a better life for their family, and someone who sits in a betting shop all day squandering every last penny and then moaning that they can't afford to buy food.

I freely admit that it would be very difficult to draw a legal line though, or police such a law.

What you have just said above is true.

although no one is saying that the people concerned squander every penny. If i was on JSA I could just as easily spend my 40 quid or whatever they get on lottery tickets hoping for a big win as I could spending 40 quid on the horses.

IMO once the person recieves their money its up to them how they spend it. If they waste it then they waste it, just dont come begging for more because its gone.

Originally posted by willman
still don't agree Joe it should either be a blanket ban or accept it as it is.
u can debate the validity of tax & Ni & the definition of self employed paying tax against PAYE,pensions contributions all day long.
what is the difference between an existing taxpayer (me) and an ex taxpayer (my neighbour) being allowed to gamble,we can't dictate free will.

(i did say BIG win in the text even i'm not naive enough to think 10k would stop 'em claiming)

Errr....I actually said I wouldn't ban it! Isn't that clear from what I typed?

The difference is that you are earning and have spare money to gamble with.

He isn't earning, has no spare money, otherwise he wouldn't be on benefits.

You can't ban people from gambling; you can, however, comment that you need to ask where there common sense is to be hard up on benefits and still want to blow their money gambling.

Anyway - as I said, I wouldn't ban it, but it doesn't mean to say I think it's acceptable.

Joe

Originally posted by bertie749
Message to NICK2 ...... what are you on today..... .... :suspect:

nothing, I thought this was a joke thread.

Im with JoeP on this one

It shoudlt be banned. its up the individual what they want to do with it. I dont think they should gamble their money away, but if they do then its another one of lifes lessons for them and hopefuly they will learn. Wether they do or not is a different issue

Originally posted by JoeP

You can't ban people from gambling; you can, however, comment that you need to ask where there common sense is to be hard up on benefits and still want to blow their money gambling.

Joe

agree 100% .

this sounds more like resentment of the welfare system, calls for it's reform are common, but good ideas about how to reform it are thin on the ground.

Vouchers might be one option, although not all of it should be paid that way. But all that will happen then is the creation of a black market in vouchers...

I have to wonder about the levels of benefits paid if they enable someone to sit in the betting shop all day. Last time I saw any figures the amounts paid out in benefits are really extremely small, so it makes me think that Serapis is probably wrong about the people in the betting shop.

So it could be that we're all wondering how to solve a problem that is purely theoretical.

Is this thread for real? :loopy:

i do know of many unemployed & waged people who gamble.
although every one i knew were only betting like 10p each way, or had accumulators that were 15 horses for about £2.

a lot go for the company & to save on fuel costs,just like the old geezer in McD's @ Hillsborough.

I genuinely understand your sentiment Serapis. It annoys me to think that idle people on jobseekers allowance are wasting my hard earned taxes on gambling when they should be out looking for work.

However, I don't know how this problem could be tackled. It's one of those scenarios that would be extremely difficult to police. My conservative roots mean that I'm more in favour of a sustained policy of minimal state intervention. This Government annoy because they want to stop everyone smoking (not that I smoke myself), control when and how much alcohol we drink and generally have a say in every aspect of our lives. This is not an ideology that I aspire to.

I'm a non-smoker, I don't binge drink and I've never needed an incentive to work hard for my education. I'm afraid it must again be my Tory roots but it makes my blood boil when I see this Government reward people who don't want to work hard. It's the fundamental difference between Labour and Conservative; the Conservatives believe in rewarding success and Labour believe in rewarding failure and celebrating mediocrity.

Jobseekers allowance and state benefits should be reserved for the few who are actively seeking work or are unable to work and not for those who are lazy and simply want to gamble it away. But how can we control this? I'm not willing to pay any more tax to recruit and fund a fleet of 'Gambling Liaison Officers'.

Originally posted by sugarnspice
Is this thread for real? :loopy:

human rights protection at it's finest.

Originally posted by sugarnspice
Is this thread for real? :loopy:

Looks like it is, next will be should people on benefits be allowed to buy new clothes, or chocolate, or have a pet ?

Lol. I just feel like I walked in to a Tory conference by accident is all ....

Originally posted by JoeP
I wasn't aware we taxed lottery wins?

We don't, no tax is paid on any prize in the United Kingdom.

Originally posted by nick2
Looks like it is, next will be should people on benefits be allowed to buy new clothes, or chocolate, or have a pet ?

I know. I'm going to feel sick for the rest of the day now.

To be fair I don't think Serapis was advocating removing a person on benefit's human right to gamble. I think he was simply questioning (which as a taxpayer he has the right to do) the logic behind it.

As a taxpayer I have the right to question why my taxes are being used to fund someone else's gambling. I'm not against paying taxes if I know it will go towards helping to feed a family whose Dad or Mum have lost their job. However, you can be damn sure I'll ask questions when someone who claims benefits spends them in the betting office.

And I certainly don't feel sick by stating that.

Yes you have rights. But so do people on benefits, they don't have less of a right to make their own choices because they don't happen to have a job.

Originally posted by sugarnspice
Yes you have rights. But so do people on benefits, they don't have less of a right to make their own choices because they don't happen to have a job.

absolutely spot on. my point entirely.

Originally posted by sugarnspice
Yes you have rights. But so do people on benefits, they don't have less of a right to make their own choices because they don't happen to have a job.

What right is it of which you're speaking? The right to life, the right to free speech or perhaps it's the right to gamble? It seems we're affording them the right to life by ensuring they have money enough to feed and clothes themselves but instead they go and spend it in the bookies. I just really can't see why we should afford them that.

I'm not saying that we should ban people on benefits going into bookies or indeed gambling. What I am stating, is that we should be able to question 'why' they are gambling with money that is supposed to ensure they are fed, housed and clothed in between jobs.

Just a thought, is it that we're giving them too much?

I doubt very much they are receiving too much money. I just can't see what business it is of ours what other people spend their money on? Why are we so superior that we can state what people should be doing with their money? It's ridicuclous. Not all people on the dole spend a fortune in the bookies. It's a stereotypical point of view for smug tories to sneer at.

do we actually have evidence that it does happen? Serapis was basing it on looking I think. I can't generally tell someones employment status by simply looking at them.

Willman said he knows some people that do this, but if they only bet £2 in a day then we can hardly complain, or would you be also demanding that they don't buy even a single pint of beer, half a box of cigarettes, watch half a film or go for half a swim at ponds forge?
They are allowed to have some leisure time, and if they can budget on the meagre amount the state gives them and manage to afford it then that's their choice.

Originally posted by Cyclone
do we actually have evidence that it does happen? Serapis was basing it on looking I think. I can't generally tell someones employment status by simply looking at them.

Willman said he knows some people that do this, but if they only bet £2 in a day then we can hardly complain, or would you be also demanding that they don't buy even a single pint of beer, half a box of cigarettes, watch half a film or go for half a swim at ponds forge?
They are allowed to have some leisure time, and if they can budget on the meagre amount the state gives them and manage to afford it then that's their choice.


Good lord. Thank you for that piece of sanity.

Originally posted by sugarnspice
I doubt very much they are receiving too much money. I just can't see what business it is of ours what other people spend their money on? Why are we so superior that we can state what people should be doing with their money? It's ridicuclous. Not all people on the dole spend a fortune in the bookies. It's a stereotypical point of view for smug tories to sneer at.

We're not superior, we're just the people who pay for it [that is assuming you actually pay tax]. As someone who doesn't gamble [I believe it to be a waste of money] I question when I see those who I believe cannot afford it, [such as benefit claimants] spending it in such an irresponsible and frivolous manner. Perhaps my view is typical Tory; I'm all for applauding hard work and success. However, unlike Labour I deplore those who fear a hard days work.

But don't we also pay the current pensioners pensions, is it ok for them to gamble with our money ?

Originally posted by nick2
But don't we also pay the current pensioners pensions, is it ok for them to gamble with our money ?

They've also probably worked all of their lives. There's a distinct cultural difference these days in that it's OK to sit back and live off the state. It's also highly likely that a lot of pensioners will have fought for their country.

Originally posted by nick2
But don't we also pay the current pensioners pensions, is it ok for them to gamble with our money ?

hmmm thats a good and valid point. I never thought of that.

We shouldnt be telling anyone what to do with their money.
For those who have voted 'no', do you think that the Government should give the people on benefits a list of social activities that they can and can not partake in?

Originally posted by JonJParr
We're not superior, we're just the people who pay for it [that is assuming you actually pay tax]. As someone who doesn't gamble [I believe it to be a waste of money] I question when I see those who I believe cannot afford it, [such as benefit claimants] spending it in such an irresponsible and frivolous manner. Perhaps my view is typical Tory; I'm all for applauding hard work and success. However, unlike Labour I deplore those who fear a hard days work.

so, would you stop them having a drink, going to the gym or anything else that isn't simply surviving or job hunting?

BTW it doesn't realy bother me what pensioners, dissabled people or unemployed people do with their money, it's their decision what they spend it on. There are bigger problems in the country and the world at large.

Originally posted by JonJParr
We're not superior, we're just the people who pay for it [that is assuming you actually pay tax]. As someone who doesn't gamble [I believe it to be a waste of money] I question when I see those who I believe cannot afford it, [such as benefit claimants] spending it in such an irresponsible and frivolous manner. Perhaps my view is typical Tory; I'm all for applauding hard work and success. However, unlike Labour I deplore those who fear a hard days work.

So we should just tar everyone with the same brush and judge fellow human beings to the extent that we control their spending habits? Let's just bring back Maggie Thatcher and have done with it.

What has it got to do with us what anyone spends their money on? What they do with their day? Their circumstances?

The current pensioners have contributed all their working llives towards their pensions.
I think the money is invested in stocks and shares and pensions are paid out of the interest on these, not tax.

hazel

Originally posted by nick2
BTW it doesn't realy bother me what pensioners, dissabled people or unemployed people do with their money, it's their decision what they spend it on. There are bigger problems in the country and the world at large.


So very very true. :thumbsup:

Originally posted by hazel
The current pensioners have contributed all their working llives towards their pensions.
I think the money is invested in stocks and shares and pensions are paid out of the interest on these, not tax.

hazel

I didn't think it worked like that, if it did then the increasing number of old people wouldn't be a problem (from a pension kitty point of view) as they would have provided for their own pensions ?

Originally posted by sugarnspice
So we should just tar everyone with the same brush and judge fellow human beings to the extent that we control their spending habits? Let's just bring back Maggie Thatcher and have done with it.

What has it got to do with us what anyone spends their money on? What they do with their day? Their circumstances?

just to argue for the other side as well.

If we are providing that money in order to help them stay afloat whilst out of work then it behoves them to repay that generosity by spending their day or at least a good portion of it looking for a job.
So that's why what they do with their day is our business.

But it isn't. I would not dare tell anyone what to do with their day!? And wouldn't want to live somewhere where people do that.

I’m not going to turn this tread into a political debate as I don’t actually think its got anything to do with politics.

My question is about gambling, not chocolate or if people can spend their money or beer and fags. That has nothing to do with this thread so please stop theorising they might be next.

Yes there is no evidence to support this nor is there any evidence to the contrary so dismissing it on those grounds is pointless.

All I am basing this on are the people you see day after day in a betting shop. I tend to walk past one on my way to get a sandwich. I don’t always go at lunchtime and regularly go any time between 10:30 am and 3:30pm. The people in there rarely change.

Yes food and clothing are essentials and we have no rights as to how people spend their benefits on such items but gambling is not essential to like, its not one of life’s prime requisites in order to survive. Its simple a leisure pursuit, and therefore should I and you as a tax payer be required to fund such a pursuit?

I am work in a fulltime job to earn money to sustain myself and my dependants which is taxed. That tax is then going to someone who is out of work. Who in turn is using this money to gamble at one of the numerous betting establishments in Sheffield? Giving that these establishments must be making a profit (they certainly are not charitable organisations), the profits are then going into the pockets of William Hill and his like. Is this fare? I don’t think it is. Why should I foot that bill? What redeeming service does gambling do for these people?

Maybe if they (The minority of people on benefit who do this) where unable to gamble and life was less cushy for them, they might get off the bone idle back sides and get a job, and start to contribute to our society instead of leaching from it!

You say this thread isnt about things like chocolate etc, but when you think about it, it is about things like that, as it isnt a necessity, just like gambling.

If you ban them from gambling, then why shouldnt you ban them spending money on anything else that isnt a life necessity?

comparisons to chocolate are perfectly valid. I didn't say would it be next, I said what's the difference.
Chocolate isn't essential to life, and cadbury's certainly aren't a charity either.

You can't define what people can do with money they've been given, if they feel that they can budget and manage to spend £2 a day having a few bets then I personally have no issue with that. It's not me that's going to go hungry, it's them, if indeed they are.

Originally posted by nick2
But don't we also pay the current pensioners pensions, is it ok for them to gamble with our money ?

People on pensions have contributed to a pension fund for most of their life. They have made national insurance contributions in order to support themselves in old age. This is wholey different from benefits!

Originally posted by sugarnspice
But it isn't. I would not dare tell anyone what to do with their day!? And wouldn't want to live somewhere where people do that.

fair enough. I wouldn't want to give money to someone in the form of unemployment benefit unless they agree to spend time looking for a job.
If they can't be bothered then I say let them starve.

Because life is that simple. Everyone on benefit is idle & bets in the local bookies. Yeah good one.

Bravo.

:rolleyes:

Chocolate is a food source not a social activity! Are you honestly telling me you cannot see the difference between the two?

This thread is about gambling and gambling alone. Bringing in things like "what would be next or where would it end" are not valid comments as it would start and end with gambling.

Originally posted by sugarnspice
Because life is that simple. Everyone on benefit is idle & bets in the local bookies. Yeah good one.

Bravo.

:rolleyes:

Go back are re-read what I wrote and take particular care not to miss the bit that says "The minority of people on benefit who do this" again!

People who don’t properly read what is written :rolleyes:

But the trouble is if they lose their entire weekly benefit some other hand out'll kick in to bail them out so they are just squandering tax payers' money.

I think it would be far more appropriate to just give credits for food or utilities so they are going towards the proper things.

Somehow I think there could be far fewer claiments then if it could only be spent on 'boring' things!

If it's only a minority who cares ?

Originally posted by serapis
Chocolate is a food source not a social activity! Are you honestly telling me you cannot see the difference between the two?

This thread is about gambling and gambling alone. Bringing in things like "what would be next or where would it end" are not valid comments as it would start and end with gambling.

Yes we all know chocolate is a food source, but its just an example. You are not really answering the issue here. And yes I know it was you that posted it in the 1st place but really and truly what is wrong with someone on benefits spending a portion of their money on non esential activities?

I couldn't possibly go back and read that moronic speech, I've just eaten. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by dudu
But the trouble is if they lose their entire weekly benefit some other hand out'll kick in to bail them out so they are just squandering tax payers' money.

I think it would be far more appropriate to just give credits for food or utilities so they are going towards the proper things.

Somehow I think there could be far fewer claiments then if it could only be spent on 'boring' things!

This is a good idea only if you want people to not be able to buy suits for interview, be able to afford to travel to interviews, buy papers looking for jobs, afford to make telephone calls enquiring about jobs.

In other words, it doesnt work to tell them what they can and can not use the money for.

Stocks and Shares have taken a tumble in the last few yrs and the fund depends on people still paying in. Birth rates are dropping and people working and paying taxes are fewer.. And interest from the S & S fluctuates.
At least this was how it was explained to me.

hazel

What?

Serapis, you base this entire argument on a very stereotypical idea of what people on benefits are like. I've been on benefits and I find your comments offensive to say the least.

Gambling probably isn't the best way of spending one's money when you've got little. Neither is spending it on alcohol or fags. I don't particularly like the way the Beckham's fritter their cash away on stupid things, but it is their RIGHT to do it!

And you don't know whether the guy's in the betting shop have been paying tax most of their lives and are now on the dole? In fact, you don't even know if they're on the dole! You know nothing at all about them!

Originally posted by serapis
Chocolate is a food source not a social activity! Are you honestly telling me you cannot see the difference between the two?

This thread is about gambling and gambling alone. Bringing in things like "what would be next or where would it end" are not valid comments as it would start and end with gambling.

you are trying to overly restrict the argument because you have no way to respond to the points that we've raised.
Gambling is a leisure activity like any other, be that having a beer (oh, it's a drink, like chocolate is food) going for a swim, buying a book, or paying to see a film.
There is nothing special about gambling that makes it different from any other leisure activity, so no reason it should be considered in isolation.

In the US quite a few people are on food stamps, it would bother me to see them purchase things in the supernarket that they could have done without, althought i don't see too much of it nowa days, i think they clamped down on it, as now i see signs... not to be purchased with food stamps..such as, food from the salad bars, hot bar, instant meals, pre cooked meals, tv guide and other magazines at the check out counter, about time !

You see, that's awful to me. Not having the right to decide how to spend your money.

Originally posted by chickmonk
What?

Serapis, you base this entire argument on a very stereotypical idea of what people on benefits are like. I've been on benefits and I find your comments offensive to say the least.

So have I been on benefits and therefore I can speak from a position of authority. If you find this discussion offensive I suggest you get a thicker skin!


Gambling probably isn't the best way of spending one's money when you've got little. Neither is spending it on alcohol or fags. I don't particularly like the way the Beckham's fritter their cash away on stupid things, but it is their RIGHT to do it!


You said it there, the Beckhams have earned the money they fritter away. Someone on benefit on the other hand has not earned that money!!!


And you don't know whether the guy's in the betting shop have been paying tax most of their lives and are now on the dole? In fact, you don't even know if they're on the dole! You know nothing at all about them!

I am fully aware I do not know the reasons why these people are able to spend all their time in a betting shop. Actually they could be millionaires, who have made their money from gambling, or they might have never worked a day in their life and this is their social activity. I simply don’t know. My question has developed into why people on benefits should be able to gamble. Seeing these guys in the betting shop just made me think about it that’s all.

Originally posted by sugarnspice
You see, that's awful to me. Not having the right to decide how to spend your money.

I think the problem is the perception of who's money it is exactly.

Money given to someone in the form of benefits should be considered as payment for looking for a job as far i'm concerned.
If they refuse to look and/or to try when they are given a job then I have no interest in supporting them any further. There is no right to food and money, benefits form part of a social contract and if they don't fulfill their side of that contract then why should society keep giving them handouts?

This post is bad for my blood pressure. :rant:

Originally posted by Cyclone
I think the problem is the perception of who's money it is exactly.

Cyclone,

I think you have got it there.

Originally posted by sugarnspice
This post is bad for my blood pressure. :rant:

Then stop reading it :loopy:

Just go out & enjoy your own life without picking at other peoples when it clearly doesn't concern you.

Originally posted by sugarnspice
This post is bad for my blood pressure. :rant:

why exactly? Do you believe that people are entitled to support no matter what their attitude to getting work?

I'm not saying that many people (or even any) are like this, just that if they were then they deserve no support.

On the other hand, when we do give support, I say that it's completely up to them how they choose to spend it.

Originally posted by sugarnspice
Just go out & enjoy your own life without picking at other peoples when it clearly doesn't concern you.

Considering there is only 7.14% between Yes and No, this subject is something that splits opinion and is therefore a good discussion point.

If someone gives me a good argument contrary to my opinion I'm willing to entertain it. I would expect others to afford me that same respect. Short nasty answers that contribute nothing are simply a waste of time and effort and do nothing for people’s argument either way.

Originally posted by Cyclone
There is no right to food

Out of context I know, but everyone has a right to food & water.

However, it is a little difficult to kill animals for food or grow food for yourself as all the land is "owned" by someone or other & most wildlife is now protected or on "private" land.

Originally posted by Cyclone
why exactly? Do you believe that people are entitled to support no matter what their attitude to getting work?

I'm not saying that many people (or even any) are like this, just that if they were then they deserve no support.

On the other hand, when we do give support, I say that it's completely up to them how they choose to spend it.

I just think that you all have a stereotypical view of who you think you're talking about & should get down from your high horses a bit and look at the reality.

I dont think people who are on a limited income should gamble, but its there choice to do so, if someone wishes to blow a giro in a day at the betting shop then thats thier buisness really.
But its a lot harder to get a crisis loan these days which may put a few of them off

maybe some of the people you saw on state benefits earned it,some of them may have been retired,ex war heros who fought so we can enjoy today and tomorrow,or did you see the usual type,greasy hair,shabby clothes never had a job or never wanted one? if its not gambling its drinking,call in any estate pub at 1 oclock and you will probably see the same faces,day after day,if not drinkink maybe they smoke/ take drugs,how do you differentiate between those that have a right to the money and those who do not.

people on benefits are all different, with different reasons for claiming, its the .."self unemployed " who should be targeted,why dont they sign on every day? the system is geared up to look after people who the system believe need help but i see the same as you every day, i also see asylum seekers with money,they are old enough to fight for their country but tend to opt for the easy option of settling here whilst our soldiers do the fighting for them,but thats another thread..the system is open for corruption and theres plenty who will use it.

there are rich people abusing thesystem as well as the working class,how many farmers employ unskilled cheap labour on the black economy?

factory owners,shops,its rife,.......every one is out to make a profit at the expence of the state and tax payer,

the system is corrupt,the state is corrupt so it will never end

This is an interesting debate. First let me go back to the original post -
Originally posted by serapis
Should people on state benefits be allowed to gamble?

Every time I walk past a betting shop you see your typical benefits receiver. I know not all are, but you can be sure IMO the majority are.

My point being should these people, if they are on benefits, be allowed to use their state hand outs to gamble? This money is intended for them to support themselves and or their families!

Now there could be one good use for the national ID card here. Make all betting establishments ask for this card and once swiped, they can tell if the person is on Job Seekers allowance or what ever its call. If they are, they must refuse to let them bet!

As the title of the thread, and the opening post from serapis clearly states, this debate is about whether people on state benefits should be allowed to gamble. This encompasses state retirement pensions, maternity benefits, disability benefits, incapacity benefits, and, in the example given by serapis, Job Seeker's Allowances.

All of these benefits are paid out of general taxation, which means that current taxpayers are paying these benefits. The amount of benefits paid to individual recipients is an amount calculated by the state (i.e., the government) for minimal subsistence. There is nothing to suggest that the amounts paid for this purpose are too high, but there is clearly genuine anger that some recipients are not appropriately directing their spending on what the benefits are intended for. I, for one, wouldn't disagree with this assessment.

Although serapis relates inappropriate benefit spending to the example of gambling, this is too narrow. It must include other seemingly wasteful expenditure on non-essential items, such as tobacco and alcohol. Fags and booze, just like gambling, are not required for subsistence. But then neither is a visit to the cinema. Indeed, benefit recipients do not require a tv set - so there is no need to pay for a tv license. I could continue with other examples of non-essential expenditure, but how can you possibly police this?

Well, you wouldn't have to police inappropriate expenditure by welfare recipients if we organised the benefits system differently. I have an idea. I confess, it's not an original idea, but maybe it's time has come again.

Let's put the undeserving welfare recipients to work in return for the essential requirements in life, i.e., food, clothing and shelter. Let them earn their welfare payments. To ensure that these idle folk don't spend their time in the bookies, buying lottery tickets and scratch cards in the supermarket, buying fags and booze, or idling their time watching tv, or visiting the cinema (...and what a luxury that is!), we would need to police their movements. Being realistic, we can't tag them and employ an army of monitors to check on their every movement. However, we could ensure the success of this idea by the expedient move of making them live under the same roof, where they can be supervised and stopped from their spendthrift activities. Yes, you've got it - let's bring back the workhouse!

theres always food tokens,electric tokens,gas tokens, etc,in lieu of cash, it may come.........who knows

end of scroungers? maybe......until some one copies the tokens and starts a whole new scam

Originally posted by spyro2000
Why should they be allowed to put a 'bet' on the lottery, but not place a 'bet' on the horses? A bets a bet

So is putting it in a unit trust. So presumably the great unwashed would also be barred from punting on the stock market. Or the property market.

I've read some dumbass prohibitionist ideas on here today (and every day) but this one takes the Killjoy.X.Sociopath award for the dumbest dumbass idea of the week, and it's only monday....

Still, with out of the box thinking like one could get a job with the the Centre for Policy Studies.

Originally posted by redrobbo
This is an interesting debate. First let me go back to the original post -

As the title of the thread, and the opening post from serapis clearly states, this debate is about whether people on state benefits should be allowed to gamble. This encompasses state retirement pensions, maternity benefits, disability benefits, incapacity benefits, and, in the example given by serapis, Job Seeker's Allowances. ... let's bring back the workhouse!

I did state benefit, but later called it Job Seekers Allowance and if you read the thread you can tell I was clearly referring to the latter. I have nothing against people on maternity benefits, disability benefits, and incapacity benefits. The state pension is not a benefit bye the way.

Oh and I was not advocating workhouses either and coming to that conclusion is going way beyond the original discussion.

Originally posted by sccsux
Out of context I know, but everyone has a right to food & water.

However, it is a little difficult to kill animals for food or grow food for yourself as all the land is "owned" by someone or other & most wildlife is now protected or on "private" land.

no one has a right to anything. Rights are things that we grant ourselves and others and then tell ourselves that we deserve to have it.
The universe doesn't owe or give anyone a free ride, and despite being social animals I don't see why we should either (give anyone a free ride that is).

sugarnspice - I seem to have touched a nerve. I don't think my view is stereotyping, mainly because i haven't said that anyone acts like the situation we were discussing. I merely said that IF they did, then I see no reason for them to receive benefits.

Now the fact is that I know people like that do exist, I even know a few. They claim benefit, rarely have a job and rarely keep it for longer than a few weeks. I've had 1 job since graduation for 5 years now, so that means that for 9 years these people have sponged off the state with no intention of ever working.
This still isn't a stereotype, it's a person I know and it's the way things are. If everyone like him could be identified and have their benefits stopped they'd soon find that if they wanted to eat they'd have to do some work.

Originally posted by serapis
I did state benefit, but later called it Job Seekers Allowance and if you read the thread you can tell I was clearly referring to the latter. I have nothing against people on maternity benefits, disability benefits, and incapacity benefits. The state pension is not a benefit bye the way.

I read your thread title, and I read your original post, and indeed, quoted it. If you are only referring to Job Seekers Allowance, you should have made that absolutely clear, instead of posting a catch-all reference to "Should people on state benefits be allowed to gamble?"

Originally posted by serapis

Oh and I was not advocating workhouses either and coming to that conclusion is going way beyond the original discussion.

Irony may not be your strongest subject serapis.

is it true that in the early eighties you could get another giro for free just by saying you'd gambled it away?

the rule was you had to be an attendee of gambler's anonymous!:loopy:

Originally posted by redrobbo
Irony may not be your strongest subject serapis.

I know what Irony is, It's like goldy or bronzey, except made of iron :D

Ultimately yes.
People on Job Seekers should be able to spend their benefit how they like. Otherwise you are restricting their freedom and in turn human rights as others have said. Freedom to spend money as you wish is an important part of identity. Once you start restricting how people spend their money, you are limiting their expression of themselves in the material sense.

Besides you can't assume that people you see in a betting shop are necessarily on the dole as others have said, you know nothing about them. They could be working nights, or part-time, or be in other circumstances you know nothing about.

I'm actually strongly against gambling, but saying people on benefits shouldn't be allowed to gamble is just scary!!!

Originally posted by Zenmaster
Ultimately yes.
People on Job Seekers should be able to spend their benefit how they like. Otherwise you are restricting their freedom and in turn human rights as others have said. Freedom to spend money as you wish is an important part of identity. Once you start restricting how people spend their money, you are limiting their expression of themselves in the material sense.

Besides you can't assume that people you see in a betting shop are necessarily on the dole as others have said, you know nothing about them. They could be working nights, or part-time, or be in other circumstances you know nothing about.

I'm actually strongly against gambling, but saying people on benefits shouldn't be allowed to gamble is just scary!!!

I 100% disagree with serapis, but I just want to say that serapis is in no way saying that these people in the betting shop are definitely on benefits, but is just posting this as a poser for a question. There probably are a lot of people on benefits that bet in the bookies, but still, its just food for thought, and a brilliant topic at that.

Originally posted by Zenmaster
Ultimately yes.
People on Job Seekers should be able to spend their benefit how they like. Otherwise you are restricting their freedom and in turn human rights as others have said. Freedom to spend money as you wish is an important part of identity. Once you start restricting how people spend their money, you are limiting their expression of themselves in the material sense.

Besides you can't assume that people you see in a betting shop are necessarily on the dole as others have said, you know nothing about them. They could be working nights, or part-time, or be in other circumstances you know nothing about.

I'm actually strongly against gambling, but saying people on benefits shouldn't be allowed to gamble is just scary!!!
I absolutely agree, and when they've finished squandering my hard earned taxes and they actually win some big money, I'd like it back.
All of it.
Every last shiny penny.

Call me old fashioned.

Lazy dogs.

Not being a benefits recipient or a gambler I'd like to know just how much the dole is paying these days! :suspect:

Assuming it's around £70 a week that's £10 a day

Are these hardened inveterate dole wallahs/gambling scum blowing their beer and fag money too! :o

No wonder so many pubs are closing these days....
What about all those hardworking people who regularly take trips to the hypermarkets abroad? How are they managing to stay afloat, eh?

Burn all the Bookies! Every last one of them!

And while we're at it bring back National Service- short hair- bromide- stiff upper lips- short trousers- BBC accents- police brutality- the cane- child labour- lantern jaws- slavery- hanging- vigilantes- wife beating- bullying- etc etc etc

That's whats wrong with the world today.....

Not enough intolerance :mad:

What's a lantern jaw Splodge?

Originally posted by pete_fcs
is it true that in the early eighties you could get another giro for free just by saying you'd gambled it away?

the rule was you had to be an attendee of gambler's anonymous!:loopy:

I was around in the 80s, but somehow missed this urban myth. so suspect it has a more recent pedigree.

For the record though, Social Security do not issue replacement giros where they are aware that the original has been cashed. Emergency payments may be made in certain circumstances, but the amount is then deducted from later payments.

Social Services are sometimes approached for emergency payments by claimants, particularly where there are children involved. As a former Social Services Manager myself, I have oft times been approached for assistance. As a rule of thumb, my staff would make a small payment in kind, i.e., a basic food parcel (milk, bread, tinned baked beans), but no cash. It was no surprise that some claimants still demanded money. Our response would be to say that the need was for food, not cash - take it or leave it. Also, one payment in kind, not to be repeated.

I recall one 17 year old single mother ringing me to say she had blown her giro on a weekend of drugs, alcohol and clubbing, leaving nothing for her baby. She demanded money, gas and electricity tokens, nappies and baby milk. I refused. When she insisted that I had to give her help for her baby, I simply told her that she'd received her benefit giro, and how she spent it was up to her, but I had no intention of subsidising her drug habit. When she then accused me of allowing her baby to starve, I pointed out that as she was the baby's mother, it was her responsibility to feed her baby, not mine. I then gave her an ultimatum that I would send a social worker round to her house within a few hours to check on the baby's welfare. If my staff could not be satisfied that the baby had adequate supplies of milk and nappies, we would seek an emergency order to remove the baby into care on the grounds of neglect, and that she may also face prosecution by the police. Although she started back-tracking on her admission, that visit was made to ensure the welfare of the baby was being met.

I see no reason why welfare claiments cannot make their own decisions on how they spend their benefits. We do not live in a nanny state. If welfare claimants make an unwise decision, be it by gambling, drinking or drugs - then they live by the consequences of their actions. Social Security, and Social Services, will not bail them out with cash payments - so we can kill this really daft myth raised by pete_fcs stone dead.

Originally posted by Don_Kiddick
What's a lantern jaw Splodge?

one of these (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandibular_prognathism).

Look at Charles II of Spain, drooling idiot and King of a gigantic empire (http://borzoiblog.com/archives/CharlesII.jpg). Who says history repeats itself?

I want my red rose avatar back! Who's nicked it?! :suspect:

Originally posted by Don_Kiddick
What's a lantern jaw Splodge?

Much beloved of romance and adventure writers up til the late fifties

The lantern jawed hero usually denoted someone of strong morals and upright standing in the community
They were chockful of derring-do and laughed at death while smoking a pipe and patting the little woman on the head

Pukka Sahibs! :D

As I say though, that was fiction

Phan is trying to destroy the illusion with reality! :suspect:

Nice one Phan! :D

Originally posted by Splodge_CRB
Phan is trying to destroy the illusion with reality! :suspect:

Nice one Phan! :D

More prosaically it just means someone with a jutting lower jaw, the kind of chin you could split rocks on, i.e. Dan Dare, Desperate Dan, King Dan of Spain (um).

Cheers all! :thumbsup:
Right on with the debate.

Shiftless pikey glassbacks; stop all their benefits after 6 months!

:hihi:

I've not read the entire post so may be reiterating someones comments.

When someone receives their benefits they are free to do what they want with it. I'm sure most are wise enough to spend it wisely and just have the occasional flutter.

But if some guy or gal wishes to live off a cold tin of beans, get slaughtered on cheap cider and put the rest on Shergar to win a derby race then let them. 'BTW due to the consumption of lager, this may be the reasoin thwey put it on a dead horse! :D ).

The question is more on whether they should be receiving benefits and what enforcements are in place to make sure they are actively seeling work rather than what they are spending it on.

redrobbo,

A very insightful and educational posting. Thank you.

i voted yes as they can do what they want with their money but i dont think they should do it to the exstreme of neglecting their children

Originally posted by redrobbo
... - so we can kill this really daft myth raised by pete_fcs stone dead.

most things i try to raise these days are already stone dead
:|