NHS should prescribe the unemployed money and double dole to pregnant

[Anna B]

I know it sounds ungenerous, but I think that it is a necessity that the long term unemployed, with or without children, should experience a significantly lower standard of living than their working neighbours. I'm open to debate on how this be achieved, but I think it must be achieved one way or another.

I extend this to the severely under-employed. i.e. those healthy adults of working age doing less than 30 hours a week, with an exception for one parent per family who has a child too young to go to school.

I think IDS's universal credit is a big step in the right direction and we shall have to see how that pans out.

Disincentives to provide for ones own family are not only damaging to the tax-payer, but over the long term they create a sub-class of the workless and create resentment and in some cases anger within communities and society as a whole.

This is not the time to talk about handing out yet more free money. We need to extinguish the idea that manipulating benefits is a legitimate lifestyle choice.

 

I think you'll find the long term unemployed are seriously worse off than the working in the majority of cases, in spite of what you read in the propaganda rags. They are also at serious disadvantage in all sorts of other ways, including mental health, which leads to 'Ghettoisation' and some of the 'Jeremy Kyle' type attitudes.

 

Poverty is not pretty.

[RollingJ]

Wheres the money coming from chem1st? You've haven't answered the question, as usual.

 

And he never will.

[chem1st]

Wheres the money coming from chem1st? You've haven't answered the question, as usual.

 

The question was answered earlier, please re-read the thread.

 

---------- Post added 28-06-2015 at 02:40 ----------

 

And he never will.

 

If I see a question asked of me I answer it, even though I have no obligation to do so, and often the person asking is abusive towards me for no real reason.

 

Please re-read the thread, the question was answered.

[RollingJ]

Right - I have re-read the thread and still can't see a logical answer to my question. Lots of pseudo-humanist type answers, but unfortunately no real costed possibilities.

 

Sorry, but I still think you, chem1st, and to a slightly lesser extent, Anna B, live in something resembling a parallel universe.

[Cyclone]

Wheres the money coming from chem1st? You've haven't answered the question, as usual.

 

If spending £1 today saves £2 tomorrow then the proposal would be self funding...

[unbeliever]

If spending £1 today saves £2 tomorrow then the proposal would be self funding...

 

Where does that figure come from?

What deduction do you make for people deliberately becoming pregnant in order to claim extra money?

[chem1st]

This policy would save money in the long term. You should be asking where will we spend the savings?

 

Right - I have re-read the thread and still can't see a logical answer to my question. Lots of pseudo-humanist type answers, but unfortunately no real costed possibilities.

 

A policy which saves money is self funding.

 

If you spend £2 a day on X and could buy it for £1 instead. You need not find any money, for you would save money by spending £1 instead of £2.

 

Spending less overall, by spending money more sensibly, is a very simple way of reducing spending.

 

Sorry, but I still think you, chem1st, and to a slightly lesser extent, Anna B, live in something resembling a parallel universe.

 

Perhaps, I don't regurgitate the stuff I read in newspapers, hear on the radio, see and hear on the TV etc. like most people. I think, analyse, propose alternative views etc.

 

But when I have to explain to you and others that spending less money on something in the long term is a way of saving money, perhaps you should ask, "does chem1st live in parallel universe or do I?" (as in you).

 

We were born with the ability to think, to make our own decisions in life, it is a part of what makes us human. There is nothing wrong with thinking for yourself instead of repeating lies from the mainstream media and trying to dismiss anybody with alternative viewpoint as mental is common tactic on this forum and others.

 

I do understand that argumentum ad nauseum and argumentum ad lapidem, combined with ad hominem tactics on the likes of me are the favoured tactic of a fair few on this forum. However, it does invalidate my arguments. If proved wrong, I am more than happy to admit my mistake and change my views. But when somebody repeats ad nauseum a question that has already been answered, in the end it only highlights the aforementioned tactics of certain posters (many of whom have a grudge against me because I argue against the maintenance of a system which allows them to exploit others).

[Cyclone]

Where does that figure come from?

It's a question to demonstrate how spending money today could save money in the long run.

What deduction do you make for people deliberately becoming pregnant in order to claim extra money?

None.

 

I said throughout that I'd want to see proof that it actually would save money. Chem1st can't show that proof.

[chem1st]

It's a question to demonstrate how spending money today could save money in the long run.

None.

 

I said throughout that I'd want to see proof that it actually would save money. Chem1st can't show that proof.

 

To calculate numerous figures are required, many of which are not avaibale - yet.

 

However, some parts of the calculation are becoming available. I'd be more than willing to bet money that'd it be cheaper to pay people regardless. For starters, the cost of issuing payments alone nearly exceeds the cost of providing millions a non means tested income.

 

That is before we start to factor in police costs, NHS costs, long term social costs etc.

 

Many parts of the calculation can never be measured accurately, like the effects on a persons lifetime earning potential and reduced tax take because of that.

 

The knock on effect of suicide and days of work lost by the victims nearest and dearest etc..