FabSwingers.com forum: Your opinion on…

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

This is not to provoke arguments or pass judgement ..just like to know peoples opinions….

If a family is supported by government help…should there be a rule saying they should be free from alcohol, drugs & nicotine?

Remember this is for conversation not judgement ….

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

East Sussex

Not in my opinion.

Anyone who has children is supported by the government via child benefit (unless it's changed since our children reached 16).

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ake_or_deathMan
over a year ago

Manchester

Speaking as someone who doesn't consume any of those things and has never been on benefits...no. Tax the wealthy properly, introduce a universal income, and the question goes away.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *obilebottomMan
over a year ago

All over

Really

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *TG3Man
over a year ago

Dorchester

"This is not to provoke arguments or pass judgement ..just like to know peoples opinions….

If a family is supported by government help…should there be a rule saying they should be free from alcohol, drugs & nicotine?

Remember this is for conversation not judgement …."
rules are meant to be broken

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

No.

Support is there to prevent the worst of severe poverty, not enforce behaviour.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Yes

Pretty simple if you ask me

I believe you should get all the help you need, for things you need. Drugs aren’t things you need

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *penbicoupleCouple
over a year ago

Northampton

Every family is supposed by government help.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ired_upMan
over a year ago

ashton

As someone else said above we are all supported by the government NHS, Police, Roads, the Army, Social Services supporting people or you knowing your taxes go to protecting children and vulnerable adults.

The idea that if you are not in a position to work ever you can't have a drink or have an edible once in a while is mad.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman
over a year ago

The Town by The Cross

"This is not to provoke arguments or pass judgement ..just like to know peoples opinions….

If a family is supported by government help…should there be a rule saying they should be free from alcohol, drugs & nicotine?

Remember this is for conversation not judgement …."

You have just passed judgement.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *amie HantsWoman
over a year ago

Atlantis

No. There should be better support in place to help people with substance misuse. To stop all financial help to that family would affect the others in the home more than anyone. Whilst all the money they receive may not go on the home/family some of it will, so to restrict that money would just mean that any money the family do receive would be spent on substances.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ealMissShadyWoman
over a year ago

St Albans/ Welsh Borders

"This is not to provoke arguments or pass judgement ..just like to know peoples opinions….

If a family is supported by government help…should there be a rule saying they should be free from alcohol, drugs & nicotine?

Remember this is for conversation not judgement …."

What do you think?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *obilebottomMan
over a year ago

All over

"As someone else said above we are all supported by the government NHS, Police, Roads, the Army, Social Services supporting people or you knowing your taxes go to protecting children and vulnerable adults.

The idea that if you are not in a position to work ever you can't have a drink or have an edible once in a while is mad. "

Not just mad but despicable. I am out as this thread will attract people I have no interest in their opinions and their political ideokogy and dogma as harsh as it may sound. All the best to all and of course to the OP who apparrently was not seeking controversy.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *enSiskoMan
over a year ago

Cestus 3

"No.

Support is there to prevent the worst of severe poverty, not enforce behaviour."

this

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

East Sussex

I claim state pension and I drink wine.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"Not in my opinion.

Anyone who has children is supported by the government via child benefit (unless it's changed since our children reached 16). "

Did not realise it was for everyone… learnt something new

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *amie HantsWoman
over a year ago

Atlantis

"I claim state pension and I drink wine.

You lousy scrounger. Get back to work

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I claim state pension and I drink wine.

How DARE you

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

Let's ban politicians from all of those things - subsidised meals, expenses, etc.

That makes way more sense to me - they have the support networks to regulate emotions (quite often what substances like these are used for) and disposable income to pay for other emotional displacement activities, in ways that the poorest do not.

If not, and yes for the poor, why?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

East Sussex

"I claim state pension and I drink wine.

You lousy scrounger. Get back to work

NEVER! And you can't make me.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman
over a year ago

The Town by The Cross

The fact that this question has been raised it judgement itself.

It is saying that those who receive tax payers money in hard times.... their own money ... should not take part in society whilst those who earn money should be free to consume booze and drugs without question ......

Why else ask it ?

Only the consumption of substances by the unemployed is being questioned.

Stick cake and chips on the list too while we are at it.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *edeWoman
over a year ago

the abyss

No.

There needs to be better dual diagnosis support to help the many people who are using drugs and alcohol as a means to cope with past and current trauma

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"Speaking as someone who doesn't consume any of those things and has never been on benefits...no. Tax the wealthy properly, introduce a universal income, and the question goes away. "

Universal income for everyone ? What is the criteria for ‘wealthy’?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

East Sussex

"I claim state pension and I drink wine.

How DARE you

Should I change to pale ale?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"I claim state pension and I drink wine.

You lousy scrounger. Get back to work

NEVER! And you can't make me. "

I feel like in this political climate, "you can't make me" is a challenge you shouldn't issue

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ucka39Man
over a year ago

Newcastle

Nope

That's why we pay tax

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *glyBettyTV/TS
over a year ago

About 3 feet away from the fence

If your family are taking advantage of free education & healthcare, then they are in effect being supported by the government.

How fair does that rule sound now?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

East Sussex

"I claim state pension and I drink wine.

You lousy scrounger. Get back to work

NEVER! And you can't make me.

I feel like in this political climate, "you can't make me" is a challenge you shouldn't issue

I thought that as I typed. We are actually already targeted there have been loud murmurings about getting older people back into work because it's 'good for us'.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *elix SightedMan
over a year ago

Cloud 8

"This is not to provoke arguments or pass judgement ..just like to know peoples opinions….

If a family is supported by government help…should there be a rule saying they should be free from alcohol, drugs & nicotine?

Remember this is for conversation not judgement …."

Bear in mind that alcohol and fags are heavily taxed, along with VAT on all the clothes, food and other things people buy. They’re almost net zero!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"Really

It’s just a question… it’s a conversation I was brought into when out with a group… I thought it might be a good thread for the varied world of fab…. Not agree ?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

No. There should not be a rule saying that.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"This is not to provoke arguments or pass judgement ..just like to know peoples opinions….

If a family is supported by government help…should there be a rule saying they should be free from alcohol, drugs & nicotine?

Remember this is for conversation not judgement ….rules are meant to be broken

I can sense that ha

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"I claim state pension and I drink wine.

You lousy scrounger. Get back to work

NEVER! And you can't make me.

I feel like in this political climate, "you can't make me" is a challenge you shouldn't issue

I thought that as I typed. We are actually already targeted there have been loud murmurings about getting older people back into work because it's 'good for us'. "

First they come for the unemployed

then they come for the disabled

then they come for the elderly

... and by the time they came for me my voice was hoarse from screaming at them to fuck off and leave those people alone

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ealMissShadyWoman
over a year ago

St Albans/ Welsh Borders

*checks*

This is 2024 right? Not 1824? It sets a dangerous path when society starts dictating to others about what they can and can't do.

And why is it the poor who have to live under dictatorship? Again I guess the poorer demograph is easier to punish because it deflects on the corruption of the rich which makes them richer I guess.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"This is not to provoke arguments or pass judgement ..just like to know peoples opinions….

If a family is supported by government help…should there be a rule saying they should be free from alcohol, drugs & nicotine?

Remember this is for conversation not judgement ….

You have just passed judgement. "

Did I?

I don’t believe I gave my opinion … I just asked other peoples as I had heard so many when I’d heard this

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

The idea that if you are not in a position to work ever you can't have a drink or have an edible once in a while is mad.

I’m

Honestly not trying to …. I was in a conversation and felt the dynamic would suit a forum lien fab as do many varied people are on here and all walks of life.. to give a better insight.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman
over a year ago

The Town by The Cross

"This is not to provoke arguments or pass judgement ..just like to know peoples opinions….

If a family is supported by government help…should there be a rule saying they should be free from alcohol, drugs & nicotine?

Remember this is for conversation not judgement ….

You have just passed judgement.

Did I?

I don’t believe I gave my opinion … I just asked other peoples as I had heard so many when I’d heard this "

Why choose that particular group to section off for prohibitions ?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"*checks*

This is 2024 right? Not 1824? It sets a dangerous path when society starts dictating to others about what they can and can't do.

And why is it the poor who have to live under dictatorship? Again I guess the poorer demograph is easier to punish because it deflects on the corruption of the rich which makes them richer I guess."

It comes from the principle of lesser eligibility (which I discovered was actually a law in Victorian times, I just knew it as a social phenomenon) - the idea that people who are given help should be less well off than people who work. And comes out in "but why do they have xyz, they should be made to suffer"

It's existed as a social impulse (as well as an historical footnote) at least as long as I've been politically aware.

And yes, odd how it never applies to the rich and powerful, who can afford to find other ways to deal with their emotions other than snorting stuff up their noses or whatever

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"The fact that this question has been raised it judgement itself.

Why else ask it ?

Only the consumption of substances by the unemployed is being questioned.

Stick cake and chips on the list too while we are at it.

It’s a shame you took it that way as it wasn’t meant so.

As pointed out in the first…. All those with children (irrelevant of earnings) receive help…..

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman
over a year ago

The Town by The Cross

The assumptions , biases and stereotyping are implicit in the question.

So if you didn't pass judgement , the writer of the question has.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman
over a year ago

The Town by The Cross

"The fact that this question has been raised it judgement itself.

Why else ask it ?

Only the consumption of substances by the unemployed is being questioned.

Stick cake and chips on the list too while we are at it.

It’s a shame you took it that way as it wasn’t meant so.

As pointed out in the first…. All those with children (irrelevant of earnings) receive help….. "

I haven't taken it anyway ... apart from what is says.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"This is not to provoke arguments or pass judgement ..just like to know peoples opinions….

If a family is supported by government help…should there be a rule saying they should be free from alcohol, drugs & nicotine?

Remember this is for conversation not judgement ….

You have just passed judgement.

Did I?

I don’t believe I gave my opinion … I just asked other peoples as I had heard so many when I’d heard this

Why choose that particular group to section off for prohibitions ?"

Due to the conversation it stemmed from …

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"This is not to provoke arguments or pass judgement ..just like to know peoples opinions….

If a family is supported by government help…should there be a rule saying they should be free from alcohol, drugs & nicotine?

Remember this is for conversation not judgement …."

Simply... No

My national insurance pays my benefits. In fact we all pay national insurance tax. It is our pension pot too.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"The assumptions , biases and stereotyping are implicit in the question.

So if you didn't pass judgement , the writer of the question has. "

Indeed. There's something in the fact that it's even a question to ask, to some people.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"The assumptions , biases and stereotyping are implicit in the question.

So if you didn't pass judgement , the writer of the question has. "

Noted.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ortyairCouple
over a year ago

Wallasey

"I claim state pension and I drink wine.

"
Would love to share a glass, or two with you both, Mrs x

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ornLordMan
over a year ago

Wiltshire and London

"The fact that this question has been raised it judgement itself.

Why else ask it ?

Only the consumption of substances by the unemployed is being questioned.

Stick cake and chips on the list too while we are at it.

It’s a shame you took it that way as it wasn’t meant so.

As pointed out in the first…. All those with children (irrelevant of earnings) receive help….. "

Erm, no. This spivvy government has brought in (or is trying to bring in) a rule that there is a two-child limit - irrelevant of earnings.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

It’s refreshing to see that people can be involved in a subject like this and give opinion without thinking it’s anything more ….but I am surprised only one person asked my opinion without assuming they knew the answer

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"The fact that this question has been raised it judgement itself.

Why else ask it ?

Only the consumption of substances by the unemployed is being questioned.

Stick cake and chips on the list too while we are at it.

It’s a shame you took it that way as it wasn’t meant so.

As pointed out in the first…. All those with children (irrelevant of earnings) receive help…..

Erm, no. This spivvy government has brought in (or is trying to bring in) a rule that there is a two-child limit - irrelevant of earnings."

Really

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ornLordMan
over a year ago

Wiltshire and London

"The fact that this question has been raised it judgement itself.

Why else ask it ?

Only the consumption of substances by the unemployed is being questioned.

Stick cake and chips on the list too while we are at it.

It’s a shame you took it that way as it wasn’t meant so.

As pointed out in the first…. All those with children (irrelevant of earnings) receive help…..

Erm, no. This spivvy government has brought in (or is trying to bring in) a rule that there is a two-child limit - irrelevant of earnings.

Really

I believe so, though to be fair (it goes against the grain with these bastards) the amount tapers off for those with an income of £50k.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"The fact that this question has been raised it judgement itself.

Why else ask it ?

Only the consumption of substances by the unemployed is being questioned.

Stick cake and chips on the list too while we are at it.

It’s a shame you took it that way as it wasn’t meant so.

As pointed out in the first…. All those with children (irrelevant of earnings) receive help…..

Erm, no. This spivvy government has brought in (or is trying to bring in) a rule that there is a two-child limit - irrelevant of earnings.

Really

I believe so, though to be fair (it goes against the grain with these bastards) the amount tapers off for those with an income of £50k."

Learning more with each comment …. Another reason for the question.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *arlot o scaraWoman
over a year ago

Hell

If corporations and billionaires were taxed fairly we’d all be better off

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

No, but I go get where you're coming from.

It's like when people use food banks, yet have an up to date smart phone in one hand and a fag in the other. Really?!!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Humans have been consuming alcohol and drugging themselves since before we invented money, taxes and poverty.

It's both inhumane and economically stupid to enforce codes of behaviour like this on some but not others.

Are you going to waste tax money on policing this denial of basic human rights to enjoy life and self-medicate as desired? With what purpose? What would be the social and economic benefit of these actions in reality? People will do what they want regardless of the rules. There are already some restrictions like this on homeless people and if they get hostel support and other assistance- no beds for drug users etc... it's really horrific IMO.

We have enough money for everyone to be poverty free, our government chooses to give it all to their buddies instead. The poorest people in our society are really not the problem or the reason the things we wish were better for everyone and could be, aren't. Policies like this are distractions, smoke and mirrors, headline grabbers, and shit stirrers, and the people on the receiving end already have it hard enough.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ornLordMan
over a year ago

Wiltshire and London

"No, but I go get where you're coming from.

It's like when people use food banks, yet have an up to date smart phone in one hand and a fag in the other. Really?!!"

Not sure about up to date, but it's pretty difficult to do anything government-related nowadays without some sort of smartphone.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ornLordMan
over a year ago

Wiltshire and London

"Humans have been consuming alcohol and drugging themselves since before we invented money, taxes and poverty.

It's both inhumane and economically stupid to enforce codes of behaviour like this on some but not others.

Agree 100%!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ealMissShadyWoman
over a year ago

St Albans/ Welsh Borders

"*checks*

This is 2024 right? Not 1824? It sets a dangerous path when society starts dictating to others about what they can and can't do.

And why is it the poor who have to live under dictatorship? Again I guess the poorer demograph is easier to punish because it deflects on the corruption of the rich which makes them richer I guess.

It's existed as a social impulse (as well as an historical footnote) at least as long as I've been politically aware.

And yes, odd how it never applies to the rich and powerful, who can afford to find other ways to deal with their emotions other than snorting stuff up their noses or whatever"

Thank you. Interesting isn't it. And now we are out of the Victorian era we have media influencing opinions of the nation, Daily Fail for example loves to incite these debates and get people up in arms as deflection tactics against the real issues. Meanwhile the rich get richer and I think if we broke it down the vices of the rich would be far worse than those we are looking down out our noses at...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman
over a year ago

The Town by The Cross

"It’s refreshing to see that people can be involved in a subject like this and give opinion without thinking it’s anything more ….but I am surprised only one person asked my opinion without assuming they knew the answer "

You didn't ask us for your opinion, you asked us for ours.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ily WhiteWoman
over a year ago

I do understand the thought process behind this, and it's along the same lines as countries who pay benefits onto a card that can only be used to purchase things in certain shops (namely grocery stores). If people have addictions though, it increases the likelihood of them turning to crime to feed their habits.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"*checks*

This is 2024 right? Not 1824? It sets a dangerous path when society starts dictating to others about what they can and can't do.

And why is it the poor who have to live under dictatorship? Again I guess the poorer demograph is easier to punish because it deflects on the corruption of the rich which makes them richer I guess.

It's existed as a social impulse (as well as an historical footnote) at least as long as I've been politically aware.

And yes, odd how it never applies to the rich and powerful, who can afford to find other ways to deal with their emotions other than snorting stuff up their noses or whatever

Indeed. We're fighting over scraps and trying to make the most vulnerable be morally pure, while giving the powerful a pass.

It's always the way, and it needs to stop.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *penbicoupleCouple
over a year ago

Northampton

"Indeed. We're fighting over scraps and trying to make the most vulnerable be morally pure, while giving the powerful a pass.

It's always the way, and it needs to stop."

Well said.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *restonCouple555Couple
over a year ago

preston

"This is not to provoke arguments or pass judgement ..just like to know peoples opinions….

If a family is supported by government help…should there be a rule saying they should be free from alcohol, drugs & nicotine? "

Thought experiment:

Replace welfare with medicine. Both are universally funded but used only by those who need it.

Now come up with a list of reasons to deny people medical treatment.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *nightsoftheCoffeeTableCouple
over a year ago

Leeds

"This is not to provoke arguments or pass judgement ..just like to know peoples opinions….

If a family is supported by government help…should there be a rule saying they should be free from alcohol, drugs & nicotine?

Remember this is for conversation not judgement …."

Take an alcoholic/ bag heads money away and they will be forced to find it elsewhere, I imagine the street crime percentage would rise significantly.

The mr

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ornLordMan
over a year ago

Wiltshire and London

"*checks*

This is 2024 right? Not 1824? It sets a dangerous path when society starts dictating to others about what they can and can't do.

And why is it the poor who have to live under dictatorship? Again I guess the poorer demograph is easier to punish because it deflects on the corruption of the rich which makes them richer I guess.

It's existed as a social impulse (as well as an historical footnote) at least as long as I've been politically aware.

And yes, odd how it never applies to the rich and powerful, who can afford to find other ways to deal with their emotions other than snorting stuff up their noses or whatever

We may be out of the Victorian era, but the underlying trouble is the system, which has remained feudal thanks to the endless kowtowing to privilege - and the vices of the rich...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *hunky ChefMan
over a year ago

Norwich

You also shouldn't lie, be here or visit any 18+ site (including porn) and no sex unless you want more kids.

Mandatory church visit every Sunday?

Maybe limit the amount/type of pets you're allowed to have?

Stop using swearing words as well, even if the kids aren't around.

No, I'm not receiving any benefits.

Extreme situations are different obviously, but smoking is really far from extreme for example.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ndycoinsMan
over a year ago

Whaley Bridge,Nr Buxton,

'give people a fish they will feed themselves for a day.Give some people fishing tackle they will sell it,then buy a fish'.

Sometimes benefits are just bailing out the boat instead of fixing the leak.Teaching subjects that have slowly been removed from the school curriculum would be a start.Budgeting,cookery etc.There is a food bank volunteer chef who can teach how £50 of Aldi ingredients can make 173 meals.',Who is it that pays for the poor by the way,because it sure as hell isn't the poor?"Bash the rich" is a popular cry portrayed as a silver bullet.Tax the wealthy too heavily they will just leave the country which they can afford to do because they are err.....rich.By trying to get a few more percent more WE ALL get 100% of fuck all when they leave.The French have tried it several times and variants like asset taxes,failure.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *penbicoupleCouple
over a year ago

Northampton

"'give people a fish they will feed themselves for a day.Give some people fishing tackle they will sell it,then buy a fish'.

This silly threat about not taxing the rich too much or they'll leave is nonsense. Firstly, if they are unwilling to pay their way, let them leave. Secondly, they won't. They've still got money to make.

And I'm unsure why makes you think the "the poor" don't pay for "the poor." You don't think there are struggling households out there still paying their taxes?

Presumably you're not suggesting that people can only take out of the system what they put into it. If not, your point is irrelevant.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"'give people a fish they will feed themselves for a day.Give some people fishing tackle they will sell it,then buy a fish'.

And I'm unsure why makes you think the "the poor" don't pay for "the poor." You don't think there are struggling households out there still paying their taxes?

Presumably you're not suggesting that people can only take out of the system what they put into it. If not, your point is irrelevant."

It also fails to recognise that putting in for the most poor helps us all. The poor with money spend. The rich with money save. Spending stimulates the economy.

Children with unmet needs are more likely to grow up and have problems the state needs to mop up. Meeting those needs means they're more likely to pay it back in taxes and productivity.

Even if we don't give a fuck about other people... and I hope we do.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ulieAndBeefCouple
over a year ago

Manchester-ish

I've not read the comments above so apologies if I'm repeating. But much of the early help and support that is put in place through schools is because the children need it. Removing that support because parents fail to meet this arbitrary criteria would lead to even worse outcomes for those children.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *melia DominaTV/TS
over a year ago

Edinburgh (She/Her)

"introduce a universal income, and the question goes away. "

This with bells on....

As technology advances more jobs will disappear. More people will live from the state.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *inaTitzTV/TS
over a year ago

Titz Towers, North Notts

What a horrible proposition.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

You didn't ask us for your opinion, you asked us for ours. "

I know …

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *alandNitaCouple
over a year ago

Scunthorpe

"This is not to provoke arguments or pass judgement ..just like to know peoples opinions….

If a family is supported by government help…should there be a rule saying they should be free from alcohol, drugs & nicotine?

Remember this is for conversation not judgement …."

NO, no, no.

To even suggest this indicates that you have no concept of the welfare system and the people who are entitled to help.

The vast majority of people claiming benefits of some sort are in work, disabled or a pensioner.

I can only assume that you've been fortunate enough to have lived a rather privileged life... that could change in an instant. Many disabled people became disabled through illness or an accident.

Nita

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

No. We should prevent a totalitarian state at all costs. People have limited freedom as it is and they should not be eroded any further

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

And I'm unsure why makes you think the "the poor" don't pay for "the poor." You don't think there are struggling households out there still paying their taxes?

Presumably you're not suggesting that people can only take out of the system what they put into it. If not, your point is irrelevant."

I don’t think it’s a silly threat. Look what happened to France

“ What’s more, it led to an exodus of France’s richest. More than 12,000 millionaires left France in 2016, according to research group New World Wealth. In total, they say the country experienced a net outflow of more than 60,000 millionaires between 2000 and 2016. When these people left, France lost not only the revenue generated from the wealth tax, but all the others too, including income tax and VAT.”

Not to say that we should be shaking in our boots too scared to tax the rich more, just pointing out that these aren’t made up scenarios

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

East Sussex

"*checks*

This is 2024 right? Not 1824? It sets a dangerous path when society starts dictating to others about what they can and can't do.

And why is it the poor who have to live under dictatorship? Again I guess the poorer demograph is easier to punish because it deflects on the corruption of the rich which makes them richer I guess.

It's existed as a social impulse (as well as an historical footnote) at least as long as I've been politically aware.

And yes, odd how it never applies to the rich and powerful, who can afford to find other ways to deal with their emotions other than snorting stuff up their noses or whatever

Indeed. We're fighting over scraps and trying to make the most vulnerable be morally pure, while giving the powerful a pass.

It's always the way, and it needs to stop."

Isn't that just the truth.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

East Sussex

"I claim state pension and I drink wine.

Would love to share a glass, or two with you both, Mrs x"

Better get in quick while we're still allowed to drink alcohol and take our prescription meds

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"introduce a universal income, and the question goes away.

This with bells on....

As technology advances more jobs will disappear. More people will live from the state.

Elon musk suggested this many years ago…. He knew where tech was heading way ahead of many…. And this was his comment

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

We have food backs should they get money or lets build camps for them.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"This is not to provoke arguments or pass judgement ..just like to know peoples opinions….

If a family is supported by government help…should there be a rule saying they should be free from alcohol, drugs & nicotine?

Remember this is for conversation not judgement ….

NO, no, no.

To even suggest this indicates that you have no concept of the welfare system and the people who are entitled to help.

The vast majority of people claiming benefits of some sort are in work, disabled or a pensioner.

I can only assume that you've been fortunate enough to have lived a rather privileged life... that could change in an instant. Many disabled people became disabled through illness or an accident.

Nita"

I have far from lived a privileged life… and my opinion on the matter very much did not side with a yes …. As many within this thread my voice questioned the reasoning behind the idea. But as you suggested…. You assumed my position…

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"This is not to provoke arguments or pass judgement ..just like to know peoples opinions….

If a family is supported by government help…should there be a rule saying they should be free from alcohol, drugs & nicotine?

Remember this is for conversation not judgement ….

NO, no, no.

To even suggest this indicates that you have no concept of the welfare system and the people who are entitled to help.

The vast majority of people claiming benefits of some sort are in work, disabled or a pensioner.

I can only assume that you've been fortunate enough to have lived a rather privileged life... that could change in an instant. Many disabled people became disabled through illness or an accident.

Nita"

Another reason why I started the thread…. So I could be sure of the varied backgrounds that would comment & therefore have a better scope of answers…. Unlike when the question was discussed initially when I heard

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *riar BelisseWoman
over a year ago

Delightful Bliss

No. Even with having two minimum wage adults in the family, they still qualify for benefits.

DWP are pushing everyone onto universal credit now, to try and out the benefit cheats

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *inger_SnapWoman
over a year ago

Hampshire/Dorset

No... But as someone who has lived on benefits for many years, it really irks me the people who plead poverty (more so when they have kids) yet they always have money for smoking and drinking.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *estarossa.Woman
over a year ago

Flagrante

What irks me, is the way the Government and the media consistently demonise the poor.

The Benefits system is there for a reason, as a safety net.

It doesn't work as well as it should.

There will always be individuals that take advantage of Any system, whereever they fall on the wealth spectrum, but the majority of people, are just trying to get by.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Deep down - I feel it's important that it's you're getting help it should be for the essentials.

I'm even for families on benefits (as in jobseekers) not being allowed to go on holidays.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ellinever70Woman
over a year ago

Ayrshire

"Deep down - I feel it's important that it's you're getting help it should be for the essentials.

I'm even for families on benefits (as in jobseekers) not being allowed to go on holidays."

I doubt they could actually afford to

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

East Sussex

"Deep down - I feel it's important that it's you're getting help it should be for the essentials.

I'm even for families on benefits (as in jobseekers) not being allowed to go on holidays."

All benefits or just some?

We went on holiday while receiving child benefit and working tax credits.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

East Sussex

"Deep down - I feel it's important that it's you're getting help it should be for the essentials.

I'm even for families on benefits (as in jobseekers) not being allowed to go on holidays.

All benefits or just some?

We went on holiday while receiving child benefit and working tax credits. "

Darn it I just reread your post properly

I think as has been said it's unlikely anyone on jobseekers would be able to afford it. However when our two were tiny Mr N was made redundant, his mum paid for a £7:50 Sun holiday for us. We went but that was before you had to show you'd spent a certain number of hours looking for work etc.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Nah, cigarettes and alcohol are highly taxable goods. If anything, it's those saving who shouldn't get it. Give the people on benefits a million quid and watch the economy be absolutely fucking bouncing.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Nah, cigarettes and alcohol are highly taxable goods. If anything, it's those saving who shouldn't get it. Give the people on benefits a million quid and watch the economy be absolutely fucking bouncing."

That’s great maths

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

How would the government police it? Anyone who thinks people on benefits shouldn't have these things - how do you suggest controlling how they spend money?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ools and the brainCouple
over a year ago

couple, us we him her.

Put them in workhouses to earn their gruel if they ask for second's a good sound thrashing with a cain.

The children being small will be particularly useful for getting into places that adults can't fit in like chimneys and very dangerous machinery.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"This is not to provoke arguments or pass judgement ..just like to know peoples opinions….

If a family is supported by government help…should there be a rule saying they should be free from alcohol, drugs & nicotine?

Remember this is for conversation not judgement …."

Next you'll be asking if they should be given the snip, sterilised and stopped from having sex.

Then the miserable fuckers probably won't be entitled to a state burial either.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *lder.Woman
over a year ago

Not Local

And the rich should be chaste and lead by example. And drugs and drink and cigarettes and extra marital sex will be wiped off the face of the earth and we will all be happy.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Yes.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

If you can’t make a counter point without jumping to extremes (even Crimes against Humanity by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court have been mentioned) then you don’t really have a point

Some of the replies in this just show a level of anger at the question, not a willingness to engage with it

I don’t think it’s unfair to be somewhat concerned with where our tax money goes when it comes to benefits and support. Especially when it’s aimed at nonessential luxuries and addictive drugs

I’d hope money given to people as support doesn’t go towards cigarettes. I’d prefer to see that money going towards something useful an c healthy instead of something addictive and damaging. Is that such a bad thing to want?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"*checks*

This is 2024 right? Not 1824? It sets a dangerous path when society starts dictating to others about what they can and can't do.

And why is it the poor who have to live under dictatorship? Again I guess the poorer demograph is easier to punish because it deflects on the corruption of the rich which makes them richer I guess."

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *rozac_fairyCouple
over a year ago

Birmingham

Nope. Not at all.

Most people recieve some form of help from the government so if we start dictating poorer families relying on benefits can't have certain things (also which benefits? child benefit is available to all, upto a wage of around 50k... what about families with a parent on disability? etc) then where does that end?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *penbicoupleCouple
over a year ago

Northampton

"If you can’t make a counter point without jumping to extremes (even Crimes against Humanity by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court have been mentioned) then you don’t really have a point

Some of the replies in this just show a level of anger at the question, not a willingness to engage with it

I don’t think it’s unfair to be somewhat concerned with where our tax money goes when it comes to benefits and support. Especially when it’s aimed at nonessential luxuries and addictive drugs

It has to be healthy as well now? Jesus!

I'm sure it's not unfair to be concerned about where your taxes are going. However, anyone looking at the poor and vulnerable as the main beneficiaries really needs to look at the stats a lot closer. The amount lost to benefit cheats is relatively miniscule.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Some of the replies in this just show a level of anger at the question, not a willingness to engage with it

I don’t think it’s unfair to be somewhat concerned with where our tax money goes when it comes to benefits and support. Especially when it’s aimed at nonessential luxuries and addictive drugs

It has to be healthy as well now? Jesus!

Well your not saying it’s unfair, others are comparing it for forced sterilisation

And I didn’t mean healthy as in apples only. Just that there’s zero benefit to cigarettes and I really don’t like the idea of money that’s meant to help people potentially being spent on a nicotine addiction

I’d rather we paid someone’s entire rent and food bill if they needed it, than see even £1 go towards cigarettes

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Some of the replies in this just show a level of anger at the question, not a willingness to engage with it

I don’t think it’s unfair to be somewhat concerned with where our tax money goes when it comes to benefits and support. Especially when it’s aimed at nonessential luxuries and addictive drugs

It has to be healthy as well now? Jesus!

Well your not saying it’s unfair, others are comparing it for forced sterilisation

I’d rather we paid someone’s entire rent and food bill if they needed it, than see even £1 go towards cigarettes"

I mentioned the sterilising part because that's quite often a thing that comes up, 'should people on benefits be able to have more kids?', as single mums get accused of having more kids for more benefits and not needing to work. A little outdated of me prehaps. It was more tongue in cheek.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *eavenNhellCouple
over a year ago

carrbrook stalybridge

"No, but I go get where you're coming from.

It's like when people use food banks, yet have an up to date smart phone in one hand and a fag in the other. Really?!!"
smart phone ? Try claiming benefits jobsearching without one

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ools and the brainCouple
over a year ago

couple, us we him her.

I think poverty in this country is a relative term in comparison to countries that suffer from actually having fuck all and no-one to help them.

I spent ten years working in people's houses who for the most part claimed poverty and on benefits.

Nearly all had massive TV's sky or similar, the most up-to-date smart phones, expensive trainer's laptops, PlayStation, those huge American style fridge freezers and stacks of empty take away boxes on the side, smoked like chimneys.

Usually one or two very expensive dog's and at least one car.

Yet you go in the kid's room and they have a rotten old mattress on the floor with a minging duvet.

I think the point is that so many know how to play the system and exploit this.

This is harming the people who really do need help and when you come across people who are genuinely in poverty it's heartbreaking.

Most are working people or single parents who are honest hard working or in a position that's no fault of their own or pensioners struggling to heat the house or flat.

Yet next door is Doris and her lazy arse husband who know what boxes to tick and the lies to tell to get free everything.

Help people who need help I say it's not wrong to question where the money is going to ensure children aren't being neglected by parents who'd rather have 20 ciggies than ensuring that little Johnny isn't going to school without any breakfast.

Stopping people exploiting the system and neglecting people in their care make's economic and moral sense.

No you can't tell people what to do with the money but you sure as hell can try to make sure it's being used for what it's intended.

Turning a blind eye and making excuses for this is almost being complicit to abuse and neglect.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *obilebottomMan
over a year ago

All over

Some of the replies in this just show a level of anger at the question, not a willingness to engage with it

I don’t think it’s unfair to be somewhat concerned with where our tax money goes when it comes to benefits and support. Especially when it’s aimed at nonessential luxuries and addictive drugs

It has to be healthy as well now? Jesus!

Well your not saying it’s unfair, others are comparing it for forced sterilisation

I’d rather we paid someone’s entire rent and food bill if they needed it, than see even £1 go towards cigarettes"

Last thing I would say as I have made my views clear before. Why would anyone think they have a right to interfere how people spend their money, yes it is theirs by law not yours, is beyond me. I personally lost faith in humankind when they brought those dreadful assessments for disabled people just to satisfy their political dogma and win votes. People who were just about able to breath had their benefits cut. For goodness sake some took their lives and many more failed to succeed. I am really not interested in how they spend it. I rather have sympathy for the many that struggle than the few that might take a trip to benidorm for a cheap beer and a plate of chips. And I am definately out now. We are all different. Not better or worse. Just different and that includes things like our morals, empathy for others and respect for them to live their lives freely as the rest of us do.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I love threads like this. Great work, everyone.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I love threads like this. Great work, everyone.

"
my favourite bit has been adding private notes

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Some of the replies in this just show a level of anger at the question, not a willingness to engage with it

I don’t think it’s unfair to be somewhat concerned with where our tax money goes when it comes to benefits and support. Especially when it’s aimed at nonessential luxuries and addictive drugs

It has to be healthy as well now? Jesus!

Well your not saying it’s unfair, others are comparing it for forced sterilisation

I’d rather we paid someone’s entire rent and food bill if they needed it, than see even £1 go towards cigarettes

Fair enough. For me I don’t think it’s their money. It’s our money. It’s our “emergency fund pot” that we all pay into to help people in need. I don’t see cigarettes as helping someone in need.

I’d rather see that £20 they spent on cigarettes go towards a mum in need so she can afford to do something nice with the kids. Not feed an addiction that leads to an early death.

But I can appreciate it’s a triggering topic and you’ve decided to duck out. Sometimes it better to just say what you believe and plug your ears to other people’s thoughts and opinions, for your own mental clarity

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *outhern man.Man
over a year ago

Weymouth

I worked all my life saved a few quid now I've fallen on hard times can't get fuck all because I've got some in the bank instead of pissing it up against a wall or shoving something up my nose and playing bet265. It's shit.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ools and the brainCouple
over a year ago

couple, us we him her.

"I think poverty in this country is a relative term in comparison to countries that suffer from actually having fuck all and no-one to help them.