A Brief History of Hauldren Collider

[Dauphin]

In this case it clearly means "amount you deduct from claim to verify eligibility".

To you maybe.

[kentonio]

They could, but I don't know why they would. What exactly is your objection to letting people choose how to spend money? We aren't soviets.

Spoken like someone who has never had to struggle for anything their entire life.

Hey poor folk you have the 'choice' between heating your home this winter or eating. Bet you feel lucky that you don't like in some horrid country like soviet Russia where they would force you to buy food! :

[The Mad Monk]

If the government gave the same cash value without the requirements, the amount spent on regulations and enforcement could instead be added to the sum, with the added benefit of decriminalizing an entire segment of society.

[kentonio]

If the government gave the same cash value without the requirements, the amount spent on regulations and enforcement could instead be added to the sum

Which would never happen ever, and which doesn't solve any of the problems raised above.

with the added benefit of decriminalizing an entire segment of society.

[Dauphin]

De-stigmatise perhaps?

[Dauphin]

Which would never happen ever, and which doesn't solve any of the problems raised above.

Most benefits in the UK are cash or cash discounts aren't they, except those few that trivially aren't, like the NHS benefit.

I'm not aware of food stamps, and heating allowances for the old aren't linked to actual heating consumption. Ex-pats get it in warmer climes?

I may be missing an obvious one?

[The Mad Monk]

Which would never happen ever, and which doesn't solve any of the problems raised above.

Really? I've had unemployment a couple times, and I don't remember any kind of spending restrictions, just cash.

[The Mad Monk]

De-stigmatise perhaps?

Nope. Decriminalize.

People sell their foods stamps at a fraction of their value for cash, to get what they want or need.

[kentonio]

Most benefits in the UK are cash or cash discounts aren't they, except those few that trivially aren't, like the NHS benefit.

I'm not aware of food stamps, and heating allowances for the old aren't linked to actual heating consumption. Ex-pats get it in warmer climes?

I may be missing an obvious one?

Housing benefit is paid directly to the property owner bypassing the benefit applicant. I think they're about to change that which is a terrible, terrible idea. Healthcare is obviously free all the time. People are then given the normal benefit payment in cash, but there are additional sources of help available for different things, including child benefit payments and the like. People are ensured shelter and healthcare and a basic standard of living. That money is also protected from a number of things, for instance IIRC debt collection people cannot demand payment that would take someone on benefits under a certain amount of money per week.

Really? I've had unemployment a couple times, and I don't remember any kind of spending restrictions, just cash.

I was talking about the money saved being handed over as extra payment, something which would definitely never happen.

[kentonio]

Nope. Decriminalize.

People sell their foods stamps at a fraction of their value for cash, to get what they want or need.

It's only criminalizing them if they take the aid and try and sell it. Should we stop feeding starving people in third world countries because warlords sometimes steal the food?

[Hauldren Collider]

I'm not discussing what is politically feasible. My viewpoint isn't going to change just because there are a lot of idiots who will never agree to blindingly obvious good policy. If we took all the subsidies we give people--food stamps, medicaid, various other benefits and just piled them all into "welfare" we could make the economy vastly more efficient and we would probably end up spending less.

[Hauldren Collider]

It's only criminalizing them if they take the aid and try and sell it. Should we stop feeding starving people in third world countries because warlords sometimes steal the food?

We should come up with ways of feeding them that don't involve funding warlords. The answer to your question might even be yes, if it could possibly result in the warlords being toppled and replaced with benevolent government.

[The Mad Monk]

I was talking about the money saved being handed over as extra payment, something which would definitely never happen.

Fine, savings to the deficit, then. Either way is a win.

[kentonio]

I'm not discussing what is politically feasible. My viewpoint isn't going to change just because there are a lot of idiots who will never agree to blindingly obvious good policy. If we took all the subsidies we give people--food stamps, medicaid, various other benefits and just piled them all into "welfare" we could make the economy vastly more efficient and we would probably end up spending less.

You've never given me an honest straightforward answer to a question I've asked you a number of times in the past. What happens if a poor person makes a bad choice, or has a really bad string of luck and ends up in a situation where that simple cash benefit is gone? How low exactly are you willing to watch people fall by not trying to ensure that some baseline living standards are maintained? It's the same question I asked you when Ryan wanted to gut Medicare.

[kentonio]

We should come up with ways of feeding them that don't involve funding warlords. The answer to your question might even be yes, if it could possibly result in the warlords being toppled and replaced with benevolent government.

Easy to condemn hundreds of thousands to starve when you'll never have to be hungry yourself, isn't it.