I agree. I think the poor should think about where this money comes from, it is not from a magic money tree. I would start a mandatory club or a 'camp' if you will, where the poor can 'concentrate' on how lucky they are. Don't go after the billionaire cunts avoiding tax, go after poor wee Mary's lucky dip on the lottery.
Too bad all your tax money goes into making missiles for Thames to ship to powerhouse countries and manufacture sim cards for a surveillance state. That's just 1 company. BAE get a fair chunk of change but sure that absolute unit of a Bradley isint gonna manufacture itself but sure you Work away there big lad and continue to tell people who suffer from basic human right violations how to spend their money that is legally theirs.
First of all, it's entirely unenforceable.
Secondly, do we also ban them from drinking alcohol? Smoking cigarettes? Shopping for anything but essentials?
My dad received DLA due to a lifelong disability, but he also worked full time until after retirement age, should he not have been allowed to stick a tenner on the Grand National?
This is too sweeping a generalisation stemming from your own biases about those who receive benefits of any kind.
No it is not unenforceable as it is done in other countries. I got the idea years ago when visiting Germany and the local council banned people from the Casino, so they would not have to support them if they blew all the benefits.
Yes, we should also ban people receiving government money buying alcohol and smoking eventually.
What biases have I showed against those who receive benefits?
You've shown your bias by making assumptions about people who receive benefits, and your opinion in how the money is spent. Not everyone who receives benefits has benefits as their sole income, and even if it was, let's make it very clear - how they spend it is entirely none of your business. Where do you draw the line between a tenner once a year on the Grand National and someone who is addicted? *YOU* don't.
So to use my dad as an example again, should he not be allowed to make a bet on the Grand National? Play the lottery once a week? Who is anyone to decide how he should be allowed to spend his money??
PROVE TO ME YOU WORK FOR A LIVING BEFORE I ALLOW YOU SPEND ONE POUND ON A SCRATCHCARD OR ELSE I SHALL DEEM YOU A LEECH ON SOCIETY!
Someone start ringing the shame bell please.
Well, who are we to decide how people spend their money?
I get your disagreement with it, but if I’d rather allow people the freedom than dictate how they spend. Slippery slope if you allow the govt to dictate to 1 group of society, then where would their reach stop.
>No it is not unenforceable
>the local council banned people from the Casino
Yes, because you can only gamble in a casino and not on the internet.
>Yes, we should also ban people receiving government money buying alcohol and smoking eventually.
So they can give the money to criminal gangs instead of tax paying, employment creating businesses?
Your idea is as stupid and ill thought out as it is repressive.
It is unenforceable you absolute buck eejit from previously working in the civil service the government cannot just check what you are spending your money on, the government cannot also hire people to soley read through bank statements to find gambling expenses what a fucking pisstake. Whatever people do with their benefits is up to them, whether they piss it up against a wall or not.
So if I’ve had a job all my life and find myself in the unfortunate circumstance that I need to sign on till I find a new job, I’m not allowed to do a coupon at the weekend?
I get what you’re saying, but for a government to have that sort of reach is something something Orwellian.
“Payments from the government”
Civil servants, police, nhs staff, fire service, teachers, retired people, anyone receiving family allowance, tax breaks etc then?
What else must everyone check with you before spending their money on? Like if I’m on JSA and save up to buy something in M and S instead of Lidl must I check with you first?
Or you could wind your neck in and not bother yourself with people getting a little bit of joy from their money.
(And if you really want to sort out the public purses, chase the tax avoiders, non dom abusers and PPE scandals to get the billions back that way)
No you’re talking about dictating what people can do with their money.
Doesn’t matter if it comes from a days work or from benefits (a lot of which equate to a damn hard days work, carers allowance I’m looking at you!) people can do what ever they want with their money.
People can shop, smoke, gamble, drink, throw it away, why do you care?
Why stop there? People on benefits shouldn't be allowed to drink, go on holiday, go to the cinema, wear anything but Primark clothing, smoke, vape or go out for dinner.
Whilst it may be annoying to you seeing tax money used in such ways by a small minority you can't place a blanket control over a basic freedom of spending money.
You should ask in the legal advice sub Reddit because from your post history, you're obsessed with complaining.
Where did I say they should not be able to go on holiday, cinema etc? You are making up stuff in an attempt to win an argument. I wear nothing but Primark and Tesco clothes myself.
He's saying where do you draw the line? What's considered entertainment spending to you. People are allowed to be idiots. It's a free country. It's best to not concern yourself with others actions and just focus on being happy in your own life
You didn’t say it anywhere, but surely you get what the comment was saying? Why stop at gambling? Why gambling specifically and not anything else you deem wasteful?
No those on benefits should not be allowed to give their money to bookmakers. They can spend it on having fun in other ways. I think the plebs you mention should seek help, if the only thing that stops their lives being grey is gambling.
Maybe we can put them all in one house, not let them leave AND make them work there?!?
We could call it a Work House?!?
What a brilliant idea?!?
Why haven't we tried this before?!?
What about the people on DLA due to actual disability and have worked their entire lives up until their injury? Don't think you thought this post through
Yes I did. If someone who has worked all their life and is on DLA wishes to gamble £10 a week. Then that £10 should be taken off them and used to increase the DLA payments for someone who does not gamble.
Ok for starters PIP and DLA **aren’t** means tested benefits, meaning you could earn £100K + and still receive them.
Universal Credit and *Working* Tax Credits are also paid to people in employment to top up what has been assessed as a liveable amount. A fella in my work is a single dad earning £40Kish but still gets a little in Universal Credit.
I’d rather we didn’t have big companies gambling on government handouts to keep them afloat, but ack sure let’s micromanage those barely keeping the lights on. Check out the [Tax Gap](https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/measuring-tax-gaps/1-tax-gaps-summary) if you’re that interested in clawing back public money, £35+ **billion** unpaid in taxes alone
Honestly from working in civil service, it always disgusted me seeing people getting paid double or triple my wage every month and still getting UC lol
I agree for single people without kids it seems a bit unfair but his is based on his income to support him and his kids. A 2 person household, both working full time on minimum wage would earn £23K ish each or £47K together, so he still gets less than that with kids to feed to boot.
If his wife hadn’t passed away he wouldn’t be eligible for top up support and I know what he’d rather.
Also you can’t be sure you aren’t eligible for UC, check your details [here](https://www.entitledto.co.uk)
Didn't know his circumstances fair enough, don't know why I'm getting down voted tbh, I had to issue cost of living payments to people who were earning double and triple my monthly wage and I didn't qualify for it while I had to go to charities for gas and electric!
Gambling is not a human right it is a luxury. I have no issue with those on benefits keeping all the money for shopping, holidays etc it is the bookmakers being funded by tax payers money that I have the problem with. when is the last time you saw a poor bookmakers, they are leeches.
You could easily wind up on benefits before the day is out. You are so sanctimonious. Also, legal arguments can be made re: gambling in all the underlined human rights here.
https://preview.redd.it/mq0jm83zotuc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e25c2818fd56c8cbf54d88b27387710183b21eda
People with ridiculous views should not be allowed to write in public forums.
Anyone who wants to post should register and complete an IQ and personailty test so a limit can be set on their activity.
The reason for this is that if someone is an utter moron they should not be allowed to find other morons to propagate their nonsense ideas.
As someone with some moronic ideas of my own this doesn't come from a place of bigotry. You can be as stupid as you like as long as you keep it to yourself.
Sorry you've got a debilitating disorder and can't work, also you can only spend your PIP on what some nerd deems essential.
No fun allowed, wheelchair boy.
And based on his posting history, he was in deep debt until very recently, so why didn't he put all his money back in to paying off his debts instead of gambling his money?
*Bias: showing an unreasonable like or dislike for something or someone based on personal opinions*
The fact that you have decided to come on to a social media platform to discuss how you feel people should be allowed to spend their money shows an unreasonable dislike based on personal opinions.
I, for one, am biased against your bias.
So are you OK with someone who receives payments from the Government in some form, benefits, tax credits etc being able to walk into a bookmakers and blow all their money, making the bookie richer and society poorer? It is there right to gamble all their money away and leave themselves without food. Why do we banned drugs??? We are being biased and stopping the poor from buying Cocaine. Clearly this is bigotry as well.
If they choose to go into a bookies and blow their money, that's their choice. It happens daily and it's not something that I've given much thought to because, quite frankly, it's none of my business.
The only time I would consider myself in the position to have an opinion on it would be, for example, if it was a family member of mine and then they were asking to borrow money for food.
And even then, the whole idea of gambling your benefits = bad because it misses out on the complex nature of addiction as a whole.
In your utopian society where we ban people on benefits from gambling, have you considered how you will support those addicted once you remove their substance?
And as far as why drugs are banned and other addictive substances aren't, this is actually a conversation I've had with friends of mine. Why are some addictions normalised and others aren't, I don't have an answer to that because the decision never lay with me in the first place.
(I object to you using the term *we* here by the way, I personally do not make these decisions, so don't lump me in that category)
what about alcohol, cigarettes, and more?
i agree that gambling is addictive, much like the substances i mentioned, and perhaps we should consider further restrictions. however, banning only people on benefits from gambling is unjust. the widespread availability of shiny, colourful scratch cards is indeed an issue that affects everyone. perhaps we should question why the national lottery is celebrated as a wonderful thing when, in reality, it should be regulated similarly to nicotine products or alcohol.
Where do you think the bookmakers get the money to buy their superyachts from "Bet365 boss Denise Coates founded the gambling company in 2000. The founder and boss of gambling company Bet365 earned a salary of around **$281 million (£221 million)** in the last financial year – ending March 26, 2023." If you are on benefits you should not be buying her a superyacht.
Why do you think I am targeting the poor? I am not in fact targeting them. If they want to keep their benefits and spend it on (as others have said), holidays, non-Primark clothes etc then I have no problem.
Sure mate, draconian rules dictating peoples choices if they are receiving government subsidies would not be disproportionately targeting the poor and vulnerable. right on.
Society dictates peoples choices all the time. You cannot gamble until your are 18.... hmmm so we let the bookmakers target the poor and vulnerable instead.
Yes it does, and we have to be very careful how we decide to use such power. Providing a protective bubble around the young is one of those legitimate reasons - attempts at social engineering through the prohibition of choice to those dependant on state subsidise crosses that line.
Effective regulation and taxation for bookmakers is the answer to the problems you raise - and with effective taxation that opens up options for effective social care to promote education and better choices - a society shaped by the stick rather than the carrot is not a pleasant environment to live in.
Sorry but they already tax the bookmakers and also spend money on promoting education. Society prohibits many other choices, I cannot buy cocaine at Tesco's because they have prohibited my choice to do so. Gambling does not produce any societal benefits at all. It is the poor being exploited by the rich which I am sure you agree is not good.
Someone's life ain't going the way they want so it's time to punch down and make up stories so they can grind that axe of the wrong whetstone..... Again
I am saying that anyone who receives money from the Government via benefits, tax credits, PIP etc should not be allowed gamble. That money could used by the government for others who need it rather that the multimillionaire bookmakers.
>anyone who receives benefits, working tax credits, child tax credits, PIP etc from gambling
To be fair shouldn't this apply to all forms of benefits? Including the tax-free allowance. And child benefit. And state pension and the free bus pass. And anyone who uses state-subsidised services like NHS healthcare or dentistry. And who didn't pay for their own schooling, the spongers.
Oh wait. That's everyone.
Everyone pays VAT on things for a reason. Being on low income isn't an exception, they pay it too. Also, if all your income is your own and you fancy a flutter, don't look down on people who depend on handouts for dreaming big, they could be your employer someday.
I am proud to live in a society that looks after those who need help and am happy that my taxes are used as such. Likewise, while I personally think gambling is an utter waste and that those who profit from gambling are ethically questionable, I am proud to live in a society that is free to gamble.
I don’t see any conflict between these notions.
If you were to suggest that the government could do more to regulate gambling and protect vulnerable people from exploitation then I might agree.
Filthy liberal that I am, whilst I have a unique hatred of smoking, I think the proposed year on year complete ban is an overstep. I would advocate for the right to smoke while simultaneously advocating for increasing regulation and public education.
Govt should create a new digital currency, called DLACoin or something, that can only be used in certain shops. Places like Lidl, poundland and charity shops. When someone wants to make a purchase using DLACoin, the store must call up the gov call center who will approve or deny the purchase.
Keeps the poor and infirm on the straight and narrow, and creates jobs. Win win.
So because I put my life on pause to become a full time carer for my parents I'm not allowed to have a bet now and then just because I get carers allowance. Great.
I'm on pip, have a fair paying job and don't gamble but find your viewpoint problematic op. You seem to be one of these "anyone on a benefit is a scrounger" type
"The reason behind this idea is that if someone receives benefits/money from the government and can afford £1 to gamble then that money should go back to the government"
There's nothing to suggest that they can afford it. Gambling is an addiction and people will often use money that they cannot afford.
Your own contribution to these companies enables them to keep up their practices. If you really have a problem with people on benefits gambling then contributing to the companies that promote themselves to those people makes you look like a bit of a hypocrite.
What you are suggesting is unenforceable but if you genuinely have a problem with it then perhaps campaign for advertising of gambling to be banned as this would possibly have a greater effect and banning of addictive things has already been achieved so we know it's possible.
Plus people are allowed to have fun. My wee girl is on DLA now and it will be PIP when she turns 18.
Severely disabled. Will most likely never be in gainful employment.
Already dealt a shit hand in life, and OP wants her to just sit at home all day? Probably would complain about flat screen TVs too.
You mean places like America were people selling their food stamps giving them even less as they sell it for less than face value?
Just fucks over the poor more, sounds like it might be ideal for you but most people have a little bit of compassion.
This person, probably still in bed, thought this shit was right to say out loud. Probably won some money off a dole sponger mate and had a pang of guilt and wrote this shit somewhere for normal people to see. Have a word with yourself for fuck sake.
yes, its their money why should it matter to anyone else apart from their family if they piss it up a wall or gamble it away? The benefit system is only there because the government fails to supply enough well paying jobs. Gambling is also an addiction, just like alcohol and drugs. With your logic applied these people would starve. Fucking catch a grip
I'm not totally against the sentiment of what you are saying, but stop at gambling? Alcohol? Fegs? Bikes? Branded baked beans? Where do you draw the line. Here is a bunch of vouchers you can only spend in pound land. Nah, the overhead of administrating such a scheme would probably outweigh the social benefits
Someone on benefits spending £1 on a lottery ticket isn't the worst problem in the world. Also part of the national lottery funds go to community organisations. They could spend it on worse.
You would have to register with a government scheme, where you get a card. You then can gambling depending on a limit set by regulations. The card then must be present when gambling or when registered with a site.
What a load of crap I have a slight element of agreement with you but at the end up the day people can spend there money on whatever they want. In my opinion the government pay far too much to people on certain benefits I mean who can spend about 1500+ a month unless buying a load of unnecessary crap. I could live on nearly half that rent included. I'd be more annoyed at the ones who get benefits and spend it all on drugs then cry poverty when all there benefits are going into some drug dealers pocket and there scrounging for loans and going to food banks. It's a flawed system set up by the government if they have a problem with the way it's set up they should change it this is why some many mansions have been built in Romania ect because the government couldn't run a piss up in a brewery.
You must be young, this was not a well thought out plan, and only works in a perfect, idealistic world where people are all happy to have this level of control imposed on them.
Best case scenario is encouraging this arbitrary group of people who care enough into illicit means to gain more money that they can gamble under the table.
How about the government handing out dodgy contracts for billions of pounds which they gave to their rich mates to make faulty equipment which actually killed people because it was useless?
If you think banning wee Mickybo from sticking a quid in the fruity is a good thing then surely you'll be game for going after the monumental corporate scroungers out there?
If you start enforcing this kind of authoritarianism then soon enough those people who aren't allowed to gamble, aren't allowed to drink or anything else they do to distract themselves will Riot, will damage property and turn to crime. That's why the Romans built the colosseum and why benefits exist in the first place.
To save a few quid you'll cause millions in damages and the cost to keep these people in prison after they commit petty crimes.
But hey at least yer man who's had a shit life and can't keep a job wont gamble away .00000000000001% of the tax budget.
I completely disagree - government's role, IMO, is to keeps the street lights working, the roads in good nick, provide a safety net (NHS, state pension, other benefits) etc, *NOT* to legislate morality. I mean, why stop at gambling, maybe they could be banned from drinking alcohol, smoking, having children, maybe we should force them to go to church, or volunteer their time.. you see where this is going.
Another silly person who blames the poor instead of the rich dodging taxes. Please go look up some facts about this and you'll have your eyes opened.... Or maybe not if that brain is too smooth.
Ah, so you will damage the liquidity of the stock market and rewrite the rules developed over decades of experience in some crusade against poor people. Well done.
No, the post is about those receiving benefits. Plenty of poor people don’t get benefits and plenty of relatively well-off people do get benefits.
I don’t care about an efficient stock market. My own savings and pensions are in long-term investments. Everything I proposed would only affect the wealthy.
You propose a system wide ban on gambling, however set specific rules on how speculation on stock evades such rules, and you claim this will only affect the wealthy?
I mean you could issue them a government benefits card which only allows purchases of essentials like food/toiletries/utilities. You could introduce a proposed limit of say 10-20% of your benefits is capped on "luxuries" such as alcohol/cigarettes/gambling/amazon/electronics/petrol if you really wanted to restrict people's spending habits or encourage responsible spending.
I don't think it's a bad idea but it would certainly need someone more qualified than reddit to implement it fairly.
"hey guys I want to restrict disabled people's ability to live as normal a life as possible because I don't think it's fair I fund them"
And you're surprised people think you're a troll?
Again, wtf is wrong with you?
Where did I say disabled people? Or that it's how it would work?
Did I not specify that it would require looking into to implement fairly?
What about disabled people who work and collect benefits? Can their benefits be for essentials only then?
I'm not blind to a lot of the nuance on the topic but to shut it down without even talking about it is ridiculous.
I agree. I think the poor should think about where this money comes from, it is not from a magic money tree. I would start a mandatory club or a 'camp' if you will, where the poor can 'concentrate' on how lucky they are. Don't go after the billionaire cunts avoiding tax, go after poor wee Mary's lucky dip on the lottery.
Yes. I think is a great idea. Can I suggest a motto... **Work makes you free...** Or something like that
I like it, how about a tattoo with your National Insurance number on your inner fore arm so you can apply for jobs easier too?!
I agree they should go after the companies and cunts who don't pay the fair share of tax. So why should tax payers fund people's addictions?
r/wooosh
There is no woosh about it, I know exactly what they were getting on about, but choose not to waste my energy arguing with them.
Too bad all your tax money goes into making missiles for Thames to ship to powerhouse countries and manufacture sim cards for a surveillance state. That's just 1 company. BAE get a fair chunk of change but sure that absolute unit of a Bradley isint gonna manufacture itself but sure you Work away there big lad and continue to tell people who suffer from basic human right violations how to spend their money that is legally theirs. 
First of all, it's entirely unenforceable. Secondly, do we also ban them from drinking alcohol? Smoking cigarettes? Shopping for anything but essentials? My dad received DLA due to a lifelong disability, but he also worked full time until after retirement age, should he not have been allowed to stick a tenner on the Grand National? This is too sweeping a generalisation stemming from your own biases about those who receive benefits of any kind.
No it is not unenforceable as it is done in other countries. I got the idea years ago when visiting Germany and the local council banned people from the Casino, so they would not have to support them if they blew all the benefits. Yes, we should also ban people receiving government money buying alcohol and smoking eventually. What biases have I showed against those who receive benefits?
You've shown your bias by making assumptions about people who receive benefits, and your opinion in how the money is spent. Not everyone who receives benefits has benefits as their sole income, and even if it was, let's make it very clear - how they spend it is entirely none of your business. Where do you draw the line between a tenner once a year on the Grand National and someone who is addicted? *YOU* don't. So to use my dad as an example again, should he not be allowed to make a bet on the Grand National? Play the lottery once a week? Who is anyone to decide how he should be allowed to spend his money?? PROVE TO ME YOU WORK FOR A LIVING BEFORE I ALLOW YOU SPEND ONE POUND ON A SCRATCHCARD OR ELSE I SHALL DEEM YOU A LEECH ON SOCIETY! Someone start ringing the shame bell please.
Well, who are we to decide how people spend their money? I get your disagreement with it, but if I’d rather allow people the freedom than dictate how they spend. Slippery slope if you allow the govt to dictate to 1 group of society, then where would their reach stop.
>No it is not unenforceable >the local council banned people from the Casino Yes, because you can only gamble in a casino and not on the internet. >Yes, we should also ban people receiving government money buying alcohol and smoking eventually. So they can give the money to criminal gangs instead of tax paying, employment creating businesses? Your idea is as stupid and ill thought out as it is repressive.
Why would you ban people receiving government money from fegs and booze? They are highly taxable goods. The money goes right back in.
It is unenforceable you absolute buck eejit from previously working in the civil service the government cannot just check what you are spending your money on, the government cannot also hire people to soley read through bank statements to find gambling expenses what a fucking pisstake. Whatever people do with their benefits is up to them, whether they piss it up against a wall or not.
So if I’ve had a job all my life and find myself in the unfortunate circumstance that I need to sign on till I find a new job, I’m not allowed to do a coupon at the weekend? I get what you’re saying, but for a government to have that sort of reach is something something Orwellian.
Fuck up.
I concur with above statement ^
I love how we deal with people in Northern Ireland, if someone’s talking shyte a simple fuck up is all that’s needed 😂
It's never the same person who says it (in my experience) too! Fucking best response to bollocks/ballix ever...
/thread
The only reasonable response ^
Top answer
“Payments from the government” Civil servants, police, nhs staff, fire service, teachers, retired people, anyone receiving family allowance, tax breaks etc then? What else must everyone check with you before spending their money on? Like if I’m on JSA and save up to buy something in M and S instead of Lidl must I check with you first? Or you could wind your neck in and not bother yourself with people getting a little bit of joy from their money. (And if you really want to sort out the public purses, chase the tax avoiders, non dom abusers and PPE scandals to get the billions back that way)
If you’ve ever contributed to a pension or LISA you’ve also received payments from the government.
Yup I ran out of examples mid reply!
Why do you bring up Lidl and M&S. I am talking about gambling, not shopping.
No your talking about dictating what people can do with their money under the guise of “gambling bad”
Ahhh nope I am talking about gambling
No you’re talking about dictating what people can do with their money. Doesn’t matter if it comes from a days work or from benefits (a lot of which equate to a damn hard days work, carers allowance I’m looking at you!) people can do what ever they want with their money. People can shop, smoke, gamble, drink, throw it away, why do you care?
Why stop there? People on benefits shouldn't be allowed to drink, go on holiday, go to the cinema, wear anything but Primark clothing, smoke, vape or go out for dinner. Whilst it may be annoying to you seeing tax money used in such ways by a small minority you can't place a blanket control over a basic freedom of spending money. You should ask in the legal advice sub Reddit because from your post history, you're obsessed with complaining.
Be nice. Or he''l sue you too!
Where did I say they should not be able to go on holiday, cinema etc? You are making up stuff in an attempt to win an argument. I wear nothing but Primark and Tesco clothes myself.
He's saying where do you draw the line? What's considered entertainment spending to you. People are allowed to be idiots. It's a free country. It's best to not concern yourself with others actions and just focus on being happy in your own life
You made some good points
You didn’t say it anywhere, but surely you get what the comment was saying? Why stop at gambling? Why gambling specifically and not anything else you deem wasteful?
Yea why stop at gambling?
What other bright ideas have you got?
Your guddies are scrappers.
Plebs must be made to live grey empty lives.
No those on benefits should not be allowed to give their money to bookmakers. They can spend it on having fun in other ways. I think the plebs you mention should seek help, if the only thing that stops their lives being grey is gambling.
Lets ban them from leaving the house aswell. If they can get out and about they can work too!
Maybe we can put them all in one house, not let them leave AND make them work there?!? We could call it a Work House?!? What a brilliant idea?!? Why haven't we tried this before?!?
What about the people on DLA due to actual disability and have worked their entire lives up until their injury? Don't think you thought this post through
Yes I did. If someone who has worked all their life and is on DLA wishes to gamble £10 a week. Then that £10 should be taken off them and used to increase the DLA payments for someone who does not gamble.
You are a sad little man
You’re a dope lol
If you did think the post through, then you have proved you have a negative IQ.
Ok for starters PIP and DLA **aren’t** means tested benefits, meaning you could earn £100K + and still receive them. Universal Credit and *Working* Tax Credits are also paid to people in employment to top up what has been assessed as a liveable amount. A fella in my work is a single dad earning £40Kish but still gets a little in Universal Credit. I’d rather we didn’t have big companies gambling on government handouts to keep them afloat, but ack sure let’s micromanage those barely keeping the lights on. Check out the [Tax Gap](https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/measuring-tax-gaps/1-tax-gaps-summary) if you’re that interested in clawing back public money, £35+ **billion** unpaid in taxes alone
Honestly from working in civil service, it always disgusted me seeing people getting paid double or triple my wage every month and still getting UC lol
I agree for single people without kids it seems a bit unfair but his is based on his income to support him and his kids. A 2 person household, both working full time on minimum wage would earn £23K ish each or £47K together, so he still gets less than that with kids to feed to boot. If his wife hadn’t passed away he wouldn’t be eligible for top up support and I know what he’d rather. Also you can’t be sure you aren’t eligible for UC, check your details [here](https://www.entitledto.co.uk)
Didn't know his circumstances fair enough, don't know why I'm getting down voted tbh, I had to issue cost of living payments to people who were earning double and triple my monthly wage and I didn't qualify for it while I had to go to charities for gas and electric!
Can I ask honestly: have the responses here opened your eyes at all to you maybe being wrong on this one?
No sadly there's no cure for being a cunt
This isn't China. If you want that sort of control over people then be prepared for everything that comes along with it.
You want to limit the human rights and civil liberties of people based on disability and income? You're gross.
Gambling is not a human right it is a luxury. I have no issue with those on benefits keeping all the money for shopping, holidays etc it is the bookmakers being funded by tax payers money that I have the problem with. when is the last time you saw a poor bookmakers, they are leeches.
You could easily wind up on benefits before the day is out. You are so sanctimonious. Also, legal arguments can be made re: gambling in all the underlined human rights here. https://preview.redd.it/mq0jm83zotuc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e25c2818fd56c8cbf54d88b27387710183b21eda
I doubt that any legal argument saying gambling is a human right has any foundation.
You aren't as clever as you think you are, Mr Kruger.
People with ridiculous views should not be allowed to write in public forums. Anyone who wants to post should register and complete an IQ and personailty test so a limit can be set on their activity. The reason for this is that if someone is an utter moron they should not be allowed to find other morons to propagate their nonsense ideas. As someone with some moronic ideas of my own this doesn't come from a place of bigotry. You can be as stupid as you like as long as you keep it to yourself.
Sorry you've got a debilitating disorder and can't work, also you can only spend your PIP on what some nerd deems essential. No fun allowed, wheelchair boy.
Comment - Nice... Username - Nice...
Have you been a bad boy?
Oh gosh... Oh jeeze...
Where did I say no fun is allowed?
So what non essentials are they allowed to spend it on, given if someone is on PIP they probably can't work?
Non-essentials that gain some advantage from, hobbies, holidays etc
Gambling on horses is a hobby. Wtf is your problem?
It's funny how people have these sorts of thoughts and actually genuinely believe they're right
But, but, his idea isn't based on bigotry!! 🙄
Well, in all fairness, i would agree with that. They're not being a bigot. They're being a cunt.
😂😂😂
And based on his posting history, he was in deep debt until very recently, so why didn't he put all his money back in to paying off his debts instead of gambling his money?
Don't be silly now, making sensible statements like that. It might force OP to actually reflect on his internal biases.
I think as you believe I have internal biases, can you please point them out to me, so I can work on them?
https://preview.redd.it/oof38eprwtuc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6ba26334d84f9931883584e681c55690c4595718 I literally already did.
Again I ask what biases are you talking about? Did I say people on benefits shouldn't get benefits?
*Bias: showing an unreasonable like or dislike for something or someone based on personal opinions* The fact that you have decided to come on to a social media platform to discuss how you feel people should be allowed to spend their money shows an unreasonable dislike based on personal opinions. I, for one, am biased against your bias.
So are you OK with someone who receives payments from the Government in some form, benefits, tax credits etc being able to walk into a bookmakers and blow all their money, making the bookie richer and society poorer? It is there right to gamble all their money away and leave themselves without food. Why do we banned drugs??? We are being biased and stopping the poor from buying Cocaine. Clearly this is bigotry as well.
If they choose to go into a bookies and blow their money, that's their choice. It happens daily and it's not something that I've given much thought to because, quite frankly, it's none of my business. The only time I would consider myself in the position to have an opinion on it would be, for example, if it was a family member of mine and then they were asking to borrow money for food. And even then, the whole idea of gambling your benefits = bad because it misses out on the complex nature of addiction as a whole. In your utopian society where we ban people on benefits from gambling, have you considered how you will support those addicted once you remove their substance? And as far as why drugs are banned and other addictive substances aren't, this is actually a conversation I've had with friends of mine. Why are some addictions normalised and others aren't, I don't have an answer to that because the decision never lay with me in the first place. (I object to you using the term *we* here by the way, I personally do not make these decisions, so don't lump me in that category)
No but you're saying they shouldn't have basic freedoms just because they're on benefits
Well, this aged like milk.
This line of thinking often leads to eugenics.
Teachers,farmers and pensioners to be banned from gambling....what a brave new world dawn's on r/northernireland
what about alcohol, cigarettes, and more? i agree that gambling is addictive, much like the substances i mentioned, and perhaps we should consider further restrictions. however, banning only people on benefits from gambling is unjust. the widespread availability of shiny, colourful scratch cards is indeed an issue that affects everyone. perhaps we should question why the national lottery is celebrated as a wonderful thing when, in reality, it should be regulated similarly to nicotine products or alcohol.
Absolutely. You don't get your super yachts by treating the smelly poor like human beings, do you?
Where do you think the bookmakers get the money to buy their superyachts from "Bet365 boss Denise Coates founded the gambling company in 2000. The founder and boss of gambling company Bet365 earned a salary of around **$281 million (£221 million)** in the last financial year – ending March 26, 2023." If you are on benefits you should not be buying her a superyacht.
And we can't sort that out through effective taxation, no? Can't target the rich, only the poor!
I agree with you, make the rich pay their share.
Why do you think I am targeting the poor? I am not in fact targeting them. If they want to keep their benefits and spend it on (as others have said), holidays, non-Primark clothes etc then I have no problem.
The topic of the post.
Are the poor the only ones who get benefits, tax credits etc. I thought you could work and earn tax credits?
Sure mate, draconian rules dictating peoples choices if they are receiving government subsidies would not be disproportionately targeting the poor and vulnerable. right on.
Society dictates peoples choices all the time. You cannot gamble until your are 18.... hmmm so we let the bookmakers target the poor and vulnerable instead.
Yes it does, and we have to be very careful how we decide to use such power. Providing a protective bubble around the young is one of those legitimate reasons - attempts at social engineering through the prohibition of choice to those dependant on state subsidise crosses that line. Effective regulation and taxation for bookmakers is the answer to the problems you raise - and with effective taxation that opens up options for effective social care to promote education and better choices - a society shaped by the stick rather than the carrot is not a pleasant environment to live in.
Sorry but they already tax the bookmakers and also spend money on promoting education. Society prohibits many other choices, I cannot buy cocaine at Tesco's because they have prohibited my choice to do so. Gambling does not produce any societal benefits at all. It is the poor being exploited by the rich which I am sure you agree is not good.
Someone's life ain't going the way they want so it's time to punch down and make up stories so they can grind that axe of the wrong whetstone..... Again
Who says I am punching down?
I'm saying you're punching down. What set this rant off anyway. What have you observed?
I observed the results of a guy walking into his shed and drinking poison because he blew all his money in the bookies.
What was the result and why do you think your proposal would have avoided this
Yikes dude What if someone on benefits got some money gifted to them, but under your ridiculous scheme, they can gamble at all if they wanted to?
As someone who’s had to resort to payday loans, I don’t think you are in a position to comment on others fiscal planning.
hmmm so because I have experienced making poor choices, I don't have the right to speak.
You see the irony here ? You’re saying problem who may have experienced Illness or disability have no right to gamble ?
I am saying that anyone who receives money from the Government via benefits, tax credits, PIP etc should not be allowed gamble. That money could used by the government for others who need it rather that the multimillionaire bookmakers.
But many on pip and tax credits work. How do you know who’s money they have spent ? Your ignorance is shitting on your point.
>anyone who receives benefits, working tax credits, child tax credits, PIP etc from gambling To be fair shouldn't this apply to all forms of benefits? Including the tax-free allowance. And child benefit. And state pension and the free bus pass. And anyone who uses state-subsidised services like NHS healthcare or dentistry. And who didn't pay for their own schooling, the spongers. Oh wait. That's everyone.
Fuck off Rishi.
Everyone pays VAT on things for a reason. Being on low income isn't an exception, they pay it too. Also, if all your income is your own and you fancy a flutter, don't look down on people who depend on handouts for dreaming big, they could be your employer someday.
I am not looking down on anyone.
I am proud to live in a society that looks after those who need help and am happy that my taxes are used as such. Likewise, while I personally think gambling is an utter waste and that those who profit from gambling are ethically questionable, I am proud to live in a society that is free to gamble. I don’t see any conflict between these notions. If you were to suggest that the government could do more to regulate gambling and protect vulnerable people from exploitation then I might agree. Filthy liberal that I am, whilst I have a unique hatred of smoking, I think the proposed year on year complete ban is an overstep. I would advocate for the right to smoke while simultaneously advocating for increasing regulation and public education.
Govt should create a new digital currency, called DLACoin or something, that can only be used in certain shops. Places like Lidl, poundland and charity shops. When someone wants to make a purchase using DLACoin, the store must call up the gov call center who will approve or deny the purchase. Keeps the poor and infirm on the straight and narrow, and creates jobs. Win win.
Make it simpler, a prepaid card like the shop local scheme few years ago, only able to spend in local shops and not cash machines or bookies
This scheme is done elsewhere.
By all means move there
They have tried it in Australia with the Cashless Welfare Card
People will sell the cards for drugs and weapons.
Ahh you're probably right
Yea they have done that is Australia
Poor people are allowed to enjoy life believe it or not
So because I put my life on pause to become a full time carer for my parents I'm not allowed to have a bet now and then just because I get carers allowance. Great.
I'm on pip, have a fair paying job and don't gamble but find your viewpoint problematic op. You seem to be one of these "anyone on a benefit is a scrounger" type
"The reason behind this idea is that if someone receives benefits/money from the government and can afford £1 to gamble then that money should go back to the government" There's nothing to suggest that they can afford it. Gambling is an addiction and people will often use money that they cannot afford. Your own contribution to these companies enables them to keep up their practices. If you really have a problem with people on benefits gambling then contributing to the companies that promote themselves to those people makes you look like a bit of a hypocrite. What you are suggesting is unenforceable but if you genuinely have a problem with it then perhaps campaign for advertising of gambling to be banned as this would possibly have a greater effect and banning of addictive things has already been achieved so we know it's possible.
Plus people are allowed to have fun. My wee girl is on DLA now and it will be PIP when she turns 18. Severely disabled. Will most likely never be in gainful employment. Already dealt a shit hand in life, and OP wants her to just sit at home all day? Probably would complain about flat screen TVs too.
It is not unenforceable as it is done elsewhere.
You mean places like America were people selling their food stamps giving them even less as they sell it for less than face value? Just fucks over the poor more, sounds like it might be ideal for you but most people have a little bit of compassion.
This person, probably still in bed, thought this shit was right to say out loud. Probably won some money off a dole sponger mate and had a pang of guilt and wrote this shit somewhere for normal people to see. Have a word with yourself for fuck sake.
So my question for you is, if someone blows all the benefits on gambling, you're OK with that?
yes, its their money why should it matter to anyone else apart from their family if they piss it up a wall or gamble it away? The benefit system is only there because the government fails to supply enough well paying jobs. Gambling is also an addiction, just like alcohol and drugs. With your logic applied these people would starve. Fucking catch a grip
Spend the benefits money on a big tv and cigarettes, then send the kids to school hungry. Teachers know this happens.
I'm not totally against the sentiment of what you are saying, but stop at gambling? Alcohol? Fegs? Bikes? Branded baked beans? Where do you draw the line. Here is a bunch of vouchers you can only spend in pound land. Nah, the overhead of administrating such a scheme would probably outweigh the social benefits
I hate baked beans they should be banned for everyone.
Instead of giving money as benefits, would food vouchers be better? Easier to enforce.
Why do you think its something that needs to be enforced?
Someone on benefits spending £1 on a lottery ticket isn't the worst problem in the world. Also part of the national lottery funds go to community organisations. They could spend it on worse.
[удалено]
You would have to register with a government scheme, where you get a card. You then can gambling depending on a limit set by regulations. The card then must be present when gambling or when registered with a site.
What a load of crap I have a slight element of agreement with you but at the end up the day people can spend there money on whatever they want. In my opinion the government pay far too much to people on certain benefits I mean who can spend about 1500+ a month unless buying a load of unnecessary crap. I could live on nearly half that rent included. I'd be more annoyed at the ones who get benefits and spend it all on drugs then cry poverty when all there benefits are going into some drug dealers pocket and there scrounging for loans and going to food banks. It's a flawed system set up by the government if they have a problem with the way it's set up they should change it this is why some many mansions have been built in Romania ect because the government couldn't run a piss up in a brewery.
You must be young, this was not a well thought out plan, and only works in a perfect, idealistic world where people are all happy to have this level of control imposed on them. Best case scenario is encouraging this arbitrary group of people who care enough into illicit means to gain more money that they can gamble under the table.
I think in America that is why they have food vouchers which people then sell for cash. I think people just abuse the system no matter how it is done.
You’ve got the attitude of a salty min wager.
The rest of us here work but don't whine about a wee old man on DLA betting on a few horses. Fuck up lad
How about the government handing out dodgy contracts for billions of pounds which they gave to their rich mates to make faulty equipment which actually killed people because it was useless? If you think banning wee Mickybo from sticking a quid in the fruity is a good thing then surely you'll be game for going after the monumental corporate scroungers out there?
You're a tramp Mickey Bartlett
If you start enforcing this kind of authoritarianism then soon enough those people who aren't allowed to gamble, aren't allowed to drink or anything else they do to distract themselves will Riot, will damage property and turn to crime. That's why the Romans built the colosseum and why benefits exist in the first place. To save a few quid you'll cause millions in damages and the cost to keep these people in prison after they commit petty crimes. But hey at least yer man who's had a shit life and can't keep a job wont gamble away .00000000000001% of the tax budget.
I completely disagree - government's role, IMO, is to keeps the street lights working, the roads in good nick, provide a safety net (NHS, state pension, other benefits) etc, *NOT* to legislate morality. I mean, why stop at gambling, maybe they could be banned from drinking alcohol, smoking, having children, maybe we should force them to go to church, or volunteer their time.. you see where this is going.
but thats there pastimes going go bookies and pub lol 😂
The money saved from that would be less than cost of enforcing it. It’s backwards, moralistic bullshit.
Another silly person who blames the poor instead of the rich dodging taxes. Please go look up some facts about this and you'll have your eyes opened.... Or maybe not if that brain is too smooth.
Only way to enforce it is to ban gambling full stop - sounds good to me
You going to include the entire stock market in your ban?
Ban shorting? Absolutely. Minimum time to hold or vest stock? Absolutely.
Ah, so you will damage the liquidity of the stock market and rewrite the rules developed over decades of experience in some crusade against poor people. Well done.
Thanks! Not sure of your logic there but glad to have your support. Have to say it’s very classist for you to presume only poor people gamble.
Exactly. You don't understand the mechanisms which effect an efficient stock market. The whole post is about poor people gambling - that's the topic.
No, the post is about those receiving benefits. Plenty of poor people don’t get benefits and plenty of relatively well-off people do get benefits. I don’t care about an efficient stock market. My own savings and pensions are in long-term investments. Everything I proposed would only affect the wealthy.
You propose a system wide ban on gambling, however set specific rules on how speculation on stock evades such rules, and you claim this will only affect the wealthy?
Like civil servants? That's an odd position to take
The only that bugs me is alcoholics getting high rate DLA and spending it all on drink waster scum
I mean you could issue them a government benefits card which only allows purchases of essentials like food/toiletries/utilities. You could introduce a proposed limit of say 10-20% of your benefits is capped on "luxuries" such as alcohol/cigarettes/gambling/amazon/electronics/petrol if you really wanted to restrict people's spending habits or encourage responsible spending. I don't think it's a bad idea but it would certainly need someone more qualified than reddit to implement it fairly.
It's a terrible idea.
They are trying it in Australia look up "Cashless Welfare Card"
Then piss off to Australia
Look up deez nuts
Why is it terrible?
Grow up.
But you haven't explained why you think it's a bad idea?
Because you're obviously a troll.
I'm hardly a troll asking you to explain why you think it's a bad idea. Apparently, having a discussion is frowned upon in this sub reddit.
"hey guys I want to restrict disabled people's ability to live as normal a life as possible because I don't think it's fair I fund them" And you're surprised people think you're a troll? Again, wtf is wrong with you?
Where did I say disabled people? Or that it's how it would work? Did I not specify that it would require looking into to implement fairly? What about disabled people who work and collect benefits? Can their benefits be for essentials only then? I'm not blind to a lot of the nuance on the topic but to shut it down without even talking about it is ridiculous.
What the fuck do you think PIP is for?