Should welfare recipients live "comfortably"?

everyday taxi

Will start this debate by pointing out that there is no agenda! My views on welfare are moderate...its badly needed by some, and abused by others. Its an honest question, and i hope for good honest debate. Should a recipient of social welfare live comfortably?

p.s Mods, if its posted in wrong section, apologies.. and edit accordingly.

Laminations

What do you mean by comfortable? Ill assume to know and answer - Yes but welfare fraud should be tackled. Don't think we should leave people to live 'uncomfortably' but we should encourage them and help them be self sustaining and independent

everyday taxi

Laminations wrote: »

What do you mean by comfortable? Ill assume to know and answer - Yes but welfare fraud should be tackled. Don't think we should leave people to live 'uncomfortably' but we should encourage them and help them be self sustaining and independent

I see what you mean. Defenitions vary. Im trying to get my own head around that bit. I feel if they are "comfortable" enough...why bother trying to seek work? (not judging btw, just asking).

zeds alive

I'm on welfare(in college BTEA) and living comfortable for me is being able to get a decent weeks shopping and heat the house , wash my clothes and pay my utilities , I don't go out to restaurants/take aways , nor do I go to bars drinking. Should I not be able to do this?

RichardAnd

A person who has paid tax and who now finds themselves unemployed should be allowed to live with dignity and in relative comfort.

sollar

It should be comfortable until your stamps run out then it should get less and less comfortable every 6 months after that.

P. Breathnach

sollar wrote: »

It should be comfortable until your stamps run out then it should get less and less comfortable every 6 months after that.

Until?

Laminations

RichardAnd wrote: »

A person who has paid tax and who now finds themselves unemployed should be allowed to live with dignity and in relative comfort.

What about a person who has never paid tax because they never worked because they never went to school because their parents neglected them? Everyone should be given a helping hand, not indefinitely. A welfare system rather than a welfare state

Lumbo

RichardAnd wrote: »

A person who has paid tax and who now finds themselves unemployed should be allowed to live with dignity and in relative comfort.

I totally agree with this. On the other hand, if someone has been unemployed over a long period of time, their benefit should be cut to motivate them to try and get back into the work force.

The majority of people unfortuate enough to have lost their job, aren't unemployed by choice but even during the Celtic Tiger we'd about 100,000 receiving benefits. I know someone who hardly worked during the boom, he didn't live like a king but was never interested in getting off his arse to do a days work.

TT09

Does anyone know the figures for how many foreign nationals are claimants of s.w payments?

francie81

RichardAnd wrote: »

A person who has paid tax and who now finds themselves unemployed should be allowed to live with dignity and in relative comfort.

And that person 'x' has the right to say am 'entitled' to welfare and fully understands the meaning behind welfare, so again 'fraud' needs to be tackled resulting in severe penalties.

dan_d

"Comfortable" is very subjective.

They should certainly be able to eat, and have light and heat. And keep a roof over their heads - or at least contribute to that.

But you will find those out there (well ok, around here) who are of the opinion that the minute you're on the dole you should have no TV - either the set, or the cable - no internet, no car, no phone, nothing.And who don't accept that these might actually be necessities for some people. Internet for job hunting, car to get places due to lack of public transport, and TV because it's the only entertainment you can afford.

Certainly the idea of the payments reducing over time is a viable one.

And I should point out here that I'm on the dole.

Your point is odd Laminations.While I accept that there are those out there who just never got the chances I did, why do you think it would be acceptable to help these people long term? Given the amount of courses FAS seem to throw at people who are in this sort of a position, I'm not sure I would agree with them receiving state aid in lieu of a job, for their lives. Surely it's not too much to expect that they could bring themselves to some level of education, find some sort of job to keep going with?

I will say that I was in one of the...."poorer" areas of the city in recent weeks, looking at a group of 16/17/18 year olds walking down the road. Now I admit I may have jumped to a couple of conclusions, but as I looked at them, I couldn't help but think the following....firstly, that it was 11am in the morning on a school morning; secondly that at least 2 of them were of school going age; thirdly, that they obviously weren't in college (assumption, I will admit), and fourthly..as they went into a complex of council flats....they're probably still living with their parents. If they've dropped out of school, aren't in college and obviously aren't working, how on earth will they afford to buy a house, or just move out? Which led further to...how do people (or lads) like that manage to live, how do they get houses, how do they afford the (labelled) clothes on their backs...oh yeah...the state provides them with everything. Surely that's very wrong...

I only say the above because that was the train of thought on the morning, and I know there were a couple of assumptions in there. But still. Those lads are not really going anywhere - but they're not trying all that hard either. And how many others are there out there like that? I just don't think we can keep supporting that.

paddy0090

Laminations wrote: »

What about a person who has never paid tax because they never worked because they never went to school because their parents neglected them? Everyone should be given a helping hand, not indefinitely. A welfare system rather than a welfare state

You mean a waster? What about someone whose parents did love them and didn't neglect them and they never worked because playstation was more fun? The welfare system can't account for the love deficit in Irish families and it's not supposed to. It's a stabiliser to help people stay on there feet or get back on them.

Many do live quite comfortably not becasue of what they recieve but because they work as well. I don't hold it against them because I don't think it's an end in itself more a means to it. You couldn't save too much money on the dole and basically you're living hand to mouth. I was on the dole myself once and it's a bad way to live doing nothing for so long.

Laminations

Dan_d, re-read my post, I said not indefinitely.

In a developed country, everyone should be able to live comfortably and with dignity, regardless of their status.

I think they're (Govt... well, last govt.) doing OK to be honest. Reducing the amount received by welfare recipients a little bit each year is a good way to lower it without people going crazy, but also giving them 12 months to comfortably adjust their budget downards and prepare for the future budget.

It's what? €188 for average recipient these days, from €196, and before that, €204. A drop of €8 per year seems the norm. If they continue that trend surely everyone could be happy enough?

It's other things that need to fall in line, too, though, and none of this "if you're a certain age you get less/more" bullsiht. Has the pension been reduced yet? If not, that should fall in line with Welfare payments.

If we all get poorer together, at the same time, we can all continue to live comfortably

wonderfulname

I think it should be relative, welfare should ensure that someone has a roof over their head, food in their belly and clothes on their back. However much money it takes to provide someone with that should be met relative to where they were at when they became unemployed (i.e. their home should not be in jeopardy nor children affected for a reasonable period of time in which a person could be re-employed), the dole is pittance to some, and will do little to cover outgoings which it may not be possible to immediately curtail, yet for others its more than they could ever need.
However someone on welfare should not be able to afford luxuries, and if a person fails to gain work and cannot show that they did everything in their power to find it food stamps it is.

later12

There are entire textbooks written on this question, and it is one that has as much basis in philosophy as it does in welfare economics, therefore leading to fuzzy answers and equally fuzzy public policy.

So, while avoiding all of the morality of this issue, I have to say that my biggest concern when it comes to public policy on welfare is what is referred to in economics as the distributive efficiency. This is a question not so much about nominally assigning welfare, but of how efficiently welfare is assigned and resources are, therefore, maximised.

In Ireland, we have a tragic situation whereby, if we consider child benefit, distributive efficiency is avoided by giving way to a universal system of distribution. Many voters actively support avoiding assignation based on the distributive efficiency of welfare, thereby, arguably, taking away from those most in need. In many ways, we could probably apply this loss of efficiency to individuals across the social welfare system including, most outrageously in my opinion, the elderly.

paddy0090

It's other things that need to fall in line, too, though, and none of this "if you're a certain age you get less/more" bullsiht. Has the pension been reduced yet? If not, that should fall in line with Welfare payments.

I agreed with you when they started making this change but increasingly I think it makes sense with regard to what dan_d said. If someone is young fit and healthy and starting out in life, an entitled to full welfare payments and only serves to dampen self reliance and diminish the importance of education and self improvement.

murphaph

In Germany anyway living on Hartz IV (what you get after 1 year of unemployment) is certainly not comfortable. You get €354 a month and rent paid in a small flat and your health insurance (compulsory in Germany) is paid. You must accept work (including public service work like sweeping the streets!) offered by the job centre or your €354 will be CUT! If you totally opt out and refuse to cooperate with the job centre they will eventually cut you off completely and you will end up on the streets. It's a system that generally encourages people to work anyway.

Cathal01

Off topic but surely instead of so much focus on social welfare the focus should be on the "single mother" issue. Women getting pregnant and the state paying for absolutely everything, and in other cases claiming to be single when they have a partner with a relatively good income. These are the people really creaming the state. If you can't afford to have children, don't have them. End of. Becoming unemployed is a different matter. Choosing to have a child when you don't have the funds is blatantly ridiculous and completely unsustainable in the modern world.
Also, the government needs to establish some legislation with regard to early school leavers i.e itinerants. They have to stop letting people such as itinerants just leave school with no qualifications whatsoever and just claim benefits immediately and for the rest of their lives. You can have your culture, but others shouldn't be paying for it.

The government should also establish training programmes where people must do work experience and courses in exchange for their social welfare, and if this is not an option then something along the lines of Australia, where they (as far as I understand) work in Greenpeace programmes and clean up local areas. And FAS doesn't count because it's an absolute shambles.

The problem with making people clean the place up is that it hurts people already doing those jobs.

That said, I do think that County councils should sit down, discuss their budget, issues ahead of them, etc. and figure out what they absolutely, outrightly, can not afford to do. These jobs should then be passed on to welfare recipients, as that way it doesn't really hurt anyone.

Though, I do strongly believe that such positions should be handed primarily to people with criminal records or who are known for anti-social behaviour to the Gardaì etc. The normal, decent people shouldn't be chased until the scumbags have done it first (in my opinion).


For example, our local Aura Leisure Centre is a Council building, made predominantly of glass;



You'd be lucky to get through three days without having to replace multiple windows. I'm forever hearing of the windows being smashed (and then the scumbags using the broken windows as entry to the building to wreck the inside).

These are the kinda people that should be targetted with welfare decreases, community employment and other such roles.


Sorry if that turned into a bit of a rant.

Amhran Nua

Lumbo wrote: »

The majority of people unfortuate enough to have lost their job, aren't unemployed by choice but even during the Celtic Tiger we'd about 100,000 receiving benefits. I know someone who hardly worked during the boom, he didn't live like a king but was never interested in getting off his arse to do a days work.

Those in long term unemployment were about half that however, including those on disability. Not for nothing was it said that we had near full employment during the bubble. The knives are out for the unemployed these days, but if the jobs were there people would work. For most of them, their position is not their fault, and there but for the grace of the deity of your choosing go you and I.

I believe it is society's duty to maintain them in a humane manner and promote further education and opportunities for the unemployed to get back on their feet. Workfare is not a solution, or even a reasonable response, except perhaps in the most egregious cases.

Balmed Out

Whats the story with people who have lost their jobs and have large mortgages to pay?
Do they get a "rent allowance" similar to those who dont have a mortgage.
I presume savings are taken into account in deciding ho much people are entitled to?
Where do you draw the line?, is it fair someone sitting on a valuable asset and drawing the dole?

RichardAnd

Laminations wrote: »

What about a person who has never paid tax because they never worked because they never went to school because their parents neglected them? Everyone should be given a helping hand, not indefinitely. A welfare system rather than a welfare state

Sorry, what I meant by that was that people who are in difficulty through no fault of their own should get a proper helping hand.

murphaph

Deleted User wrote: »

These are the kinda people that should be targetted with welfare decreases, community employment and other such roles.

I'd say these people should be sent to prison tbh

Raskolnikov

Balmed Out wrote: »

Whats the story with people who have lost their jobs and have large mortgages to pay?

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/supplementary_welfare_schemes/mortgage_interest_supplement.html

Basically, you can get part of the interest on your mortgage paid for a short-term period, subject to quite a few terms and conditions.

danbohan

RichardAnd wrote: »

Sorry, what I meant by that was that people who are in difficulty through no fault of their own should get a proper helping hand.

a helping hand yes , not rolled in cotton wool . on the pat kenny show today their was welfare recipients looking to get additional money for maternity wear and another an outsize bra , i had to check see it was not april 1 again , crazy country . everybody is whining about bankers and developers etc , generational spongers like those are as bad or worse in my opinion

RichardAnd

danbohan wrote: »

a helping hand yes , not rolled in cotton wool . on the pat kenny show today their was welfare recipients looking to get additional money for maternity wear and another an outsize bra , i had to check see it was not april 1 again , crazy country . everybody is whining about bankers and developers etc , generational spongers like those are as bad or worse in my opinion

Yes wasters on the dole shouldn't be tolerated but I wasn't talking about them, I was talking about genuine people who can't help the situation they are in.

robd

Probably a more important question for the times we live in is how comfortable can we afford to make welfare recipients. What we can definitely deduce from our 14 billion current account deficit is not as comfortable as at present.

FF's response over the last decade was grossly irresponsible. Due to the low levels (circa 4.5%) they just threw money at the problem, rather than trying to correct the problem of long term unemployment etc. They wholesale bought elections by paying off the pensioners. Once money is given it's very very tough to ask for it back (reduce it) as that money contributes to inflation and things have suddenly got far more expensive.

Spudmonkey

My big problem is that its indefinate. A French lad that works with me couldn't get his head around this.

It should be phased out over time and those that have paid in longer should get more. Thats fair.

murphaph

murphaph wrote: »

I'd say these people should be sent to prison tbh

Yeah, but our country's incompetent judicial system will ensure they are free to break windows for as long as they like without ever facing any real charges or issues.

Oh_Noes

Social welfare is there to maintain the welfare of society. If you start trying to force people into working in a society where there are no jobs, you'll end up with probably a huge percentage of them turning to the black economy and crime. That would basically mean that everyone in society will live less comfortably, job or no job.

Most sensible people living off welfare payments wil figure out how to be prudent and how best to feed themselves and their family and keep a roof over their head. The people who aren't so sensible won't be bothered trying to balance the books. They'll just rob your car instead, or your house, or mug your granny. So you end up with a situation where a lot more people are victims of crime and those previously recieving welfare will now be recipients of prison accomodation, which in my understanding has a considerablly higher cost to the public. This circle will continue until we've spent all our shiney bailout money (and saved welfare budget) on building prisons and maintaning them. Then when we have no more money, and can't payback the Euros, the prison system will fall apart.

We will then be living in a society of high walls, organised vigilante gangs, multiple robbings/kidnappings/muders everyday.

A bit like aparteid-era South Africa. Sound Good?

(Maybe this post should be in conspiracy theories :pac: )

Spudmonkey

Oh_Noes wrote: »

They'll just rob your car instead, or your house, or mug your granny. So you end up with a situation where a lot more people are victims of crime and those previously recieving welfare will now be recipients of prison accomodation, which in my understanding has a considerablly higher cost to the public. This circle will continue until we've spent all our shiney bailout money (and saved welfare budget) on building prisons and maintaning them. Then when we have no more money, and can't payback the Euros, the prison system will fall apart.

Paying taxes which go to welfare to effectively pay people off for not committing crime is not much of an option to be honest.

You have:

A) Give people money for welfare
Have them break into your house

Thanks but no thanks.

not yet

TT09 wrote: »

Does anyone know the figures for how many foreign nationals are claimants of s.w payments?

tut tut thats not up for debate..............we have enough spongers of or own

Spudmonkey

not yet wrote: »

tut tut thats not up for debate..............we have enough spongers of or own

You're right. If someone has contributed they are entitled to some assistance regardless of nationality. I don't get this xenophobia.

paddy0090

The jobs 'iniatitive' will likely introduce some kind of workfare system. I don't like it because its just free labour for the employers, and it will be open to all sorts of abuse. "Thanks" "bye" "next". Spongin' off tax payers.

That said, all those people who worked in the bloated construction sector are going to have to be moved on to greener pastures. All the major roads have been built and there aren't any major infrastructure projects left. It will help some people.

As for the wasters, I don't think they'd sooner rob someone rather show up for a few weeks at a job they've no intention of doing properly. They'll do just enough.

P. Breathnach

RichardAnd wrote: »

Sorry, what I meant by that was that people who are in difficulty through no fault of their own should get a proper helping hand.

We could employ thousands of people to assess how much fault attaches to each person in difficult circumstances; and thousands more to deal with the necessary appeals procedure.

blackwolf

The goverment should just give them what they need in voucher form so the money isnt going on what is not needed

tesco vouchers for food
esb and gas tokens for meters

They should also have to do community service a few hours a week

Oh_Noes

blackwolf wrote: »

The goverment should just give them what they need in voucher form so the money isnt going on what is not needed

tesco vouchers for food
esb and gas tokens for meters

They should also have to do community service a few hours a week

I fancy a few drinks this weekend. I ate at my friend's house. I'll sell you my €25 tesco voucher for €22 and pints are on me!

See how your idea is completely useless?

Godge

Oh_Noes wrote: »

Social welfare is there to maintain the welfare of society. If you start trying to force people into working in a society where there are no jobs, you'll end up with probably a huge percentage of them turning to the black economy and crime. That would basically mean that everyone in society will live less comfortably, job or no job.

Most sensible people living off welfare payments wil figure out how to be prudent and how best to feed themselves and their family and keep a roof over their head. The people who aren't so sensible won't be bothered trying to balance the books. They'll just rob your car instead, or your house, or mug your granny. So you end up with a situation where a lot more people are victims of crime and those previously recieving welfare will now be recipients of prison accomodation, which in my understanding has a considerablly higher cost to the public. This circle will continue until we've spent all our shiney bailout money (and saved welfare budget) on building prisons and maintaning them. Then when we have no more money, and can't payback the Euros, the prison system will fall apart.

We will then be living in a society of high walls, organised vigilante gangs, multiple robbings/kidnappings/muders everyday.

A bit like aparteid-era South Africa. Sound Good?

(Maybe this post should be in conspiracy theories :pac: )

Assume you were ironic but you know, maybe.

As for the rest of your points, not so straightforward and assumes a certain motivation and athat people are not jail-averse. A simplification. The problem with the welfare trap is that even genuine attempts to solve it can backfire due to the law of unintended consequences.

For example, take one nutty suggestion that says anyone on the dole who gets a job should be allowed keep the dole for 10 weeks as well as dole payment. Under the law of unintedned conseuences, people will do 10 weeks work, 10 weeks dole, 10 weeks dole plus work. End up much better off but if they keep that cycle people will be worse off.

The main problem is that so many people with so many different situations are on welfare! It's impossible to find one size fits all.
Still overall, I think it should probably be reduced gradually to some very low point - not cut off entirely. Get rid of rent allowance or at least make it a smaller amount.

I liked the plan outlined by one of the posters suggesting that councils should discuss budgets/capabilities in advance and pass the rest onto SW recipients.

and TV because it's the only entertainment you can afford.

Isn't the library a wonderful thing? :pac:

danbohan

RichardAnd wrote: »

Yes wasters on the dole shouldn't be tolerated but I wasn't talking about them, I was talking about genuine people who can't help the situation they are in.

, unfortunately i know of many genuine people who were self employed who have had no option but to emigrate in last year because they were not entitled to anything or were put through so many hoops they just gave up and left . they dont know the system like our sponger friends .

jester77

RichardAnd wrote: »

A person who has paid tax and who now finds themselves unemployed should be allowed to live with dignity and in relative comfort.

That's why you keep a rainy day fund. Welfare imo is just an emergency arrangement to tide you over until you are back in employment. Comfortable is subjective, but to me I would see comfortable as a disincentive for a lot of people to bother looking for work.

I prefer the system here in Germany. You get 66% of your last wage for 1 year and after that you are on Hartz IV. You have to use up any savings you have and if your apt is too big you will have to downsize as they will not cover the costs.

jester77

jester77 wrote: »

That's why you keep a rainy day fund. Welfare imo is just an emergency arrangement to tide you over until you are back in employment. Comfortable is subjective, but to me I would see comfortable as a disincentive for a lot of people to bother looking for work.

I prefer the system here in Germany. You get 66% of your last wage for 1 year and after that you are on Hartz IV. You have to use up any savings you have and if your apt is too big you will have to downsize as they will not cover the costs.

I think germany has far more of a renting culture than we do, but what about mortgage holders?

Gloomtastic!

There are 2,000,000 people in the UK on incapacity benefit (not counted as unemployed but not working). 80,000 of those claim they can't work because they are obese, an alcoholic or a drug addict.
We are not alone!

tommy21

Well its great for once to see a level-headed interesting discussion, rather than the all out hysteria and bickering that normally occurs! My own opinion is that everyone who needs it should be granted SW, enough to live "comfortably" - as someone above said, I see this as having a roof over your head, money for food and utilities, petrol etc. Obviously if you can afford to buy all the latest gadgets then its too much.

I also agree that social welfare should begin to scale off over time. So a ten percent drop or something to that effect every 6 months. This would force the "lifers" to get work. Obviously when there are not as many jobs out there this could be problematic, so I think they should introduce a scheme where you work for your pay in order to keep getting it. So this might be carrying out government projects e.g. building, general upkeep etc. getting ghost estates up to scratch so that people can be accomodated there rather the gov. spending a fortune to put the less fortunate up. We own the estates after all now! Plenty of other areas that could be doled (:p) out depending on a person's skills. So an accountant might be alloted to help out a charity, an architect to help design a new school building etc.

Secondly they should crack down on SW fraud, but make the system more user friendly. I am currently on casual job seekers allowance, so I try to get 2 days a week (more the very odd time) and am paid for the days I do not work. While I am not so inclined, I can see that it is just too easy to scam the system, be it not declaring days worked, holidays, cash in hand jobs (within reason, realistically I know people must do what they have to, to survive, I am talking major sources of income paid under the table). As well as this, part of the problem is that the SW make it so unattractive for someone to go the extra mile to get work - e.g. you can get a temporary short-term job, so you get signed off, and then have to start all over again.

Just my two cents.

jester77

bluewolf wrote: »

I think germany has far more of a renting culture than we do, but what about mortgage holders?

From this link, they describe the criteria required to meet Hartz IV

Persons receive Hartz IV benefits if they fulfil the following criteria:

• employment-capable person, in need of support, aged from 15 to 65 years. One is employment capable if one's state of health allows working at least 3 hours a day. One is in need of support if one cannot make a living just with one's income or assets. Thus, also those persons are in need of support who do have an income from some work, while that income just does not cover the needs for a living; may also be for self-employed

So it looks like you have to sell any property that you own as it is in the list of what counts as assets that can support you.

Tipp Man

I think welfare recipients are very lucky to be getting double what we can actually afford to give them (and not just the cash but all the other benifits as well)

blackwolf

Oh_Noes wrote: »

I fancy a few drinks this weekend. I ate at my friend's house. I'll sell you my €25 tesco voucher for €22 and pints are on me!

See how your idea is completely useless?

Yeah but the idea could be worked with

blackwolf

blackwolf wrote: »

Yeah but the idea could be worked with

Not really. The biggest problem is the vouchers; where can they be spent?

Surely giving people Tesco vouchers is signalling an end to Dunnes, Penneys, etc. as they will lose massive amounts of trade to people who can now only shop in Tesco.


Also, unless Tesco start selling cocaine and heroine over the counter, you've got your scumbags with no money, who will need to target working people to get their actual cash flow running again, so you've a massive increase in crime (this is made particularly worse when you realise the Gardaì are essentially useless as they are at the moment, but even at that, their budget and numbers are set to be reduced in future).


I don't mind someone on Welfare having a laptop, iPod, gym membership or other such 'luxury' items (so long as they can't afford to be buying such stuff every week, you should need to save obviously) as these purchases are good for stores who sell such products.


On top of that, you have to realise that this is Ireland; the country where nothing works the way it's supposed to. A voucher system being introduced would require a lot of money to set up, with a lot of people in charge of it, and it'd have to be given trial runs so they could get the kinks worked out of it and it'd generally just end up costing too much, in my opinion.

Bannasidhe

I am always amused how some posters on threads like this throw around phrases like 'sponger' and 'get a job' - get a job where?

In 2009 both myself,OH and adult son were employed. By Jan 2010 my lecturing contract with a university was terminated due to cut-backs, my son was let go by the multinational he worked for and OH took a 15% cut in wages - works in retail sector. Son has had to move in with us as, even with rent allowance, he cannot afford a place that would allow him to have his children every second weekend. So we have 3 adults, 2 of whom get 186 euro a week,trying to pay mortgage ( no help with that!), run 2 cars (one for OH to get to work 30 km away - the other needed to collect/return children as they now live 100km away) and all the other costs of a modest 'lifestyle' (i.e. go out twice a year funded by the coin jar). Both son and myself could wallpaper a room with rejection letters....

We are part of those with no option but to claim SW - we are just managing to pay the bills. I would love to get a job - it doesn't even have to be the one I spent 7 years in university qualifying for - 7 years in which I worked part-time and was lucky enough to win scholarships to fund my education.

Those who like to refer to 'spongers' need to wake up and smell the recession and while they are about it pray they are never forced to live on 186 euro a week while being told to 'get a job' or 'live off vouchers'!