German state bans unemployed from gambling

meditraitor

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0505/germany.html

Our German overlords have decided that they want to dictate how the unemployed can spend their money (the money the state gives them)....... watch out Paddy Power.

Whats next I wonder, a drink limit. 5 can purchase limit per week if your on the scratcher

Run_to_da_hills

Good Move

They will now gample their money dealing in drugs and other underworld activities

meditraitor

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Good Move

They will no gample their money dealing in drugs and other underworld activities

There ye are now, havent seen you in a while:D

I don't see a thing wrong with that. If they can afford to gamble, they shouldn't be on public assistance. Using money you didn't earn to try to win more money is unethical, IMO.

drunkmonkey

Time we brought back the ration books instead of banning people from doing things.

Mahatma coat

OK, Didnt Germany try something like that before, Totally regulatiung the lives of its citizens and arbitrarily deciding who was allowed to do certain things based on whatever flimsy bias they felty like, Twice IIRC

if you find yourself in favour of this, remember that.

Run_to_da_hills

In America some states are issuing smart card technology in dealing with welfare recipients. The cash cards which are valid in main stream retail outlets and will block the purchase of liqueur, cigarettes and anything else that is deemed unnecessary for basic living.

chunkylover4

Mahatma coat wrote: »

OK, Didnt Germany try something like that before, Totally regulatiung the lives of its citizens and arbitrarily deciding who was allowed to do certain things based on whatever flimsy bias they felty like, Twice IIRC

if you find yourself in favour of this, remember that.

Well No, just once and even then being unemployed wasn't an arbitrary category, being unwilling to seek work was, where people would turn down jobs

chunkylover4

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

In America some states are issuing smart card technology in dealing with welfare recipients. The cash cards which are valid in main stream retail outlets and will block the purchase of liqueur, cigarettes and anything else that is deemed unnecessary for basic living.

In a number of states you also have to take a drug test every few months to receive benefits. Of course many jobs require you to take a drug test aswell.

Run_to_da_hills

chunkylover4 wrote: »

In a number of states you also have to take a drug test every few months to receive benefits. Of course many jobs require you to take a drug test aswell.

Piss tests are a way of life in the States.

Eric Cartman

Good , this is something id like to see introduced here , about time

Monty Burnz

meditraitor wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0505/germany.html

Our German overlords have decided that they want to dictate how the unemployed can spend their money (the money the state gives them)....... watch out Paddy Power.

Well, actually it's the state's money, and the state gets it by taxing the workers. Presumably the idea is to stop wasters gambling away money they should be spending on their kids' food and clothes.

Sonnenblumen

meditraitor wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0505/germany.html

Our German overlords have decided that they want to dictate how the unemployed can spend their money (the money the state gives them)....... watch out Paddy Power.

Whats next I wonder, a drink limit. 5 can purchase limit per week if your on the scratcher

Makes sense, more similar initiatives should apply.

amjon.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

In America some states are issuing smart card technology in dealing with welfare recipients. The cash cards which are valid in main stream retail outlets and will block the purchase of liqueur, cigarettes and anything else that is deemed unnecessary for basic living.

Excellent idea

Companero

Using money you didn't earn to try to win more money is unethical, IMO.

Isnt that the entire basis of Capitalism?

swordofislam

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

In America some states are issuing smart card technology in dealing with welfare recipients. The cash cards which are valid in main stream retail outlets and will block the purchase of liqueur, cigarettes and anything else that is deemed unnecessary for basic living.

Where is that?

amjon.

Companero wrote: »

Isnt that the entire basis of Capitalism?

No, you're thinking about hedge funds.

Mahatma coat

Mahatma coat wrote: »

OK, Didnt Germany try something like that before, Totally regulatiung the lives of its citizens and arbitrarily deciding who was allowed to do certain things based on whatever flimsy bias they felty like, Twice IIRC

if you find yourself in favour of this, remember that.

Eh, I don't think this is exactly the same thing. And I don't understand the sense of entitlement here. When you earn your own money, you're free to spend it on whatever you want. When you rely on handouts, why should you be able to use it for gambling and partying? That's not what it's intended to fund. Anyone who can afford to gamble, go clubbing and smoke 40 a day does NOT need benefits and should not receive them.

Monty Burnz

Companero wrote: »

Isnt that the entire basis of Capitalism?

No. HTH.

Run_to_da_hills

swordofislam wrote: »

Where is that?

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/03/21/ebt-cards-update/

swordofislam

From link above thank you:
For example, most childless adults who cannot work due to an illness or disability receive $203 a month.

Woah!!

Read the link in OP don't think that it is workable. It is framed as a consumer protection law. Gambling needs to be controlled it is the most dangerous addiction (I speak as a regular gambler).

ShamoBuc

About time, think it should be brought in here, could you imagine it!!!

Coriolanus

Long term institutional unemployed shouldn't get cash anyway. Box of food, bag of coal. Beggars can't be choosers.

marcusgunn

Maybe these "interfering overlords" should stop interfering altogether and withdraw the free cash it hands out to the spongers every week.

Run_to_da_hills

Nevore wrote: »

Long term institutional unemployed shouldn't get cash anyway. Box of food, bag of coal. Beggars can't be choosers.

You forgot to mentionn the fcuking butter. :rolleyes:

amjon.

Avalynn Unkempt Mercury wrote: »

Eh, I don't think this is exactly the same thing. And I don't understand the sense of entitlement here. When you earn your own money, you're free to spend it on whatever you want. When you rely on handouts, why should you be able to use it for gambling and partying? That's not what it's intended to fund. Anyone who can afford to gamble, go clubbing and smoke 40 a day does NOT need benefits and should not receive them.

The core problem with your quoted post is a conflict of interests. You can be free or you can be equal but you cannot be both.
The poster wants an environment where he can do as he please - an environment with complete freedom to smoke, drink and gamble himself to oblivion - if he so wishes. Of course this freedom allows him to chose not work. This freedom is useless if he does not have money to fund said vices so he asks for equality. This equality will impinge on freedom in order to create a fair an equal environment - taxes are introduced to fund his daily excursions to the pub and later to the hospital to treat his chronic lung disease and liver failure.
The biggest tragedy here however is not the necrotic lung tissue nor is it the millions of squandered tax monies - it is the festering sense of self entitlement that grows out of such a environment indoctrinates the young with an ignorance and sense of injustice that dooms them to the same self marginalised existence of their parents.
As far as I can see this is an incredibly unfair system and any attempts by a government to disrupt this destructive cycle should be applauded not compared with a murderous regime that blighted the lives of millions.

ICE HOUSE

It will never work as long as welfare is paid in cash.
They can just give someone else the money to place the bet for them.

dvpower

Avalynn Unkempt Mercury wrote: »

I don't see a thing wrong with that. If they can afford to gamble, they shouldn't be on public assistance.

If they can manage their money so well that they have some left over for gambling (or any other leisure activity) they should be praised for their excellent money management skills.

Mike 1972

Im not convinced denying welfare recipients the right to spend their money in ways I might not approve of is a good idea although if their definition of "gambling" includes doing the Lotto I might be open to persuasion .............

dvpower wrote: »

If they can manage their money so well that they have some left over for gambling (or any other leisure activity) they should be praised for their excellent money management skills.

Fair point but on the other hand:

excellent money management skills + gambling

Does not compute

phasers

I'm on a mobile so can't read the link, can anybody explain how this is gonna be implemented? What's to stop someone on the dole getting their friend to put a bet on for them?

dvpower

phasers wrote: »

I'm on a mobile so can't read the link, can anybody explain how this is gonna be implemented? What's to stop someone on the dole getting their friend to put a bet on for them?

Not just confined to social security recipients.

RTE wrote:

Germany's most economically-powerful state, North Rhine-Westphalia, has banned its unemployed from betting on sports events.
The directive was announced by Westlotto, the official body responsible for gaming.

This follows a decision by a Cologne tribunal banning Westlotto employees from accepting heavy bets from people they know to be living on social security or unemployment benefits.
The court decision confirms a March ruling which said Westlotto should refuse to take sporting bets from punters 'who bet money far in excess of their revenues,' especially those receiving minimum social security benefits.
The Cologne tribunal was not immediately available to explain what was meant by a heavy bet, or how Westlotto employees could know which punter was claiming benefit.

In March, the court had ruled that employees were not required to check the worth of customers.
A spokesman for Westlotto, Axel Webber, said the court's decision 'is and remains out of touch with reality', adding that his firm would appeal the ruling.
'To refuse to take a bet simply because of a suspicion would amount to discrimination, according to our reading of the law,' Mr Webber said.

getz

meditraitor wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0505/germany.html

Our German overlords have decided that they want to dictate how the unemployed can spend their money (the money the state gives them)....... watch out Paddy Power.

Whats next I wonder, a drink limit. 5 can purchase limit per week if your on the scratcher

it started that way in the 30s

dvpower

dvpower wrote: »

If they can manage their money so well that they have some left over for gambling (or any other leisure activity) they should be praised for their excellent money management skills.

If the money is being spent on what it's supposed to be spent on, there shouldn't be any left over. If the recipient is buying decent food, providing for their kids, job hunting etc and can still afford to gamble and smoke, the dole is clearly too high.

dvpower

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Fair point but on the other hand:

excellent money management skills + gambling

Does not compute

I dunno. Putting a euro or two on a football game to make it a bit more interesting is a pretty harmless leisure activity.

If we want to stop the unemployed from spending their money on anything but the bare essentials, shouldn't we go the whole way and refusing to pay towards their TV licences and subscriptions.

dvpower

Avalynn Unkempt Mercury wrote: »

If the money is being spent on what it's supposed to be spent on, there shouldn't be any left over. If the recipient is buying decent food, providing for their kids, job hunting etc and can still afford to gamble and smoke, the dole is clearly too high.

Some people are better money managers than others. Maybe these people do stuff like grow their own food, or plan their shopping better so theres less waste.
Should they be penalised for this?


Are there other activities, other than drinking, smoking or gambling that you would bar them from?

RichieC

dvpower wrote: »

Are there other activities, other than drinking, smoking or gambling that you would bar them from?

Knowing the lot around here, breathing.

Spudmonkey

meditraitor wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0505/germany.html

Our German overlords have decided that they want to dictate how the unemployed can spend their money (the money the state gives them)....... watch out Paddy Power.

Whats next I wonder, a drink limit. 5 can purchase limit per week if your on the scratcher

By all means go out and gamble your welfare if you want. Don't be shouting however that you haven't enough money to live off afterwards.

dvpower

Spudmonkey wrote: »

By all means go out and gamble your welfare if you want. Don't be shouting however that you haven't enough money to live off afterwards.

... and make sure you declare your income if you win.:)

amjon.

dvpower wrote: »

Maybe these people do stuff like grow their own food

Maybe they can brew their own beer then.

RichieC

amjon. wrote: »

Maybe they can brew their own beer then.

Great idea!

dvpower

dvpower wrote: »

Some people are better money managers than others. Maybe these people do stuff like grow their own food, or plan their shopping better so theres less waste.
Should they be penalised for this?

This is the sense of entitlement I'm talking about. Why do you see at as being 'penalised'? Every penny they get from the State is effectively a free gift. Even if they're good at managing money, they're still getting plenty from the State when other people get nothing. Why should they get to spend the remainder on leisure activities when plenty of working, taxpaying people, can't afford to live like that?

Are there other activities, other than drinking, smoking or gambling that you would bar them from?

It's not about barring. Social welfare is intended to stop people living in poverty. You know, make sure people can afford to eat three meals a day, wear clothes that aren't full of holes, heat the house properly. Not to fund their Sky TV or 40-a-day fag habit.

I just don't get the sense of entitlement. I really don't. You want to smoke and drink and gamble? Pay for it yourself.

dvpower

amjon. wrote: »

Maybe they can brew their own beer then.

With the money they save by growing their own food and brewing their own beer they can live like kings.

These unemployed people are an example to the rest of us.

dvpower

Avalynn Unkempt Mercury wrote: »

This is the sense of entitlement I'm talking about. Why do you see at as being 'penalised'? Every penny they get from the State is effectively a free gift. Even if they're good at managing money, they're still getting plenty from the State when other people get nothing. Why should they get to spend the remainder on leisure activities when plenty of working, taxpaying people, can't afford to live like that?

So should an unemployed person who is particulary good at managing their money return any unused portion at the end of the week?

Avalynn Unkempt Mercury wrote: »

It's not about barring. Social welfare is intended to stop people living in poverty. You know, make sure people can afford to eat three meals a day, wear clothes that aren't full of holes, heat the house properly. Not to fund their Sky TV or 40-a-day fag habit.

I just don't get the sense of entitlement. I really don't. You want to smoke and drink and gamble? Pay for it yourself.

So if you smoke or drink or gamble or watch TV or have more than one pair of shoes or wear make up or ...

amjon.

dvpower wrote: »

particulary good

What do you mean by particularly good? 5 or 10 euro left over? If someone can scrimp and save, turn themselves inside out to have 10 euro left over at the end of the week then they would be better served directing this ingenuity and creativity towards finding a job.
I assume these measures aren't being brought in to stop single 20 year olds gambling and drinking their dole money away - they are being brought in to stop parents frittering it away on their habits instead of taking care of their children.

alex73

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

In America some states are issuing smart card technology in dealing with welfare recipients. The cash cards which are valid in main stream retail outlets and will block the purchase of liqueur, cigarettes and anything else that is deemed unnecessary for basic living.

That's what we need here!!. If you are on Job Seekers allowance... You should be seeking a Job, and the state should assist you with Accommodation, Food, Cloths, travel to enable you find a job. What place does an unemployed person have drinking, smoking and gambling on the states money?

However I would only impose the measure on those unemployed for over 6 months. There should be a grace period when someone looses their job and the benefits tightened up if they make no effort to find a Job.

dvpower

dvpower wrote: »

So should an unemployed person who is particulary good at managing their money return any unused portion at the end of the week?

In theory, yes, since they're already taking money from the State and contributing nothing. I don't know why you think this idea is so ludicrous. You're acting like that person would be being punished for managing their money well. So, using your logic, I'm being punished for working because I get nothing from the State and other people do. Why am I not being given a gambling allowance, then, so its all 'fair'?

So if you smoke or drink or gamble or watch TV or have more than one pair of shoes or wear make up or ...

I know this is really hard to believe for a citizen of a welfare state, but yes, those things are all luxuries. I can't afford most of them and I work full time. By the time I've paid tax, rent, bills, food and transport, I certainly can't afford luxuries like Sky TV or gambling and it baffles me that some people truly see them as an entitlement.

dvpower

amjon. wrote: »

What do you mean by particularly good? 5 or 10 euro left over? If someone can scrimp and save, turn themselves inside out to have 10 euro left over at the end of the week then they would be better served directing this ingenuity and creativity towards finding a job.

I couldn't disagree more. If you can manage your money so well that you have €10 left over at the end of the week, I say go and have a couple of pints - you deserve them.

amjon. wrote: »

I assume these measures aren't being brought in to stop single 20 year olds gambling and drinking their dole money away - they are being brought in to stop parents frittering it away on their habits instead of taking care of their children.

I didn't get that from the report. And it wasn't limited to social welfare payment either. This is also directed at the low paid. Should we restrict how the low paid spend their money?

dvpower

Avalynn Unkempt Mercury wrote: »

In theory, yes, since they're already taking money from the State and contributing nothing. I don't know why you think this idea is so ludicrous.

Because it only works in theory.

Avalynn Unkempt Mercury wrote: »

You're acting like that person would be being punished for managing their money well. So, using your logic, I'm being punished for working because I get nothing from the State and other people do. Why am I not being given a gambling allowance, then, so its all 'fair'?

They should be treated the same as you or me. We set a rate that we think is adequate and within that, people are free to spend their money as they wish.
You can do what you want with your money; if you manage it well, you are free to put some of it on a horse.

Avalynn Unkempt Mercury wrote: »

I know this is really hard to believe for a citizen of a welfare state, but yes, those things are all luxuries. I can't afford most of them and I work full time. By the time I've paid tax, rent, bills, food and transport, I certainly can't afford luxuries like Sky TV or gambling and it baffles me that some people truly see them as an entitlement.

This proposal in Germany would also target people like you. Do you agree with it, if it bars you from spending your money on gambling?

alex73

dvpower wrote: »

I couldn't disagree more. If you can manage your money so well that you have €10 left over at the end of the week, I say go and have a couple of pints - you deserve them.

your crazy... Drink does nothing to help you find a job... Its a depressant
I have been astounded for years to see people on benefits in pubs.. Time to get priorities right.

If you have 10 euros left over, you should use it to find a Job. Send C.V.'s. Make calls, Buy a book, take a course, upskill, GET FIT.

I see some long term unemployed come for interviews, overweight and badly dressed with not will in the world to work, but doing the interview to be refused so they can say they are looking for work.(using the refusal letters as proof they are looking) Benefits for some unemployed in Ireland at too high, and they don't incentive people to work.

dvpower

alex73 wrote: »

your crazy... Drink does nothing to help you find a job... Its a depressant
I have been astounded for years to see people on benefits in pubs.. Time to get priorities right.

Two pints at the end of a week isn't going to depress anyone. On the contrary, if you're struggling to live on the dole, going out for a couple of pints, if you can afford it, like any other normal person, will have the opposite effect.

alex73 wrote: »

If you have 10 euros left over, you should use it to find a Job. Send C.V.'s. Make calls, Buy a book, take a course, upskill, GET FIT.

Buy a book? Such extravagance. Can't they just go to the library?:(
Anyway, all of these things are available for free for job seekers. (any unemployed person who is good at managing their money will know this).

alex73 wrote: »

I see some long term unemployed come for interviews, overweight and badly dressed with not will in the world to work, but doing the interview to be refused so they can say they are looking for work.(using the refusal letters as proof they are looking) Benefits for some unemployed in Ireland at too high, and they don't incentive people to work.

I'm talking about a person who has managed their little money well, has met all of their financial commitments, and has €10 left over, not the feckless.

dvpower

dvpower wrote: »

Because it only works in theory.

Only because of our generous welfare state. Go to the US and see how generous their handouts are. They have been restricting food stamp purchases for ages now - no fags, no booze and even no junk food in many cases. No birthday cakes or non-essential items. What's wrong with that?

They should be treated the same as you or me. We set a rate that we think is adequate and within that, people are free to spend their money as they wish.
You can do what you want with your money; if you manage it well, you are free to put some of it on a horse.

But it isn't their money, they didn't earn it. Would you ask for money from a friend because you couldn't pay your rent and then turn around and bet on a horse? If not, why not? That's what you're advocating here. Except the friend at least has the choice about giving you the money.

This proposal in Germany would also target people like you. Do you agree with it, if it bars you from spending your money on gambling?

No, I don't agree with that part. I think people who receive NO state benefits should be able to spend their money as they wish.

alex73 wrote: »

your crazy... Drink does nothing to help you find a job... Its a depressant
I have been astounded for years to see people on benefits in pubs.. Time to get priorities right.

If you have 10 euros left over, you should use it to find a Job. Send C.V.'s. Make calls, Buy a book, take a course, upskill, GET FIT.

Exactly. There are plenty of other things to spend your money on.