If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Forcing people to eat healthily?
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
I believe that people are free to spend money that they earna s they wish, so were not talking about private individuals here. So well talk about those on benefits.
Recent surveys are showing that many children of parents whose income is state benefits are becoming more malnutritioned, and that the diet consists of processed food, high in staurated fat and salt. The argument goes that fresh fruit and vegetables are too expensive; they are more expensive than processed food- a lettuce costs four times as much as a tin of value beans- but this does not mean that they are too expensive. Especially given how many people on benefits smoke, and how many houses on council estates have Sky TV satellite dishes.
I propose that a certain amount of benefits each month comes in the form of vouchers which can only be spent on certain products- fresh fruit and vegatables in particluar. Would this be a good way of the Government forcing those who are dependent on it to not fritter their money away on ribbish, and to give their children a head-start in life, or is it the nanny state gone too far? I personally think its a good idea, as many poor families cannot be trusted to feed their children properly because money is spent on booze and cigs, so they should be forced to do so. Its a matter of national health.
Recent surveys are showing that many children of parents whose income is state benefits are becoming more malnutritioned, and that the diet consists of processed food, high in staurated fat and salt. The argument goes that fresh fruit and vegetables are too expensive; they are more expensive than processed food- a lettuce costs four times as much as a tin of value beans- but this does not mean that they are too expensive. Especially given how many people on benefits smoke, and how many houses on council estates have Sky TV satellite dishes.
I propose that a certain amount of benefits each month comes in the form of vouchers which can only be spent on certain products- fresh fruit and vegatables in particluar. Would this be a good way of the Government forcing those who are dependent on it to not fritter their money away on ribbish, and to give their children a head-start in life, or is it the nanny state gone too far? I personally think its a good idea, as many poor families cannot be trusted to feed their children properly because money is spent on booze and cigs, so they should be forced to do so. Its a matter of national health.
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
Your idea is a very good idea and it would work because people couldn't waste the vouchers and they'd have to eat it, because they probably could afford no other and they'd become alot of healthier in the long run.
BUT whilst trying to make the poorer children/people healthier, there are still the people who come from a working family that eat too much proccessed foods and are not healthy and can afford to buy fast foods as such. So how would we make them healthier?
Never mind fresh vegetables, they're lucky to have enough money to buy loo roll and tins of beans, let alone fresh veg. She doesn't smoke, nor do her children.
I don't think you can tar everyone with the same brush.
What proportion of her money would you propse to take away and replace with vouchers? I think this scheme could work as long as it was given on top of current state benefits.
I do think, however, that there is only so much that you can force people into doing. I think more money should be spent on educating people. You already have TV advertisements about the dangers of drink driving, and the long term effects of smoking; why not advertise the adverse effects of a poor diet. I think an image of an old lady suffering from diabetes would be just as 'shocking'.
People these days get a raw deal if they're "too lazy to go to work".... after six months your benefits are stopped if you do not attend New Deal, where you go everyday and sit doing some random crap. They may be too lazy to work but they have to do something far more tedious for far less money.
People who are 'too lazy to work' shouldn't get ANY benefits from the state.
Ahh... I didn't know that. But how come you always see these people which are living off the state for years and years in a council house? Do they have to be actively seeking work to still recieve benefits?
We own our council house. So do all our neighbours. My dad works and my mum is medically retired. She receives benefits because she is disabled. We eat vegetables. We have a nicely decorated home.
Why is there a stigma attached to council houses?
Sure, there will be some people out there who haven't worked for years and years, but they won't be in receipt of unemplyment benefits, they will be "on the sick". Doctors these days are too quick to give out sick notes for long periods of time.
Uck, I don't want to sound snobby! My dad used to clean those big blocks of council flats and he said some of them where really nice but then the lazy ones annoyed him.
I actually have family who do live in council owned houses who work. I'm not sure where the stigma comes from?
Because of the people who live in them. All stereotypes are based on more than an element of the truth.
Well yes that is true. Drugies (that's the right word?), usually live in council accomidation or the rough people who have no money because they still work and waste it all on unnessescary things. But also some council accomidation features normal, really nice people who work and cannot afford to live in an expensive area so choose to live in council accomidation. It's hard to generalise.
You wouldn't believe how much my neighbours council house has just sold for. The same amount as houses in so called "nice areas".
Anyway, I am leaving this thread now before I make extensive use of the
Nobody rants about 'rich toffs' because what you've just said is a complete falsehood.
As for not contributing anything to society, another ridiculous statement. 'Rich toffs' pay a stupidly excessive amount of tax in the UK. If that's not a worthwhile contribution, then I don't know what is.
But yes, I guess that health goes above pride. Should help most people learn to prioritise as well.
Btw, I really think it's out of place to be nasty about people who are better off. It is not true that they don't contribute and that they sit on their ass all day, when they don't go around the finer areas of town first going for breakfast in an in café, for lunch with their rich relatives, and to dinner at big posh gatherings.
I know that in Denmark, the more you earn the more goes to tax. Fucking can't be right that hardworking people, working the normal 37 hours a week or whatever, pay 70% of their income to tax, and yet people feel the need to slag them off.
I completely agree. Sadly, It's a very British thing to despise people, simply because they earn a lot of money.
Yeah thats so right, people think because you live in a council house you worth nothing.
How I see it is Ive lived in a council house all my life, I bought my council house and can afford to live here, id rather live here in my nice ex council house than in a privately built house which would cost me a fortune to live in. My council house is massive compared to new houses that are being built, the new houses of today are like kids wendy houses anyway.
Back to topic anyway
Jaqc voucher systems here already exist in the way of milk tokens. A single mum gets them weekly when she cashes her benefit, she can choose baby milk formula or bottled tokens, which most shops accept.
Voucher systems could work and I think they could be a good idea if the idea was properly thought out.
Never in my life have I heard so much outright snobbery against the working class. Just because people are on benefits doesn't give anyone the right to tell them how to spend their income anymore than the government tells wage earners how to spend their money. If they tried to do the same to wage earners it would be called communism so why should we do it to people on benefits. Why don't we just reintroduce ration cards and be done with it? :rolleyes: For some reason there are lot of people who think the working class shouldn't be allowed to enjoy themselves - yes they have Sky, they buy magazines, they go out - shock, horror! How many people here enjoy the same luxuries?
Incidentally, BumbleBee is right. There are a lot of idle rich living off share dividends or daddy's wealth and nobody dares bat an eyelid at them. The rich are ridiculously little taxed - our top rate of 40% is one of the lowest in the world and enjoy all sorts of tax breaks and loopholes to reduce that even further meaning that VAT and Council Tax have to go up for everyone because the rich pay so little and that more and more middle earners have to be put in the 40% bracket because of the low levels of tax on the rich.
It's also a very British thing to think you're somehow better than someone else because you earn more money and that gives you the right to moan about how they life their lives.
I don't get why people should be made to feel ashame by being better off than others, as i have experienced on this site.
Do you ever listen to what you're saying?
Why is everything always about snobbery? Some people make lots of money and get to live fabulous lives, and some people don't. Tough shit, it's a fact of life, get over it. This whole 'idle rich' thing is ridiculous. There are people who live like that, but they make up such a tiny proportion of the population that it is inconsequential.
People complain about people on benefits because they are having to pay taxes to pay for them. The so-called 'idle rich' don't claim benefits, nor do they require anything from the NHS. They are hardly a burden on society when they have private healthcare, are they?
What is your issue with wealthy people? It seems like petty jealousy to me.
I know ex council houses sell for lot's
I dont have an issue with wealthy people apart from the little rich kids who just have to say *Daddy I want* and they get. These little rich kids have never had to work, they rely on Mummy and Daddy to buy them their sports car, Mummy and Daddy to pay for them to go on exotic holidays when in reality Mummy and Daddy should be teaching them that they HAVE to work to have this luxurious lifestyle it shouldnt just be handed to them on a silver plate.
Why? What's wrong with that? Why shouldn't a parent be allowed to provide for his/her child?
I agree. I believe both too rich and poor should work and stop being lazy, although because the rich pay taxes they aren't really a problem because they are putting into society. Though the poorer, which is no fault of their own, should work. Unless they have a disability, then I think there is no excuses. If they aren't working, then at least they should have worked recently. It's not fair to take out but never put in.
Though to be fair, most of us are on some kind of benefit families, family allowance (is it still called that), is for everyone?
Some people don't have to work, but do you think they don't face hardships?
Fuck it, everybody does.
If you wouldn't have an issue, you wouldn't care, and continue raising your daughter as you're doing now.
I know from my granparents that they wanted to give my mom what they didn't have. The worked their butts off in order to get my mom and her two brothers to university. And I know that in the same way my mom and uncles are now working their butts off in their relative way to give their kids more than they had as kids. It's normal to want the best for your kids. And some people feel that giving their kids a car is worth it, some don't, and some can't afford it.
Doesn't mean it's wrong.
Im talking about the big kids aged 18 + who are just handed everything on a plate. They should be taught at a young age that money dont grow on trees and you have to work and save for the good things in life. As what im doing with my Daughter now, she has to earn her pocket money and shes only 7. If she does not tidy her room then NO pocket money, I am teaching her that she cant just say "I want" and get it and I dont think this is a bad thing infact the reverse, she will grow up appreciating money and where it comes from.
As I have said I dont have a problem with people being wealthy the problem arises when these big kids dont appreciate where money comes from. Some of these little rich kids have never done a days work because *Daddy* has provided everything for them.
Of course we all want to give our kids all we can Id be a liar iif I said any different. I want my Daughter to have nice things, I want to give her the best I can but she is going to grow up and know that she will have to also work hard to have a nice lifestyle. I cant see the problem in that.