Re: Licence Evasion

In message <jt0e121aqvc14fvr67qspussombdmtmji0@xxxxxxx>, Adrian Stott <adrian@xxxxxxxx> writes

If the governement is to help poor folk, it should give them money
not "benefits". Then they can buy what they want (even including
living accommodation in a boat), rather than having to accept what it
patronisingly thinks they ought to have. And keep some self-esteem
into the bargain. And if they waste it? Tough - there won't be more
until next month.

The whole system doesn't quite work like that, though. If you give someone the money to pay the rent on their home they have a choice whether to pay the rent or not. However, there is no mechanism for expelling them from their home immediately if they choose to buy a boat, or anything else, rather than pay the rent.

That would cost the taxpayer no more. But of course it has the major
disadvantage of reducing the amount of control wielded by bureaucrats
and politicians. But that's a disadvantage only if you are a
bureaucrat or politician. Guess who decides on the system.

(exits muttering)

It's a problem all round - quite rightly people should not lightly be deprived of their home, so it takes time, the legal system, and money to reach a point where the non-payer is told they've made their choice, and must now live with the consequences, elsewhere.
It might appear to be paternalistic to pay the rent direct to the house-owner, but it's cheaper, and ensures the family do not lose their home.
Unfortunately, it has been decided to take your line and give the money to people, rather than pay their rent for them. It will cost more - the defaulters will have had their cash, and the house-owner will have lost the rent they spent elsewhere. In one form or another, taxpayers will pay twice.
--
David Long
Sankey Canal Restoration Society http://www.scars.org.uk/
St. Mary's http://www.geocities.com/andrew_fishburn/stmary1.html
http://www.scars.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/webcam/
.

Loading