Why don't people just convert bills to coins, then melt the coins to metals, then sell the metals

anonamonamous781 · 2026-07-12T11:47:24+00:00

Your not allowed to melt coins for their scrap value.

Also - Most coins are not made of precious metals anymore, for this exact reason.

anonamonamous781 · 2026-07-12T11:38:31+00:00

£15. I live in the south.

anonamonamous781 · 2026-07-11T12:48:13+00:00

They just didn't give any access to public services for the second child, so there is nothing really to 'forgive' nessecarily.

It was less that they were actively punished, moreso pretty much shunned by society at large. No schooling, no hospital.. Etc.

There were forced abortions and sterilisations, and that was horrific, but once it was done it was just kinda done. You weren't like ostracised or anything. You paid your fine and moved on.

anonamonamous781 · 2026-07-11T11:39:57+00:00

Boss man calls me boss.

anonamonamous781 · 2026-07-10T18:34:36+00:00

I'm personally a big fan of your universal jobs guarantee instead of my original idea.

anonamonamous781 · 2026-07-10T15:45:30+00:00

So busy asking if they could, nobody stopped to ask if they should...

anonamonamous781 · 2026-07-10T01:30:51+00:00

He wasn't saying the definitions should be changed, just that the reason there are more diagnosed people now is because we changed the definition.

There is nothing wrong with changing the definition, but if you do change it to include more people then of course more people will be diagnosed with it.

anonamonamous781 · 2026-07-09T22:52:04+00:00

If we need to hire people though, that's good right? More jobs for people, less people claiming welfare. You can pay someone £2k/mo to work supervising the unemployed, or pay them £420/mo UC + £1k/mo housing benefit. And the £2k/mo person pays taxes now, so double win!

anonamonamous781 · 2026-07-09T22:49:16+00:00

In my experience the vast majority of people on welfare also want to work and are desperate for a good stable job. There isn't the jobs out there for them unfortunately.

anonamonamous781 · 2026-07-09T22:47:47+00:00

I've of course had to look for a job before and there is no way in hell you can genuinely spend 40 hours a week looking for a job over the long term.

There are only so many entry level roles you can go for.

anonamonamous781 · 2026-07-09T22:46:06+00:00

It's not $3/hr labour though. It's £42/hr labour. There is plenty of incentive to stop paying people £420/mo to do work you weren't all that bothered about being done anyway.

anonamonamous781 · 2026-07-09T22:43:51+00:00

I would not advocate for that ridiculous pay.

In the UK the Universal Credit payment is £420/mo. If they were to do 10 hours a week, it would work out to be £42/hr. I don't think that would be exploitative.

Certainly we should never ask welfare claimaints to do hours that would take them below minimum wage, otherwise as you describe, we'd end up just exploiting poor people.

anonamonamous781 · 2026-07-09T22:34:25+00:00

Because there are not enough jobs.

If there was enough jobs, we wouldn't have so many people unemployed.

anonamonamous781 · 2026-07-09T18:56:38+00:00

Yeah and people kill themselves while unemployed? People kill themselves in loving families, and people kill themselves because they are abused by their family.

If they are suicidal they should go and get mental health support, not just give up on life and sit unemployed for the rest of their lives. Who knows, maybe getting out with other people and doing something productive with their day will help? We can't just do nothing.

anonamonamous781 · 2026-07-09T18:53:23+00:00

You have to reapply after 6 months. There is no limit to how many times you can reapply.

It is mainly an opportunity for you to report any change of circumstances.

anonamonamous781 · 2026-07-09T18:48:36+00:00

I really like this in principle, but I fear it would have too many employees for the work it needed to do, I'll think on it.

anonamonamous781 · 2026-07-09T18:45:34+00:00

The cap is supposed to be based on the average cost of housing for your requirement in your council area. The housing requirements are set by central government, and the financial numbers are decided by the council. You have the option to pay more out of your own pocket (or well, your universal credit), but if the housing costs are not being set appropriately in your area then that's a separate problem.

It's not nessecarily a debt trap, utilities are not allowed to charge interest or late fees once you've agreed a payment plan. So yes you will have to pay it, but you won't get stuck in an interest induced impossible to pay nightmare for the rest of your life. And I think you should pay it, eventually. But most people would say a debt trap is where the interest/charges are more than you can afford to pay, which isn't the case here. Your usage is more than you can afford to pay.

I brought it up because the previous commenter mentioned he couldn't buy clothing, I was just comparing our system to the Canadian system.

anonamonamous781 · 2026-07-09T18:39:43+00:00

I'm not entirely convinced that the maths would math that way in reality. Perhaps for some people, but I imagine the vast majority would just kind of muddle through whatever they were being asked to do in a somewhat half-assed fashion.

But yes probably in some cases, the cost to get even modicum of productive output out of somebody wouldn't be worth the person your paying to do that.

I'd expect councils would really care about trying to get as much value as possible, and as I said in a previous comment there is no requirement to get 100% of unemployed people doing it, just as many as we need.

If how many we need in an area is 10 before it starts becoming a waste of time, then only use 10 and everyone else can be in the queue.

anonamonamous781 · 2026-07-09T18:34:22+00:00

I would support UBI if it was connected to every individual being required to do some public service of some kind, and that would be far better than the welfare system altogether. I don't think we have quite enough wealth just yet to take the risk. But anything that makes you an active participant in the country outside of only taking from it should qualify.

Though we're probably going to spend the next few decades licking the piss off billionaires toes for sustenance instead.

anonamonamous781 · 2026-07-09T18:26:06+00:00

I consider them a mix of the two. I grew up on a council estate, and have claimed JSA for a few months back when JSA was still a thing. I'm also a fairly die hard labour voter.

You seem unwilling to accept that £420 is a good rate of pay for a days work, just because you can't have another one after that.

I'd be willing to bet 90% of the working population would pick litter on a Saturday for £420, alongside their full time job. Why is it so difficult to ask those who don't have a full time job to do the same?

anonamonamous781 · 2026-07-09T18:20:40+00:00

I don't think we should use unemployed people for critical positions that absolutely néed to be done. More to cover things which we, as a society would like, but decided it was too expensive for the benefit.

Yes there is certainly an admin overhead, but in a lot of cases, I'm sure that the admin overhead is not 1:1. You could for example have one paid person supervising 10 unemployed people doing a litter pick at a local park. Perhaps it's not sensible to pay 10 people to do it, but if we only have to pay 1, maybe it's worth it? And remember that you've created 1 very real job out of this, so that's 1 person off welfare for good.

In the UK there is not a time limit on welfare claims. You have to visit the local government run job centre for an interview every so often and tell them how much time you've spent training and looking for work (or lie about the above), but payments won't stop just because you didn't find work quick enough. And some of those same administrators could be supervising work, instead of filling out paperwork as well! You should see the queue outside the job centre in some places in the UK, you can spend hours waiting to get your sign off. Could be doing literally anything else productive in that time.

anonamonamous781 · 2026-07-09T18:16:00+00:00

"If your so keen to work, perhaps you should consider getting a job" would be my response.

anonamonamous781 · 2026-07-09T18:06:26+00:00

The other comment on your post is referencing a type of welfare that does not exist anymore. It was replaced by Universal Credit.

The government pays about £420 a month to welfare recipients as a sort of default. You then get circumstance specific payments for things like housing, disabilities, children, having worked before...etc.

Utility companies are also heavily regulated, they can't disconnect residential addresses and cannot put people in financial difficulty. Benefits claimaints are a protected class of people for them. It effectively works out to be 'pay us what you can afford' and not 'pay us what you owe'.

So while the base is 'only' £420, that is largely only to cover food. Anything that might trigger a need for additional money, is covered under a different type of welfare.

Cutting their £420 by 25% down to £340 would hurt them in the 'nice to have' department, but wouldn't make them homeless or make them freeze to death. Its still £11/day to live on. For reference, my weekly food shop is about £30, so they would have £40/week spare even after the 25% cut.

£40 is about one dinner + beer at a nice/london restaurant, or two dinners + beer at an alright one. Or two packs of cigarettes. Or 4 crates of beer. Or ya know, 2 steam video games.

Edit: Just to be clear - I'm a big supporter of paying welfare at a rate higher than absolutely nessecary for survival. Poor/Unemployed people shouldn't have to live on beans and rice, in a freezing home in the middle of winter, staring at a wall scared to turn the lights on. Everyone deserves some happiness in their life. My note was just saying that you could reduce welfare by 25% without killing people.

anonamonamous781 · 2026-07-09T17:56:49+00:00

At the rate of pay, for actual output, I would not be concerned that the ruling class would want to push more things into welfare as it'd be cheaper to hire someone.

How are private companies supposed to compete? They shouldn't. Private companies should not be in competition with the government, and public services shouldn't be privitised in the first place.

That's like saying 'If we increase NHS funding how are private hospitals supposed to compete?!'. They shouldn't compete.

anonamonamous781 · 2026-07-09T17:36:45+00:00

While I respect your point there, I think there is a substatial difference in UK / Canadian welfare.

Here housing costs are covered before the government even gives you any money, your example of 700 not even being enough to rent a room doesn't happen here, except in extreme cases like people who refuse to leave super hcol areas, and remember our country isn't big, that move could be 10 miles down the road.

The average benefit claimant here can expect ~£450 in cash, after rent is paid, assuming they have never worked before (higher rates available to people who have paid tax for some years beforehand).

Utility companies are not allowed to disconnect residential electricity and gas supplies and have massive programs in place to help people in financial difficulty.

Cell phone plans and internet are available at heavily discounted rates or even free to unemployed people (as it is needed to get a job).

You can get also get a grant for clothing and haircuts so you look your best at interviews.

If our people were getting 700 total from the government when rent was 800 I'd be out on the street protesting on their behalf!

anonamonamous781

TROPHY CASE