What else do you think people on benefits shouldn't be spending their money on? Cigarettes? Beer? Pet food for the family dog? Tub of food for the Goldfish? Should it be a requirement of being on benefits that you have any existing pets put down the moment you become a claimant?

There is no doubt in my mind keeping a horse while on benefits is irresponsible but you can't legislate against that and the fact she manages to do it is no reason to suggest benefits are too high in general. People behave irresponsibly all the time and the tax payer funds it. How many people end up in A&E each week because they play rugby of either code or sport in general? How many people each year need rescuing from the mountains or the sea's?

People need be very careful about trying to legislate against irresponsible behavior or we will soon end up in the situation where if you are in work you can be irresponsible at the tax payers expense but if you are on benefits you can't. Bottom line is people don't really have a right to dictate how people spend their money whether they earn it or receive it as a benefit. We can express our dislike that she is spending it on a horse just as we can express our dislike of any other behavior that has a cost to the tax payer but the demonizing of this woman is not about that. It is purely political.

Bloody hell sorry! Don't want to be putting ideas in their heads. I'm sure they've considered it though. All these freeloading, scrounging kids receiving benefits. They think they're too good to sweep chimneys.

Do those who think giving vouchers (or whatever system is used to control what people use their benefits for) to benefit recipients is a good idea think that should be applied to all benefits?

Not if their tax credits come as M&S vouchers and their family allowance as book tokens.

Why not go the whole hog and get paid in clubcard vouchers to the besic rate tax level and nectar points at the higher rate.

Cash is so over rated.

I agree with most of your points, but in reality if someone is being given money to spend on her children then I feel that the taxpayer, who is footing the bill should be able to dictate that the money is spent in that fashion. I recently subbed a mate to allow him to travel down to London to see his ill mother, if I found out that he had in fact been to the pub with the money, I would go spare.

I have absolutely no problem with the state providing assistance to the poor and needy, but it should be assistance and not allow people to enjoy a lifestyle beyond the means of the people who provide.

Should the taxpayer get a say above and beyond who they vote for in elections???

It would mean a dramatic change in the way the country is run and should a Premiership footballer have more of a say than a road sweeper as they are putting more into the pot.

Not having a go at you in particular but do wish the press would stop giving credance to the Tax Payers Alliance whoever they are but seem to be on the direct dial of every Tory newspaper in the country.

No, not a good idea. I still pay for prescriptions for instance. How would a voucher for food help me do that? Besides, I still have (and am entitled to) a life that I spend money on. I couldn't pay for my seasons pass at Hull FC with food vouchers, nor could I do anything socially.

The vouchers thing isn't really aimed at those on disability, was thinking more along the lines of child benefit being paid mostly in say food and clothing vouchers, with maybe a cash element for other ad hoc expenses such as toys, prams etc.

It's a sledgehammer to crack a nut child support is £20 a week and even 10 kids only gets you about £150 a week, give vouchers to 15m people or whatever the number of children (or Under 20s in full time education) is and you are creating a monster for no real reward unless as I said earlier it is tied into a big business where those vouchers have to be spent and that would be just disgraceful.

I've had to survive on vouchers before whilst I undertook job search training //peakwalking.blogspot.co.uk/:34476.jpg