universal credits and vouchers

[Guest amianne]

Illegal drugs are already banned from purchase, and while we are on the subject of saving money and lives, lets ban the rest outright, or is it only those on benefits that are adversely effected by alcohol, and tobacco?

 

Of course illegal drugs are banned, so is the purchasing of alcohol and tobacco for the under 18's. But if you give people cash, and that is what they want to buy, they will find a way of doing so illegal or not!

 

As I said if the only way they could buy things is with their welfare card, they wouldn't be able to access cash. However I wouldn't be surprised if some entrepreneurial drug dealer had a card reader and took money that way!!

 

If people have their own earnings albeit pensions or wages then it would be totally unfair to restrict what they want to spend it on. However I am talking about taxpayers money handed out by the government which is a little bit different isn't it?

 

Surely you wouldn't want the government to be complicit in allowing money to be used in a way that will cost even more money via the NHS?

 

Anyhow we will see what happens next year with benefits in general, but with Crisis Loans it is going to happen!

[debt4get]

so do you also propose that OAP's who have been unfortunate enough not to be able to save for their own pensions also be subject to these draconian measures? as they also take public money....we cant allow these doley s*um to be seen to enjoy themselves in any form.....they should be seen and not heard, and bl**dy well do what they are told.....

[Guest amianne]

so do you also propose that OAP's who have been unfortunate enough not to be able to save for their own pensions also be subject to these draconian measures? as they also take public money....we cant allow these doley s*um to be seen to enjoy themselves in any form.....they should be seen and not heard, and bl**dy well do what they are told.....

 

I specifically said pensions as it is clearly money paid by the government, but what you seem to forget that people have contributed towards it by working upwards of 49 years. They have paid into the scheme, much the same as any other pension scheme.

 

For your interest here is the full history of the 1948 Act

http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn105.pdf

 

I would like to finish by suggesting that you carefully consider your views of the retired, as it those that have provided the money for the welfare monies to be paid to others. Plus a little more respect for their age wouldn't go amiss!

[count orlok]

Not forgetting the disabled who are unable to cook their own meals they mustn't be allowed to buy takaways when cold beans and raw veg will do.

 

Even if they also paid insurance against being sick or disabled.

[antone]

It should be noted that the biggest defenders of the status quo in the US (that is, food stamps and no or very little cash assistance) are the huge supermarket chains and the agribusiness lobby. The supermarkets love the program because the EBT systems needed at point of sale terminals are quite expensive and complex - not only do they have to communicate real time with the relevant state welfare agency, but they further need to sort out the byzantine rules about what may or may not be purchased using the cards.

 

Of course, this means that smaller stores are less likely to be able to accept them. There are all kinds of unintended consequences here, from small stores going out of business, to huge metropolitan areas becoming "food deserts", where quality food simply can't be had and people buy their groceries at the 7/11. Try finding a supermarket in metro Detroit - I dare ya.

 

Agribusiness loves them because they sell most of their product through the big stores, and as such have secured a virtually captive market. And of course since, under the US system, you can only buy food and nothing else, they're getting all the money that would be spent on household cleaning items, toiletries and so on. In other words, it's a huge taxpayer-funded subsidy to big business.

 

In short, the US system is one we should be avoiding like the plague, not seeking to emulate.

[antone]

 

I would like to finish by suggesting that you carefully consider your views of the retired, as it those that have provided the money for the welfare monies to be paid to others. Plus a little more respect for their age wouldn't go amiss!

 

I read that post as sarcasm, and indeed supportive of retired people.

[debt4get]

I specifically said pensions as it is clearly money paid by the government, but what you seem to forget that people have contributed towards it by working upwards of 49 years. They have paid into the scheme, much the same as any other pension scheme.

 

For your interest here is the full history of the 1948 Act

http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn105.pdf

 

I would like to finish by suggesting that you carefully consider your views of the retired, as it those that have provided the money for the welfare monies to be paid to others. Plus a little more respect for their age wouldn't go amiss!

as i am fast approaching retirement age another 5 years to go...i do not need lessons from you about the aged....i was lucky enough to put money towards my teaching pension..however, do you seriously suggest we have a sliding scale re whether you get cash with your benefits...i for one paid in for 35 odd years...so because i didnt make the full pension age of 66 should i be penalised and told what to spend my benefit on.....

[Guest amianne]

I read that post as sarcasm, and indeed supportive of retired people.

 

Then you and I must have a different view of what sarcasm means.

 

I took it the other way, in that the retired are not worthy of receiving consideration for the years of hard work they have endured and the financial contribution they have made to the people of this country.

 

Maybe I am far too touchy on that particular subject believing that the elderly are a special case and deserve better pension provision than they currently get. Plus I see all too often how they are sidelined by society simply because they are 'old and non productive'.

[Guest amianne]

as i am fast approaching retirement age another 5 years to go...i do not need lessons from you about the aged....i was lucky enough to put money towards my teaching pension..however, do you seriously suggest we have a sliding scale re whether you get cash with your benefits...i for one paid in for 35 odd years...so because i didnt make the full pension age of 66 should i be penalised and told what to spend my benefit on.....

 

No you are fully entitled to spend your pension on whatever floats your boat.

 

This thread is considering the question of whether Universal Credits and vouchers is acceptable. You presumably say it isn't acceptable. I say it should be - not vouchers, but a similar system as they now have in Australia - using a pre-charged card.

 

Let me ask you one thing, would you support being able to buy alcohol or tobacco with benefit monies? Or would you agree that benefit monies are paid to support health and wellbeing and not addictive substances?

 

Most people will say that it isn't right, then the next question I ask is, how do you prevent those substances from being purchased using welfare monies?

 

You come up with a better placed option.

[Nystagmite]

You can't tell people what to spend their money on. Cigarettes are highly taxed. (I believe alcohol is too?)

 

This system is going to cost so much to implement.

 

You also then have a problem - from what I understand with alcoholics, just going cold turkey causes them major physical issues. If they can't spend their benefits on alcohol, then they're going to either sell their vouchers or turn to crime.

 

Most people are sensible enough to know what to spend their money on. Why should they be penalised?

[osdset]

What you can and can't buy, then what you can and can't own followed by what you can and can't wear.

Government approved boiler suits with a patch sewn on, a different insignia according to what benefit the wearer gets. Housing benefit stopped completely, and all claimants placed in communal fenced off accommodation, remind anyone of anything per chance?

[antone]

 

Let me ask you one thing, would you support being able to buy alcohol or tobacco with benefit monies? Or would you agree that benefit monies are paid to support health and wellbeing and not addictive substances?

 

Most people will say that it isn't right, then the next question I ask is, how do you prevent those substances from being purchased using welfare monies?

 

You come up with a better placed option.

 

The answer to your first question is that, while I wouldn't advise people on benefits to spend it all on booze, I don't have any issue with someone buying beer or whatever from time to time. I'm not part of the "benefit claimants should eat nothing but gruel and dead houseflies and be grateful!!!" crowd, and I don't grudge anyone the occasional treat.

 

I've detailed my objections to this draconian notion upthread, but in case my posts were TL;DR, here we go:

 

1) This is a non-problem. Benefit claimants, in general, spend their money on food and gas/electric bills. The idea that they're a bunch of habitual drunks and heroin addicts is appealing to those who wish to construct an artificial sense of moral superiority, but it has little basis in reality. In that sense, it's just like anything else you'd read in the Daily Mail.

 

2) It isn't really the function of the DWP to promote healthy eating or lifestyle improvements. And the people who are promoting these ideas aren't (for the most part) sincere: they don't actually care about the welfare of benefit claimants. They just want another stick to beat them with.

 

3) Implementing this will be a logistical nightmare. Maintaining it, likewise. And we don't need to speculate on that, we know it. Just look across the pond. And of course, it will be hugely expensive, well out of any proportion to the "problem" it purports to solve.

 

4) Further evidence from across the pond is that the few hardcore boozers and druggies affected will simply sell their EBT credit for 75 or so pence on the pound, and then use the cash to buy booze.

 

5) The argument that it will save the NHS money is nebulous and, I submit, ill thought out. But if a proponent wants to submit peer-reviewed figures, I'd be happy to take a look.

[speedfreek]

@ osdset Cub Scout Brownie camp?

 

Am I doing this right

[sadone]

 

From b3ta

Edited July 2, 2012 by sadone

[antone]

You can't tell people what to spend their money on. Cigarettes are highly taxed. (I believe alcohol is too?)

 

 

Yes, there is a heavy tax on alcohol. And in the US, they do in fact tell people what to spend their money on, so obviously it's possible. It's just immoral.

[debt4get]

ah daily mail land....beat the scroungers with a big stick....make em suffer....tell em what to buy. and where to buy it...give them no peace until they have joined the land of national minimum wage...and contribute to the more fortunate in society..who will no doubt be soon living in gated communities, patrolled by their own armed security personnel...now where have i seen this model before?

[count orlok]

It is up to people what they spend their money on. Besides there is much evidence to show that following heart attacks a small amount of alcohol is beneficial, are we saying that people who have had heart attack while of working age (and having been paying their insurance) should not be allowed the benefit of such?

 

Oh yea and I gave up smoking when i started having heart attacks over ten years ago and it didn't stop them.

Edited July 2, 2012 by count orlok

[antone]

It is up to people what they spend their money on. Besides there is much evidence to show that following heart attacks a small amount of alcohol is beneficial, are we saying that people who have had heart attack while of working age (and having been paying their insurance) should not be allowed the benefit of such?

 

You're making an assumption here which, while perfectly reasonable, doesn't appear to reflect reality.

 

You're assuming that the people who propose stuff like this are actually concerned about the adverse consequences, and would seek to mitigate them. I, personally, feel that the available evidence does not support this conclusion. The proponents are, after all, advocating a hugely expensive, highly complex way of beating up on the poor in response to a problem that doesn't even exist.

[Guest amianne]

You can't tell people what to spend their money on. Cigarettes are highly taxed. (I believe alcohol is too?)

 

This system is going to cost so much to implement.

 

You also then have a problem - from what I understand with alcoholics, just going cold turkey causes them major physical issues. If they can't spend their benefits on alcohol, then they're going to either sell their vouchers or turn to crime.

 

Most people are sensible enough to know what to spend their money on. Why should they be penalised?

 

Vouchers for Crisis Loans from your local council starts next year. The next step will be for means tested benefits - let's wait and see shall we?

[Guest amianne]

What you can and can't buy, then what you can and can't own followed by what you can and can't wear.

Government approved boiler suits with a patch sewn on, a different insignia according to what benefit the wearer gets. Housing benefit stopped completely, and all claimants placed in communal fenced off accommodation, remind anyone of anything per chance?

 

Errr yes with Crisis Loans via vouchers, yes with those under 25 - no more Housing Benefit, yes those over 25 and under 35 will be receive HB equivalent to the Shared Room rate - need I say any more?

[antone]

Vouchers for Crisis Loans from your local council starts next year. The next step will be for means tested benefits - let's wait and see shall we?

 

It really isn't a good idea to "wait and see". The time for opponents to speak against proposed new laws is before they are actually passed.

[osdset]

What a vision of what's to come, homeless under 35's queuing to exchange vouchers for food, being served by homeless under 35's who are on mandatory work activity.

 

Yet the other feckless layabouts who hold out their hands annually for public money can blow £52,000 on a one way flight from LA to London, or £378,000 in a few months touring the globe as an ambassador for trade, or £460,387 for a nice private jet tour of The Middle East, South Africa, and Tanzania, or even the paltry £107,098 little Harry frittered away on travel for his Jubilee tour.

[Guest amianne]

It really isn't a good idea to "wait and see". The time for opponents to speak against proposed new laws is before they are actually passed.

 

Obviously I agree with your comments, but let's be honest the guy down the road who has nothing isn't going to be able to 'persuade' the government to change their mind!

 

We all know that what will be will be. People have to make the best of what card they are dealt with.

 

From what I am hearing and the vibes I am receiving, an awful lot of people who have religiously voted in the past are now considering to not bother in the future. The general opinion is that there is no one party or even politician that is better than the other. All appear to be corrupt in one way or another and none has the bottle to stand up and be counted!

I will not be voting at the next election, and neither will my friends and family!

[Guest amianne]

What a vision of what's to come, homeless under 35's queuing to exchange vouchers for food, being served by homeless under 35's who are on mandatory work activity.

 

Yet the other feckless layabouts who hold out their hands annually for public money can blow £52,000 on a one way flight from LA to London, or £378,000 in a few months touring the globe as an ambassador for trade, or £460,387 for a nice private jet tour of The Middle East, South Africa, and Tanzania, or even the paltry £107,098 little Harry frittered away on travel for his Jubilee tour.

 

errr don't you think that the Royal Family do a fantastic job for Britain? It's a shame that I can't say the same for those that I see leaning against the outside wall of the jobcentre every day, having a smoke with a can of White Lightning in their mit waiting to collect their share of the Welfare budget.

[osdset]

errr don't you think that the Royal Family do a fantastic job for Britain?

Well.......... as a self confessed republican I can say one hundred percent, unequivocally, beyond all shadow of a doubt, without question, no!

I think they do a fantastic job of lining their pockets, they have successfully over the years convinced Joe public that they are an indispensable asset, and worthy of our best efforts to keep them 'in the manner to which they have been accustomed'. GB Ltd, could get along nicely without them and save a huge amount of cash in the process.

 

It's a shame that I can't say the same for those that I see leaning against the outside wall of the jobcentre every day, having a smoke with a can of White Lightning in their mit waiting to collect their share of the Welfare budget.

 

Given the same start in life as Windsor &Co, I'm sure many of the smoking, drinking, JCP props, would have 'made good'.