universal credits and vouchers

[antone]

So, something like Building Societies used to be? Certainly no use to me as I'm not in a position to save anything ...

 

Yes, basically. They're huge business in the USA now, offering services very similar to those offered by banks. Here in the UK they tend to be smaller, more local concerns, at least for now. As dissatisfaction with the big banks grows I can see them becoming more popular.

[antone]

 

But then I suppose the argument will be that in a real crisis you would rather have something than nothing....even if it had been used before.....

 

And that's fair enough, I suppose - even at present, Crisis Loans hardly allow people to buy the latest, greatest hitech washing machines or cookers. So I have no problem with it being treated like the old Advisor Discretionary Funds, where if you went to a JCP and asked for help to buy a suit for work, they'd send you off to Burtons to find a suit, then cut a check directly to the shop.

 

There are two things that worry me about this, though. Rainbo mentioned the issue of cash for electric meters etc. That's a valid worry.

 

And also, although this is being mooted for CL at the moment, does anyone really believe that it will stay that restricted? I see it as a way to open the door to paying most benefits in kind, something I find morally and ethically repulsive in principle and horribly difficult to administer in practice.

[antone]

Both America and Australia now use this system. It is based on a card, similar to a debit card, except that it gets charged up with your benefit money. The card has restrictions of use built in, which will stop people buying fags, booze and drugs.

 

It is possible that using this system the government can set limits each week on what you are allowed to buy such as unhealthy food, takeaways etc.

 

Oh, I know exactly how the US system works, having lived there. My late wife had health conditions and had to claim food stamps for a couple of months - I probably still have her defunct EBT card somewhere. She could use it to buy most food items (though not hot food in supermarkets) and also seeds, interestingly.

 

What you couldn't buy, of course, were things like toilet paper, toothpaste, feminine hygiene products, or soap. The poor are known as the "unwashed" for a reason, apparently. So people (not my wife, as we thankfully had another small income - mine) would trade their EBT credits for cash; 75 cents on the dollar was the going rate. And sure, some would buy booze and smokes with that cash, but others would buy, well, essentials.

 

OK, that's maybe an implementation problem. Surely our wonderful government wouldn't cock this up so badly? Well, here's another thing: as soon as you took out an EBT card at the checkout, you'd basically be broadcasting an ad to everyone in the checkout line: "Look, folks! I'm poor! Please scrutinise the contents of my shopping cart! If you disapprove of some of those contents, feel free to tut in righteous moral outrage!"

 

And funnily enough, that kind of thing doesn't really help people feel like part of a greater society. Which, really, needs to be the intention. In fact, it's the stated intention of our welfare programmes: to help people back to work, back into the world in which "normal" people live. People have money. People budget that money. People allow themselves the occasional treat (perhaps even a beer) so that life doesn't feel like a daily trip to hell from the moment they wake to the moment they fall asleep. People get to go to the grocery store without total strangers analysing the wisdom of their weekly Tesco purchases. Is there some problem with that? Is there a compelling, articulable reason why this should be denied to those on benefits?

 

I mean, after all, it's not like you can go back to the DWP at the end of the week and say "Um, I spent all my money on booze, fags and lobster. Please sir, can I have some more?"

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[antone]

/Antone steps out of the debate and dons moderater hat

 

This has been an interesting debate, and I've enjoyed participating, so I'd hate to have to shut it down. That said:

 

Where we do allow debates to take place on this forum, we absolutely insist that members treat each other with civility. Also, we do not allow members to insult or abuse benefit claimants or DWP staff. There are some posts in the thread that tread very close to the line on both of these issues.

 

These rules are in place to protect the forum, and to allow it to perform its primary function, which is the provision of non-judgemental benefit advice to people with problems. What we don't want is for a new person to arrive, only to be greeted by the sight of one bunch of regulars throwing buns at another bunch of regulars, and a third bunch of regulars calling benefit claimants "poopy heads".

 

With this in mind, I'll return you to your regularly scheduled debate.

[antone]

Thanks, I too have enjoyed this thread. I am aware that I have been lambasted over some of my comments, but that is what a forum is for - to air different opinions and suggestions.

 

It's fine to air opinions and discuss them politely. It's not fine to refer to hoodies hanging out at the JCP with cans of lager. I accept that people may genuinely hold these sorts of opinions, and it's a free country (sort of) and all that, but we only allow debate that doesn't interfere with our primary goals.

 

I intentionally didn't single anyone out in my previous post - let's all be courteous.

[antone]

Do you know if these new vouchers will be personal or transferable? In which case I'd be very glad to make some money by buying them for 75 to 100.

 

This is still theoretical in the UK, so I can't give you a definitive answer. In the US, EBT cards (food stamps) are not transferrable as such. You use the card at the checkout, just like it was a debit card. I'll leave it to the reader to figure out how a [problem] might operate, but operate they do. Easily and frequently.

 

Edit to add: Ouch! Caught out by the languange filters twice in one day. I am a bad, bad moderator. To determine what I meant, replace [problem] with "racket".