Benefits Cash Card

[Gay_guy1986]

Hi all,

 

Not sure if this has been posted anywhere as I can't find a topic on this but Just want to let you know what the goverment plans are and this is a stupid idea!

 

The Goverment are stating that people on benefits will be issued with a card to get food and basic items and reduced fags and beer spending!

 

First of all I don't smoke so this won't affect me but I like a drink now and then but I don't drink all the time! second how on earth will I be able to pay my bt bill as I have bt to search for Jobs online and apply online, this is just sick and really horrible what the goverment is doing to honest climants like me as people who play with the system who is not looking for work and like spending they lives on benefits and no intention of finding a Job is making honest climants who gets this card and take it to a tesco store ete so embarrassing and we don't have to put up with this!

 

and if this gets into force how on earth people can pay they gas and electric top ups? as I have a top up meter for both and pay other bills like water? tv Licence?

 

It really angers me this and honest climants shouldn't been made to suffer

 

Here is the link: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/alexandraswann/100194870/welfare-cash-cards-can-help-reduce-the-benefits-bill-and-stop-people-buying-booze-and-fags-with-taxpayers-money/

 

What do you think of this?

[san_d]

It has been discussed before on this board. At the moment this is only a proposal but I am pretty sure sooner or later this will be reality. We are inevitably going towards a US "food stamps" model, where the government will decide for you what you can or cannot buy. At the end of the day for many people the unemployed are not human beings, therefore they have no human rights.

[Nystagmite]

How much is this going to cost? Due to dietary needs, I sometimes spend more on food than most people. Does this card mean I won't be able to? That's unfair really - I will be penalised for something out of my control.

[Surfer01]

If it is targeted at people who abuse the system then it can only be a good thing, however to hand it to every benefit claimant would not be a good idea. Perhaps if used as a last resort it may be of some value.

I know of some people who get their benefit and then spend it in the pub. They are probably there from opening to closing time judging by the state they are in when they return home.

[estellyn]

If it is targeted at people who abuse the system then it can only be a good thing, however to hand it to every benefit claimant would not be a good idea. Perhaps if used as a last resort it may be of some value.

I know of some people who get their benefit and then spend it in the pub. They are probably there from opening to closing time judging by the state they are in when they return home.

 

But what if that person has no kids and is single - is it anyone else's business? Maybe as an option for social services to implement as a last resort prior to removing children.

 

Not to mention the fact that the whole thing is unworkable - people need cash for some things, or are they going to make people queue in jobcentres for vouchers that can be used on buses, taxis, market stalls, etc? Also how does this work with universal credit? How will they distinguish between working and not working, or will it apply to all without a disability?

 

My husband is already very annoyed, that they very cheap white rum he buys (takes him about 4-8 weeks to get through a bottle), will be increasing in price by 50% all because of teenage binge drinkers. Now people genuinely down on their luck and trying hard, will be unable to enjoy a glass of wine at christmas, or a beer watching the game on a Saturday. And then there's the slippery slope - how many other things will be deemed 'inappropriate' for those on benefits - technology purchases? Pet related items? Fizzy drinks? Cinema trip? Junk food? And who decides what is 'appropriate'?

 

An unworkable human rights violation.

[LaughingGirl]

Well, I'd say it's more than simply an idea if they've started the tender process to select the supplier for the product, which we know that they have. I'd say it's a foregone conclusion.

 

I have to say, I've seen nothing in the tender to suggest that it's definitely going to take this format, nor that they are going to restrict what can be purchased using the card. However, I know that the idea of restricting what benefit claimants can spend their cash on is attractive to a certain variety of person, and to be honest, I fully expect this to at least be bandied about as an idea. I suppose it depends how much of an uproar the suggestion causes, and since we seem happy to lie down for anything at the moment...well, I wouldn't be surprised if this is what we end up with.

[LaughingGirl]

It didn't stop them with the price per unit thing, it didn't stop them with the smoking ban, and I don't see it stopping them with this.

 

The objective is, at the end of the day, to make life on benefits so completely unbearable that people will take any job that lands on their doorstep, no matter how bad the pay and conditions are. I'm walking proof that it works, as well. I've just taken a job at £8,000 a year less than my last one, because the thought of starting the New Year having to justify taking a pee to all and sundry just because I'm on JSA fills me with utter dread. The tax payer will still be choking out God knows how much for WTC and Housing Benefit for me, but at least Comedy Dave will be able to strike another one off the unemployment figures, eh?

[estellyn]

Well, I'd say it's more than simply an idea if they've started the tender process to select the supplier for the product, which we know that they have. I'd say it's a foregone conclusion.

 

I have to say, I've seen nothing in the tender to suggest that it's definitely going to take this format, nor that they are going to restrict what can be purchased using the card. However, I know that the idea of restricting what benefit claimants can spend their cash on is attractive to a certain variety of person, and to be honest, I fully expect this to at least be bandied about as an idea. I suppose it depends how much of an uproar the suggestion causes, and since we seem happy to lie down for anything at the moment...well, I wouldn't be surprised if this is what we end up with.

 

No the tendering process is about special accounts/cards to help people with budgeting when monthly UC payments come in, at present there is nothing there about limiting what the money can be spent on.

[joeski]

stupid idea from a stupid goverment, it will never happen as sooner or later the idi*t that thought it up will realise how stupid he is!

[LaughingGirl]

No the tendering process is about special accounts/cards to help people with budgeting when monthly UC payments come in, at present there is nothing there about limiting what the money can be spent on.

 

Yep, and that's why I said that I hadn't seen anything that suggests they're going to restrict what can be purchased (unless you count the concept of 'ring fencing' claimants money for specific payments, and I don't). I am, however, saying that I wouldn't be in the least surprised if the idea is kicked around, at the very least.

[estellyn]

It didn't stop them with the price per unit thing, it didn't stop them with the smoking ban, and I don't see it stopping them with this.

 

The objective is, at the end of the day, to make life on benefits so completely unbearable that people will take any job that lands on their doorstep, no matter how bad the pay and conditions are. I'm walking proof that it works, as well. I've just taken a job at £8,000 a year less than my last one, because the thought of starting the New Year having to justify taking a pee to all and sundry just because I'm on JSA fills me with utter dread. The tax payer will still be choking out God knows how much for WTC and Housing Benefit for me, but at least Comedy Dave will be able to strike another one off the unemployment figures, eh?

 

Wich is all well and good if there are enough jobs for everyone and it was a case of loads of skivers - but it isn't, there aren't enough jobs to go round, and when the music stops, several million people will be left in a situation where they have no way of getting even a badly paid, part time job.

[LaughingGirl]

I'd love to disagree, but I can't.

 

The idea that sanctioning people, for example, is suddenly going to force them to get a job would be laughable if it wasn't such seriously screwed up thinking.

 

The people that I know of who are what the Daily Mail would classify as 'scroungers' aren't that way because they woke up one morning and thought 'I don't fancy the idea of working, I shan't play any longer! I can't wait for a life of crisis loans and hiding from Brighthouse collectors!". They're like that because they have massive, massive social, economic and educational barriers to overcome before they ever become employable. Some of them aren't physically, mentally or emotionally capable of holding down a job for a week, let alone long term. Quite frankly, you sanction them, they'll just go and rob a bookies, or start selling drugs.

 

People who don't like it can get as sniffy as they like about it. If there are people like that in our society, it's because we made them. Or more correctly, we failed them.

 

I don't pretend to have all the answers, but I do know that withdrawing all financial aid from anyone is barbaric. If you make desperate people, then they will do desperate things.

 

Going back to the topic, I don't see how taking someone's money and spending it on their behalf is going to make them financially responsible, either. I know Estellyn has given some really good examples in the past of where ring fencing payments could help some of the most vulnerable, but unless you help them become more financially responsible at the same time, you're just making people even more dependent on the state...not less.

[joeski]

I'd love to disagree, but I can't.

 

The idea that sanctioning people, for example, is suddenly going to force them to get a job would be laughable if it wasn't such seriously screwed up thinking.

 

The people that I know of who are what the Daily Mail would classify as 'scroungers' aren't that way because they woke up one morning and thought 'I don't fancy the idea of working, I shan't play any longer! I can't wait for a life of crisis loans and hiding from Brighthouse collectors!". They're like that because they have massive, massive social, economic and educational barriers to overcome before they ever become employable. Some of them aren't physically, mentally or emotionally capable of holding down a job for a week, let alone long term. Quite frankly, you sanction them, they'll just go and rob a bookies, or start selling drugs.

 

People who don't like it can get as sniffy as they like about it. If there are people like that in our society, it's because we made them. Or more correctly, we failed them.

 

I don't pretend to have all the answers, but I do know that withdrawing all financial aid from anyone is barbaric. If you make desperate people, then they will do desperate things.

 

Going back to the topic, I don't see how taking someone's money and spending it on their behalf is going to make them financially responsible, either. I know Estellyn has given some really good examples in the past of where ring fencing payments could help some of the most vulnerable, but unless you help them become more financially responsible at the same time, you're just making people even more dependent on the state...not less.

 

hear hear

[45002]

Hi all,

 

 

 

It really angers me this and honest climants shouldn't been made to suffer

 

Here is the link: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/alexandraswann/100194870/welfare-cash-cards-can-help-reduce-the-benefits-bill-and-stop-people-buying-booze-and-fags-with-taxpayers-money/

 

What do you think of this?

 

A complete and utter loads of Rubbish and Crap and will never become Law and more worry about nothing !

[caledfwlch]

When I worked for the DWP on Direct Payments, back when that was coming in, my trainer told us we had to try and avoid mentioning people could still have Giro's but if pushed we had to admit, yet, you can still have them - iirc it would have meant changing a hell of a lot of other laws to force people to only receive payments via BACS into a bank account.

 

So, a "payment card" seems even more of a pipedream.

[Nystagmite]

And then there's the slippery slope - how many other things will be deemed 'inappropriate' for those on benefits - technology purchases? Pet related items? Fizzy drinks? Cinema trip? Junk food? And who decides what is 'appropriate'?

This is the problem I have. I go out a few times a week and have to buy train tickets for said trips. Would I be denied the opportunity to do these things? (which helps me a lot - because I'm actually socalising and am not stuck in the house 24/7) If I didn't do these things, it would more than likely start to cause issues with depression again. That is going to cost the NHS money.

 

Also, how can they decide how much someone spends on travel, electricity, etc? Some people walk everywhere, therefore have little or no travel costs. Some may use a lot of electricity if they job hunt, fill in forms, etc. online most days.

 

Maybe they should do this for MPs expenses...

[RaeUK]

It's pie in the sky thinking. The card would have to act like a debit card and be acceptable online. In the unlikely event it could be programmable to interpret the individual items purchased (as opposed to the total as is the current state of affairs), there would be many sites popping up to get around the problem. You buy a packet of cigarettes and it appears on your bill as a pair of socks.

[45002]

It's pie in the sky thinking. The card would have to act like a debit card and be acceptable online. In the unlikely event it could be programmable to interpret the individual items purchased (as opposed to the total as is the current state of affairs), there would be many sites popping up to get around the problem. You buy a packet of cigarettes and it appears on your bill as a pair of socks.

 

I think there idea was to use theses pay as you go debt and credit cards you can get nowadays and control what you spend your money on.

 

Given the amount of 10 minute rule bills that ever become law in the 1st place,it's just a pipe dream of a few Tory right wingers with nothing else better to do

Edited December 20, 2012 by 45002

[Surfer01]

But what if that person has no kids and is single - is it anyone else's business? Maybe as an option for social services to implement as a last resort prior to removing children.

 

Not to mention the fact that the whole thing is unworkable - people need cash for some things, or are they going to make people queue in jobcentres for vouchers that can be used on buses, taxis, market stalls, etc? Also how does this work with universal credit? How will they distinguish between working and not working, or will it apply to all without a disability?

 

My husband is already very annoyed, that they very cheap white rum he buys (takes him about 4-8 weeks to get through a bottle), will be increasing in price by 50% all because of teenage binge drinkers. Now people genuinely down on their luck and trying hard, will be unable to enjoy a glass of wine at christmas, or a beer watching the game on a Saturday. And then there's the slippery slope - how many other things will be deemed 'inappropriate' for those on benefits - technology purchases? Pet related items? Fizzy drinks? Cinema trip? Junk food? And who decides what is 'appropriate'?

 

An unworkable human rights violation.

 

Are you condoning benefit cheats? It seems that way from your post. I did state as a last resort with people who are benefit scroungers, i.e. druggies, alcoholics and people who play the system. It seems that the minister wants to target this category and not the genuine people who do need benefits.

[LaughingGirl]

I don't understand how you get that Estellyn condones benefit cheats from that post. At all.

[Nystagmite]

Are you condoning benefit cheats? It seems that way from your post. I did state as a last resort with people who are benefit scroungers, i.e. druggies, alcoholics and people who play the system. It seems that the minister wants to target this category and not the genuine people who do need benefits.

 

Many with alcohol / drug issues also have severe mental health problems. This doesn't make them benefit scroungers.

[LaughingGirl]

I said on another thread about this, there was recently a debate on a BBC breakfast show about whether the spending of those on benefits should be restricted. They weren't discussing a card, but the use of food vouchers a la the system in the United States. There was one guy on that who was adamant that claimants spent all of their money on alcohol, cigarettes and of all things, pornography.

 

It's laughable. When we relieve our JSA, after I've paid our rent top up and gas and electric, I have around £80 left for 3 people, to last 2 weeks. This has to cover food, transport (including the cost of attending interviews up to 45 minutes away, which is anywhere between £6.60 and £10.40 a time), and the cost of our phone and broadband (which is as you have already stated, essential. I couldn't apply for jobs without them, because the public PC facilities in this town are so poor. There's only two PC's in the JCP, and the one's in the library cost £2 for 30 minutes). With all due respect, anyone who thinks we're out piddling tax payers money up against the wall is out of their mind. Over the last twelve weeks, I've had to chose between attending out of town interviews and food. Beer and fags don't even come into the equation.

 

It's counter productive, forcing people off benefits and into low paid work. They're still going to be paying through the nose in HB and WTC, unless they somehow plan on doing something about the cost of renting privately, energy bills and transport costs.

[joeski]

how dare MPs dictate what other people spend money on, after all MPs are the biggest scroungers going with their expenses, perks etc..i say we get rid of all MPs expenses and perks, make them live on a single wage

[san_d]

The objective is, at the end of the day, to make life on benefits so completely unbearable that people will take any job that lands on their doorstep, no matter how bad the pay and conditions are.

 

No, the real objective is to pump more money into larger retail chains, that don't pay tax in the UK and are on the list of Tories' donors.

[Nystagmite]

how dare MPs dictate what other people spend money on, after all MPs are the biggest scroungers going with their expenses, perks etc..i say we get rid of all MPs expenses and perks, make them live on a single wage

 

Before making such pathetic comments, MPs should try living on JSA for 6 months and see how they manage.