Benefit Swipe Cards, Good Idea Or Not?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9754188/120000-troubled-families-could-be-legally-banned-from-spending-benefits-on-alochol-and-tobacco.html

But if the idea took off, would it only effect certain families?

/// One idea under discussion in Whitehall is for the 120,000 problem families who were identified in the Government’s riots review to be given the Oyster-style cards. ///

[Old_Geezer]

I have my doubts about them. They will demean those who are decent folk merely not having sufficient to support themselves alone; and if someone is determined to spend their benefit on inappropriate (to society) items it's simple enough to buy something approved and flog it. I'm sure this is suggested with all the best intentions but suspect it will have minimal affect and meanwhile make life less pleasant for the decent majority.

[sp1814]

AOG

'affect' not 'effect'.

But leaving that piece of pendatry aside - I'm not wholly against a form of voucher system whereby benefits could be targetted to essentials (food, clothing, heating, rent etc), but the system would have to be locked down tight and I don't believe that those with alcohol/drug dependencies would simply be able to wean themselves off because of a lack of cash.

People don't give up addictions because they're forced to - they give them up because they want to.

[daffy654]

Why not just build (or adapt) some poorhouses and send all benefit claimants and their children to live in them, they would receive no income whatsoever and be made to work in menial jobs to earn their food and education for their children.


this is sarcasm for those who can't tell

[dave50]

So daffy they would be clothed, fed, kept warm in exchange for doing some work. Tell me what's wrong with that?

[New Judge]

Strangely I was about to say exactly that, Dave, before I read your post. There seems to be a widespread belief that people who do no work whatsoever out of choice should be able to lead exactly the same (or usually better) lifestyles as those who get up at 6am every day to go to work.

There are people who are out of work through no fault of their own and who are doing everything they can to get back into work. They deserve support to carry on with their lives until they recover. But there are people who have no intention of ever working. Many of them live lifestyles their working neighbours cannot afford. They have top of the range mobile phones. They take foreign holidays. They can afford to eat and drink out. They attend expensive sporting events. They run cars. They should not be able to afford any of these luxuries and the idea to restrict what they can spend their money on (and so reduce the amount they need to live) is one that should be seriously considered. Then there would be more cash to help those who want to get back into work.

[daffy654]

The only benefit claimants who can afford to do those things you list are those who are involved in illegal activities or fiddling the benefit somehow.

Have you ever had to live on the piddling amount that you get from the DWP? I bet none of you know how small the amount of cash you actually get is, you all just hear/read what is said on/in the news/papers and take that as gospel.

[JaneDoe2]

A single parent with three children under the age of 16 could receive £302.61 per week in benefits . This does NOT include housing benefit up to the full amount of her rent (say av. £450 per month) This would go up to £373.61 if her partner was out of work too which would make a monthly income of £ 1598. If you take into account free school meals (£30 per week for 3 kids) and free prescriptions , dental care etc. well, that's more than a lot of people earn who are on a low wage. hardly 'piddling amounts'

[daffy654]

People on a low wage would be entitled to top-ups from Tax Credits (child and working) so your comparison doesn't really stand up as both are on benefits.

[Old_Geezer]

Regardless as to whether the benefit is deserved or not, the issue is surely, does this suggestion help any. Not sure it does. Those who wish to support themselves and contribute to society will already be trying to get to that stage, whilst those who are not will not be fazed by having a card. They won't see it as a shame thing since they are already prepared to live off of others and probably do not hide that fact.

The thought that those given benefits should be given toil to earn them seems ok at first glance but there are 2 problems at least (off the top of my head). First, if there are tasks they could do then those tasks ought to already form part of paid employment. So there can not be spare tasks available to hand out to claimants. Second is a human dignity issue. One ought not reach a stage where one can say, "You are poor, you have to do anything I tell you because of your lack of worth or I shan't give you any charity". It's not the sort of society most will be wanting; so a sensible balance for these things has to be found.

[JaneDoe2]

yes daffy both are on benefits but one family sits on their backsides watching daytime TV and the other family are working their nuts off for next to nothing.

[TTG]

What do other countries do?

[sherrardk]

JaneDoe - does your figure include Child Benefit (which other people get too)?

[daffy654]

Great generalisation there JaneDoe, do you personally know every unemployed family in the UK? Do you know for a fact that they are not wanting to work/looking for work?

[MissCommando]

Daffy, I agree with you. My husband doesn't work (he's a clever bloke and wants to work but he's too poorly at the mo). Well if he could get a part-time legal job working in an office (he has to be sat down as he's disabled) that'd be perfect but there is sod all around.

He gets absolute peanuts. We were soooo much better off when he was working so I agree that these people who brag/go on all these holidays etc must be fiddling the system. I work and we are struggling big time every month. We go to my in-laws every night for tea (they offered) and it saves us a hell of a lot. We need money for bills and the measly amount he gets goes on those!!

[sherrardk]

I've said this before but life on benefits is not the life of Riley. We lost everything, including somewhere to live and were at the mercy of the benefit system. Whilst there are some people who must be abusing the system the vast majority, IMO, don't. Unless you have been forced to live on benefits and be at the mercy of a system that seems to change its rules on a whim, scraping by, then I think you should think more carefully before responding to such threads.

[JaneDoe2]

I did not say living on benefits is the life of riley -neither is working 40 hours a week on minimum wage or trying to make a living self-employed. what I am saying is that the money certain people get is not 'piddling'. I certainly don't call £500 a week piddling. And don't presume I know nothing about living on benefits because my first husband died suddenly when he was 36 leaving me with two children under 5 and no job, no way to pay mortgage so got evicted...ended up on benefits but never complained was grateful for the 'piddling' amount to see me through until i got myself going again.

[pdq1]

Soup kitchens are spreading all over the country. It is not beyond the wit of man to remove a money portion from benefit handouts and replace it with a food delivery such as the supermarkets provide. Of course cigarette and alcohol wouldn't be included. Their swipe cards could be used to purchase the food only.

[sherrardk]

JaneDoe, you seem to be a very mean spirited person, all of your post seem to have some sort of snide element to them. Good for you, you got back on your feet, some people are not so lucky. Count your blessings and be grateful that you had the good fortune to get your self sorted out after the sad loss of your husband.

[JaneDoe2]

how very rude sherrardk.