Is this likely to happen? Benefit related.

[littlemisssarcastic]

And where would it end?? Is this just the start of a slippery slope ?

Having read a thread on here quite recently about people on a very low income / benefits spending their money on cigarettes and alcohol rather on food and presents etc. I think that it is a good idea. Benefit money is not for luxuries.

I agree with Pingu.

Unlikely to happen, it'd come under all sorts of 'human rights' protests. It would mean those of us who shop around, look for discounts etc, would be penalised and would therefore end up spending more than we do currently.

They should maybe, instead, think about helping people out with budgeting and living within their means.

I can see some positives in this idea, for example families where children go without because scarce resources are spent by parents on drugs or alcohol but think it would be unworkable as things don't classify into essential and luxury/sinful that easily.

Say you're on benefits and I'm not, we're mates, you stick a tember on my electric key and I buy you some fags.

In theory it's a good idea, in practice it's flawed.

Bonkers.
An idea thought up by people who have no idea of what life is like on benefits.

First things that come to mind - on benefits means you buy things from the market stalls, car boot sales, charity shops. Are these cards going to be accepted at such places? No.

The few who decide to drink and smoke rather than feed and clothe the family will find a way around such a system - an illegal way. Those who genuinely need help due to circumstances will be made to feel....well, I can't imagine how it would make you feel.

Okay Pingu. I work an eighteen hour day, looking after four disabled people. One dh and three ds. Explain why I am not allowed the odd glass of wine.

I like the theory because spending of benefits should be prioritised to keep the children warm/fed/housed, but very often aren't

but in practice I think it'ld be a terrible idea, people need some autonomy as needs vary

Where would it end though?

It seems a slippery slope to me. How long until they decide christmas presents are a luxury that shouldn't be afforded to people on benefits, or maybe if this gets up and running, they'll decide exactly what a person needs to keep a body and soul together and forbid them anything else....only allowing them to buy staple foods which are of the cheapest quality.

'Madam, we shall have to decline you the blackcurrant squash, since your card wont allow it...It is deemed to be a luxury item.'

Maybe it would stop at alcohol and cigarettes...but I somehow doubt that very much.

The slippery slope aspect of this is what bothers me the most.

As does the assumption that people on benefits regularly blow that money on crap. Yes, I'm sure there are people on benefits who blow the lot on alcohol and cigarettes, and don't give a fuck about anything else, but this system assumes that it's the majority which is simply not true.

I also really dislike the idea that benefit claimant = dumbass. That's what this proposal suggests, that they are too thick to manage their budgets correctly.

It all just makes me feel very uncomfortable.

I think this is horrible. Of course there are people who spend their benefit money on smoking/alcohol etc but there are others who do not. I imagine an existence on benefits is miserable enough without imposing further indignities such as this.

My last post was to Pingu btw.

I doubt it will happen but i dont think it is neccessarily a bad thing. I am having to make huge cuts due to salary drop and price increases. I cant afford to go out drinking.

Oh for goodness sake! It's a totally demeaning proposition. Let people spend ther meagre pittance on whatever they like. They are adults in need of assistance, not criminals who need to have their every action monitored.

On the fence about it.

I can see that cigarettes and alcohol are luxuries and benefits are not there to fund luxuries.

But it's a slippery slope and crosses a line. If you're entitled to benefits you're entitled to benefits... There shouldn't be caveats.

I bet it will never happen.

What about those of us who are in the middle? I budget very well, and therefore have enough left over for luxuries such as holidays, cigarettes and alcohol. Why should I be penalised because I make my money work for us?

What do you mean, you are 'in the middle' kinky?

It's a crap idea. That reduces responsibility in those families where there are no addicts ect,

It provides more gov money to big supermarkets reduces spending in small local shops provides less choice to the consumer, singles perfectly respectable people out for humiliation,

Who gets to decide what items are essential or not? Mp's who are very happy to spend tax payers money on champaign?

I mean on the middle of the scale - neither the 'minted' or on the breadline.

It's not going to happen, but if it did, I'd like to know what their 'troubled family' criteria would be.

Then I may or may not support it.

Torn by this one

On the one hand why shouldn't people who work hard but get some benefits be able to have a smoke/drink if they want to?

On the other hand from personal experience I've seen children go without because their parents idea of a grocery shop is a multibag of crisps, beer and a few scratchcards...

I think it is an excellent idea. We keep hearing about the necessity for foodbanks as benefit is so low. So I can't see the problem.

What would be classed as a luxury?a phone, the internet, a car?

To some people these are essentials not luxuries.

This idea is ridiculous and is never going to work.