Is this likely to happen? Benefit related.

[littlemisssarcastic]

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

Ghostship, thanks for saying your budget. Do your bills include phone, internet or tv? just asking because you said no leisure budget. Do you save for a pension at all or are you expecting to start one at a later stage? Do you have a contingency fund ie in case of redundancy?

Have just read this and I am stunned at some of the vitriol directed at 'certain' benefit claimants.

You know fuck all about em you stupid cow

And as expected, Ghostship shows her true colours.

You know, in the 70 and 80s some large companies employing low waged workers used to hold massive parties for their workers that extended family, working or not, could come to, gave a turkey each to all of their workers and had sports clubs and cinemas and theatres on site - now all of that is given to the middle class workers with low wagers on less than benefits - what the fuck happened to us?

Ghosty, pride comes before a fall. What will you do in Wigan, if ever you lose your job?
I would claim benefits and find a job. I wouldn't expect said benefits to enable me to get pissed though.

I've never said people shouldn't claim benefits. They just shouldn't abuse then.

me

Article 14 of the European Convention of Human Rights
The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.

If you restrict what people can buy/can not buy based on employment/income status you are discriminating and are infringing freedoms.

So if this was introduced there would be an inevitable legal challenge. This would be a costly business to the tax payer.

Then we have historical precedence for what happens when you restrict access to alcohol. See Prohibition. People simply sort it by illegal methods; so you are talking increased stealing, formation of blackmarkets or bootlegging.

So already determined individuals in disadvantaged groups are put in a position where they are more likely to commit a criminal offense compared to the rest of the population. So thats more cost to the penal system, policing, legal aid and the knock on costs to social services etc.

Oh and bootlegging alcohol is rather dangerous too.

Then we have problems with restricting access to cash. This means people are limited to where they can shop. This has implications for access, particularly for people without cars or mobility issues. Prices become higher through limited competition. This is also more likely to put other small businesses and independent traders who rely on the income from people on benefits out of business as they won't participate in the system or even if they are able to, such a system is liable to be based on non-instant payments to the trader - delayed payments are harder for smaller businesses to cope with.

And what happens to all the second hand trade out there? Its not only more difficult to buy second hand items. It also becomes more difficult to sell second hand.

Its so economically flawed its unreal.

Its nice on paper, until you factor in that humans are not robots.

So, is anyone going to tell me, how exactly, this is going to benefit anyone - out there economically and why this is the solution to the problem rather than other ideas?

Anyone?

usual, I didn't say that I agree with this idea. I'm pretty sure I disagree with it.

My point was just that some people do abuse benefits - I admit, not very specific to this discussion about the card idea.

"stupid cow"? what is this bollocks, can we not calm down and have a reasonable discussion?

Bloody hell this is depressing

Those who spend their money on fags/booze/drugs instead of prioritising their dc will always find a way to carry on.

Those with serious drug addictions will just steal to pay for their habit.
The people who will be penalised will be those who shop around and budget well, as they will no longer have a choice where to shop

Ach, was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Fuck you, you immature, superior little wind-up merchant
Yes of course you were, evidently in your post

Don't you think that many of those that could be considered to be in the middle classes aren't feeling like there is too much money being taken from them too?

People on benefits aren't the only ones who are struggling at the moment.

This is where the rich vs poor divide

This thread has really depressed me. I want a fair system with people not able to work or who have responsibilities which do not allow them to work outside the home taken care of. And yet I am coming across as a benefits basher. I despair.

"stupid cow"? what is this bollocks, can we not calm down and have a reasonable discussion?

Yes stupid cow. I've already been called a naive little fool but I suppose no-ones arsed about that. Or any of the other posts where people have taken the piss. But I suppose when I'm on the minority things like that are bound to be ignored...

Tell you what, lets all have this entitled attitude. Lets all just get sacked and claim benefits because we'd be better off. Would that make people happy, really? Because so far I've been made to feel like an idiot for working for minimum wage.

The people who abuse the system will continue to do so. People have a right to choose how to spend the money they're given or are we going to ban them from buying chocolate, white bread and sausage rolls too?

Like a said earlier a druggie/alchy will always find ways and means to keep up with their lifestyle.
Not everyone on benefits fits the stereotype, why should everyone suffer due to the minority?

And if booze/fags were to be banned isn't it about time the goverment stopped necking spirits at parties and smoking cigars

Well perhaps a way forward would be for every school to offer a hot breakfast and lunch for children. Either free or heavily subsidised. I would be in favour of that.

gordy, me too .
I worked in a 'live in in house provided' job until my cheating bastard of a husband did the same thing.
I lost my marriage, job and my home at the same time.
Luckily I got an HA home, and when I say lucky it was actually miraculous, as this is a very tiny village and I was down on the homeless list for B&B 60 miles away.
I worked for that particular organisation for nearly 20 years, even before I met my partner, so certainly paid towards my benefits.

Look at all the fantastic things humans can achieve when they have food clothes and shelter and security, and look at the lack of productivity when people have to fight just to get these things and feel secure.

If benefit and wages are less than in costs to have security, food, shelter and heating in the winter, you have an unproductive society.

What's worse is that we also have a layer where all this is given disproportionately to people who are ineffectual, self-satisfied and condemning of the overall population - i.e. not team players, people who would eat all the food on a life raft and then blame the dead for not being there to help them survive. We need to reward people who share wealth, who bolster the population and the country and make sure we are resiliant, and able to produce and grow a new generation. At the moment we reward people who will step on everyone's faces just to be one inch higher than the majority. Its those we need to attack and destroy.

I am sick of being lectured by someone on £30K with dreadful condemning and selfish attitudes about how everyone should help them maintain their lifestyle but they should pay for no-one.

Ghostship How do you decide who has every intention of working and who does not?

Genuine question btw, because I thought the govt have been attempting to nail this conundrum since benefits began, and have been unable to do so. I might be wrong, but isn't this a large part of the problem...that there is really no conclusive way of proving which one is which without severely penalising the 'genuine desperately seeking employment claimants, of which I'm sure the vast majority are??

FWIW, I happen to believe that the majority of benefit claimants are genuine and would love to work.

I also believe that the vast majority of people who find themselves unemployed, are unemployed through no fault of their own, as in, they want to work but cannot gain employment.

Why do you believe some recipients of benefit are entitled to a few luxuries, and other recipients are not, based on which benefit they are receiving? It really does sound like you honestly believe that the vast majority of people claiming JSA are the 'undeserving poor', when in fact they are usually no more to blame for their situation than someone who cannot work IYSWIM.

They are in different situations, yet imo are both 'deserving poor'.

How do you feel about people who are not claiming JSA but Income Support?
Or is it only people on JSA you deem to be the undeserving poor'? And would this include those people who are claiming contribution based JSA?