Is this likely to happen? Benefit related.

[littlemisssarcastic]

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

I posted this on the other thread too; this is the logical conclusion of the child benefit changes. There was so much in the media, on here, and from politicians along the lines of 'you have a car, you don't need CB', or 'your child has ballet lessons, you don't need CB' or 'you went on holiday last year, you don't need CB', it is only then a small step to say 'you buy cigarettes, you don't need benefits' or 'you bought a bottle of wine, you don't need benefits'. I warned of this at the time, but it is easy to think 'oh, someone on 40-50k has it easy' when in fact they too may be struggling, if living in the south, paying for child are and commuting to work. As soon as you go down the line of judging what people spend their money on, at whatever level, you shouldn't be surprised when it is then spread to other areas.

As I said, I think this is a good plan for addicts, to ensure they get the essentials. But otherwise I don't, but I do think it is a logical extension of the child benefit reform mindset, which I also oppose.

Slippery slope.
What about a proportion paid in vouchers?

So Fredo, you accept that there are troubled families, great, now what to do with them. Because councils are cutting frontline staff. Who is going to work with these people to encourage them into education, employment, to inspire them to want to change, who is going to ensure that if their children are on the at risk register that they a monitored, supported and policed to change their habits. Who will deal with noise abatement, drug addiction, anti-social behaviour and truancy.

I agree with this quote from the article in the OP.

"If taxpayers are safe in the knowledge that claimants can no longer purchase [luxury] items at the taxpayers' expense then the concept of welfare will be viewed once again as a responsible way of getting back on your feet.

The concept of welfare does need to change. The leftie socialists on her talk about how all benefits claimants get grouped together and stigmatised, and right leaning taxpayers get frustrated that they are spending their hard earned money on people that don't appear to deserve it.

Simple measures that make a life on benefits sustainable, but an unattractive prospect would, in my opinion, go some way to keeping everyone happy. People in need get what they need, and the people paying for that don't end up feeling taken advantage of.

Which is one of the many reasons why it will never happen. But that doesn't make it right that people with no sense of personal responsibility whatsoever are given free money to do whatever they want with.

Well , as long as you know your proposal is hopelessly impractical and utterly unimplentable, I guess I'm okay with that.

People have to realise that somebody's tax is paying for all these benefits. I would like to see the tax threshold raised to £15,000 a year. Why on earth should people being paying tax on £12,000 a year so people on £50,000 can have child benefit. It's an outrage.

"People in need get what they need"

Except with this they wouldn't.

Also I don't know if I agree with that quote. The other way to look at it is that it will make people who think of people on benefits as scroungers think that their view is justified.

The only people this benefits are shareholders of large supermarkets.

Making people use cards rather than cash considerably limits their options for saving money.

Also black economy will quickly spring up to trade in the cards.

Did you read AgentProvocateur's post?

"I used to work with asylum seekers, and this system is used for people whose asylum claim has failed, but who can't go back to their country. (It was called section 4, but may have changed). They get a £35 Asda card a week. That's all - no money for fares to get to Asda. What often happens is unscrupulous local shop owners buy the £35 card from them for £25 cash. Which they spend in local, more expensive, shops where they can buy Halal."

who is going to ensure that if their children are on the at risk register that they a monitored, supported and policed to change their habits.

Social services, as they already do for families of any level of wealth. I don't agree with cuts to social services, but that's not what the point of the thread is.

Who will deal with noise abatement, drug addiction, anti-social behaviour and truancy.

The police and the criminal justice system, which should also be better funded than they are now.

"The only people this benefits are shareholders of large supermarkets."

Absolutely.

Why wouldn't they Goth?

They would get a card that enables them to buy food, clothes and fuel.

They don't actually need anything else. They might like it, but they don't need it.

A life on benefits is already a unattractive prospect.

Would you like it?

What you need to understand though Fredo, is that this isn't about appeasing ordinary working tax payers, many of whom get far more out of the system than they contribute, in terms of roads, lighting, tc, nursery places, schooling, health, policing etc, This is about selling people an idea. This is about the wealthy justifying increasing profits set against unmet welfare needs. This is about the forces of global capital saying it will not mop up the mess it has created through tax avoidance, financification, supression of workers wages, off shoring jobs and profits.

If you stop whole swathes of people from buying alcohol from shops, alternatives will quickly appear.

In the Soviet Union for example, alcohol was rationed for everyone under Communism. Did this stop people drinking? Hell no! When I visited my family there (in 1989/90) it was normal for people to have some kind of homebrew on the go.

Home made alcohol can be pretty dangerous though, if it's spirits you're trying to make.

Deaths from drinking substandard moonshine are still a huge cause of death in Russia, even to this day.

Viviennemary, people on 12k are not paying tax so someone 50k can have child benefit. Look at it another way. The person on 12k has most of their life subsidised; schools, healthcare, tax credits - they receive a lot from the state, and pay a little in tax.

The person on 50k is a net payer - they pay more tax into the system than they get out in services/benefits, and that is as it should be - they subsidise the lower incomes, even though the differences are not huge once you get down to disposable income. Child benefit was always a tax allowance - a recognition that when bringing up children your income has to stretch that much further, so you were allowed to keep a bit more of it. Then it was changed to be a benefit, but the principle is the same.

It is simply not true to suggest the 12k earner subsidises the 50k earner's child benefit at all.

Outraged
These are just a few things that a card system would make difficult if not impossible

• pay for car parking at the hospital
• pay for car parking if I had to go into town (whether it was to buy cheaper items or go job hunting)
• pay a bus fare (no oyster card around here)
• put a pound into some supermarket trolleys
• buy from market stalls
• buy from stores where there is a minimum transaction amount for card
• buy from some charity shops
• buy from car boot sales
• pay for activities at the local children's centre

Hardly unnecessary luxuries are they?

so poor people are not allowed anything but basic needs to be met - how Victorian

People get paid MONEY so they can be like other members of society and make free choices - stop punishing people for being out of work

I remember being on tokens for free school dinners as a kid and how vile it made me feel - I went on to packed lunches to avoid being made to stand out as the poor kid

who is going to ensure that if their children are on the at risk register that they a monitored, supported and policed to change their habits

Social services, as they already do for families of any level of wealth. I don't agree with cuts to social services, but that's not what the point of the thread is

Bingo, so frontline services are being cut and now the business of social welfare is going to metered out by the DWP. You are contradicting yourself.

Do you believe it is the business of the DWP to police peoples life style choices through benefits or do you believe that when people make poor choices that other services need to be there to assist (or even police) these choices and direct social change?

Cleaning and hygiene products are also necessities.

I think I buy buy some of these in the New Year and donate them to our local food bank.

No I wouldn't like it. But I do know a girl who has chosen it because to her, it does seem like an attractive prospect. That may be because of a lack of aspiration, but the taxpayer doesn't owe her a reason to aspire for greater things. That was down to her parents to provide, but they didn't.

Maybe if she had looked at her future a few years ago and had a choice between a life living on a benefit card or a life in a low paid job that gave her significantly more money and freedom, she would have chosen the latter rather than the former.

As it is, she chose the life on benefits, with the paid for house and garden and the free money in the bank every week which increases with every child she has. She's now on her third, and is happy with her lot. Why wouldn't she be?

And yes, before its said by someone else, I know anecdote isn't data, and I know I that this person may be in a minority. But I believe she is in a significant minority, and I don't think it should be allowed to happen because of government policy on taxpayer money at all.

As so many are against them, then perhaps those that could work would actually make steps to do so rather than have the card. Thats a good thing surely. Whilst less jobs than previous years, there are still jobs for those that are not fussy.

Given the amount of people on long term JSA or IS, as having a children seems to mean millions cant possible work then, then the governments together need to work on long terms plans to stop benefits being a lifestyle choice. Children need to grow up with a good work ethic and stop the cycle repeating. Put CB, IS etc on the voucher scheme and then perhaps having children you cant afford wont seem such an attractive offer when you are not given extra cash for each one.

DLA is supposed to cover the added expenses that a disability brings or allow a person to work and assist with that so not sure that could be done via vouchers but i suppose it depends on the disability.

Goths, not if a small amount of cash was allowed. That has already been said.

Mini, that is a different subject to the one that was introduced by the OP. Changing the method of paying benefits has nothing to do with cuts to public services.

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos

"They would get a card that enables them to buy food, clothes and fuel.

They don't actually need anything else. They might like it, but they don't need it."

Please apply some imagination to this.

Things people might need cash for:

• Internet cafe to search for jobs
• Printing CV, for jobs also
• Second hand clothes
• Second hand furniture
• Public transport
• A minicab in an emergency (e.g. getting to hospital)
• Anything from the local shop (particularly important for people who don't have supermarkets near to them
• Second hand books (or is education / reading a luxury now too?)
• Food for particular diets (such as Halal)
• Cheaper food from market stalls

That's just off the top of my head.

There is no way I could afford to clothe myself if I had to buy only new clothes with the money you get from benefits.

I bought a quality winter coat from a charity shop this week for £4. Have you seen a supermarket selling wool coats for £4? No, neither have I. I am pregnant so need a new wardrobe. I'm not on benefits, but have a very low income right now. There's no way I could afford a new wardrobe if I had to only use high street shops! I would, quite simply, freeze this winter!

It's very easy to bandy about empty statements like "all people need is food, clothes and fuel." But all it shows is that you really have no idea about the reality of living on a low income today. These kinds of statements are very ignorant IMO.

Please, apply some brain power to this for just a few minutes.

Cross posts MurderOfGoths :)

You do know that if this did happen it wouldn't happen before next year when all unemployment and top up benefits will be universal credit, don't you?

So working people would also be targeted.