Is this likely to happen? Benefit related.

[littlemisssarcastic]

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

I like any idea which supports an attempt to change the perception of benefit claimants. The scroungers out there make life harder for those genuinely in need. Maybe this card is a start, not really sure how it would work in practice. Maybe like a chip and pin so that it can't be sold on. I do actually support the idea to a certain extent that a proportion of benefit should be allocated to it but not all. As mentioned up thread, people need freedom to shop around for certain items.

Darkesteyes is she on mn? cos going by this thread it sounds like it

BandersnatchCummerbund I've been reminded of that modest proposal all day.

Dark times

currant bun-how do you differentiate between the "scroungers" and those genuinely in need?
Are you saying that there is a moral gulf between the "deserving" and "undeserving" poor..?

"I like any idea which supports an attempt to change the perception of benefit claimants."

If it's the perception of benefits claimants you're worried about, then how about this?

How about the government stop making up spin about "problem families" (who don't even seem to exist. They couldn't find them anyway!) and stirring up hatred of people on benefits and popularising the idea of the undeserving poor?

That would be a good place to start with changing perceptions I would think.

Better than making vaste swathes of society poorer anyway (which would be the real affect of limiting access to cash).

Innit. The thing is, there are problem families. There really are. But their problems are deeply ingrained, and complex, and far reaching, and will not be helped by punishing (and lets not kid ourselves, these "reforms" are punishment) all poor people.
And the second coming is right. People in receipt of WTC and housing benefit (and lets not forget that 60 % of ALL renters get some HB ) are "on benefits".
The things that will help to reduce the strain on "welfare" (and lets also not forget that "welfare" includes Nana's pension) are real jobs, investment in real industries, and real wages.

I had a tenant for just under 18 months. For 13 months HB paid me directly at the request of my tenant. Then, the tenant's financial position changed, her partner moved out and less money was coming into the home. The tenant cancelled direct rent payment to me so she could keep the money herself. She had an alcohol problem and openly admitted to having spent the money on drink. I never received another payment from her. I contacted HB directly asking them to reconsider direct payments because of the tenants alcohol addiction. They knew this existed because it was the reason she originally used to get the payments made directly to me. They refused and as a result i had no choice but to evict her leaving her in a more vulnerable position. I think the system failed her and that payment should have come directly to me. But, they maintain it was for her own good as she has to learn to manage her own finances.

My best guess is that a system will get introduced, though not quite like the one that is in the op's link. And I would have thought it would take a couple of years to go through law and be implemented?

Perhaps a system like the American one?

Common sense tells us that people need a roof over their heads and enough to eat. If government intervention can help with that then I think it should be done in certain cases. CurrentBun your post proves that a direct payment to you from the Authority would have kept your tennant from being evicted.

It does Vivienne and I hated evicting her because she looked after the property and was generally a good tenant. But at the end of the day I had the mortgage to pay.

Current bun,

All you need to use a chip and pin card is hummmmmm let's think

The chip (card) and the pin. People can sell on both you know.

And if it was a photo card like a driving licence would they sell that on too sock ? If the government are going to do it then they will find a way. They always do when money is involved.

"If the government are going to do it then they will find a way."
Sorry but PMSL!

People will find a way to subvert this.

Addicts particularly (who some people think this will help) are nothing if not inventive. They will find a way round it.

And the more difficult you make it to subvert, the bigger the cost to ordinary people.

If the card had a photo for example, and only the person on it was allowed to use it, then everyone would have to do their own shopping. What a pain that would be! One half of a couple wouldn't be able to shop for the other - both would need to be there to make use of both cards. Elderly people wouldn't be able to have someone do it on their behalf, nor anyone with a mobility issue. Adult children living at home won't be able to give their cards to whoever is doing the shopping (and let's not forget the Tories think adult children up to 25 should be in the family home).

What a disruption! What is the point of doing this again? Is it really worth it?

At the end if the day all these people who say that people shouldn't buy certain things on benefits etc... Have clearly never been in that position!!

I just hope that your husband doesn't have an affair, your kid has an accident or your made redundant because one day it might happen to you.

Get down of your high horse!

I'm still not sure what people are actually wanting to achieve

Either they want the state to have absolute control over what "scroungers" spend their money on as they don't believe they can spend responsibly. Which would mean a card with no method of cash withdrawal, which would in turn mean not being able to use cash at all. Which would stop them being able to access some cash only services, many of which would actually be a better way of managing their money. Or accessing basic essentials (hospital parking/bus fares/etc).

Or they want them to be able to access those services, in which case they'd need access to cash, in which case the state wouldn't have full control.

Are either of those situations really a good solution? Do either of them improve the situation as it is now?

Or is it just that they think people on benefits should just be treated as something "other"?

Its not even hard to get around, even if they are photo cards with pin codes that cant be sold on!

Someone who isnt on benefits goes out and buys booze and fags. They then trade what they have bought for food that the "scroungers" have gotten with their cards.

Nice people doing it for their family or friends might not mark it up, swapping say a £3.99 chicken for a £3.99 bottle of wine. But then there will be people who gain on it, swapping three chickens and a leg of lamb for a crate of beer, so their food bill goes down, leaving them more money for holidays to Cuba at the cost of the taxpayer and detrimental to the "scroungers"

Absolutely BeyondStuffedWithXmassyGoodies. A thriving black market will quickly spring up if these cards come in.

It won't solve any of the problems it's claiming to. Anyone who claims it will is woefully out of touch with the real world IMO. Either that or spinning a line to get people to agree to it.

It will however make profit for big business. And also punish the poor for being poor.

And that's the point of it really IMO.

I agree, people can find a way around anything. But, as long as the government are seen to be doing something about 'benefit fraud' they won't really care about the impact it will have on society. The thing is, they really don't think things through properly do they. Remember the Poll Tax, what a farse that was.

"as long as the government are seen to be doing something about 'benefit fraud' they won't really care about the impact it will have on society"

Well there we agree absolutely! They don't seem to care about the impact on society.

"The thing is, they really don't think things through properly do they."

I'm not sure. I think it depends on what their motivations are. Personally I think they're trying to get away with as much as they can.

Their motive is not to help ordinary people. Their primary motives are to support business and their own kind - the very wealthy. (I really do think it's this crass! They're either stupid or have a different agenda to the one they say they do. It's got to be the latter IMO as I really don't think they're that stupid.)

Did we really win over the Poll Tax? It didn't come in as Poll Tax, but Council Tax is pretty much a Poll-Tax-lite. Council Tax benefit is being scrapped from April. Each council will be able to decide how to deal with poorer households.

Lord Jenkins, who invented the Poll Tax (the Community Charge) now thinks the Poll Tax was a mistake and we're doing it again.

From BBC News:

"Lord Jenkins [said] he was not proud of having "dreamt up" in the 1980s the Community Charge - which became known as the "poll tax" and faced mass protest and a central London riot before being replaced by the Council Tax.

He said the same mistakes were being made now.

"The poll tax was introduced with the proposition that everyone should pay something, and with the present structure of society it doesn't work. We got it wrong," he told the BBC.

"The same factor will apply here, that there will be large numbers of fairly poor households who have hitherto been protected from Council Tax, who are going to be asked to pay small sums."

"It is quite clear that ... there will be substantial sums of Council Tax, very small figures individually, that councils will have to collect from a large number of pretty vulnerable households," he said.

Incidentally, my SIL is a serving police woman. She told me at the last election that many police officers prefer it when the Tories are in, not for reasons of political affiliation but because they get plenty of overtime, as there's more civil unrest under the Tories. Many police officers did very well (financially) out of the Poll Tax riots for example.

(I suspect the they feel differently about the Tories now they've shafted by them! This Tory government have even managed to lose their traditional support among the police!)

Exactly wowsers- those that have never been in that situation haven't a clue what they are talking about!

Tbh my dh really didn't think he'd ever be made redundant, but he was!
There are people that 'work' the benefits system & get sozzled and wasted at the tax payers expense but not every single person in the uk is like this so why should everyone be made to feel embarrassed by their situation by paying for essentials on a card?

I would feel very low if i ended up in a situation where we weren't even able to buy even one luxury for children or us. It's bad enough as it is not being able to find work & feeling low about it without being treated like the minority.

Why should a person who has worked all their life have to made to feel undignified when they end up on benefits?

And when in April we are made to find £115 a month for council tax our lifes will be made even worse.
I just hope my dh gets something longterm out of his xmas job as i cannot bear to think what next year will be like for our family with all these new changes

I am on benefits. I did not ask my exh to screw around,drink,be violent,gamble so heavily without my knowledge so that my home was repossessed. I have four children, he cannot be relied upon to pay maintenance. I have the stigma of being a single mum. I can bet no one bats an eyelid when he says he's a father of six (3 previous). Ps I don't smoke or drink, i do think there are some very different circs as to why people have to be on benefits.

Fairly recently the lovely Mr Duncan Smith said that 'heating is a luxury that only those working should be afforded'!
Mr Duncan Smith had a breakfast that cost £129 on his expenses around the same time.
Luxury is subjective. I mean, no one really needs branded food or clothes, so will the state be keeping tabs on where those on benefits are shopping to ensure that they are being frugal?
To be honest, as usual, we are looking in the wrong direction. It bothers me far more that those who already have so much are able to spend public money on frivolities, or that companies with millions of pounds worth of profits aren't contributing in the way that they should, than what already impoverished people are spending their meager income on.