Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think pre-paid benefits cards are a stigmatizing, punitive scheme?

464 replies

ArsenicFaceCream · 29/09/2014 16:22

Just announced at the Conservative Party conference.

They will initially be 'voluntary' for claimants with addiction issues, apparently.

But of course the intention is to roll it out.

Universal Credit is going national in February so this could get interesting, given that UC will be paid to working claimants as well as those not working.

OP posts:
Original poster
ArsenicFaceCream · 30/09/2014 12:46

Thefishwife I am thanking my lucky stars this week that DH and I are not reliant on any of these payments. Aren't you?

The day I was able to phone the tax credit helpline and close my claim was a great day. I know exactly what ClapHands means about that.

But it's all luck.

OP posts:
Viviennemary · 30/09/2014 12:48

This is why I simply don't understand the current benefits system. Shadows you are obviously struggling and yet others are doing OK. I think a move towards a flat rate and then at least everyone will be treated fairly. And not some folk fairly comfortable and others barely enough for food.

Original poster
ArsenicFaceCream · 30/09/2014 12:50

yet again another of the "they can just get a job" brigade.

It would be nice to see some job creation rather than people being panic-driven into tenuous, low-pay self-employment.

Than perhaps fishwife will sound less of a prat Wink

OP posts:
ilovechristmas1 · 30/09/2014 12:57

ok im on benefit and own my own home

this week i need to call a plumber in to fix my overflow

how exactly will i pay him if this scheme was bought in???

Original poster
ArsenicFaceCream · 30/09/2014 13:00

Do the snarly brigade actually think they are morally superior to cleaners, binmen, checkout staff, waitresses, hairdressing juniors etc because they earn more? I can't quite get my head round this.

Pulling back a bit, all manner of essential lower paid workers are in need of state of subsidy because the economy is screwed. No fault of their own. Hard working people. Necessary jobs.

Are these people really seen as scroungers too?

Their top ups have just been frozen for two years.

Will they eventually be issued with benefits cards?

What happens when the HB, CTC etc that they rely on to top up their wage starts to wither and is then cut back?

OP posts:
ClapHandsIfYouBelieveInFatties · 30/09/2014 13:00

ilove well you wouldn't. Your house would become uninhabitable, then the government would "Requisition" it to pay for your alternative accomodation...in the Workhouse. Which won't be called a workhouse...oh no...it would be called "A Resettlement Centre" or an "Accomodation Centre"

And then they'd make you "Volunteer" to work in local businesses or as a street cleaner or something so that they could "claim back" further expenses. You'd have vouchers for food.

ilovechristmas1 · 30/09/2014 13:01

and i pretty sure i read they want to higher the age for HB claimants

Original poster
ArsenicFaceCream · 30/09/2014 13:04

I suspect forced sale of the homes of benefit claimants is somewhere in the master plan.

Disability and carers groups need to be making a huge noise to make sure they keep all the exemptions throughout that the pensioners will get.

OP posts:
QueenTilly · 30/09/2014 13:04

Again, Christmas? Shock

It's already 25!

I was married by 25...

ilovechristmas1 · 30/09/2014 13:05

great then they will have a homeless family to sought out

all for the sake of an overflow Grin

i suppose i could pay the plumber in bananas from my card Wink

ilovechristmas1 · 30/09/2014 13:07

yes they wont touch the pensioners,they have already proved that

and we all know why

Original poster
ArsenicFaceCream · 30/09/2014 13:07

Grin @ bananas

They intend to raise it to 35 Tilly, I believe.

OP posts:
ilovechristmas1 · 30/09/2014 13:19

when exactly next year is the election?

fedupbutfine · 30/09/2014 13:25

Even those who have worked for a number of years, then found themselves genuinely unable to work due to ill health/redundancy had the opportunity to protect themselves with Accident/Sickness/Unemployment insurance while they had an income. They chose not to do so and instead decided that the taxpayer should fund their lifestyle should they become unable to work

unfortunately, insurance of this nature is generally very short-lived. It may well cover in the event of illness or injury but will only do so for a prescribed amount of time. This doesn't deal with permanent injury or prolonged illness or disability. It's very nature makes it difficult, if not impossible, for someone who has made a claim to be able to get the same insurance again - so if you have cancer once and recover, great...but if you get it again 3 year, s down the line...no so great.

You also fail to understand the complexity of issues people face when their lives go wrong. Divorce is something that throws people into poverty in the most unexpected way - and unfortunately you cannot get insurance for your husband deciding his secretary is a better shag.

And as for understanding that people don't necessarily have the money to insure themselves against something that might never happen....let's not even go there, eh?

mutternutter · 30/09/2014 13:29

Who decides who is an addict? Does this include smoking and alcohol and over the counter meds?

DaughterDilemma · 30/09/2014 13:32

I thought they despised the left wing for wanting a nanny state?

Good point. Nanny state for the poor, freedom to crap on them from a great height for the rich.

I'm loving the anger in this thread.

Oh and they are 'freezing' benefits for two years. If housing and food prices go up then that will be in real terms a reduction in benefits.

Anyone still proud to be a Tory?

ilovechristmas1 · 30/09/2014 13:35

shopping addict ,gaming addict etc etc will these count ,you could say that all these addictions divert money away from essentials

the list is endless

Viviennemary · 30/09/2014 13:43

They are saying most people in work will be better off even with the freeze because they are increasing the personal allowance. But people who think the election will solve this are IMHO mistaken. I think the Tories will return with a bigger majority that is unless UKIP take a few seats from them. Labour hasn't a chance. But we shall have to wait and see.

Callani · 30/09/2014 13:44

Horrible idea - absolutely horrible. I was wavering on who to vote for this time after being screwed over by the LDs but this is a clear decider against the Tories.

Original poster
ArsenicFaceCream · 30/09/2014 13:46

The General Election will be in May christmas

OP posts:
ilovechristmas1 · 30/09/2014 13:47

i will vote for anybody apart from Con,Lib,Ukip

years ago i used to vote Lib but wont take the risk of another duel goverment

naty1 · 30/09/2014 13:48

Im not sure you can complain about freezing benefits as recently, during this recession, workers wages have been frozen/capped. Surely they are freezing it because they think it has risen too high

PausingFlatly · 30/09/2014 13:52

Are workers' wages capped?

By whom? Which workers?

I haven't heard anything about this?

Roussette · 30/09/2014 13:53

Many people have had their wages frozen, why should benefits be any different. Housing and food prices going up would affect both.

Viviennemary · 30/09/2014 13:56

A lot of people haven't had a payrise for quite a while. And neither do they get a payrise when they have another child. And transports costs can be very high for a lot of people. The benefits system needs to be looked at again to make it fairer for everyone.