AIBU to be worried - Reintroducing the Truck System for the unemployed in the UK

[nickymanchester]

It has been reported that the UK government is starting a small trial in Manchester to pay (what I presume is) Job Seekers Allowance to people in a brand new blockchain currency called "GovCoin" - similar to BitCoin.

And that what this "money" is spent on will be tracked by the government - initially, the tracking will be on a "voluntary" basis.

So instead of actually paying real money in to a person's bank account they will now provide them with a crypto-currency on their mobile phone which can only be used in certain retailers and where the government will be tracking what the money is spent on. I can well imagine where this will lead.

One of the main backers of this is Lord Hunt, who is the Minister for "Welfare Reform" - boy does that phrase ever put the fear of god into me. As an aside, Lord Hunt was the government minister who, in 2014, said that disabled people were "not worth" the minimum wage. He is also the person behind the move to Universal Credit that, while it may have very laudable aims in theory, in practice it has been a nightmare for many of the people on the receiving end of it.

This is a quote from one of the sources:-

GovCoin Systems tests blockchain-based platform for social welfare payments in UK

Speaking at the Payments Innovation Conference 2016 on 4 July, Minister for Welfare Reform at the Department for Work and Pensions Lord Freud highlighted the ongoing trial saying:

We have been working with GovCoin Systems (and their partners, Barclays, RWE npower and University College London) for this trial. Claimants are using an app on their phones through which they are receiving and spending their benefit payments. With their consent, their transactions are being recorded on a distributed ledger to support their financial management.

Jeremy Wilson, Vice Chairman, Corporate Banking at Barclays, explained that the initiative focuses on adding an additional layer of richer data and identity onto payments, so that a deeper and more effective relationship can be established between the government and claimants.

www.econotimes.com/GovCoin-Sy...s-in-UK-233316

There are many other sites reporting this as well which you can find through googling them, for example:-

www.cityam.com/245128/governm...ain-technology

www.fstech.co.uk/fst/GovCoin_...ents_Trial.php

So why the title of this post and why my concern? Well, at school, one of the A levels I studied was history and a major part of that was the Economic & Social History of Britain in the 18th and 19th Centuries (the other part was Britain and Her Relations with the World 1914-1945, not that anyone's interested). Anyway, the Truck System was an infamous form of payments that became widespread in the UK and led to a great deal of abuse.

While, currently, these are just trials that are happening at the moment, I really do see the awful potential to become a fully fledged Truck System where the state monitors exactly what unemployed people are spending their money on, where they spend it and eventually will be able to control these things. This bit is really scary:-

so that a deeper and more effective relationship can be established between the government and claimants.

AIBU to worry about where this might lead or is it just an example of how new technologies can help young unemployed people so that they don't have to worry about pesky little things like actual having some cash in their hand but have to have pay for a mobile phone in order to access their benefits?

'Universal credit' replaced income based Job seekers' allowance. It also replaced Housing benefit, Working Tax Credit, Child Tax Credit, income based Employment and Support Allowance and Income Support. Do you really think they'd put in the millions it would take to develop this kind of payment system and not intend to include all benefits?

But benefits should not be regarded as wages. Once we're on that road then we've lost all sense of what benefits are really about - and in fact I think we actually have considering the website is called 'entitled to'. I'm not a benefit basher in the slightest but I don't think this prevailing culture of benefits seen as a right is conducive to society.

Technically any money we hand over for anyone who provides a service is our money.
The GP we see is paid out of our taxes.
So is your childs teacher
The people in retail
The self-employed traders
The list is endless.

They all live off "our money". Do we need to have a say in what they spend it on?

benefits have evolved in to something of a 'right' in this country which is not how it should really be.

Yes, it is a right. You have that right, I have that right, we all have it.

The alternative is a society carpeted by unprofitable humanity - the weak, the sick, the unlucky, the old and the very young - desperate for survival and with literally nothing to lose.

Have you ever been to a country with inadequate welfare support? How did you feel about all the beggars, thieves, and communicable diseases? It's not even warm enough to live outdoors here, so god knows how much worse it would be.

I paid nearly half a million in taxes & NI while working. If you're under 44, I paid towards your birth, your vaccinations & healthcare, your education, your dentist, your doctor, your degree, your children's births, the buses you rode and the roads you drive on, the police officer who brought you home and all that.

How fucking dare you pinch pennies over my pathetically small income now?

Ffs, considering the taxes on booze and fags, be pleased that money is going straight back to the government.

The teenager, who is shown spending over £100 of her £115 weekly government grant in one morning on takeaways before declaring 'I feel sick as a pig now' (...) The next time she receives a pay cheque she spends it on takeaways including chicken strips, egg fried rice, a pot of chicken wings and four Yorkshire puddings. Describing how easily she her funds are depleted she says: 'The maximum it lasts is three hours – it just comes in in one hand and goes in the other.' Discussing work opportunities she says: 'I’ve never worked full time... or part time...never in all my life

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3667803/Teenager-claims-460-month-handouts-reveals-plans-baby-benefits.html

YANBU. I don't think it's anyone's business what people are spending their benefits on; they are entitled to them and it's their money. Claiming benefits isn't supposed to be a punishment, why shouldn't unemployed people be allowed a drink or to watch TV?

Also agree with the previous posters who said it would make it difficult for people to shop around for the best deals, buy second hand, etc.

Garlic you didn't pay a penny towards me, of that I am sure but thanks anyway. I am not pinching pennies over your income - it's a discussion and you are as free to voice your opinion as am I. And yes I have a lot of experience of countries where there are no such thing as benefits

I feel better about the portion of my taxes that went towards her takeaway than the portion that went into educating the Daily Fail 'journalist' to write such hateful dross.

Yes Iona totally irresponsible. Why doesn't Chantal try for a job etc rather than a baby.

But benefits should not be regarded as wages
I look after three disabled people. They are not in homes/hostels/hospitals. I look after them. Single handedly. Every day. No respite care. Seven days a week, around 18 hours a day. The pittance I get paid is not a benefit, neither is it a living wage. I am not entitled to minimum wage. My 65 quid a week equates to around 51 pence an hour. As far as I'm concerned, the government can go swivel on a stick. I and millions of other carers save them an absolute fortune. How dare you come on here and tell us that benefits should be accounted for, how dare even think to support demands on what I choose to spend my money on without first asking your GP what she spends her money on, or your local MP. How dare you.

That means you're not in the UK, then, Red. In which case, you don't understand how it works and shouldn't be making ill-informed judgements.

But benefits should not be regarded as wages

I suspect some would prefer it be labelled "charity."

Better money spent on sky TV, fags or booze than having a kid. Whether on a low income or JSA.

Garlic Or rather you shouldn't be making uniformed judgements about me or my life. I'd rather end engaging with you here as I can see it's impossible to have any sort of discussion on the subject matter with you. And yes I am from the UK .

Oh, and what the fail doesn't mention is that's the money for a couple. I very much doubt she said all those things, and even if she did, poor thing probably needs some help, we should be helping these children, not vilifying them.

Ginger I am very empathetic to people struggling or in need but lots of people abuse the system and this would be a good way to govern people spending benefits not to the advantage of their children. There is a woman I was on a course with who was a single mum and chose to spend her benefit money on a weekend long binge at Butlins! Why the hell should the tax payer fund that?
Iamnot - They provide a service, have a job and also pay tax on their earnings, they are independent, why should we have a say?

If you are from the UK, Red, then I have contributed to everything that's kept you safe, healthy and educated. And to the infrastructure that made it possible to live your life.

You aren't qualified to comment if you don't understand such basics.
You are eminently unqualified to judge others.

Umm, Firstimer ... There is a nurse at my GP surgery who was a single mum and chose to spend her salary on a weekend long binge at Butlins! Why the hell should the tax payer fund that?

How does it sound?

Ginger I am very empathetic to people struggling or in need but lots of people abuse the system and this would be a good way to govern people spending benefits not to the advantage of their children. There is a woman I was on a course with who was a single mum and chose to spend her benefit money on a weekend long binge at Butlins! Why the hell should the tax payer fund that?

The inevitable "Oh I don't mean you, I mean xxxx.... " As always, people jump on the bandwagon to provide ridiculous anecdotes and act as if they are the norm.

Why should I be penalised by this system because of other's problems?

Bloody hell, all these judgy people. I am reminded of a thread where the OP felt that food bank donations shouldn't include sweet treats, because you know, the poor should only have healthy stuff given to them. As I recall, she got roasted and deservedly so. Let's not forget that these are real people we are talking about, and that these people could be you one day. A serious illness in the family, a car crash, a job loss - we are all only a few steps away from being exactly like the people too many of us like to vilify.

Raise your glass with pride, donna. You are a hero in my eyes.

Dawn in your situation I think using the benefits system is completely wrong. Instead you should be given a professional carers wage with proper support. Not palmed off into another system that is wholey unrepresented of the work you do. Given the millions saved it would be justifiable. It would need to be regulated but in your situation a wage would be entirely appropriate.

The problem comes when you try to lump a whole spectrum of different situations into one group and then bash that group with a stick based on the worst behaviour of some.

Some situations do need to be tackled. Others need to be properly supported.

If I were to receive my child benefit in the form of this restrictive credit i would be unhappy. So, I would not wish it on JSA claimants. I wouldn't expect anyone else to tolerate stuff that I wouldn't accept.

firsttimer82 benefits are also taxed therefore benefits claimants are also tax payers. It will be rolled out to Universal Credit as well, some of those providing a service don't quite make enough to not have to claim tax credits. Therefore they would also be under this system.