To be agreeing with new conservative benefits proposal re alcohol etc

[Tigerthebreadroll]

They will cut benefits for people that haven't paid into the system and been unemployed for over 6 months (don't quote me on that number ) by 30 % and it will be given on a prepaid type card. Meaning it won't be accepted by betting shops, for alcohol or cigarettes. I feel that's right . Why should tax payers money be spent on funding cigarettes etc but I have no problem with funding the basics like food etc.
Thoughts?
Basically you will claim full benefits if you've worked and paid into the system. Should reduce generational unemployment hopefully

Great idea. Everyone wants the supermarket cashiers inspecting their shopping for contraband alcohol purchases. Are people going to have to declare upfront they're paying with a government voucher or do we all have to be scrutinised and our shopping only approved when we whip out our credit card? Who gets to decide what is a legitimate purchase? Are those on benefits only to shop from the basics ranges, and have anything else removed from them?

I thought Kemi was stupid. This proves it.

So if the benefit is only put on to a pre-paid card will the utility companies accept it otherwise how else are the bills going to be paid? The notion that benefits are only used to buy food, alcohol and tobacco seems to be one held by stupid people who have been foolish enough to think that being on benefits = never having to pay bills.

It doesn't affect people with diabilities nor (I believe) carers.

Not if they have children.

Ok, so what about people like me who cannot work at all because im caring for two disabled children and my elderly father? Should I have mine cut? I dont smoke etc and every penny I have goes to care needs.

Are you saying that an extra adult in the house magically doesnt cost anything?

So let's make the problem even worse? And make the rest of those on benefits suffer? And their children?

Just to add to my post- we do all want to find a way to force negligent parents to spend their money on their kids, but unfortunately this is not it!

Food
Transport
Phone with internet access
Clothing

Contributions towards electricity/gas

I think both elements of this plan are terrible

The paying in first plan is age discriminatory, because younger people will have less opportunity to build up years. With the way youth unemployment is at the moment, cutting benefits to these people when there genuinely isn't work available doesn't seem fair.

The pre paid cards with restrictions on them is also nuts. For it to work people will be prevented transferring money (as well as the ban on withdrawals mentioned) and they'd need to be limited with shops they could use it in.

If universal credit is 100% of a person's income, it needs to pay for 100% of their outgoings. That may mean pocket money for the children, transferring money to pay someone for services, cash to pay the person selling second hand clothes on marketplace etc.

If the only money you could spend had to be on pre approved things in pre approved shops, that's not not viable

I think the question is more why you think it’s morally right for a parent to cover all their costs up to the age of 25 simply because they’re living at home. Realistically all that will happen is that kids will be kicked out and it will cost the tax payer even more as the benefit system has to cover associated rent, council tax etc. The birth rate is already falling. Implementing that kind of policy will do nothing to improve it.

Given the state of the economy, we need to be pragmatic and follow the evidence available - which currently shows proposals like this are unlikely to work.

Now is not the time for ideologically driven experiments which will likely increase pressure on our already struggling public services, and ultimately cost the tax payer money.

*How will benefit claimants pay bills/buy a bus pass or internet or printing access at the library without cash?

When did it happen that it became OK to refuse a job because it's not one that you actively want to do or actively enjoy doing?

When did doing a job through pride of providing for yourself instead of taking money from other people disappear?

The source of the addiction needs to be tackled, not fed more.

If an over 18 year old is living with 1 parent then costs do go up....the single person's 25% council tax exemption will go. Where does that parent find the extra £ to cover the cost?

It isn't going to affect anyone tbf because it is never going to happen.

So pay it to the parent, but it isn’t being paid to the parent is it, it’s being paid to the child. I ask again, what costs does an u25 living with his parents have that ought to be funded by the state? Because there’s a heck of a lot of them, and the number of them is a major area of benefit growth.

So pay it to the parent, not the child.

These type of things always sound sensible at first glance and then you apply a basic bit of logic and realise they won't affect the intended target. The small number of people spending the majority of their benefits on alcohol, gambling, etc. are not likely to be law-abiding citizens so they will find the money in other ways and likely set up more trading networks e.g. more shoplifting, phone muggings, etc.

I think we need to be careful that what is a safety net (and is there for all) does not become another way of exercising moral judgement from those lucky to be in a better position.
There’s almost quite a patronising tone to it as if those on benefits don’t have the same understanding and skills and they need to be saved from themselves.
Bad luck can happen to us all and a society can be judged on how it treats those who are down on their luck.

This is what worries me.

Im not sure people like us have been accounted for or whether we will just go in the 'malingering' pile and not be eligible for anything, despite our unpaid labour saving the state thousands.

Exactly - and this policy does absolutely nothing to address the sources of addiction. We need to be pragmatic. Right now, there is not enough evidence to show this will solve the problem, without costing the tax payer still more money.

If the Conservatives wanted to make this work, they should have done it during the 14 years in power.

The prepaid card thing doesnt bother me too much. Because its often children of addicts who miss out because of money being spent inappropriately. Although I doubt an alcoholic will suddenly start cooking from scratch now their benefits are only for food.

The idea that my benefits could be cut by 30% because im disabled and unable to work is terrifying. My husband works full time but isn't on a high wage so we get a UC top up. We do not live luxurious life. A 30% drop in UC is the difference between budgeting carefully and foodbanks at the end of the month.

What about drugs. Should they be allowed to buy drugs?? Isn’t this a bigger problem than unemployed people buying cheap tobacco and rolling it. Explain how we’d stop them. Don’t say food stamps because they’ll sell them.