do "we" have the right to say what benefit claimants spend the money on?

[DizzyHoneyBee]

In the news today, a think tank suggests that many would support restrictions on what benefit claimants can spend the money on.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19792066

What do you think?

'its not fair on our country that's drowning in debt and its gaining daily. WE all have to suffer, and if that means vouchers for food so be it. we can't have it all ways.'

Yep. Biggest slice of the 'welfare' pie are those state pensions, an amount that keeps growing. And nowadays, people on them were not all lovely WWII vets (few are, in fact) who worked their little fingers to the bone. Plenty of them never worked for wages at all. So do they get to use vouchers, too? Since we can't have it all ways.

when a person goes on benefits, they already have clothes don't they? i think it would be spilt somehow anyway. luke some for food, bills, clothes, etc like the rations in the war.

BTW... 'the tories' aren't the story here. It's a poll commissioned by think tank Demos and, quoting from the article, "Labour MP Debbie Abrahams, an aide to shadow health secretary Andy Burnham, said she backed the idea, in principle"

Oh asses.. Food, clothes and toiletties only then. You notice I then point out the problems with choosing exactly what people can spend money on.

And no I don't pay for hair cuts.

we don't live in a communist state. we can't carry on paying for someone to get pissed and smoke.

My experience of working in one of the country's most deprived areas taught me a lot about life on benefits.

And yes, there were a lot of people who put buying booze/fags/hair extensions before the basics like food and clothes for their kids.

We regularly had mothers coming in asking us for boiled water to make baby bottles as they'd spent the electric money on "going out".

People who got their nails done every week but whose children had shoes with holes or were walking around in short sleeves in winter because their parents had not bought them winter coats.

I think there is an arguement for better financial education for everyone. On benefits or otherwise. If we want to treat ourselves then fine but surely the food/gas/water should be paid first? There is a culture where people think "sod the essentials, I would rather have a smartphone" and its the innocent kids who end up suffering.

they can choose when they get a job and earn the money.

if it was me you would be made to work for it anyway like community service, cleaning street, washing graffiti off etc.

what happened to work ethic.

Paint - Yes I have met parents like that too. But if you work with people like that, you also know that they will get round a system of vouchers. They will find shopkeepers that will accept food vouchers for alcohol.

In the end it would be the honest and raesonable people in benefits who would suffer from a system like this.

I don't smoke or drink but I still resent being told what could spend money . What happens if dx need new shoes will they be allowed what about coats or school uniform

What about paying for school trips ?

even better idea give employed, self employed etc (everyone who pays tax) some sort of card or code so its only them who can smoke or drink.

Let's talk about all the OAp claiming winter fuel allowance that's given no matter what pension you have coming in

Maybe that should be cut back , means tested maybe tied to pension credits

'even better idea give employed, self employed etc (everyone who pays tax) some sort of card or code so its only them who can smoke or drink.'

Yeah, because I really want the government interfering in my life like that.

Mrs bucket well that idea be find since I don't do either bug people that do spend all their money in dags booze will just use the card buy meat etc and sell it to buy said fags and booze

'Let's talk about all the OAp claiming winter fuel allowance that's given no matter what pension you have coming in

Maybe that should be cut back , means tested maybe tied to pension credits '

We can't because of the erroneous belief that all those people worked their socks off for decades and decades and when really, plenty of them didnt'.

Fags*

mrsbucket but what would happen to the people who already clean the streets ect- you know the ones whose job it is

Yes Cogito, reading the story this is a left wing think tank carrying out research and presenting its findings at a Labour party conference fringe meeting, the approving quote is from a Labour MP, so this doesn't appear to be a Tory plot.

Interestingly this seems from the poll to be most popular with 18-24 year olds and younger voters tend to lean more left than older ones.

You jest mrsbucket surely!

Yup I know yet quite a few really don't need it as they get good private pensions I'm sure be easy enough to actually tie it means test . Cond on they means test for everything else

Mrs Buckets, would you like to explain how the present governments policies which from your posts I assume you are broadly in agreement with (although i get the sense they do not go far enough for you) are delivering the property, debt reduction, safer happier people, a more unified populace?

Only after you tell us how this is being achieved will I treat anything you say as anything but the ravings of a right wing loon, who frankly has not the slightest idea about life for people on benefits. But is quick to draw conclusions based on only seeing people in the street.

If this was implemented the reality is:

1. The tiny number of people who spend most on their benefits on alcohol, cigarettes, etc would find a way round the system. For example, small shops putting alcohol through as food in vouchers.

1. The vast vast majority of people who rely on benefits and are raesonable would be punished. They would no longer be able to buy cheap fruit and veg and food from local market stalls. Simple things like cheap toys for children's birthday and xmas presents, school trips, etc would become more difficult to pay for.

This would be a disaster for millions of people.

Then let's talk about carers or disabled or will we be deemed the worthy poor and excused from some pratt grand scheme

Btw mrs Buckets carers are actually deemed to be working by the state thigh below tax threshold , well 37 hrs a week for £54 says it all

And I really dont see the issue with someone who relies on benefits buying a can of beer. I dont think that because you rely on benefits you should never drink alcohol.

People who want to will find a way round vouchers, so it will end up penalising the people (vast majority) who already make the "right" choices bug might sometimes choose to spend small sums on a lottery ticket / drink etc.

When asylum seekers were paid in vouchers for supermarkets, I took part in a scheme (church run) to buy these vouchers in return for cash. This meant that people could get to local shops that sold ethnic food more cheaply, as opposed to walk 2 miles to Sainsbury because they had no cash for the bus. And as you pay loads more in cash fare than oyster card the whole system was grossly unfair.

Even a card system could be treated like this - you buy me these items from Tesco that are allowed, and I'll give you cash. Some people might use that to fund their drink/drugs/gambling, but more would do it because there are other essentials not covered by the rules. Pointless waste of money setting the whole thing up.