Why not replace benefits with vouchers?

I got a better solution than vouchers and the EBT card ...... demand that items such as cigs & alcohol put a red flag on someones bank account statement per financial transaction. Very simple to do. Just takes a clever bit of computer coding and that is it.

Then every year the Government cycles though a claimants bank statements and if a red flag is shown they get in trouble?

Or it can be done at the bank electronically and a warning goes straight to the DWP.

I got a better solution than vouchers and the EBT card ...... demand that items such as cigs & alcohol put a red flag on someones bank account statement per financial transaction. Very simple to do. Just takes a clever bit of computer coding and that is it.Then every year the Government cycles though a claimants bank statements and if a red flag is shown they get in trouble?Or it can be done at the bank electronically and a warning goes straight to the DWP.And as for cash? Well put limits on suspected claimants.

They'd still cost the same to the government though, its not like they are getting more than they need (although you probably believe they live in mansions), vouchers would just segregate the poor further, its like people can't even think by themselves on here sometimes.

I do not understand your logic. If there are two options that cost the same, you go for the better system.

Why are we in a society which focuses more on stigma than progressive change?

Why is it that this system is considered as a 'punishment' on the surface when all it is trying to do is to be a good parent. Restricting their expenditure to food, bills and necessities as opposed to letting them spend it on entertainment is considered punitive? I want my hard earned money to help them reform, not trash it away.

I am not saying that all people on benefits spend their money in an irresponsible manner, but those who don't will have no problem with this system as it promotes responsible spending.

Would you rather a parent that teaches a child to spend wisely or one that spoils?

When people mention rent, it is included in the 'necessities' in my original post. However, I do agree with people that the admin and the actual system will be very complex, possibly too complex. But hey, it's work in progress, I only thought of this last week.

One last thing, I really don't like how when i put forward an idea, in hope of change, people slate it with the cliched 'Oh yeh, vilify the poor whilst the rich gets richer' that has no substance. I voted labour in the last election and i have the utmost respect for the working class. If you want to help those at the bottom you have to stop feeling sorry for them, but instead guide them.

Again, as i said, my politics is not very strong, just enjoying the debate.

Edit: With responses regarding dosabled people, i agree, i will need more time to think. But i am not saying this is the solution, but could be the first step/part of a bigger solution

Posted from TSR Mobile

I do not understand your logic. If there are two options that cost the same, you go for the better system.

Why are we in a society which focuses more on stigma than progressive change?

Why is it that this system is considered as a 'punishment' on the surface when all it is trying to do is to be a good parent. Restricting their expenditure to food, bills and necessities as opposed to letting them spend it on entertainment is considered punitive? I want my hard earned money to help them reform, not trash it away.

I am not saying that all people on benefits spend their money in an irresponsible manner, but those who don't will have no problem with this system as it promotes responsible spending.

Would you rather a parent that teaches a child to spend wisely or one that spoils?

When people mention rent, it is included in the 'necessities' in my original post. However, I do agree with people that the admin and the actual system will be very complex, possibly too complex. But hey, it's work in progress, I only thought of this last week.

One last thing, I really don't like how when i put forward an idea, in hope of change, people slate it with the cliched 'Oh yeh, vilify the poor whilst the rich gets richer' that has no substance. I voted labour in the last election and i have the utmost respect for the working class. If you want to help those at the bottom you have to stop feeling sorry for them, but instead guide them.

Again, as i said, my politics is not very strong, just enjoying the debate.

Edit: With responses regarding dosabled people, i agree, i will need more time to think. But i am not saying this is the solution, but could be the first step/part of a bigger solution

Edit 2: Dehumanising? How about stop thinking about what other people think of you, get you act together, stand tall and get a job? You want to hinder a system promoting healthy and wise spending because some peoples feelings will get hurt? It is such a first world problem in which a family receiving benefits can be considered 'dehumanising'.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Hi there... I do like this idea for people on job seekers allowance and short term sick pay as it gives them a motive to get back to work and have the freedom to spend what they want again.

I personally think people on these benefits which equate to around £75 every two weeks in the basic rate should get vouchers that cannot be spent on alcohol or cigarettes, but this will not work as people on benefits also need money for other things to have a life outside of food etc. like for example if i was on benefits and my daughter/son needed a new school uniform i would not be able to buy that, also with things like transport such as taxis and buses where money is needed.

I think the benefits system should work so that anyone on jobseekers must work for there benefits or they dont recieve them, and sick benefit should be better regulated to avoid shelling out thousands to the fat and lazy!!
Yhe


Posted from TSR Mobile

Im confused why you'd differentiate this compared to 'single parent'.

I agree

benefits should only be for food, clothing and shelter

Maybe because single parent now has a stigma attached to it?

They aren't children they are disabled people and people looking for work and we aren't their parents, you are just patronising people, i didn't say the rich get richer or whatever i said making people use vouchers when everyone else uses money makes it clear they are poor and will lead to bullying and generally people will look down on them. This isn't some crazy lefty agenda its common sense. Most people on benefits do want a job and there are a few who abuse the system but they are hardly rolling around in designers clothes etc. the media just over represent them to make people want to cut benefits and then when they do everyones happy...if you are so bothered about your hard earned tax money why aren't you complaining about the billionaires and millionaires who don't have to pay any even though they have way more money than you in the first placE? or the banks you gave billions to to bail them out who gave their employees billions in bonuses the same year? once we solve these problems we won't even notice the benefit cheats, but obviously that won't happen as most people like yourself are too distracted.

Again, will you object to a good system because of stigma and people's feelings (not saying my system is good, but the principle still holds)?

If I were to fall into poverty and had to receive vouchers, I would claim them as I need whilst getting myself back onto the working ladder. Fair enough, I may get a bit down if my neighbours looked down on me, but this will just give me more drive to find work. I remember when I was unemployed, the stigma was tremendous and numbing, but that just drove me further and further until I landed myself a job.

It is not the 'money' that I am bothered about, but the end result. If I give a tenner to a charity, I want it to go to the cause rather than a guy swiping it for his personal use.

That is quite bold of you to accuse me of being too distracted. You seem to think that you can only side with the poor or the rich? I am actually vehemently against the dodging of tax by multi-national conglomerates and banker's bonuses in the millions. But I chose this topic to talk about, and I stay on topic. Even if the bankers and corporations paid their due taxes and wealth was spread more evenly, that does not solve the issue of abuse of benefits.

Ok, so the majority of people on benefit are seeking a job and working hard at getting a job, I hear you, fine. I guess the point at which we disagree is that I believe that they should suck up the stigma and push forward. The people who look down on you for using vouchers are not worth your time anyways.

Hi,

So i always hear people slating the working class on benefits for spending their money on cigs, alcohol, electronics and general wants rather than needs, which i understand. I wouldnt want my hard earned cash to pay for those items.

So why do we not just restrict what the benefits can pay for? Ie instead of 100 per week cash (generic benefit), it is a voucher worth 100 quid that can be spent on food and necessities only.

My politics is not great, but just wanted some views.

Posted from TSR Mobile

For you maybe it would push you further, and thats great for you, you're lucky you have a strong enough mind to not care what other people think, but for many they will become down and hopeless and too embarrassed to put themselves out there and get a job as their confidence will be shattered. I absolutely will oppose things based on peoples feelings because making people happy is most important, obviously within reason, but in this case i side with compassion. The issue of benefit cheats isn't really much of an issue, and my point is that the real cheats are the ones who can afford to pay billions in tax but don't, obviously we have two problems but which one do you think is more important, the one worth about £60 million or the one worth about £80 billion? I'm going with tax avoidance. and the whole giving it to charity makes no sense, whether you give someone £10 cash or a £10 voucher, the result is the same, but one makes them feel like **** and the other doesn't, you see? and it also wouldn't solve benefit cheats, they'd just be paid in a different way.

Well for starters its an insulting inaccurate stereotype that people on benefits spend the money on what they want over what they need.

Introducing these vouchers would cost a huge amount of money and time as the government would not only have to pay to create, organise and distribute them they'd then also have to pay whatever their assigned monetary value is to the stores that they're used in.

You'd also have to designate exactly what a necessity is, which would be expensive and most likely open to all sorts of confusing interpretation.

In summaru it would be a hugely ineffective and expensive waste of time and money to deal with a very minor issue.

Fair enough, I am really tired now, and need to get up early tomorrow, but I think what you say is right. I think what it was is that I was too focused on people cheating the system. I will do some research on some stats.

Hi,

So i always hear people slating the working class on benefits for spending their money on cigs, alcohol, electronics and general wants rather than needs, which i understand. I wouldnt want my hard earned cash to pay for those items.

So why do we not just restrict what the benefits can pay for? Ie instead of 100 per week cash (generic benefit), it is a voucher worth 100 quid that can be spent on food and necessities only.

My politics is not great, but just wanted some views.

Posted from TSR Mobile

So, what happens to people like me who don't live that close to major supermarkets? Not all local shops will accept those vouchers. And what happens if we need to order something online?

How long can you be on jobseekers? I've seen the same guy for last 5 years smoking 9am every Monday outside job centre