Give them vouchers instead of benefit money?

Lets assume 100 billion is given away in benefit money (not including housing costs)

Why can't the Government negotiate with Tesco to purchase 100 billion in vouchers for say, 85 billion pounds? (The figures arent equal because the Government could argue tesco is guaranteed extra business when some benefit receivers could have shopped at ALDI)

This would prevent abuse of benefit money as the essential spends are food. Energy costs could be treated with housing.

There could be problems, things like buying 'the kids' their school uniform, but perhaps if 'food benefits' could be separated from 'utilities benefits' then we could perhaps reduce the amount we spend on social and also prevent people not using the money accordingly. If they manage to get by on 50 pounds a week whilst still buying fags, there's obviously still more that could be taken away.

What does everyone else think?

Tesco sell everything: alcohol, tv's, music, games, lottery tickets etc.

Bad, Bad, Bad idea.

Lets assume 100 billion is given away in benefit money (not including housing costs)
There could be problems, things like buying 'the kids' their school uniform, but perhaps if 'food benefits' could be separated from 'utilities benefits' then we could perhaps reduce the amount we spend on social and also prevent people not using the money accordingly. If they manage to get by on 50 pounds a week whilst still buying fags, there's obviously still more that could be taken away.

What does everyone else think?

I think you're retarded

/thread.

why is it a bad idea to save the country money in the time of a recession

several reasons why:

1. If you a person starts showing a voucher, people will assume that they are on state handouts. This could be discourage people from claiming (when they really need to due to circumstances) due to the stigma attached.

2. It might costs us more as a result. It would cost companies to print out vouchers. Those vouchers will need to be accepted. Then the government would cough up money to supermarkets. It would be costly and beaucratic as well.

3. Why should a private company like supermaket, local newsagents, independant shops (bakers, fruit and veg stalls etc...) help?

I agree something needs to be done to scrounging cheats who treat the benefit system as a lifestyle choice. Vouchers are not the answer.

1. If you a person starts showing a voucher, people will assume that they are on state handouts. This could be discourage people from claiming (when they really need to due to circumstances) due to the stigma attached..

2. It might costs us more as a result. It would cost companies to print out vouchers. Those vouchers will need to be accepted. Then the government would cough up money to supermarkets. It would be costly and beaucratic as well.

3. Why should a private company like supermaket, local newsagents, independant shops (bakers, fruit and veg stalls etc...) help?

In that case let's say it was worked out to make sure unemployed person A was to get their necessities each week it would cost £X. Instead of giving vouchers worth £X; give them the equivalent sum of money; HOWEVER:

*If they waste it on cigarettes, drugs and condoms - sorry, they should not get any more money. It's their responsibility to make sure they can handle money in a mature manner.

Anyways, in response to your answers:

1. So? How is a "social stigma" going to do anything? There are social stigmas around taking drugs, being drunk and acting like a chav - people still do it. And LOL "discourage people from claiming" - their fault tbh. Their loss.

2.

3. I'd argue the EXACT same thing except - why should hard working taxpayers help? What's the difference between Tesco helping an unemployed person and a person making ends meet on their salary doing the exact same thing?

'Tesco clubcard' with photograph on it for proof


'vouchers' wasnt literally an idea involving pieces of paper. I meant the term as a concept, a clubcard could be used, as above.


I've already answered this. Assume from the 100bn in welfare handouts, only 60bn is spent in tesco, well by forcing benefit receivers to shop at tesco, tesco are now getting an extra (bid_price)-60 billion in revenue.

Also, you do realise tesco are the only other place where you can buy (i think its national savings ?) other than the normal official 'outlet'. Atleast this was the case about a year ago. So the Government have given tesco services which other outlets do not have.

I agree with you to an extent.

I just feel we will be targetting the wrong people and wrong people would be punished because of a minority. That minority aren't going to be affected, they don't care if they get vouchers etc...It is sad people abuse the system. They won't care about the stigma. There are people who due to circumstances need benefits would be discouraged because they would stigmatised.

Not everyone will go Tesco. There are other supermarkets. Also, what about independant stores- bakers, book sellers, fruit and veg stall etc...

Would the person working in the counter find out? Would that be an invasion of privacy.

There is no point in making them worse off whilst costing the government the same.

One arguement is thinking the government is in a better postion to choose what is best for the person than the person themselves, which I don't think is true.