Give them vouchers instead of benefit money?

Is this because the pay is too little or benefits is too much?

Whats the minimum wage, 5.93 now? Call it 37 hours a week and 52 weeks a year. That means atleast 11,563 in salary

Personally i'd like to see the lib dems 10,000 tax-free proposal (the only lib dem proposal im likely to ever agree with), which will mean you take most of your money home.

This also means we need to stop a non-disabled person on benefits receiving anything close to 11,563 a year.

The problem comes with when they have kids.... if they had kids and then lost a job, fair doos. If they had more kids whilst on benefit, then i think that deserves a reprimand. The thing to remember is, that child's life is going to be crap whatever the weather. Personally i'd favoue abortion or removing the child from the family. Surely having a child knowing they will be financially starved is child discrimination anyway>>

You seem to be blaming a certain set of benefit claimants and talking as if they are the majority(bar disabled)

Fact is that if someone doesnt want to work they will choose to get benefits

I mean what do you call a benefit cheat? I.e someone working full time cash in hand and signs on, are they benefit scum or working scum?

Then we should have different benefit categories...

The (completely) innocent:
-Carer
-Disabled person

-The innocent
-Person with kids who lost job
-Person who lost job
-Pensioner on benefits

The un-innocent
-Person who had kids without getting a job/never paying contributions
-Person having more kids without a job

according to which one of the 7 categories you get more/less restrictions OR more/less allowance

BUT i want to reduce the un-innocent category having children because this is where all the stupid DM stories start springing up from. The less kids they have/they can receive money for, the more money we can invest in training for the middle category.

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?

You could do part food vouchers and part cash.

As someone who has spent the last 5 or so years living from benefits, I think it's a great idea.

I'm not going to lie and say all the money my family got was spent on the essentials etc., but if it was forced then I would have no issue with it. Benefits are, after all, basically free money given by the government intended to enable you to live a decent life - not to be spent on stuff like cigarettes etc.

The part cash element is still wide open to abuse, but it will reduce it at least.

Ive already said years ago when people collected their giro it was from the post office, the post office assistant would know.

Well, it would be easier if it was just with tesco. But the idea is more 'voucher scheme' rather than the shop they're spent in.

Beggars cant be choosers

We're talking on the scale of billions here, i cant see how it would cost more than the current administration costs. I did also say im not sure on the cost and nobody in this thread could be sure.

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.

There's always circumstances but there is people who do care for people as a job

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?

that is actually a better idea, America does the same system called food stamps.
As someone mentioned the social stigma of the vouchers will provide an incentive for people to get a job.

Please read before posting (nonsense)