Should benefits be given as food vouchers instead of cash?
Scroll to see replies
Bear in mind that food banks are basically giving people food instead of money (like they used to in the form of crisis loans which nobody ever paid back) when benefits aren't stretching.....
Look at how people react to food banks - it's basically an instrument people use to bash the Conservatives with even though it's merely an alternative to money that used to be given.
So no, OP. I don't think it'll go down so well.............
Look at how people react to food banks - it's basically an instrument people use to bash the Conservatives with even though it's merely an alternative to money that used to be given.
So no, OP. I don't think it'll go down so well.............
Nah, I don't agree with it. This reasons for this is that it would be hard to implement, lead to quite authoritarian conclusions and doesn't allow people to use the benefits in quite sensible ways.
We just need to attempt to reduce the prevalence of state support and not turn it towards authoritarianism.
We just need to attempt to reduce the prevalence of state support and not turn it towards authoritarianism.
Original post by KimKallstrom
Bear in mind that food banks are basically giving people food instead of money (like they used to in the form of crisis loans which nobody ever paid back) when benefits aren't stretching.....
Look at how people react to food banks - it's basically an instrument people use to bash the Conservatives with even though it's merely an alternative to money that used to be given.
So no, OP. I don't think it'll go down so well.............
Look at how people react to food banks - it's basically an instrument people use to bash the Conservatives with even though it's merely an alternative to money that used to be given.
So no, OP. I don't think it'll go down so well.............
People quite rightly use it to bash the Conservatives because food bank use has increased massively, with their welfare reforms and ridiculous sanctions being the main contributing factor behind that.
It's good that charity is providing that food, but there shouldn't even be a need for it. We're one of the biggest economies in the world, and we have people who need to rely on charity for basic food. It's disgusting, no matter how people try to dress it up.
Original post by Alba2013
Food stamps for the poor not only cut their dignity, but their hope and their chance to participate in society. You might think it's great that the poor in Lithuania have to flock to a specific store and buy their provisions according to state regulations. In reality these people would have no access to phones, stationary, launderettes, hairdressers and all things necessary to actually find a job. You're just deciding what they can buy because it makes you feel better. I find this disgusting quite frankly.
Furthermore, not having any actual cash in your pocket would see a sharp rise in benefit fraud and criminal activity as they would have no other choice to be able to access amenities and other necessities, not to mention people at risk of falling behind payments to loan sharks and catalogues which they rely on to live.
Being poor and disabled is already a crap deal without having KIDS with absolutely no knowledge of what being poor is scheming how to **** on those under them from their high horses. Not to actually save money (aka, taking it from the poor and disabled) but to tell them what they can spend the money on.
They say be careful who you step on on your way up because they'll remember you on your way down, and I sure as hell hope they do.
Furthermore, not having any actual cash in your pocket would see a sharp rise in benefit fraud and criminal activity as they would have no other choice to be able to access amenities and other necessities, not to mention people at risk of falling behind payments to loan sharks and catalogues which they rely on to live.
Being poor and disabled is already a crap deal without having KIDS with absolutely no knowledge of what being poor is scheming how to **** on those under them from their high horses. Not to actually save money (aka, taking it from the poor and disabled) but to tell them what they can spend the money on.
They say be careful who you step on on your way up because they'll remember you on your way down, and I sure as hell hope they do.
Then give food stamps to those families where parents tend to use money on buying cigarettes and alcohol.. Or send a person together with them to do all the shopping like there's a school supply scheme where a social worker goes together with a parent and a child and makes sure that the parent buys the necessary supplies instead of something for their own need.
Original post by RFowler
People quite rightly use it to bash the Conservatives because food bank use has increased massively, with their welfare reforms and ridiculous sanctions being the main contributing factor behind that.
It's good that charity is providing that food, but there shouldn't even be a need for it. We're one of the biggest economies in the world, and we have people who need to rely on charity for basic food. It's disgusting, no matter how people try to dress it up.
It's good that charity is providing that food, but there shouldn't even be a need for it. We're one of the biggest economies in the world, and we have people who need to rely on charity for basic food. It's disgusting, no matter how people try to dress it up.
You could give every person in the land a million pounds and some of them, through their own irresponsibility, would be reliant on food banks by the end of the year. What's the difference, anyway, between receiving hand-outs from the State, and receiving hand-outs from a charity organisation? The Left seem to view the former as virtuous, and the latter, in the case of food banks, disgusting. A cynic might suggest that making people dependent on the State keeps the Left in power, but they wouldn't do that would they?
Original post by thesabbath
You could give every person in the land a million pounds and some of them, through their own irresponsibility, would be reliant on food banks by the end of the year. What's the difference, anyway, between receiving hand-outs from the State, and receiving hand-outs from a charity organisation? The Left seem to view the former as virtuous, and the latter, in the case of food banks, disgusting. A cynic might suggest that making people dependent on the State keeps the Left in power, but they wouldn't do that would they?
There's a big difference - a state handout is a far more reliable safety net than charity even at its best. This is 21st century Britain - people should not have to rely on charity for basic subsistence. Charity can not always get to everyone that needs it, especially when more people than ever before need it.
A state handout is far more reliable, but ours is not perfect. Lots of people have been sanctioned for stupid reasons - and left without any money at all. That is a big reason why people turn to food banks.
No they would not do that because the real world is very different to the world imagined by a conspiracy theorist. The left do not see claiming benefits as "virtuous", they see it as a vital safety net just like most people do.
Original post by RFowler
There's a big difference - a state handout is a far more reliable safety net than charity even at its best. This is 21st century Britain - people should not have to rely on charity for basic subsistence. Charity can not always get to everyone that needs it, especially when more people than ever before need it.
A state handout is far more reliable, but ours is not perfect. Lots of people have been sanctioned for stupid reasons - and left without any money at all. That is a big reason why people turn to food banks.
No they would not do that because the real world is very different to the world imagined by a conspiracy theorist. The left do not see claiming benefits as "virtuous", they see it as a vital safety net just like most people do.
A state handout is far more reliable, but ours is not perfect. Lots of people have been sanctioned for stupid reasons - and left without any money at all. That is a big reason why people turn to food banks.
No they would not do that because the real world is very different to the world imagined by a conspiracy theorist. The left do not see claiming benefits as "virtuous", they see it as a vital safety net just like most people do.
So the complaint is that it is not the State, but the charity sector, to which people are turning. Evidently food banks are a reliable safety net, and the State is not.
What I find to be risible about this is the Left will brand the use of charity and community operated food banks, usually hyperbolically ie IN TWENTY FIFTEEN, "disgusting", but if the food banks were instead operated by the State they would be proud of the same system.
No.
The Government's current agenda, which I agree with, is quite the opposite: to break down the barriers between working and being out of work. To have people on benefits managing their own money on a monthly basis, like a wage, and doing things like paying rent themselves rather than getting housing benefit directly paid to their landlords.
This makes it easier to adjust into work, as well as developing a sense of financial responsibility. Ultimately there will always need to be some provision for giving out goods rather than money for the most vulnerable, but it should be kept to a minimum.
The Government's current agenda, which I agree with, is quite the opposite: to break down the barriers between working and being out of work. To have people on benefits managing their own money on a monthly basis, like a wage, and doing things like paying rent themselves rather than getting housing benefit directly paid to their landlords.
This makes it easier to adjust into work, as well as developing a sense of financial responsibility. Ultimately there will always need to be some provision for giving out goods rather than money for the most vulnerable, but it should be kept to a minimum.
Original post by thesabbath
What I find to be risible about this is the Left will brand the use of charity and community operated food banks, usually hyperbolically ie IN TWENTY FIFTEEN, "disgusting", but if the food banks were instead operated by the State they would be proud of the same system.
Well, quite. Cover foodbanks with the welfare state and you've still got the same problem: people can't afford to feed themselves. It's just the nature of the handout that changes.
I'd like to concentrate on making people able to afford their basic necessities themselves, rather than having to go cap in hand to either charities or the state.
How can anyone propose that adults should be treat like they're incapable or don't deserve happiness because they rely on benefits to survive?
Truly baffles me when those who are clearly privileged feel in a position to dictate how someone who is struggling in life should act, spend their money etc.
Just because you're struggling to support yourself, and potentially your children, does not mean that you don't deserve any luxuries at all. Under this system people would essentially be told what to eat, where they could shop and then would be left with no money at all so would be sat in their house utterly miserable.
If I ever end up unemployed and on benefits, which isn't out of the picture for anyone when considering the current economic climate, I'm going to smoke and drink as much as a ****ing can. What else have I got to live for? How else can I find some happiness?
Truly baffles me when those who are clearly privileged feel in a position to dictate how someone who is struggling in life should act, spend their money etc.
Just because you're struggling to support yourself, and potentially your children, does not mean that you don't deserve any luxuries at all. Under this system people would essentially be told what to eat, where they could shop and then would be left with no money at all so would be sat in their house utterly miserable.
If I ever end up unemployed and on benefits, which isn't out of the picture for anyone when considering the current economic climate, I'm going to smoke and drink as much as a ****ing can. What else have I got to live for? How else can I find some happiness?
It works in the US.
Yes, this is a great idea and I think it should be brought into effect immediately. Those on benefits should not be allowed to buy cigarettes, alcohol, etc because these things are a waste of money that could be better spent on other things - benefit money is meant to pay for food and household bills, it is NOT for luxuries such as cigarettes and booze.
If people want to drink and smoke, they should only be allowed to do so if they earn their own money. I'm tired of people on benefits wasting their money on non-essential items such as cigs and booze.
I think the card should be for food, toiletries, household bills and bus fares. That's it. If the person on benefits wants to buy anything else in life then it should not be permitted unless they come off benefits and earn the money themselves.
If things were done this way, more people would want to get off benefits and find a job, it'd soon motivate dole dossers and career benefit scroungers to do something with lives and stop being lazy, work-shy sods who scam the system.
If people want to drink and smoke, they should only be allowed to do so if they earn their own money. I'm tired of people on benefits wasting their money on non-essential items such as cigs and booze.
I think the card should be for food, toiletries, household bills and bus fares. That's it. If the person on benefits wants to buy anything else in life then it should not be permitted unless they come off benefits and earn the money themselves.
If things were done this way, more people would want to get off benefits and find a job, it'd soon motivate dole dossers and career benefit scroungers to do something with lives and stop being lazy, work-shy sods who scam the system.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by thesabbath
So the complaint is that it is not the State, but the charity sector, to which people are turning. Evidently food banks are a reliable safety net, and the State is not.
What I find to be risible about this is the Left will brand the use of charity and community operated food banks, usually hyperbolically ie IN TWENTY FIFTEEN, "disgusting", but if the food banks were instead operated by the State they would be proud of the same system.
What I find to be risible about this is the Left will brand the use of charity and community operated food banks, usually hyperbolically ie IN TWENTY FIFTEEN, "disgusting", but if the food banks were instead operated by the State they would be proud of the same system.
The only reason the state has become less reliable is because of welfare reforms and unfair benefit sanctions. Which simply should not be happening. Government reforms should not force those in need to turn to charity. The state has a duty to provide a safety net for those in need, and a rise in food bank use suggests that it isn't doing very well.
A hypothetical state funded food bank would be fine because there is always a constant source of funding. As I said in my last post, what if food bank donations declined or more people became reliant on them? They would definitely struggle to provide what is needed.
Dress it up how you want, but I see the fact that some people rely on charity for basic food in 21st century Britain to be nothing short of an abomination.
Original post by SnoochToTheBooch
It works in the US.
Not it really doesn't.
as ever, people are confusing "benefits" with maybe unemployment benefit/JSA etc.
The old age pension is a "benefit" so would you be happy with your parents/grandparents being forced to shop at a particular place?
More people pay into the NI system than claim from it, the majority (excluding NHS) don't claim until the OA pension.
why don't we extend the "no fags/no booze" rule to cover the student loan?
Only accommodation would be covered, plus fees and a book allowance, then the food proportion linked to a prepaid card that doesn't allow fags/booze/confectionary or any "unhealthy food" and you'd have to queue up at a particular shop on a thursday morning to be allowed to purchase your rations. Does that sound like a good system?
The old age pension is a "benefit" so would you be happy with your parents/grandparents being forced to shop at a particular place?
More people pay into the NI system than claim from it, the majority (excluding NHS) don't claim until the OA pension.
why don't we extend the "no fags/no booze" rule to cover the student loan?
Only accommodation would be covered, plus fees and a book allowance, then the food proportion linked to a prepaid card that doesn't allow fags/booze/confectionary or any "unhealthy food" and you'd have to queue up at a particular shop on a thursday morning to be allowed to purchase your rations. Does that sound like a good system?
Original post by SnoochToTheBooch
It works in the US.
Yes, its another profit centre for criminals and dishonest shop keepers.
Original post by domonict
as ever, people are confusing "benefits" with maybe unemployment benefit/JSA etc.
The old age pension is a "benefit" so would you be happy with your parents/grandparents being forced to shop at a particular place?
More people pay into the NI system than claim from it, the majority (excluding NHS) don't claim until the OA pension.
why don't we extend the "no fags/no booze" rule to cover the student loan?
Only accommodation would be covered, plus fees and a book allowance, then the food proportion linked to a prepaid card that doesn't allow fags/booze/confectionary or any "unhealthy food" and you'd have to queue up at a particular shop on a thursday morning to be allowed to purchase your rations. Does that sound like a good system?
The old age pension is a "benefit" so would you be happy with your parents/grandparents being forced to shop at a particular place?
More people pay into the NI system than claim from it, the majority (excluding NHS) don't claim until the OA pension.
why don't we extend the "no fags/no booze" rule to cover the student loan?
Only accommodation would be covered, plus fees and a book allowance, then the food proportion linked to a prepaid card that doesn't allow fags/booze/confectionary or any "unhealthy food" and you'd have to queue up at a particular shop on a thursday morning to be allowed to purchase your rations. Does that sound like a good system?
That would work. At least it would stop students wasting their money on clubbing, booze, cigs and weed when they should be studying.
Yes it's a good practical idea. The extent of its implementation would depend very much on the type of benefit. It would probably save a fortune of public money and maybe give some the boot up the backside they need to get off benefits. Voucher systems have nothing to do with trying to shame anyone. It is about practical solutions and improvement of the way benefits are delivered. It's public money that funds people's benefits so the tougher the better, particularly with those who are fit and able to work! It's sure no fun being on JSA but it's not the point is it. The point is to be a responsible participant in British society and a financially productive member of it, as far as one is fit and able. The Tories have made much effort to reform an outrageously wasteful Labour Benefits system. Not a pleasant job but it was needed. If it was up to Labour we'd all be living on benefits from funds the country hasn't got. Be a newcomer with team of children gathered round your skirts and you might get a multi-million pound Edwardian overlooking Ealing Common.
Quick Reply
Latest
Last reply 2 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 2 minutes ago
Edexcel GCSE Statistics Paper 2 Higher Tier (1ST0 2H) - 19th June 2023 [Exam Chat]Maths Exams
170
Last reply 3 minutes ago
National Probation ServiceLast reply 5 minutes ago
Rejected from 4/5 unis, don’t want to attend the one I have an offer forPosted 5 minutes ago
Apprenticeship needs a 4 in scienceLast reply 6 minutes ago
BAE systems degree apprenticeships September 2024Last reply 7 minutes ago
How to go from an A grade essay to an A* essay in edexcel politics?Last reply 7 minutes ago
Official: University of Manchester A106 2024 Entry ApplicantsMedical Schools
1307
Trending
Last reply 5 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 8 hours ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 10 hours ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 4 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 5 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 8 hours ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 10 hours ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 4 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
