Welfare cash cards

Interesting historical note Gracesmum. In S Wales miners used to be paid in tokens that could only be spent in the company store, leading to much resentment and ultimately rebellion. This is still remembered in the valleys I am sure, and anything that reminded people would be deeply unpopular.
The current government are floating ideas like this because a/ they are trying to find ways to reduce the welfare spend and b/ these ideas win them favour with tory voters.
The trouble is that:
most of the spend on benefits that go to those "hard working families" that both sides keep banging on about. People who are on low wages, who have had their hours cut, who cannot work full time because they have caring responsibilities, people who cannot find a decently paid job and have taken a crummy one. And then there are an awful lot of people who would love to be working, but there are not enough jobs out there. Moving around the country to find work is easier said than done - it costs money to move e.g. deposit on a new place to stay etc
This controversial idea actually seems to be targeting addictions - alcohol, drugs, cigarettes and gambling. This is not fecklessness is it. Deprive them of money and they will turn into hard working working persons. mmmm yes well
As to the supermarket that said there was nothing they could do about it... yes well they do not have to serve anyone do they? I remember a few years ago when tesco was opening small supermarkets they took over several in Mk local centres and it was noticeable that suddenly the whole ambience improved in terms of hangers about.

Jess depriving addicts, alcoholics, gamblers etc of money will not turn them into hardworking people, as you imply. But 'chucking money at a problem' doesn't help either, and can make things worse. Rehabilitation is about social reintegration and giving people self-respect, is part of that IMHO. So - following on from the stigma argument, if you are on benefits related to an addiction, your self-esteem must be in your boots. So, generally speaking, from that viewpoint alone, be good to incentivise people to get well, get off benefits and back into society. By the way, after just over 10 years in this country, I am slowly learning about the history and the legacies of the various political parties and from what I can make out, there's not much to choose between this government and the previous one. One made the bullets and the other is firing them.

I'm not sure what you mean by your last paragraph, Jess. Surely supermarkets can only refuse to serve under-age or drunk customers alcohol. Why would the presence of Tesco outlets reduce hangers-about?

This is another sledgehammer to crack a nut! It is aimed purely to gain votes not to genuinely solve a difficult problem, i.e. reduce the welfare bill/ get the minority of 'feckless' benefit recipients to be more 'responsible'.

Many recipients of universal benefits pension, free prescriptions etc have paid into the NI/ state pension system so are getting their 'insurance' pay out when they need it.

The problem appears to be with those who have never worked and therefore never paid in.. I do not know figures for this but I bet the government knows numbers and who they are... therefore could target this minority group with 'essential purchase' tokens/card. Exceptions could be those with disability /ill health, again government department know who these are. Trouble is there has been such a loss of trust with benefit departments as the systems are over complex those in genuine need will be very worried by such proposals.

here is evidence that popular opinion about benefit recipients are based on misconceptions fostered - or at least not contradicted - by the press and politicians.

Apologies to fellow pedants for grammatical slip in the above post.

That's interesting, thanks anno, I had no idea some of the figures were so low.

TUC poll - hmm.

This has come as a complete shock to me

another source but same stats quoted

If you scroll down to the chart it makes interesting reading IF it is accurate.

where YOUR taxes go

I was surprised to hear on the radio this morning that only 3% of the benefits bill goes on unemployment.

The biggest amount by far is on pensions.

But all this talk about "skivers" is really misleading - it is mainly people in work who will be hit by the 1% benefit cap.

Can anyone remember milk tokens? As a single mother in 1980 I received milk tokens to supplement my very low wage . the idea was that you bought milk for your child ( be it baby milk or traditional bottles of milk) . Our local shop at the time had a reputation for taking these tokens at less than their value in return for whatever you wanted, be it food, booze or cigarettes. The shop would even give you cash ( always less than the value though) The reintroduction of tokens will see a return to this black market no doubt.

Is this divide & rule?
SUBMITTED TO PAIN UNBLOCKED FORUM
LBC last night[ round 11pm ] did a very good phone in ,possibly pod cast ,highlighting these experiences & horrendous number of suicides possibly relating to. The following phone in looked at getting emergency assistance if those not resident but omitted that it was also happening to those residents registered due to LAs controlling the purse strings and referrals being done by those on corprate remits.

I may have to consider paying vast sums to get ethical treatment abroad as so worrying. NB A top specialist asked for GP to refer me to him in NHS the GP pretended tyo do but when followed up had gone back to specialist who says my symptons not his remit ? Could it be everyone has same budget allocated? So if don't understand condition or disability made to pay. Last time they behaved like this had heart attack - dying 3x at time . They said I was lucky? After weekly visits asking why not being referred - recorded as mental?
How come NHS making a fraud whilst top & most intelligent Doctors say complex is health more of an art than a science. Thatcher & deregulated Government have a lot to answer for....

In a world where billionaires can squander millions on parties, jewellery, etc., (and get out of paying their taxes), it seems a bit unfair to demonise all low paid or unemployed people and imply that they are scroungers/bad parents/, etc. etc.

The vast majority of the population on low/medium wages are being encouraged to turn against each other (old v. young, employed v. unemployed, public service workers v. private employees, private house owners/tenants v. "social housing" tenants, etc., etc.), rather than look at the massive gap between the rich and the rest of the population. "Divide and Rule" is alive and well.

Incidentally, with the vast amount of money that is spent on advertising rubbish food, it's hardly surprising that people buy it.

I think this idea is offensive and demeaning in the extreme. It suggests that anyone claiming unempoyment benefits is a feckless do nothing. Yet people are being made redundant every day through no fault of their own, think of the employees of Comet, Blockbuster, HMV, Jessops.

The vast majority of the unemployed are actively, no, desperately seeking work. The majority will neither smoke, drink nor gamble, or certainly not while they are unemployed, why should they be demonised by this nasty government that is trying to divide the country with their, unofficially, promulgated idea that we are all striving workers or shirkers.

I would like to see all of them stuck in a council house on a poor estate on state benefits and a cv that shows they have had a little education and give them a month to get a job that pays them around the minimum wage and then live on it for another month.

I think the Welfare Cash Card is a good idea for the exact reason you give--it helps to avoid claiments spending their money on drink etc and it will particularly be a good thing for children that are brought up by claiments as they will hopefully benefit--So I am all for it...

I'm a claimant. I don't smoke, drink or gamble. Why can't I have cash and the choice to spend it where I choose?

Quite right, VQ. It's discriminatory and patronising.

It won't happen. It's a daft back-bencher's idea and it won't get any further after the 23rd when he's introducing it. I have never had much faith in this coalition but very much doubt if the Lib Dem back benchers would let them get away with it. So why bother agonising about it.

Who is to decide what items are essential and what things cannot be bought with a "welfare card"? If a government minister (IDS?) draws up the list in the same way as Michael Gove is tinkering with the national curriculum, it will inevitably turn out to be a hugely expensive and massively inefficient disaster.

As for stigma – kids with free schools meals in the days when they had to admit it in the classroom were stigmatised. People with milk tokens were stigmatised in corner shops. British society would win a sneering contest against the rest of the world, hands down and this would provide those already seduced by talk of scroungers and hand-outs the perfect opportunity.

By the way, as a landlord may I point out that it isn't all that easy to chuck a non-paying tenant out of "their home". The one I have just got rid of kept half his housing benefit for other purposes and owes five months rent which, of course, I shall never see. (He also wilfully damaged the house.)

Are you not arguing against yourself here Absent

If a welfare card were to include rent your tenant would not have had the freedom to use his benefit for other purposes.

Speaking of Gove, I can't understand why there isn't a national outcry about the enforced privatisation of the state education service. All without any discussion or debate in Parliament and without new legislation, school after school is being found to be 'unsatisfactory' under new Ofsted guidelines and forced to become an academy whether the governors and parents want it or not! At least the privatisation of the Health Service is being discussed in and out of Parliament.

Riverwalk It's called housing benefit – paying the rent is what it is for. I wasn't thinking about it as part of a "welfare card", just responding to a much earlier post about people being made homeless if they have difficulty handling their finances and the housing benefit is paid directly to them rather than to their landlord. That of course is a serious issue and I have no desire to see families put out of house and home because they are not very good at budgeting.

Yes, Absent I understand that housing benefit is for paying rent!

All I was trying to say was if that housing benefit was part of the welfare card then you wouldn't be out of pocket.

Riverwalk The person in receipt of the card could still spend some of the putative rent in the supermarket or in the shoe shop when the housing benefit is just bundled in with other benefits. When it is paid directly to the landlord, all bases are covered.