Welfare cash cards

So bluebell could your niece and nephew not use part of their hard earned wages for alcohol, cigarettes and gambling and their 'food tokens' (or whatever they are) on essentials such as food, transport and clothes? I don't understand the problem if this is a top up benefit

I think that's your interpretation bluebell I don't see where stigmatising comes into it. It seems to mirror the US where food stamps (I think they've changed the name now) can be used to supplement spending in low income families. They can be used for any foods - Coke and doughnuts included but not fast foods or alcohol or tobacco. Surely best for families with children?

My point was that a lot of food is non- essential - the scheme can't possibly ensure sensible eating and is just about stigmatising those on benefits.

Housing benefit (now Local Housing Allowance for privately rented properties) was never paid to mortgage lenders because it was a benefit payable only to residents in rented property. Owner-occupiers who became unemployed were/are eligible for help with mortgage payments but only after a certain period of unemployment. Both categories of claimants can apply for Council Tax Benefit, though that is soon to be calculated by individual local councils.

As I said earlier my niece and her husband work damn hard in low paid jobs ( no other options) and budget very carefully - tax credits help them. Why shouldn't they have the occasional beer? I suppose a more expensive bottle of designer water would be OK? And goodness me, they spent money on Christmas presents!!! Pass me the smelling salts! Oh and they pay tax too - income, vat etc. look at all the tax payers money that went to the banks and was then passed on in bonuses - now there's an idea - shall we then dictate what they can be spent on - another bottle of bolly chaps!!

bluebell I don't think you can stretch the definition that far - doughnuts and coke I would imagine the thought behind the proposal is to engineer the spending of benefits on food rather than non essentials. Harsh but fair. I doubt it would happen but I agree with the principle. I don't understand why anyone would object - William Hill perhaps and Bargain Booze, but otherwise?

Alcohol, tobacco and gambling related purchases - non essential goods. Why should any tax payer fund those? Wasn't the Welfare State set up to provide welfare rather than entertainment? You put words into my mouth. If you are unemployed then yes, we are lucky enough to live in country where you won't starve, you will be caught in the 'safety net'. It is not 'a right'. Someone has to pay for it. You only need to look at the countries who have spent beyond their means to see what 'right' their people have to benefits.

Sel - I know it doesn't include pensioners - but I wanted to raise the illogicality of that if we're talking about the 'tax payers' money. Also , alcohol wouldn't be allowed but teeth rotting cocoa cola and squashes would be, donuts etc etc - it's a nonsense but a wicked one as its all part of the demonising of people in receipt of benefits.

But if it is a right, Sel are you saying that a person cannot be trusted just because they are unemployed? How would you react to the government telling you what you may or may not spend your income on? It comes out of the tax we all pay and different people could have differing ideas as to what constitutes "essentials". I might say "education", another person might say "housing" another (vegetarian) might say "fruit and veg but definitely not meat".
We're not talking Lady Bountiful here, but basic rights.

Gracesmum well, if that money comes out of the tax I pay, yes, I'd like to think it is used for essential support of those in need. The 'Nanny State'? Misuse of the term I think.

I do think it was a big mistake to stop paying Housing Benefit directly to the landlord/mortgage lender. The idea was to encourage responsibility, but in a lot of cases the rent/mortgage wasn't always paid and repossession/homelessness (gosh, what a lot of esses!) ensued.

bluebell I don't think the proposal was aimed at those people, only those claiming in work or out of work benefits. Those being in receipt of a safety net - I quote the Daily Telegraph on this as I've been out of the country and so checked online. I don't see that the proposal is aimed at limiting happy living amongst pensioners

There are vague rumblings in the back of my mind of the "Truck Acts" whereby workers could be paid in tokens which could only be spent in company shops thereby removing the workers' ability to spend their wages freely, These were repealed in the 1800's and I wonder if this is more than a nod in that direction?
(Quote)
"The origins of the Truck Acts take us back to a vanished world peopled by such ghosts as the bagmen, the petty foggers, the butties and other middlemen who paid workers in goods or in tommy tickets that could be exchanged only at the company store or truck shop which belonged to their employer. "Truck" apparently comes from a French word "troc" meaning barter, and it sometimes served a useful purpose in earlier centuries when people lived and worked in remote districts away from towns or markets. But it was open to the obvious abuse of any monopoly and became the target of public policy as early as 1411 when a local ordinance required Colchester weavers to 1604 be paid in gold and silver rather than in merchandise or victuals."
Do we really want the Nanny State to say what people may or may not send their tax credits on? Are benefits a right or "largesse"? I would personally rather give a down and out a sandwich than a fiver to spend on cigarettes or alcohol, but do I have that right i.e. to give and then impose conditions? And if it is his right to have that fiver,as opposed to my fiver to give, who am I to say what it should be spent on?

Ok so why not include people in receipt of state pensions and pension credit? In fact lets abolish cash benefits altogether

I don't see a problem with this - similar to the US and 'food stamps' I assume? Surely money funded by the tax payer should be used for essential items, food and transport costs and not alcohol, tobacco and gambling. What's not to like?

I very much doubt Mastercard are 'behind it' - a very emotive charge. It needs to be monitored electronically, Mastercard can do that.

Apparently MasterCard are behind it!! The idiot MP who introduced it (10 minute rule bill) said it would include people on working family tax credits - well my hardworking niece and get husband get that benefit and the idea of them bring stigmatised in the queue at ASDA or not able to have the occasional bottle of beer at home ..... Well words fail me! What sort of society do we want to be part of? Clearly it's unworkable anyway but I can't believe anyone would think it was right ethically anyway

And if it ever did happen, a new black market industry would spring up overnight...

Failed asylum seekers are already given something similar (as they can't claim benefits).

I've no idea how it's working out - but I can't imagine it's not without its problems.

The idea has merits - an attempt to ensure that the money is spent on essentials - but I suspect that a huge amount of money is being made by the card companies who are running the scheme.

Fortunately this piece of arrant nonsense will not become law. It is wrong in so many ways that I can't even begin to list. It's not worthy of serious discussion.