'Smart cards' plan to stop benefits being spent on drink

[markysimmo]

****ing brilliant idea, shouldve happened years ago

People will be barred from blowing benefits cash on booze and gambling under a controversial scheme to hand out welfare money on “smart cards” announced today.

Instead of handing claimants cash, they would have credits put on a card that could only be used to buy food and other essentials.

Iain Duncan Smith is certain the scheme, to be fully piloted if the Tories win the election, will help alcohol and gambling addicts stay on the wagon.

Tory sources claim the Work and Pensions Secretary had wanted to introduce the cards sooner but has been blocked by Liberal Democrats.

A source from Nick Clegg’s party condemned the policy, claiming it would end up “stigmatising” benefit claimants.

Speaking to Tory conference today, Mr Duncan Smith was to say: “Where parents have fallen into a damaging spiral, drug or alcohol addiction, even problem debt or more, we need to find ways to safeguard them and more importantly, their families [and] children, ensuring their basic needs are met.

“That means benefits paid should go to support the wellbeing of their families, not to feed their destructive habits.

“To that end, today I can announce I am testing prepaid cards … so that the money [received] is spent on the needs of the family.”

The small scale voluntary trial will look at how an existing prepaid card system used by Labour-controlled North Tyneside council can be used as a budgeting tool for claimants.

A future Conservative Government would then draw on the findings from the trial to inform a full-scale pilot if it wins power.

Mr Duncan Smith is known to have been exploring the idea for months having seen similar schemes implemented in other countries.

In Australia the government puts money electronically on so-called “Basics cards” which can only be used to purchase items such as food, housing, clothing, education and healthcare.

In England alone an estimated one in 15 working-age benefit claimants suffers from addiction to opiates, such as crack cocaine and heroin. An estimated one in 25 working-age benefit claimants suffers alcohol dependency.

Officials have also pinpointed debt as a result of poor budgeting as a key barrier to claimants taking up employment or being in a position where they can look for work. A Tory source said: “This is a tragic waste of human potential and lost opportunity. Ministers believe a prepaid card could help vulnerable claimants to prioritise their spending, manage their finances better and ultimately help to turn their lives around.”

Mr Duncan Smith has previously accepted the move may need legislative changes, but Tories say their coalition partners stymied its progress.

A Lib-Dem source said: “We blocked this proposal on at least two occasions.

“We are not persuaded of its merits, alongside the principled objection that you should not be stigmatising people and reducing their freedom to spend money as they wish just because they spend some time out of work.

“There are also serious practical issues that don’t stand up.”

 

[Richie]

I think about this in two ways. Firstly, I think it's a good idea to make sure benefits are spent on items that are actually beneficial to the recipients, like fresh fruit and vegetables. However, I'm very against the concept of a government telling someone what they can and cannot buy, so I'm actually quite conflicted about the proposal.

Also, how would this affect small traders such as market stalls? I buy all my meat from a local market because it's significantly cheaper than the supermarkets, would those on benefits still have access to these?

 

[Yossarian]

I think about this in two ways. Firstly, I think it's a good idea to make sure benefits are spent on items that are actually beneficial to the recipients, like fresh fruit and vegetables. However, I'm very against the concept of a government telling someone what they can and cannot buy, so I'm actually quite conflicted about the proposal.

Also, how would this affect small traders such as market stalls? I buy all my meat from a local market because it's significantly cheaper than the supermarkets, would those on benefits still have access to these?

I'm very against the concept of a government paying generations of lazy ****s to not work. Rights come with responsibilities, not vice versa. My only objection to this proposal is that this useless Government would manage to make a complete Horlicks of any welfare reforms, in the highly unlikely event of them gaining a majority at the next election.

 

[monkeybarry]

The article says - although I'm sure propaganda will cover this up - that the scheme will be used for those with dependency issues ( ie. alcohol).
If that is the implantation, along with counselling and rehab, then it is a good idea.
Without rehab, it will just drive people to crime. Although im not convinced benefits payments are the sole source of income for people with dependency

It is a blanket policy, I am opposed to it on the grounds mentioned above and also that the recipient will likely have paid into the system at some point, so you are essentially controlling what we can spend our money on, taking away liberty.
That said, public funds should be used in a measured way to improve society.

Hhmmmmmm......

 

[the dza]

If people have that serious a drink or gambling problem, they will just buy items that they are 'allowed' to buy and sell them at a discount for cash. They will then spend the cash on their vice of choice.

Lovely way to stigmatise people who might be in receipt of benefits but don't actually have drink or drug problems though, should they decide to roll it out to cover everyone (not just those with drink/gambling problems).

And then there's the cost of implementing the system (we all know how good IDS is with his projects).

Seems like another in a long line of stupid ideas, but the headline reads "tough on scroungers" and that must play well with the focus groups. It's nothing to do with saving money really, it's just playing to the politics of the petty minded. How much is the latest middle-east adventure going to end up costing? Funny how money is no object when it comes to blowing people up.

Like all of current politics, it's all b0llocks. Just make what you can, whatever situation you're in -- whether you're on benefits, grow weed or work as a City trader. Get the money, play the system, play the game. You can't fight against it, nothing will ever change. Just get yours and don't worry about what other people are doing, coz they are all c**ts anyway.

 

[Richie]

I think that's a great point, this is a great headline for the Tories but I just don't see how it will help in practice.

 

[Dicko]

In Belgium everyone is given Food Vouchers/Card credit, even those with a salary receive a small percentage in the form of the food vouchers. Almost everyone paying in the Supermarkets uses them for their weekly shopping and they can't be used on cigarettes or alcohol.

If everyone had one of these cards and not just those on benefits then surely that would be a good workaround for the argument of those people feeling stigmatised.

For those that are working these vouchers/credit is also tax-free which is a slight benefit.

 

[jts1882]

^^

E.g. use them for child allowance as well.

 

[scaramanga]

I agree with Richie - I'm torn on this.

I don't like governments telling people how to live their lives - it's never a good basis for anything.

Equally I don't like the idea of people spending my money on luxuries I can't afford because all my money disappears to the ****ing taxman.

 

[jts1882]

How about a choice? Offer cash at a lower rate and the card at a slightly higher rate.

 

[Richie]

^^

E.g. use them for child allowance as well.

This is a great idea, giving these cards for child benefit would hopefully reduce the stigma that it is just for 'poor people'. I do wonder how many middle class working families would refuse to use it for fear of being labelled, would be an interesting social experiment.

It's similar to the free school meals issue. Some parents who are eligible for free meals choose not to take them because of how it will make them look, which is ridiculous IMO.

 

[the dza]

I agree with Richie - I'm torn on this.

I don't like governments telling people how to live their lives - it's never a good basis for anything.

Equally I don't like the idea of people spending my money on luxuries I can't afford because all my money disappears to the ****ing taxman.

Your taxes are going to get taken by the government regardless of whether they are blue or pale blue, and you're going to subsidise people one way or another.

Tories prefer to subsidise the very wealthy. They still like taxes, they are happy to raise VAT....but they don't like inheritence tax so much. VAT is small beer for multi millionaires, other taxes affect them more.

Labour will also subsidise the wealthy, but a little less so, allowing them to throw a few extra crumbs to the poorer people.

Whoever gets in next time, I'm stil going to get tax credits and housing benefit (and like most people in receipt of benefits, I'm in a full-time job). And you're still going to put more into the pot than you get out of it.

Spiteful little moves against the worst off is to make voters like yourself believe that you'll get value for money. You won't. The Randian utopia of the libertarian is about as likely as the Socialist Paradise at the other end of the spectrum.

In the end, they will all (Lab/Lib/Con) subsidise large businesses via topping up their employees wages and allowing them to avoid tax. I'll vote for the crumbs, you'll vote for the percieved 'value for money' and we'll both be disappointed with the results (but you more so).

 

[spitshine]

Your taxes are going to get taken by the government regardless of whether they are blue or pale blue, and you're going to subsidise people one way or another.

Tories prefer to subsidise the very wealthy. They still like taxes, they are happy to raise VAT....but they don't like inheritence tax so much. VAT is small beer for multi millionaires, other taxes affect them more.

Labour will also subsidise the wealthy, but a little less so, allowing them to throw a few extra crumbs to the poorer people.

Whoever gets in next time, I'm stil going to get tax credits and housing benefit (and like most people in receipt of benefits, I'm in a full-time job). And you're still going to put more into the pot than you get out of it.

Spiteful little moves against the worst off is to make voters like yourself believe that you'll get value for money. You won't. The Randian utopia of the libertarian is about as likely as the Socialist Paradise at the other end of the spectrum.

In the end, they will all (Lab/Lib/Con) subsidise large businesses via topping up their employees wages and allowing them to avoid tax. I'll vote for the crumbs, you'll vote for the percieved 'value for money' and we'll both be disappointed with the results (but you more so).

How can housing benefit be paid whilst your working or does this just show my ignorance..

 

[the dza]

How can housing benefit be paid whilst your working or does this just show my ignorance..

It is to do with your household income. I work full-time and earn a low wage, mr mrs stays at home and looks after our baby daughter. Because our household income is low and we have a kid, we get paid working + child tax credit and housing benefit.

Most housing benefit is paid to people in work. Most benefits are paid to people who are either in work or retired (pensioners). Job Seekers Allowance is a very small part of the overall benefit bill, but it makes the "hard-working tax-payer" feel better when they get squeezed. So politicians try to make headlines that go with the wishes of the focus groups they use.

 

[scaramanga]

It is to do with your household income. I work full-time and earn a low wage, mr mrs stays at home and looks after our baby daughter. Because our household income is low and we have a kid, we get paid working + child tax credit and housing benefit.

Most housing benefit is paid to people in work. Most benefits are paid to people who are either in work or retired (pensioners). Job Seekers Allowance is a very small part of the overall benefit bill, but it makes the "hard-working tax-payer" feel better when they get squeezed. So politicians try to make headlines that go with the wishes of the focus groups they use.

This isn't a comment on your situation, more a general principles one so please take as the criticism of government it's meant as:

How does choosing to stay at home and look after a child qualify a family for benefits? Surely any benefit system where a person can voluntarily qualify is inherently wrong?

 

[spitshine]

This isn't a comment on your situation, more a general principles one so please take as the criticism of government it's meant as:

How does choosing to stay at home and look after a child qualify a family for benefits? Surely any benefit system where a person can voluntarily qualify is inherently wrong?

Yes sorry I should have explained as Scara said it wasn't directed at your situation more just to gain a general understanding

 

[Richie]

I think the question really comes down to what do we want the benefits system to accomplish? Do we want it to be used to maintain peoples lifestyles that they otherwise wouldn't be able to afford (the pub, football tickets, tv etc..) or should it be there to keep people out of abject poverty, just get food on the table and a warm house to sleep in?

After tax and NI, a full time minimum wage worker will take home around £950/month. Is that enough to provide all the basics for a small family (home, heat, food etc..)? And if so, should the government be giving those people benefits for all the so-called 'luxuries' that people may want but don't need?

 

[the dza]

This isn't a comment on your situation, more a general principles one so please take as the criticism of government it's meant as:

How does choosing to stay at home and look after a child qualify a family for benefits? Surely any benefit system where a person can voluntarily qualify is inherently wrong?

I guess it's wrong, although kids don't ask to be born. When they are here, it's probably better that their parents raise them. If their parents are skint, it's probably beter they get given some help. You can blame me for having a kid, but f*ck it -- we get one life and if you want to have kids, you just gotta do it and make the best of it. If that means playign the game, so be it.

The government could perhaps legislate that the minimum wage is higher. Instead, they decide that they want business to have a subsidy, whereby any low wage employers who want children will have their incomes topped up by the state. Perhaps sterilise everyone who earns below a certain amount, but then where will the low wage bods of the future come from?

The thing that will really boil your p1ss is that I'd probably be financially better off if we had another kid -- we'd get a bigger house too. A couple of years ago, me and the mrs were living with my parents -- when we moved out, I made sure we moved into a 1 bedroom place, because I knew we'd want to have a child at some point, and that if we only had a 1 bedroom place when she was born, the council would get us a 2 bedroom place. Now we live in a 2 bed bungalow in the countryside for a cheaper rent than the private rental of the 1 bed house we were previously in, with a more secure tennancy to boot. Annnnd, if we were to have another kid, because the 2nd bedroom is small, we'd be eligable for a 3 bedroom house ( I know this because that's what happened with the previous tennants here).

To further anger you, I am pretty sure that if I cut down my hours of work from the current 40+ to a 30 hour week, my benefits would rise to make up the shortfall - I'd get the same money overall each month for working less hours per week. This is something that I'm going to do in the future, because it'd be a bit stupid not to.

If you are gonna be a skint, low wage worker, then you just have to play the game and life can be ok. Probably not ok by your standards (I gather you earn a few quid Scara) but not too bad. I'm not going on loads of foreign holidays or driving round in a new car made from plasma tellies, but life is alright.

As for whether it's right, well from your point of view then no. I'm a feckless, irresponsible waster who should never have decided to have children. I should have worked in my low wage job until I either bettered myself, or dropped dead childless. The government is taking money from your pockets and putting it into mine, so my wife can stay at home while I work. Your tax money allows my business to keep their wages low for the drones that work in the warehouse.

It's the single blokes I feel sorry for. They will get the same sh1tty wage, but no help whatsoever. The government, it seems, wants to encourage people to have children at all costs.

 

[spitshine]

In a nutshell, the government is encouraging people to have kids nothing full well that around half would require substantial state help to bring them up. This is better than say encouraging wages to rise to level where that safety net would not be required..

 

[scaramanga]

In a nutshell, the government is encouraging people to have kids nothing full well that around half would require substantial state help to bring them up. This is better than say encouraging wages to rise to level where that safety net would not be required..

We need people to have more kids in order to pay the massive pension liabilities that previous governments didn't ringfence.

Wages are what people's jobs are worth. If the government tries to artificially inflate them too far then they'll just go overseas.