Welfare Card

[thinfourth2]

ofcorsa said:

Why are people so adverse to vouchers?.

As in a time when we are skint the idea of making benefits more expensive to administer seems just a wee bit mental.

The only drivers i can see is a desire to punish the unemployed

[mph1977]

thinfourth2 said:

ofcorsa said:

Why are people so adverse to vouchers?.

As in a time when we are skint the idea of making benefits more expensive to administer seems just a wee bit mental.

The only drivers i can see is a desire to punish the unemployed

and idiots who won;t see the obvious opportunities for fraud-as has been suggested 'local' shops in the scheme ringing 'banned' stuff through manually as 'general grocercies' or 'miscellaneous' or a 'Scum' style 'exchange rate' potentially at 40some thing Pence in the pound ( i.e. 10 GBP of shopping in exchange for 10 fags and a can of cheap lager)

[Du1point8]

Pothole said:

ofcorsa said:

Why are people so adverse to vouchers?

If i lost my job. I would just be treading water on JSA. I couldn't keep my current life style without finding work. My mortgage wouldn't be covered by any benefits. I would HAVE to find a job. The JSA would be a welcome help with travel costs and food whilst I found a job. The fact it was vouchers wouldn't be an issue. Benefits are a stop gap not a lifestyle.

Firstly, it's averse.

Secondly, it's not a necessary, or worthwhile change. All it will do is cost the taxpayer more (no doubt) and stigmatise genuine jobseekers and other poor people along with the workshy and feckless.

Thirdly, having just found out this morning that I have not been selected for a role I put a lot of time and effort into trying to secure, I am not at all happy to be one of those mentioned above. Frankly, I could do with a drink! (I won't have one until later as I have to go and sign on this afternoon).

I haven't seen anyone mentioning any actual research or figures to support the need for a change. Major upheaval of this kind of system without proper research and investigation, late alone cost projections, is not what we should be encouraging in any government, it it?

Firstly, what does it matter if you object.

Secondly, I dont bh about it (I dont work at the moment) and its not stigmatising me with the workshy and feckless.

Thirdly, The amount of times I have been into the JC and all I can smell is booze and drugs at 11 in the fking morning, I say its a damn good thing that they cant buy important items like booze and can only by luxuries like fruit and veg.

Will you stop thinking about yourself and look at the broader picture? Its all you you you from your posts...

Go into the JCs in inner city areas and you will see in 10 seconds flat why it needs to change, also I would change the rules to say, can't speak english, then cant claim, as my local JC has an army of interpreters for immigrants that can claim a st load more benefits then I can, despite me putting away thousands and thousands into the system and them not so much...

[deltaevo16]

mph1977 said:

and idiots who won;t see the obvious opportunities for fraud-as has been suggested 'local' shops in the scheme ringing 'banned' stuff through manually as 'general grocercies' or 'miscellaneous' or a 'Scum' style 'exchange rate' potentially at 40some thing Pence in the pound ( i.e. 10 GBP of shopping in exchange for 10 fags and a can of cheap lager)

Indeed how true, I remember years ago the black market in free dinner tickets that were given out in the 70's, Luncheon vouchers in the 80's. So it wouldn't be long before it happened trust me.

[ofcorsa]

Many people are saying it would be more expensive to administer. It's all supposition. The Government could do deals with retailers to make the money go further. A top up card system could be just as cheap as cash to administer.


I used to regularly come into contact with people whom lived a lifestyle they liked at the taxpayers’ expense ( not just MPs ) Maybe this isn't the answer but what else do you suggest?

[Sticks.]

ofcorsa said:

Many people are saying it would be more expensive to administer. It's all supposition. The Government could do deals with retailers to make the money go further. A top up card system could be just as cheap as cash to administer.

Cash handling is very expensive to administer, as would a card system be.

It's partly for this reason, and partly to minimise fraud, that the govt has been moving to a fully electronic payment syetem for years.

[Pothole]

ofcorsa said:

Many people are saying it would be more expensive to administer. It's all supposition. The Government could do deals with retailers to make the money go further. A top up card system could be just as cheap as cash to administer.

Does any recent experience with government projects suggest that this will actually save any money?

[thinfourth2]

ofcorsa said:

Many people are saying it would be more expensive to administer. It's all supposition. The Government could do deals with retailers to make the money go further. A top up card system could be just as cheap as cash to administer.

Yeah as the government has such a wonderful record of doing things cheaply and well

ofcorsa said:

I used to regularly come into contact with people whom lived a lifestyle they liked at the taxpayers’ expense ( not just MPs ) Maybe this isn't the answer but what else do you suggest?

Ah ha

It is driven by spite then

[thinfourth2]

Sticks. said:

It's partly for this reason, and partly to minimise fraud, that the govt has been moving to a fully electronic payment syetem for years.

Just think of the potential for "good" that could be done with a truely cashless society

No more tradesmen doing cash in hand jobs avoiding tax

No more easy cash for drug dealers

Able to see who has been drinking too much and removing their right to the NHS

Able to see who buys too much fuel and is damaging the planet

Able to see who is spending money on stuff instead of buying stuff for their children

Able to stop parents from buying anything un approved by the government


Just think of the "good" the government could do

[BoRED S2upid]

Du1point8 said:

Pothole said:

ofcorsa said:

Why are people so adverse to vouchers?

If i lost my job. I would just be treading water on JSA. I couldn't keep my current life style without finding work. My mortgage wouldn't be covered by any benefits. I would HAVE to find a job. The JSA would be a welcome help with travel costs and food whilst I found a job. The fact it was vouchers wouldn't be an issue. Benefits are a stop gap not a lifestyle.

Firstly, it's averse.

Secondly, it's not a necessary, or worthwhile change. All it will do is cost the taxpayer more (no doubt) and stigmatise genuine jobseekers and other poor people along with the workshy and feckless.

Thirdly, having just found out this morning that I have not been selected for a role I put a lot of time and effort into trying to secure, I am not at all happy to be one of those mentioned above. Frankly, I could do with a drink! (I won't have one until later as I have to go and sign on this afternoon).

I haven't seen anyone mentioning any actual research or figures to support the need for a change. Major upheaval of this kind of system without proper research and investigation, late alone cost projections, is not what we should be encouraging in any government, it it?

Firstly, what does it matter if you object.

Secondly, I dont bh about it (I dont work at the moment) and its not stigmatising me with the workshy and feckless.

Thirdly, The amount of times I have been into the JC and all I can smell is booze and drugs at 11 in the fking morning, I say its a damn good thing that they cant buy important items like booze and can only by luxuries like fruit and veg.

Will you stop thinking about yourself and look at the broader picture? Its all you you you from your posts...

Go into the JCs in inner city areas and you will see in 10 seconds flat why it needs to change, also I would change the rules to say, can't speak english, then cant claim, as my local JC has an army of interpreters for immigrants that can claim a st load more benefits then I can, despite me putting away thousands and thousands into the system and them not so much...

What he said!

The immigrant not speaking English is a whole different topic but this guy is speaking from experience most of us aren't. Im certainly not all I see is the hundreds of people wandering around the inner city who don't seem to be looking for work.

[ofcorsa]

Spite?

A malicious, usually petty, desire to harm, annoy, frustrate, or humiliate another person; bitter ill will; malice.

My standpoint isn't petty considering the welfare budget is around £200 billion a year. Those affected will come to no harm. There is no malice in my intent other than to make people consider that a lifestyle funded by others isn't the way a society works.

[thinfourth2]

ofcorsa said:

Spite?

A malicious, usually petty, desire to harm, annoy, frustrate, or humiliate another person; bitter ill will; malice.

My standpoint isn't petty considering the welfare budget is around £200 billion a year. Those affected will come to no harm. There is no malice in my intent other than to make people consider that a lifestyle funded by others isn't the way a society works.

And how will a welfare card bring about this change?

It won't reduce the amount paid out as exactly the same amount will be paid out unless you bring in cuts or a radical change in the system

It certainly won't bring shame upon the serial benefits scrote



As to no harm

What will you class as a luxury?

Will i be allowed to get an internet connection and /or mobile phone if i am on the dole?

As they are fking useful when job hunting

[Caulkhead]

Pothole said:

ofcorsa said:

Many people are saying it would be more expensive to administer. It's all supposition. The Government could do deals with retailers to make the money go further. A top up card system could be just as cheap as cash to administer.

Does any recent experience with government projects suggest that this will actually save any money?

If it causes more of the benefit money to be spent on the things it is intended to be spent on, I consider that a saving. I can't see how providing claimants with a chip and PIN card and loading it with funds once a fortnight will be significantly more expensive than paying the funds into a bank account which also has a chip and PIN card in most cases.

[mph1977]

Caulkhead said:

Pothole said:

ofcorsa said:

Many people are saying it would be more expensive to administer. It's all supposition. The Government could do deals with retailers to make the money go further. A top up card system could be just as cheap as cash to administer.

Does any recent experience with government projects suggest that this will actually save any money?

If it causes more of the benefit money to be spent on the things it is intended to be spent on, I consider that a saving. I can't see how providing claimants with a chip and PIN card and loading it with funds once a fortnight will be significantly more expensive than paying the funds into a bank account which also has a chip and PIN card in most cases.

what qualifies you to sit in moral judgement over others?

[Caulkhead]

thinfourth2 said:

What will you class as a luxury?

Will i be allowed to get an internet connection and /or mobile phone if i am on the dole?

As they are fking useful when job hunting

Using the existing Australian welfare card system as a template to answer your questions:

Can buy: Food, clothes, health items, furniture, fuel.

Can't buy: Alcohol, gambling, tobacco, gift vouchers, pornography.

50 - 70% of the total benefits the claimant receives are quantified as above depending on their circumstances. The remainder is available for internet connections and mobile phones or even the odd scotch.

[Caulkhead]

mph1977 said:

Caulkhead said:

Pothole said:

ofcorsa said:

Many people are saying it would be more expensive to administer. It's all supposition. The Government could do deals with retailers to make the money go further. A top up card system could be just as cheap as cash to administer.

Does any recent experience with government projects suggest that this will actually save any money?

If it causes more of the benefit money to be spent on the things it is intended to be spent on, I consider that a saving. I can't see how providing claimants with a chip and PIN card and loading it with funds once a fortnight will be significantly more expensive than paying the funds into a bank account which also has a chip and PIN card in most cases.

what qualifies you to sit in moral judgement over others?

Point out where I mention morals or make a judgement on anyone and I'll answer your question.

[mph1977]

Caulkhead said:

mph1977 said:

Caulkhead said:

Pothole said:

ofcorsa said:

Many people are saying it would be more expensive to administer. It's all supposition. The Government could do deals with retailers to make the money go further. A top up card system could be just as cheap as cash to administer.

Does any recent experience with government projects suggest that this will actually save any money?

If it causes more of the benefit money to be spent on the things it is intended to be spent on, I consider that a saving . I can't see how providing claimants with a chip and PIN card and loading it with funds once a fortnight will be significantly more expensive than paying the funds into a bank account which also has a chip and PIN card in most cases.

what qualifies you to sit in moral judgement over others?

Point out where I mention morals or make a judgement on anyone and I'll answer your question.

QED

[Caulkhead]

mph1977 said:

Caulkhead said:

mph1977 said:

Caulkhead said:

Pothole said:

ofcorsa said:

Many people are saying it would be more expensive to administer. It's all supposition. The Government could do deals with retailers to make the money go further. A top up card system could be just as cheap as cash to administer.

Does any recent experience with government projects suggest that this will actually save any money?

If it causes more of the benefit money to be spent on the things it is intended to be spent on, I consider that a saving . I can't see how providing claimants with a chip and PIN card and loading it with funds once a fortnight will be significantly more expensive than paying the funds into a bank account which also has a chip and PIN card in most cases.

what qualifies you to sit in moral judgement over others?

Point out where I mention morals or make a judgement on anyone and I'll answer your question.

QED

It would've been simpler to just apologise. At no point in this thread have I mentioned morals or cast judgement on anyone. Learn to read before you react.

[Pothole]

Caulkhead said:

Pothole said:

ofcorsa said:

Many people are saying it would be more expensive to administer. It's all supposition. The Government could do deals with retailers to make the money go further. A top up card system could be just as cheap as cash to administer.

Does any recent experience with government projects suggest that this will actually save any money?

If it causes more of the benefit money to be spent on the things it is intended to be spent on, I consider that a saving. I can't see how providing claimants with a chip and PIN card and loading it with funds once a fortnight will be significantly more expensive than paying the funds into a bank account which also has a chip and PIN card in most cases.

Define "the things it is intended to be spent on". Then tell me when that definition was invented.

[Du1point8]

Pothole said:

Caulkhead said:

Pothole said:

ofcorsa said:

Many people are saying it would be more expensive to administer. It's all supposition. The Government could do deals with retailers to make the money go further. A top up card system could be just as cheap as cash to administer.

Does any recent experience with government projects suggest that this will actually save any money?

If it causes more of the benefit money to be spent on the things it is intended to be spent on, I consider that a saving. I can't see how providing claimants with a chip and PIN card and loading it with funds once a fortnight will be significantly more expensive than paying the funds into a bank account which also has a chip and PIN card in most cases.

Define "the things it is intended to be spent on". Then tell me when that definition was invented.

probably since people on benefits have been claiming poverty and not having enough benefits to spend on food, yet have mobile phones, cigarettes, booze, etc...

Not essential to life, but are classed as must haves before having decent, nutritional food...

Must have the latest IPhone or sky tv, but fresh fruit and veg... not a chance.

Or better is not being able to afford food because they are having takeaway every day cause cant be arsed to cook.