Welfare Card

[mph1977]

Du1point8 said:

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,

God Forbid someone might actually want to make contact with potential employers,or potential employers with them...

A few to many PHers forget they are one bad day and one vindictive boss/customer away from JSA ... look how fast even a 'healthy' contingency fund or statutory redundancy /dismissal with notice payment disappears and that's assuming you don;t suddenly find yourself without a phone,car and laptop as they belonged to your employer

[mph1977]

Caulkhead said:

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.

Are you really that smug, self satisfied and lacking in insight to think your statements are correct ...

you clearly consider people in receipt of benefits to be unworthy of exercising choice, and have no concept of the actual meaning of terms of the various Human rights stuff
(and yes the benefit system like the majority of things funded by central govt. all pay as you go).

replace 'the unemployed' with 'Blacks 'or 'Jews 'or ' Gays' and read it back to yourself

[Du1point8]

mph1977 said:

Du1point8 said:

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,

God Forbid someone might actually want to make contact with potential employers,or potential employers with them...

A few to many PHers forget they are one bad day and one vindictive boss/customer away from JSA ... look how fast even a 'healthy' contingency fund or statutory redundancy /dismissal with notice payment disappears and that's assuming you don;t suddenly find yourself without a phone,car and laptop as they belonged to your employer

Im one of those PHers... JSA that I cant get as not mobile, benefits I cant have as I saved my pennies, to top it off I have smashed ankle which means I have had to turn down 2 or 3 interviews that I got to later stages as Im house bound at the moment and will be for another 2-4 weeks.

Now what is it you want to say to me?

However Im doing something about it.

[ShampooEfficient]

Bunglist said:

This could work.

Get all of the supermarkets on board and only allow the benefit scroungers to buy fresh produce such as fruit veg.

They want luxuries, go out and earn a living like the rest of us.

Fruit and veg? Would only end up being used as weapons by the average Jeremy Kyle wannabe.

Note- not all benefits claimants are JK wannabes.

[Caulkhead]

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.

Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness from the Beveridge Report 1942. This defines the purpose of the welfare state in the UK from it's inception. Benefits payments were defined as those payments that would reduce or eradicate those five 'giants' as listed.

[Caulkhead]

mph1977 said:

Caulkhead said:

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.

Are you really that smug, self satisfied and lacking in insight to think your statements are correct ...

you clearly consider people in receipt of benefits to be unworthy of exercising choice, and have no concept of the actual meaning of terms of the various Human rights stuff
(and yes the benefit system like the majority of things funded by central govt. all pay as you go).

replace 'the unemployed' with 'Blacks 'or 'Jews 'or ' Gays' and read it back to yourself

Are you completely illiterate?

I can't replace 'the unemployed' with 'Blacks 'or 'Jews 'or ' Gays' because I have never used the phrase 'the unemployed'. You seem to have imagined a post by me and replied to it.

Once again I ask, please quote me on and show where I am 'smug, self satisfied and lacking in insight'.

Please show me where I said, or even implied that I 'consider people in receipt of benefits to be unworthy of exercising choice'.

By all means disagree with me, but please disagree with what I actually say, not a bunch of bullst you've imagined.

[Sticks.]

I think you may have missed the point there.

[sugerbear]

Caulkhead said:

sugerbear said:

Caulkhead said:

An excellent idea if only to allow the government to see where the taxpayer's money is actually spent by those in receipt of benefits.

How would that happen? Do you want to an an MI system on top of the payment card as well ?

Why the hell would Tesco or Sainsburys want anything to do with this card ? They currently take payment cards but they dont discrimate against the types of items you can buy so it would be their responsiblity to implement something that stopped certain categories of item being sold. Tesco dont report that you spend £x on ciggies and £y on food at the moment, why would they even want to start.

Using a card for benefits payments is fine if you (as a government) want to be able to track the card and who it is issued to, but if you want something that stops spending on certain specific items you have zero chance of that actually being implemented.

Dumb expensive idea.

The payment card would have to have a system to block banned goods purchases so collecting the data would be easy. Any modern EPOS can do this.

Tesco and Sainsburys would not wish to lose such a significant part of their business, so would be happy to accept it.

As I said, excellent idea unlikely to be implemented.

You have no idea about EPOS systems, payment cards block on merchant type, not on the item type. So major development required on the EPOS system You are very deluded if you think this would happen AND it would save money. You could implement a cheap magstripe card but that would just encourage people to report them lost/stolen and then you would need a call centre/fraud department and so on.

As for retailers being depserate to sign up to the "scheme", that it very unlikely as they would have to develop and monitor it (a cost to them) so you would get a very big fk off from Asda, Sainsburys, Morrisons and Tesco and that also entails forcing people to use a specific retailer rather than a "cheap" one.

And finally what's to say that your local friendly corner shop wouldn't just rack up your bottle of cheap vodka as 5 packs of cornflakes ?

So no. A very st idea.

[JensenA]

ofcorsa said:

Why are people so averse 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.

Edited for typo - thanks

Edited by ofcorsa on Thursday 20th December 12:13

Because you may well not be able to get a job. There are thousands of people applying for jobs and employers can pick and choose who they want, if you get a job you are lucky. And don't give me the nonsense that you would take ANY job, like cleaning dishes part time at Macdonalds, or cleaning toilets. If you are well spoken, educated, articulate and with a good employment record, you would'nt even be conisdered for a job like that because they know you will leave as soon as a decent job comes along. And all the jobs that you feel you are suitable for, the employers will have a list of candidates as long as their arm, you need to be lucky to even get an interview nowadays.

[ofcorsa]

Those who are opposed to this idea, do you think its a solution to a problem that doesn't exist? Or just a bad solution? Are there alternatives?

[Pothole]

Caulkhead said:

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.

Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness from the Beveridge Report 1942. This defines the purpose of the welfare state in the UK from it's inception. Benefits payments were defined as those payments that would reduce or eradicate those five 'giants' as listed.

I WANT to buy booze with MY money. It does not have any effect on the other things - it could do but not for £70 a week!

[Du1point8]

Pothole said:

Caulkhead said:

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.

Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness from the Beveridge Report 1942. This defines the purpose of the welfare state in the UK from it's inception. Benefits payments were defined as those payments that would reduce or eradicate those five 'giants' as listed.

I WANT to buy booze with MY money. It does not have any effect on the other things - it could do but not for £70 a week!

Again with you you you... Its not your money, its the taxpayers money, please get that straight if you are seeking benefits, its to help you out and get you back on your feet... its not there to get you pissed.

[Caulkhead]

sugerbear said:

Caulkhead said:

sugerbear said:

Caulkhead said:

An excellent idea if only to allow the government to see where the taxpayer's money is actually spent by those in receipt of benefits.

How would that happen? Do you want to an an MI system on top of the payment card as well ?

Why the hell would Tesco or Sainsburys want anything to do with this card ? They currently take payment cards but they dont discrimate against the types of items you can buy so it would be their responsiblity to implement something that stopped certain categories of item being sold. Tesco dont report that you spend £x on ciggies and £y on food at the moment, why would they even want to start.

Using a card for benefits payments is fine if you (as a government) want to be able to track the card and who it is issued to, but if you want something that stops spending on certain specific items you have zero chance of that actually being implemented.

Dumb expensive idea.

The payment card would have to have a system to block banned goods purchases so collecting the data would be easy. Any modern EPOS can do this.

Tesco and Sainsburys would not wish to lose such a significant part of their business, so would be happy to accept it.

As I said, excellent idea unlikely to be implemented.

You have no idea about EPOS systems, payment cards block on merchant type, not on the item type. So major development required on the EPOS system You are very deluded if you think this would happen AND it would save money. You could implement a cheap magstripe card but that would just encourage people to report them lost/stolen and then you would need a call centre/fraud department and so on.

As for retailers being depserate to sign up to the "scheme", that it very unlikely as they would have to develop and monitor it (a cost to them) so you would get a very big fk off from Asda, Sainsburys, Morrisons and Tesco and that also entails forcing people to use a specific retailer rather than a "cheap" one.

And finally what's to say that your local friendly corner shop wouldn't just rack up your bottle of cheap vodka as 5 packs of cornflakes ?

So no. A very st idea.

Works OK in the current Australian system with chip and PIN and all the signed up retailers seem happy with it and no problems with utilising the EFTPOS system:

http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/enablers/...

Maybe the Australian government know more about it than you do?

[Pothole]

Du1point8 said:

Pothole said:

Caulkhead said:

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.

Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness from the Beveridge Report 1942. This defines the purpose of the welfare state in the UK from it's inception. Benefits payments were defined as those payments that would reduce or eradicate those five 'giants' as listed.

I WANT to buy booze with MY money. It does not have any effect on the other things - it could do but not for £70 a week!

Again with you you you... Its not your money, its the taxpayers money, please get that straight if you are seeking benefits, its to help you out and get you back on your feet... its not there to get you pissed.

I've paid in for 29 years. When it hits my bank account it's mine (again). Sure, I'm selfish, but I'll never be as pompous as you, so I'm happy.

[Caulkhead]

Pothole said:

Caulkhead said:

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.

Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness from the Beveridge Report 1942. This defines the purpose of the welfare state in the UK from it's inception. Benefits payments were defined as those payments that would reduce or eradicate those five 'giants' as listed.

I WANT to buy booze with MY money. It does not have any effect on the other things - it could do but not for £70 a week!

You'll note that the Australian example I quoted in another reply clearly states that the proportion of your benefits sent to the welfare card depends on your circumstances and is typically 50-70% of your total benefits. The rest is available for you to spend on booze, prossies, coke and subscriptions to specialist online gentleman's one-handed website content.

My personal opinion is that the welfare card should only apply to needs based claims as those in receipt of contributions based payments are getting their own money back and should choose how to spend it themselves but it's quite difficult to discuss such points with all the howling mad, bitter people on here not reading posts properly before replying.

[SpeedMattersNot]

Du1point8 said:

Again with you you you... Its not your money, its the taxpayers money, please get that straight if you are seeking benefits, its to help you out and get you back on your feet... its not there to get you pissed.

Nonsense.

Of course it is his money, what a crazy thing to say!

There are plenty of people who spend their winter fuel allowance and child benefit on non-essential items.

When I got made redundant (first time in 11 years, but I'm still told it's all Labours fault) I also got quite a healthy redundancy. Was this the tax payers money too? I bought a new computer and guitar with the money - and the rest went on mostly alcohol and ready meals. Beat that.

[thinfourth2]

ofcorsa said:

Those who are opposed to this idea, do you think its a solution to a problem that doesn't exist? Or just a bad solution? Are there alternatives?

I am not denying there is a problem but its far from a major problem.

So what if a doley is spending his dole money on booze and fags it doesn't effect me.


Its also a fking terrible solution as the potential for abuse is massive. Once it is the norm for one sector of society to have their spending controlled by the government then it can easily be rolled out to others. And i for one really don't want some government tt saying i shouldn't be buying goose fat to stick on my roast potatoes.


Alternatives

Make things bone crushingly fair.

Give everyone in the country roughly £6000 a year and increase the average tax take by about £6000 a year per person

And then remove all benefits apart from in extreme cases.

It is horribly fair as it means you sit on your arse then you have a st life

You are willing to work then you can make your world better

[SpeedMattersNot]

Isn't it catch-22 though? (whatever that saying actually means?!)

I don't think dole-dossers are our biggest concern in this country, surely those who are abusing the system and are sat in the Wetherspoons at 10am every morning, without the benefits wouldn't they just go out and steal to survive? In which case, it would cost us all more in those required areas anyway.

I don't see having a 50" plasma and a freezer full of microwaved meals as a privilege. Probably a very small proportion of the benefits budget actually goes towards people like this.

[sugerbear]

Caulkhead said:

sugerbear said:

Caulkhead said:

sugerbear said:

Caulkhead said:

An excellent idea if only to allow the government to see where the taxpayer's money is actually spent by those in receipt of benefits.

How would that happen? Do you want to an an MI system on top of the payment card as well ?

Why the hell would Tesco or Sainsburys want anything to do with this card ? They currently take payment cards but they dont discrimate against the types of items you can buy so it would be their responsiblity to implement something that stopped certain categories of item being sold. Tesco dont report that you spend £x on ciggies and £y on food at the moment, why would they even want to start.

Using a card for benefits payments is fine if you (as a government) want to be able to track the card and who it is issued to, but if you want something that stops spending on certain specific items you have zero chance of that actually being implemented.

Dumb expensive idea.

The payment card would have to have a system to block banned goods purchases so collecting the data would be easy. Any modern EPOS can do this.

Tesco and Sainsburys would not wish to lose such a significant part of their business, so would be happy to accept it.

As I said, excellent idea unlikely to be implemented.

You have no idea about EPOS systems, payment cards block on merchant type, not on the item type. So major development required on the EPOS system You are very deluded if you think this would happen AND it would save money. You could implement a cheap magstripe card but that would just encourage people to report them lost/stolen and then you would need a call centre/fraud department and so on.

As for retailers being depserate to sign up to the "scheme", that it very unlikely as they would have to develop and monitor it (a cost to them) so you would get a very big fk off from Asda, Sainsburys, Morrisons and Tesco and that also entails forcing people to use a specific retailer rather than a "cheap" one.

And finally what's to say that your local friendly corner shop wouldn't just rack up your bottle of cheap vodka as 5 packs of cornflakes ?

So no. A very st idea.

Works OK in the current Australian system with chip and PIN and all the signed up retailers seem happy with it and no problems with utilising the EFTPOS system:

http://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/enablers/...

Maybe the Australian government know more about it than you do?

A damn sight more than you. A success.. mmm lets see... The number of users as of August 2012 was a grand total of..... Drum roll please.... 45... Yes it seems to be a roaring success and its only been trialled in 5 locations at a cost of 120 million AUD.

Yes, an excellent example of a scheme. And the card is only pin, not chip.

It could be done with a prepaid card but you won't get item level restrictions through a card scheme, only merchant category. Government type schemes are seen as a cashcow by retailers and card schemes.

No doubt the company that got the contract to roll it out are doing very well and the limited number of outlets that accept the card are ok. But I guess you don't see that 120million might be better spent on those out of work rather than creating lucrative contracts for companies to setup and administer the scheme.

So in answer to your question, I doubt it as the australian governments expertise isn't in card payments.

[Sticks.]

thinfourth2 said:

Its also a fking terrible solution as the potential for abuse is massive. Once it is the norm for one sector of society to have their spending controlled by the government then it can easily be rolled out to others. And i for one really don't want some government tt saying i shouldn't be buying goose fat to stick on my roast potatoes.

Thisn is it for me. There is a sector of the UK which is multi-occupancy addresses, NFAs, unclear and multi-identities, and that's before you start on the trade, loss and theft of the cards, and the consequent resource needed to plug the leakage.

But if you think it's a good idea, why not start with Child Benefit? Govt could ensure that children don't eat non-state-approved foods and drinks, which would benefit their education, behaviour and improve their long term health and economic outcomes. There would therefore be savings all round, from youth crime, the obesity epidemic to a healthier old age. You could also use your vouchers for the single state-approved school uniform, so that children are properly dressed.

It's a bit commie for me, but once you've accepted the principle, what's to stop it?