Benefit Smart Cards to be introduced

[TTwiggy]

rover 623gsi said:

or you could simply pay benefits into the recipients' bank account and let them pay using their debit card - just as happens now

it's beyond me why anybody wants to create a whole new tier of beaucracy and admin that will neither save money nor change anyone's lifestyle

Because there will be profit in it for the companies providing the (probably piss poor) IT and Admin support, profit in it for the large retailers who will be the preferred choices to take the cards, plus a warm glow for the types on here who want to call them 'SCUM' cards resulting from the vindication that they are clearly superior to the poor. What's not to love?

[mph1977]

rover 623gsi said:

or you could simply pay benefits into the recipients' bank account and let them pay using their debit card - just as happens now

it's beyond me why anybody wants to create a whole new tier of beaucracy and admin that will neither save money nor change anyone's lifestyle

because cash payment of benefits does lead to misuse in some cases

whether that's the chaotic life style drinkers/ drug misusers

whether that's those who can;t be trusted with getting their HB paid to them

whether that;'s those who misspend benefit money as part of domestic abuse ...

[Collectingbrass]

rover 623gsi said:

it's beyond me why anybody wants to create a whole new tier of beaucracy and admin that will neither save money nor change anyone's lifestyle

Because the Lab Govt bought the Azure card system for Ayslum seekers and couldn't deploy it, but no doubt there are penalty clauses the Tory Govt can't get out of, or blame the Labour party for.

[Gecko1978]

TTwiggy said:

rover 623gsi said:

or you could simply pay benefits into the recipients' bank account and let them pay using their debit card - just as happens now

it's beyond me why anybody wants to create a whole new tier of beaucracy and admin that will neither save money nor change anyone's lifestyle

Because there will be profit in it for the companies providing the (probably piss poor) IT and Admin support, profit in it for the large retailers who will be the preferred choices to take the cards, plus a warm glow for the types on here who want to call them 'SCUM' cards resulting from the vindication that they are clearly superior to the poor. What's not to love?

There is little or no profit for say tesco to make if you pass a law to say they must allow payment via smart cards. Also it would mean benefits buy things that actually benefit the recipient unlike booze an fags etc. You want to smoke get a job you want to eat well we have a safty net for that. It's social engineering but with good intentions. I suspect it will be too costly an inefficient but it's a suggestion to the benefits culture. Do you have a better idea

[Baryonyx]

Thankyou4calling said:

I enjoy reading your posts on other threads but here you are wide of the mark.

Most people on the dole hate it and want to get off, it's not always an easy thing to do. Handing out basic rations and making people wear some distinctive clothing while you work on government projects!

I've been unemployed and I can tell you it's no fun at all.

I may or may not be entirely serious as I set this cat among the pigeons...

[TTwiggy]

Gecko1978 said:

There is little or no profit for say tesco to make if you pass a law to say they must allow payment via smart cards. Also it would mean benefits buy things that actually benefit the recipient unlike booze an fags etc. You want to smoke get a job you want to eat well we have a safty net for that. It's social engineering but with good intentions. I suspect it will be too costly an inefficient but it's a suggestion to the benefits culture. Do you have a better idea

Monopolies are traditionally quite profitable.

The great irony of this is that it's a right wing idea which is essentially communist in its doctrine - the state deciding what you can and cannot have.

Also, before I go slightly mad, would you mind spelling 'and' with a 'd'?

[Gecko1978]

TTwiggy said:

Gecko1978 said:

There is little or no profit for say tesco to make if you pass a law to say they must allow payment via smart cards. Also it would mean benefits buy things that actually benefit the recipient unlike booze an fags etc. You want to smoke get a job you want to eat well we have a safty net for that. It's social engineering but with good intentions. I suspect it will be too costly an inefficient but it's a suggestion to the benefits culture. Do you have a better idea

Monopolies are traditionally quite profitable.

The great irony of this is that it's a right wing idea which is essentially communist in its doctrine - the state deciding what you can and cannot have.

Also, before I go slightly mad, would you mind spelling 'and' with a 'd'?

apologies my posts are often poorly spelt. I see the irony too an my eariler "SCUM" Card post was tongue in cheek which I think most people got. The fact is we have a large Welfair bill the bult of which is pensions I believe. No one yet is willing to out an end to the old age pension and so we look at other areas to make cuts. The "dole" is an easy target because if your not in a job must be because your lazy right....of course we know thats not the case and while I have no stats to back this up I assume most dole claiments make continuouse claims for less than 6 months implying they have found work again and thus are not scroungers.

You say Monopolies are profitable but who is to say it will be a monopolie surely the technology exists to use existing point of sales architecture for payments via smart cards thus the update is more with the firms POS software that restricts payment of certian items by smart card i.e. you can't pay for lotto with a credit card etc.

[TTwiggy]

Gecko1978 said:

apologies my posts are often poorly spelt. I see the irony too an my eariler "SCUM" Card post was tongue in cheek which I think most people got. The fact is we have a large Welfair bill the bult of which is pensions I believe. No one yet is willing to out an end to the old age pension and so we look at other areas to make cuts. The "dole" is an easy target because if your not in a job must be because your lazy right....of course we know thats not the case and while I have no stats to back this up I assume most dole claiments make continuouse claims for less than 6 months implying they have found work again and thus are not scroungers.

You say Monopolies are profitable but who is to say it will be a monopolie surely the technology exists to use existing point of sales architecture for payments via smart cards thus the update is more with the firms POS software that restricts payment of certian items by smart card i.e. you can't pay for lotto with a credit card etc.

You acknowledge that 'jobseekers' makes up only a small part of the welfare bill, and further acknowledge that the number of people on it for the long term make up an even smaller number. So why the need for a costly and divisive idea like this at all? And yes, I do predict that certain retailers will be given preference for taking these cards.

[Collectingbrass]

TTwiggy said:

You acknowledge that 'jobseekers' makes up only a small part of the welfare bill, and further acknowledge that the number of people on it for the long term make up an even smaller number. So why the need for a costly and divisive idea like this at all?

Because it diverts media attention away from the real issues driving the welfare bill; which are that Child benefit is not fully means tested like JSA is, OAP benefits are not means tested and the pension bill is too large for the tax base we have. No Government will tackle these problems as the recipients of this largesse vote, and especially vote in UKIP, sorry, mariginal seats whereas the SCUM card recipients generaly do not.

And I say this as someone who's child beenfit should have been means tested and whose parents can afford their bus fares.

[rover 623gsi]

The Tories have been very successful in getting across the idea that the huge ‘welfare’ bill we have is as a result of giving too much money to scroungers. But around half of the £200 billion goes on pensions and a large chunk of the remaining bill also goes to retired people via housing benefit, council tax rebates, pension credits, disability allowances etc. In total, almost three quarters of the welfare bill goes to pensioners.

If the Tories (and labour for that matter) were serious about reducing welfare spending that is where they should aim their cuts.

[gpo746]

Is this a trial thing or a proposal or what ?

[Rovinghawk]

Collectingbrass said:

Child benefit is not fully means tested like JSA is

Is the cost of means testing greater than the potential saving? I don't know the answer, I'm just pointing out the possibility.

Collectingbrass said:

OAP benefits are not means tested

A similar question applies. I'll also add that if pensions were means tested, fewer would save for their old age & we'd just be preparing a demographic timebomb.

[JagLover]

rover 623gsi said:

The Tories have been very successful in getting across the idea that the huge ‘welfare’ bill we have is as a result of giving too much money to scroungers. But around half of the £200 billion goes on pensions and a large chunk of the remaining bill also goes to retired people via housing benefit, council tax rebates, pension credits, disability allowances etc. In total, almost three quarters of the welfare bill goes to pensioners.

If the Tories (and labour for that matter) were serious about reducing welfare spending that is where they should aim their cuts.

State pensions are around £87bn not £100bn and I am curious how you get from "half" of the welfare bill being state pensions to 3/4 when you include other benefits.

Pensioners have paid into the system all their lives (most of them) and have received in return a promise of future income from the state on which they have relied. I am far from retirement age but would rather see virtually any other area of state spending reduced.

As you say there is a vast budget spent on welfare just because the bulk goes on pensioners does not mean there are not tens of billions spent elsewhere. Returning the benefits system to a safety net not a way of life can achieve big savings, but those claiming JSA are a small part of the problem. The larger issue is those having families who cannot afford to do so and those claiming disability benefits who are still capable of work.

[rover 623gsi]

depends on source, of course...

however, here is one that suggests that payments to pensioners currently £149.7bn per annum, while the other welfare spending adds up to £54.8bn

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/year_spending_20...

[JagLover]

rover 623gsi said:

depends on source, of course...

however, here is one that suggests that payments to pensioners currently £149.7bn per annum, while the other welfare spending adds up to £54.8bn

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/year_spending_20...

What is the sickness and disability figure under pensions and why doesn't any appear in other welfare spending?

[DMN]

mph1977 said:

rover 623gsi said:

or you could simply pay benefits into the recipients' bank account and let them pay using their debit card - just as happens now

it's beyond me why anybody wants to create a whole new tier of beaucracy and admin that will neither save money nor change anyone's lifestyle

because cash payment of benefits does lead to misuse in some cases

whether that's the chaotic life style drinkers/ drug misusers

whether that's those who can;t be trusted with getting their HB paid to them

whether that;'s those who misspend benefit money as part of domestic abuse ...

So punish the many for the crimes of the few?

Evidence says the sterotype about fritting it away on fags and booze is bullst:

http://www.newstatesman.com/staggers/2014/09/pre-p...

[loose cannon]

How about 5 kids £1750 a month paid for rent 5 bed house, not always working but can still afford to buy 6 pizzas few bottles of drink garlic bread and 5 puddings all deliverd every Friday without fail ?
Don't even ask how all the kids have I phones and I pads ? The oldest is 13

[mph1977]

DMN said:

mph1977 said:

rover 623gsi said:

or you could simply pay benefits into the recipients' bank account and let them pay using their debit card - just as happens now

it's beyond me why anybody wants to create a whole new tier of beaucracy and admin that will neither save money nor change anyone's lifestyle

because cash payment of benefits does lead to misuse in some cases

whether that's the chaotic life style drinkers/ drug misusers

whether that's those who can;t be trusted with getting their HB paid to them

whether that;'s those who misspend benefit money as part of domestic abuse ...

So punish the many for the crimes of the few?

Evidence says the sterotype about fritting it away on fags and booze is bullst:

http://www.newstatesman.com/staggers/2014/09/pre-p...

much as HB is paid to the claiminant unless / until they mess up, I suspect much the same will the prepaid cards as the drinkers/ drug misusers / domestically violent will be fairly well known to the System as will those where there are child welfare concerns.

it is extrmely naive to believe that all unemployed people are unfortuantes and down on their luck

my experiences over the past 2 years of unemployment and then working full tiem but being underemployed in termso f roles and responsibilities following, work , health and personal difficultues have shown me that there is a significant minority of the native british population to choose to make themselves unemployable - the Accession state nations haven;t taken the jobs ( that you claim are below you anyeay) becasue they are cheap they have stayed in them ( i.e. not been sacked or not been cancelled off the agency and then get taken onto the firm 's payroll ) becaue they do at least what is asked of them and do it reasonably willingly.

[AA999]

DMN said:

So punish the many for the crimes of the few?

How are people being 'punished' exactly?

The way I view it that there is undoubtedly a percentage that are irresponsible with benefits paid in cash. This is a 'punishment' to the taxpayer if you wish to use this word.
Having a system that goes along way to eradicate the issue (to whatever extent - as it has not been tried and tested in the UK as yet), is a bonus for the many I would have thought.....even those who already spend responsibly, as there would be no real change of spending habit.

[TTwiggy]

AA999 said:

How are people being 'punished' exactly?

The way I view it that there is undoubtedly a percentage that are irresponsible with benefits paid in cash. This is a 'punishment' to the taxpayer if you wish to use this word.
Having a system that goes along way to eradicate the issue (to whatever extent - as it has not been tried and tested in the UK as yet), is a bonus for the many I would have thought.....even those who already spend responsibly, as there would be no real change of spending habit.

Because if you remove the social aspect of it and just look at the logistics, then based on the history of government schemes it will cost more than it saves and simply line the pockets of a few piss-poor 'preferred' contractors who will be laughing all the way to the bank with taxpayers' money.