Now lets take logical step and we're nearly there.....

[550Hep]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12023054

Now if they could just expand that to cover at least a portion of actual benefit payments!!

[eliot]

550Hep said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12023054

Now if they could just expand that to cover at least a portion of actual benefit payments!!

But the food comes from donations from Joe public spending their own cash thats already been taxed.

[550Hep]

eliot said:

550Hep said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12023054

Now if they could just expand that to cover at least a portion of actual benefit payments!!

But the food comes from donations from Joe public spending their own cash thats already been taxed.

I meant more the premise of the government handing out vouchers as opposed to money!

[Sticks.]

550Hep said:

eliot said:

550Hep said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12023054

Now if they could just expand that to cover at least a portion of actual benefit payments!!

But the food comes from donations from Joe public spending their own cash thats already been taxed.

I meant more the premise of the government handing out vouchers as opposed to money!

More like it used to, you mean.

EFA, still does, it seems, FMTs

Edited by Sticks. on Saturday 18th December 10:04

[Ozzie Osmond]

eliot said:

But the food comes from donations from Joe public spending their own cash thats already been taxed.

Exactly (unless the charity is able to recover the tax through gift aid or whatever it's called).

Vouchers for 3 days food are redeemable at a Trust Foodbank. "All food is donated by the public and sorted by volunteers. Frontline care professionals such as doctors and social workers identify people in crisis and issue a food voucher. Clients receive three days of nutritionally balanced, non-perishable food in exchange for their food voucher. Foodbanks also make time to chat and to signpost clients to other helpful services."

The state could give part of all benefits in redeemable vouchers AND make sure the right person uses them AND prohibit their use for alcohol/cigarettes. Unless a full package of measures is applied chavs will just sell the vouchers for cash at 50p in the £1.

[thinfourth2]

Ozzie Osmond said:

. Unless a full package of measures is applied chavs will just sell the vouchers for cash at 50p in the £1.

Which i have no problem with.

It means i can buy the vouchers from the chavs and buy some food with it.

It means i get more for my money and the chav gets less for my money

[550Hep]

Ozzie Osmond said:

eliot said:

But the food comes from donations from Joe public spending their own cash thats already been taxed.

Exactly (unless the charity is able to recover the tax through gift aid or whatever it's called).

Vouchers for 3 days food are redeemable at a Trust Foodbank. "All food is donated by the public and sorted by volunteers. Frontline care professionals such as doctors and social workers identify people in crisis and issue a food voucher. Clients receive three days of nutritionally balanced, non-perishable food in exchange for their food voucher. Foodbanks also make time to chat and to signpost clients to other helpful services."

The state could give part of all benefits in redeemable vouchers AND make sure the right person uses them AND prohibit their use for alcohol/cigarettes. Unless a full package of measures is applied chavs will just sell the vouchers for cash at 50p in the £1.

Shoot me now Ozzie and I agree on something!

[Tsippy]

thinfourth2 said:

Ozzie Osmond said:

. Unless a full package of measures is applied chavs will just sell the vouchers for cash at 50p in the £1.

Which i have no problem with.

It means i can buy the vouchers from the chavs and buy some food with it.

It means i get more for my money and the chav gets less for my money

I always thought the same, but the usual argument is "But think of the children"

[crankedup]

This thread was going so well, and now I turn up. This charity is brilliant in every way and well done IDS getting the Government onboard to assist.

[Ozzie Osmond]

550Hep said:

Shoot me now Ozzie and I agree on something!

Can't stand in the way of common sense!

[Sticks.]

Ozzie Osmond said:

eliot said:

But the food comes from donations from Joe public spending their own cash thats already been taxed.

Exactly (unless the charity is able to recover the tax through gift aid or whatever it's called).

Vouchers for 3 days food are redeemable at a Trust Foodbank. "All food is donated by the public and sorted by volunteers. Frontline care professionals such as doctors and social workers identify people in crisis and issue a food voucher. Clients receive three days of nutritionally balanced, non-perishable food in exchange for their food voucher. Foodbanks also make time to chat and to signpost clients to other helpful services."

The state could give part of all benefits in redeemable vouchers AND make sure the right person uses them AND prohibit their use for alcohol/cigarettes. Unless a full package of measures is applied chavs will just sell the vouchers for cash at 50p in the £1.

If govt brought someting like this in, would we not accuse it of being 'nayy state' again? Telling people what to buy and what not to buy? Would it be to do the same with Child Benefit?

devil's advocate mode off

[gamefreaks]

Sticks. said:

Ozzie Osmond said:

eliot said:

But the food comes from donations from Joe public spending their own cash thats already been taxed.

Exactly (unless the charity is able to recover the tax through gift aid or whatever it's called).

Vouchers for 3 days food are redeemable at a Trust Foodbank. "All food is donated by the public and sorted by volunteers. Frontline care professionals such as doctors and social workers identify people in crisis and issue a food voucher. Clients receive three days of nutritionally balanced, non-perishable food in exchange for their food voucher. Foodbanks also make time to chat and to signpost clients to other helpful services."

The state could give part of all benefits in redeemable vouchers AND make sure the right person uses them AND prohibit their use for alcohol/cigarettes. Unless a full package of measures is applied chavs will just sell the vouchers for cash at 50p in the £1.

If govt brought someting like this in, would we not accuse it of being 'nayy state' again? Telling people what to buy and what not to buy? Would it be to do the same with Child Benefit?

devil's advocate mode off

There is a difference between being able to spend hard-earned money on Strongey-B's and Malborough Reds, and money you have scrounged from the state!

[Sticks.]

gamefreaks said:

Sticks. said:

Ozzie Osmond said:

eliot said:

But the food comes from donations from Joe public spending their own cash thats already been taxed.

Exactly (unless the charity is able to recover the tax through gift aid or whatever it's called).

Vouchers for 3 days food are redeemable at a Trust Foodbank. "All food is donated by the public and sorted by volunteers. Frontline care professionals such as doctors and social workers identify people in crisis and issue a food voucher. Clients receive three days of nutritionally balanced, non-perishable food in exchange for their food voucher. Foodbanks also make time to chat and to signpost clients to other helpful services."

The state could give part of all benefits in redeemable vouchers AND make sure the right person uses them AND prohibit their use for alcohol/cigarettes. Unless a full package of measures is applied chavs will just sell the vouchers for cash at 50p in the £1.

If govt brought someting like this in, would we not accuse it of being 'nayy state' again? Telling people what to buy and what not to buy? Would it be to do the same with Child Benefit?

devil's advocate mode off

There is a difference between being able to spend hard-earned money on Strongey-B's and Malborough Reds, and money you have scrounged from the state!

Child Benefit isn't hard earned. Allowing govt to say what you can and cannot buy is the thin end of the wedge.

Much as you might like some sectors to spend it more sensibly, where to draw the line?

[gamefreaks]

Sticks. said:

gamefreaks said:

Sticks. said:

Ozzie Osmond said:

eliot said:

But the food comes from donations from Joe public spending their own cash thats already been taxed.

Exactly (unless the charity is able to recover the tax through gift aid or whatever it's called).

Vouchers for 3 days food are redeemable at a Trust Foodbank. "All food is donated by the public and sorted by volunteers. Frontline care professionals such as doctors and social workers identify people in crisis and issue a food voucher. Clients receive three days of nutritionally balanced, non-perishable food in exchange for their food voucher. Foodbanks also make time to chat and to signpost clients to other helpful services."

The state could give part of all benefits in redeemable vouchers AND make sure the right person uses them AND prohibit their use for alcohol/cigarettes. Unless a full package of measures is applied chavs will just sell the vouchers for cash at 50p in the £1.

If govt brought someting like this in, would we not accuse it of being 'nayy state' again? Telling people what to buy and what not to buy? Would it be to do the same with Child Benefit?

devil's advocate mode off

There is a difference between being able to spend hard-earned money on Strongey-B's and Malborough Reds, and money you have scrounged from the state!

Child Benefit isn't hard earned. Allowing govt to say what you can and cannot buy is the thin end of the wedge.

Much as you might like some sectors to spend it more sensibly, where to draw the line?

Simple. If you went to work and earned the money, then you can spend it on what you like. Benefits should be paid in vouchers.

Benefit state is a failiure anyway. Encourages scrounging, before you know it, you end up with a whole country of pissed-up layabouts voting Labour.

[Sticks.]

gamefreaks said:

Simple. If you went to work and earned the money, then you can spend it on what you like. Benefits should be paid in vouchers.

Benefit state is a failiure anyway. Encourages scrounging, before you know it, you end up with a whole country of pissed-up layabouts voting Labour.

You'd include Child Benefit in that, presumably.

[gamefreaks]

Sticks. said:

gamefreaks said:

Simple. If you went to work and earned the money, then you can spend it on what you like. Benefits should be paid in vouchers.

Benefit state is a failiure anyway. Encourages scrounging, before you know it, you end up with a whole country of pissed-up layabouts voting Labour.

You'd include Child Benefit in that, presumably.

Yes, of course. Stop the benefits, drop income tax. Everyones a winner!!! (Unless you work for HMRC...)

[fido]

Tsippy said:

thinfourth2 said:

Ozzie Osmond said:

. Unless a full package of measures is applied chavs will just sell the vouchers for cash at 50p in the £1.

Which i have no problem with.

It means i can buy the vouchers from the chavs and buy some food with it.

It means i get more for my money and the chav gets less for my money

I always thought the same, but the usual argument is "But think of the childrenchav scrotes"

EFA. I just had a thought. Actually i don't give a sh8t.

[550Hep]

gamefreaks said:

Sticks. said:

gamefreaks said:

Simple. If you went to work and earned the money, then you can spend it on what you like. Benefits should be paid in vouchers.

Benefit state is a failiure anyway. Encourages scrounging, before you know it, you end up with a whole country of pissed-up layabouts voting Labour.

You'd include Child Benefit in that, presumably.

Yes, of course. Stop the benefits, drop income tax. Everyones a winner!!! (Unless you work for HMRC...)

+1 IMO saving up Child Benefit to pay for holiday or a new TV or whatever is just as fundamentally wrong as Wayne and Waynetta using it or their weekly payout to buy fags and booze. Less irksome and emotive I grant you but we ought not be in a position at either end of the spectrum where that is possible.

So which is the lesser of 2 evils is the question I guess, as while the benefit payments remain do you choose to limit their use in the hope that you can reduce the overall costs of them in the long term or do you simply let it continue to be a free for all?

Do I think the government (of any colour!) would balls any system up they put in place, that's a given but it would at least be a step in the right direction.

[chris watton]

550Hep said:

+1 IMO saving up Child Benefit to pay for holiday or a new TV or whatever is just as fundamentally wrong as Wayne and Waynetta using it or their weekly payout to buy fags and booze. Less irksome and emotive I grant you but we ought not be in a position at either end of the spectrum where that is possible.

So which is the lesser of 2 evils is the question I guess, as while the benefit payments remain do you choose to limit their use in the hope that you can reduce the overall costs of them in the long term or do you simply let it continue to be a free for all?

Do I think the government (of any colour!) would balls any system up they put in place, that's a given but it would at least be a step in the right direction.

I find it very difficult to fathom the ‘mind-set’ of people on benefits. A case in point would be one of my family members. A few weeks ago, I had a call to ask/beg if I would be guarantor for £1200 loan for a car. I asked for more info and it transpired that they would be paying over 2500 back, with an ‘estimated’ finish time for the loan.
Naturally, I said no – but, because it’s family, I suggested that I would pay for the car and make sure it was a good one, taxed and MOT’d. We spent two weeks looking and going all over the place to get the right one for someone who has just passed their test. They pay us back so much a month with no interest.
Two days after we bought it and dropped it off for them, the family member proudly states that they have just spent over £350 on a bloody dog, and had just spent the same amount on Amazon for their three year old kid!
It does seem that no matter what you do for this kind, and no matter how much help they are given, they always expect and want more.
I think at least with some kind of voucher scheme, it would make some face up to the reality of choice between long term benefit and full time employment. At the moment, it does seem that many on benefits want exactly the same lifestyle as those who’s taxes help pay for them!

[550Hep]

chris watton said:

550Hep said:

+1 IMO saving up Child Benefit to pay for holiday or a new TV or whatever is just as fundamentally wrong as Wayne and Waynetta using it or their weekly payout to buy fags and booze. Less irksome and emotive I grant you but we ought not be in a position at either end of the spectrum where that is possible.

So which is the lesser of 2 evils is the question I guess, as while the benefit payments remain do you choose to limit their use in the hope that you can reduce the overall costs of them in the long term or do you simply let it continue to be a free for all?

Do I think the government (of any colour!) would balls any system up they put in place, that's a given but it would at least be a step in the right direction.

I find it very difficult to fathom the ‘mind-set’ of people on benefits. A case in point would be one of my family members. A few weeks ago, I had a call to ask/beg if I would be guarantor for £1200 loan for a car. I asked for more info and it transpired that they would be paying over 2500 back, with an ‘estimated’ finish time for the loan.
Naturally, I said no – but, because it’s family, I suggested that I would pay for the car and make sure it was a good one, taxed and MOT’d. We spent two weeks looking and going all over the place to get the right one for someone who has just passed their test. They pay us back so much a month with no interest.
Two days after we bought it and dropped it off for them, the family member proudly states that they have just spent over £350 on a bloody dog, and had just spent the same amount on Amazon for their three year old kid!
It does seem that no matter what you do for this kind, and no matter how much help they are given, they always expect and want more.
I think at least with some kind of voucher scheme, it would make some face up to the reality of choice between long term benefit and full time employment. At the moment, it does seem that many on benefits want exactly the same lifestyle as those who’s taxes help pay for them!

Are these people really on benefits?