If you could vote on the future of benefits, how would you vote?

[Mister M]

That's balls though isn't it? Why should the unemployed be denied the right to eat out occasionally, have a drink when they want one, or go to the pictures. Being unemployed isn't a crime, and it shouldn't entail such a massive curtailment of peoples freedoms.

 

Absolutely, & those gloating on here about how mean and nasty they would make the benefit system for others should remember that they too could end up being reliant on benefits through being laid off, or having a serious health condition which meant that they couldn't work.

[L00b]

your idea would certainly be exceptionally expensive to administer and would be far more intrusive in people's live than we have traditionally considered to be acceptable.

I'd never argue otherwise, which explains the caveat is at the end of my post.

 

Be that as it may, you can either agree with the principle (of 'leisure' money available means too much benefit paid out) on a general basis (which was my point), or disagree on the basis of exceptions (that's your argument, not mine ).

you would also have to take account of those whose harvest failed and such like who would need more benefits which would add even more complexity to what would be an incredibly complex system.

At the EU level, it's called the Common Agricultural Policy. Done right, it works well. The never-ending problem is the fiddling. No sooner has one loophole has been shut, that 10 new ones are found out and jumped upon...

 

...Oh wait!

[Halibut]

"Occasionally", hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahhaaha!

 

I'll be listening when you've got some kind of semi-useful response.

[HeadingNorth]

Is this the new official re-worded definition and purpose of welfare these days, or just your own?

 

I don't know what the official definition of welfare is, or ever was. My best guess would be that it's supposed to support people unable to support themselves.

 

So far as I'm aware, it was never defined as being a just-above-starvation payment.

[andyofborg]

What if someone like Tesco or Asda or one of the other major chains accepts them?

They may even make them redeamable (sp) at local retailers too.

That way no choice is taken away.

Just dont allow them to be redeamed at things like cinemas, pubs, restaurants and games shops.

Simple.

 

how do you expect these vouchers would be denominated? in units of £1?

 

in which case, what happens if you only want to purchase £2.50 worth of stuff?

 

the government would have to make them redeemable pretty much everywhere and enforce it with legislation, that's the only way to stop shops which have a near monopoly in an area taking advantage of the situation.

 

it would cost quite a bit for the shops to administer this and claim back the money owed. as with all these things, the cost to a small shop both in administration and the effect on cash flow of the time it takes to get the money from the government would be immense.

[andygardener]

Those are all choices freely made by you - someone with vouchers for food and clothes and utilities would have very little or no choice in the matter, they'd have to go to whichever shop accepts the vouchers.

 

I don't think getting vouchers accepted widely would be an issue, given the value of the benefits budget retailers would be foolish to refuse to accept what is basically cash. As others have pointed out retailers already accept money off coupons for very small sums so there are methods in place to allow a voucher system to work.

[Chun Li]

how do you expect these vouchers would be denominated? in units of £1?

 

in which case, what happens if you only want to purchase £2.50 worth of stuff?

 

the government would have to make them redeemable pretty much everywhere and enforce it with legislation, that's the only way to stop shops which have a near monopoly in an area taking advantage of the situation.

 

it would cost quite a bit for the shops to administer this and claim back the money owed. as with all these things, the cost to a small shop both in administration and the effect on cash flow of the time it takes to get the money from the government would be immense.

I imagine voucher is just a term used for a debit type card that will be used as any debit card.

That way even the person stood behind you in the que wont be aware your on any benefits.

All this 'taking away peoples rights' is just rubbish.

[andyofborg]

All this 'taking away peoples rights' is just rubbish.

 

it's not rubbish at all.

[Mr Gobby]

If they didn't keep constantly slagging me off for being officially part of the unemployment stats despite having worked in voluntary capacity for 21 years, I wouldn't scoff at them.

 

Works both ways mate, they want respect off me? Let them show ME some form of respect back..

 

You want RESPECT!! for what doing a bit voluntary work thinking it covers the amount of benefits you receive . I and other people like me work ,i also do voluntary work do i want respect NO, do i want any thanks NO .I don't mind nor do i object to people receiving benefits, but i do object to people like you

constantly taking the P especially at the very people that feed you because at the end of the day that is exactly what it is .

[andyofborg]

I don't think getting vouchers accepted widely would be an issue, given the value of the benefits budget retailers would be foolish to refuse to accept what is basically cash. As others have pointed out retailers already accept money off coupons for very small sums so there are methods in place to allow a voucher system to work.

 

these would be for pounds though, at some point the retailer is going to have to recover the money from the DWP which would cripple a small shops cash flow.