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

[L00b]

Most level headed people would agree that economic inequality is the cause of so many problems and this is just another example of what really needs to be rectified.

That's all well and good...in a vacuum where there is no international pressure on the job market and economical forces, and national competitivity is a redundant concept.

 

Newsflash: we don't live in a vacuum

 

Manufacturing jobs and, increasingly these days, white collar jobs are being soaked up by BRIC countries (and others on their shiny new coat tails). The UK, and most of the old Western bloc, is currently in no position to dictate terms to these countries, who are busy buying up tracts and tracts of national (infra-)structures.

 

How do you address that situation? Head in the sand (economical isolationism) will not do, btw.

 

I'd lay good odds on BRIC countries having taken most of the low-to-medium skilled jobs that have 'disappeared' from the UK, rather than the sempiternal 'immigants'. Don't kid yourself: we've ben in an international race to the bottom for years now, either we take part "for good" and take whatever measures are required to stay in the winning group, or we stay out of it and suffer the economical death that a thousand cuts will eventually bring.

[tinfoilhat]

I don't earn huge amounts of money and 35% of the poll want benefits increased. Is there a case for work (this aimed at mecky halibut et al but not exclusivly)cause I'd much rather watch telly, go fishing etc.

[Mister M]

Surely where we have an underclass of people who regard welfare as a way of life and working as a joke (which we do) then one very good way to end that cycle is to make that way of life rather prescriptive?

 

On benefits you get X amount of other peoples money, which you can only spend on certain things. In full time work at minimum wageyou get X + 20% or whatever the figure is which you can spend on what you like as you earned it.

 

The major issue with have is a certain group of people viewing benefits as what they earn for existing and then regarding work as not worth the effort for the small increase in "their" earnings.

 

A voucher system for the long term unemployed would focus their mind that "their" money, isn't theirs, it's money taken from people who work and given to them with the intention of helping them survive between jobs, not to fund their existance forever.

 

People who recieve benefits by and large already know that '"their" money isn't theirs' - that it's tax payers money.

Like I said a few posts ago, I was unemployed for a relatively short period of time (just under 18 months) and I already felt stigmatised and shamed by the whole experience. Marginalising people even further by making them use vouchers rather than cash will just demotivate and exclude people even further.

And as pointed out before only a fraction of the total money spent each year by the DWP is on the unemployed. What about those in reciept of pensions, tax credits, maternity grants and the like should their minds be focussed also?

Those who complain about the Nanny State now would really have something to complain about if vouchers were introduced.

[L00b]

maternity grants

Not the same as the Child Trust Fund thingy, I take it

 

It took us nearly 4 years of incessant fighting with relevant pillars and posts to eventually get that CTF for our daughter. As a matter of principle, as sane people would have given up long before we got there.

[Rupert_Baehr]

I think the actual studies into how a voucher system might work have all concluded a DWP debit card onto which benefits were loaded and which could be used for approved purchases would be the most practical way of doing it.

 

I wonder whether that would be cost-effective?

 

Until recently, my wife worked for an organisation which used a similar system. Prior to the introduction of debit cards, the recipients were paid every two weeks in cash. It was time-consuming and manpower-intensive.

 

The recipients themselves changed every few months, but they seemed to have no problems with the idea that you show up at the right place at the right time, collect the money and sign for it. They were receiving money and although many of them were not familiar with the currencies, the concept of 'value' was clear and most of them managed not to lose it (or not to lose all of it, anyway.)

 

Then the system was changed to payment by debit card. Putting the money onto the card was surprisingly difficult - each card had to be authorised (and bear in mind that the recipients changed every few months); each sum had to be entered (and cross-checked and audited independently.)

 

It was time-consuming (though perhaps less labour-intensive than the cash system.)

 

Then the fun started! For most people, the concepts of 'Debit Cards' and 'ATM's' didn't cause a problem (though there were some who were not familiar with electronic 'cash.')

 

If you lose £20, you've lost £20. If you lose the debit card, you've lost all the money you are going to get for the next 2 weeks. Some people seemed to be unable to understand that the small piece of plastic they had been given was, in fact, extremely valuable and represented all their immediate wealth. Lost debit cards were not an uncommon problem.

 

Then there's damage to the card. Physical mutilation and magnetic fields were the two most common causes, but some people were quite imaginative.

 

For long-term recipients a debit card may well be the best way, but for people who are only going to be paid for a short period - and particularly those who are not familiar with debit cards - such a system can cause many problems.

[southcoast]

People have said that benefits are a disincentive for people to take a job and that there needs to be a shake up; I think that looking at the bigger picture and current problems within the whole economy would make it clear to most that low pay is the true disincentive. Most level headed people would agree that economic inequality is the cause of so many problems and this is just another example of what really needs to be rectified.

 

 

 

Exactly,pay decent wages and everyone will feel incentivised to work,its not going to happen on £6 per hour .

[andygardener]

People who recieve benefits by and large already know that '"their" money isn't theirs' - that it's tax payers money.

Like I said a few posts ago, I was unemployed for a relatively short period of time (just under 18 months) and I already felt stigmatised and shamed by the whole experience. Marginalising people even further by making them use vouchers rather than cash will just demotivate and exclude people even further.

 

As I said above I would not support compulsary vouchers for any benefit other than those who had not paid in, ie the can't be bothered to work brigade. Contributary benefits should continue to be paid as cash, when you were unemployed all you were getting was a bit of the tax you had paid back so there is no shame in that. Their is shame in haviung no intention of working and taking your neighbours taxes as a lifestyle and a way to prevent this would be restricted ability to spend other peoples money on whatever they want.

 

And as pointed out before only a fraction of the total money spent each year by the DWP is on the unemployed. What about those in reciept of pensions, tax credits, maternity grants and the like should their minds be focussed also?

Those who complain about the Nanny State now would really have something to complain about if vouchers were introduced.

 

Think about the potential benefits. Look at tesco and the way they do deals with other companies to multiply the value of their reward vouchers. A voluntary voucher system could put huge ammounts of money out there for serious discounts from all manner of suppliers. If we as a country can get a 20% discount on what we spend by using collective buying power then surely that's a good thing?

[Chun Li]

But they can use cash that everybody else uses - why change that? Unless you want to make the experience of being reliant on state benefits as unpleasant and humiliating as possible.

.

 

Yeah, vouchers will do that:rolleyes:

Stop being a drama queen.

[Chun Li]

I agree, I get the impression that Chun li and other like minded people would go down to Morrisons, Asda or Tesco on voucher day so they could get behind people in the queue who have to use them as a means of getting a huge hard on.

 

Then your an idiot and quite quite sick in the head.

[Chun Li]

Will you also tell people what food they can eat, what they can wear and when they can turn the heating on?

 

No.

Another drama queen:rolleyes:

I have a feeling theres quite a few people here on the social.