Mecky Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 That would be these theatres to start with http://www.sheffieldtheatres.co.uk/your-visit/booking-information/offersanddiscounts/ I'm making no judgement on unemployed/beneft claimants i've been there myself,i'm merely stating what appears obvious to me. The stigma of being unemployed never appears to bother them when they can claim free or discounted stuff. So are you implying we should kick all benefit claimants in the teeth just to make sure they feel stigmatised? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parvo Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 A lot of British OAP's though are very greedy, ungrateful and don't realise just how cushy they've got it compared to young people who get the least, complain the least and are the most demonised. whilst I would never lump any group into one simple definition, I have to say as a general rule, you seem to have met a completely different set of people/values in these groups to the ones I have come across. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 How do you think EPoS systems throw up a challenge on age restricted goods? It's just another database field. The aussie system bans alcohol, tobacco, porn and gambling which are all tagged as age restricted anyway so it wouldn't be much of a job to do it. Not saying its a good or bad idea, just that it could be done easily enough. It doesn't take away the fact that people will swap goods bought on the card for things they really want. Nothing in the world will stop that. It would cause a loss of tax revenue as people traded items on a black market. And it would cause a lot of small businesses to close, basically any business in a working class area that relied in discretionary spend could go under. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 It doesn't take away the fact that people will swap goods bought on the card for things they really want. Nothing in the world will stop that. It would cause a loss of tax revenue as people traded items on a black market. And it would cause a lot of small businesses to close, basically any business in a working class area that relied in discretionary spend could go under. I'm not convinced that's the case. It would only affect the spending habits of those who are currently spending their benefits on whatever items would be prohibited. If we accept the majority of people on benefits are not doing so Fags, booze and lottery tickets as examples of items that would be prohibited are all fairly to extremely low margin for retailers. (sometimes a couple of pence on a packet of smokes that the retailer invests a fortune in stocking) So if we take an atypical benefit claimant who does spend money on fags booze and scratchcards rather than what the money is intended for, and would use the black market to get around the system, what effect would this have on the retailer under a system like this? Instead of cash they have a card that can only buy non-luxuries. So instead of buying fags and booze they now have to buy goods they can sell for cash at a discount to face value. These will all have much higher margins than either fags or booze for the retailer. So the retailer is making more money rather than less. Our claimant then sells the goods on at 50% of face value or whatever the black markets paying and uses the cash to buy the fags/booze they would have bought, just a lot less of it as they have had to discount their benefits to convert them to cash. Granted the tax take would drop a bit, but I can't see it doing any harm to small retailers, quite the opposite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 It's an utterly repulsive idea, that demeans and dehumanises the poor by treating them like children. Benefit claimants are adults and can and should be allowed to make their own choices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampster Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Just thinking about this... Assuming, that those on benefits even with 'the card' will still get the same amount of money to spend as they do currently.. what exactly is the point? I mean it's not going to actually save anything... Just why do people care what people on benefits actually spend the cash they're given on?.. If they spend it on 100 fags, and a barrel of White lightning... then go hungry for the rest of the week, why should that be of anybody else's concern? It's not like they're going to be given a bit more in a case of... "Aww bless you blew your money, here's some more to buy some food with..." So, essentially this is a scheme that will save nothing, cost a fortune to implement, likely put various small businesses out of business, more than likely see an increase in crime, and the creation of a bigger black market economy... But at least those of us sat playing with all our new toys, getting blotto on champers, while eating enough for a small army this christmas will be able to feel safe in the knowledge that those lazy b*@!@%ds without a job will be having a crappy time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crosser Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Just thinking about this... Assuming, that those on benefits even with 'the card' will still get the same amount of money to spend as they do currently.. what exactly is the point? I mean it's not going to actually save anything... Just why do people care what people on benefits actually spend the cash they're given on?.. If they spend it on 100 fags, and a barrel of White lightning... then go hungry for the rest of the week, why should that be of anybody else's concern? It's not like they're going to be given a bit more in a case of... "Aww bless you blew your money, here's some more to buy some food with..." So, essentially this is a scheme that will save nothing, cost a fortune to implement, likely put various small businesses out of business, more than likely see an increase in crime, and the creation of a bigger black market economy... But at least those of us sat playing with all our new toys, getting blotto on champers, while eating enough for a small army this christmas will be able to feel safe in the knowledge that those lazy b*@!@%ds without a job will be having a crappy time! 110% correct. That seems to be the mentality of many posters on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 It's an utterly repulsive idea, that demeans and dehumanises the poor by treating them like children. Benefit claimants are adults and can and should be allowed to make their own choices. Is it? It's only repulsive if we accept the principle that welfare handouts are no different to earned money and can be spent on whatever the recipient desires. That was never the intention of the people who set the welfare state up, for the unemployed they were there as a means to provide for basic subsistence till employment was found. Don't tell me how to spend my money is a legitimate call, don't tell me how to spend your money seems a lot less legitimate. I think there would be ways to make this scheme both viable and useful if it were made inclusive of workers on a voluntary basis and employed collective purchasing, but even in the form proposed I can't see a moral objection to it, merely whether it would be cost effective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crosser Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Is it? It's only repulsive if we accept the principle that welfare handouts are no different to earned money and can be spent on whatever the recipient desires. That was never the intention of the people who set the welfare state up, for the unemployed they were there as a means to provide for basic subsistence till employment was found. Don't tell me how to spend my money is a legitimate call, don't tell me how to spend your money seems a lot less legitimate. I think there would be ways to make this scheme both viable and useful if it were made inclusive of workers on a voluntary basis and employed collective purchasing, but even in the form proposed I can't see a moral objection to it, merely whether it would be cost effective. And who tells the Govt how to spend MY money then? The money which is taken from me before I even get it thru PAYE and all the other 'taxes' I have no choice but to pay. Then if I'm unfortunate enough to fall on bad times I'll have to be stigmatised and treat like an idiot by having to buy things with a 'scroungecard'? And also, what do you think would happen to the crime rate when people on benefits have no actual money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 And who tells the Govt how to spend MY money then? The money which is taken from me before I even get it thru PAYE and all the other 'taxes' I have no choice but to pay. Then if I'm unfortunate enough to fall on bad times I'll have to be stigmatised and treat like an idiot by having to buy things with a 'scroungecard'? And also, what do you think would happen to the crime rate when people on benefits have no actual money? This would not remove actual money, any more than you or I have "no actual money" when we use our debit cards to buy things. Why would it affect the crime rate, unless there is a serious problem with how the money is currently being used? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.