retep Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Big Brother? Cabinet Office Behavioral Insight Team The Government can influence people’s behaviour in a number of different ways. Tough laws could be implemented, with fines for those who fail to comply with new legislation, and bans could be introduced that prevent people from eating certain types of food or engaging in particular types of activities. But, as this paper shows, there are many options between bans and doing nothing – the false choice implied by some commentators. We can give citizens more or better information. We can prompt people to make choices that are in line with their underlying motivations. And we can help to encourage social norms around healthier behaviours in ways that avoid Cialdini’s ‘Big Mistake’ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 People would just swap credit for cash, an unfortunate few would have to pay a premium for this service. We would create a new industry. Not a good one. What about part time workers? £X drug moneys mentality? What else purchases should be controlled? Cleaning materials/food in bulk at lower prices - they could be running a business on the side? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parvo Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 The voucher system hasn't worked in Australia or US,expensive to run, exploited by business and crime so basically sounds like a bad idea put forward by a politician wanting to get his name in the papers. However I do think council house tenants who default on rent should have the rent stopped out of their benefits-why should they get their housing paid by the taxpayer twice over? like i said earlier in the thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 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. If the majority of benefits claimants are not spending their money on stuff that would be prohibited then what exactly is the problem such a system would seek to solve? You basically defeated yourself with your own aragument there. ---------- Post added 20-12-2012 at 22:24 ---------- 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? But we can use our debit cards to take out cash. So it is very different. We can use that cash in whatever shop we want, perhaps in places that don't accept cards or places where we maybe wouldn't want to use a card. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 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. The bit in bold - false. Many goods can be sold for a higher price. We would probably see the return of the milkman. For a bit of cash in hand, elderly people would be spared a walk and a young unemployed person could create work from thin air. Society would benefit, through the trade. Currently it clearly ain't profitable to provide a milk delivery service, as they have been going bust, destroying one of the idolised british services of years gone by when we had full employment. Gone is the milkman. Suppose a man started a milk delivery business and were pulling £2.91 an hour? 47% of minimum wage - Same rate of effective tax upon earned income for legal minimum hourly wage/ Would it be worth doing him for benefit fraud? Or removing his £2.91 an hour via loss of benefits? He would spend his earned income into the economy straight away, and such money would soon be reaped in taxes after stimulating a small amount of trade... Surely somebody should have some freedom to spend but a proportion of their earned income as they wish? Perhaps he could improve his business and create employment over time, in the meanwhile gradually increasing his net contribution to the state and black markets (so called Freemarket) - and just to trade & commerce in general? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 If the majority of benefits claimants are not spending their money on stuff that would be prohibited then what exactly is the problem such a system would seek to solve? You basically defeated yourself with your own aragument there. It's not my argument, it's some blokes. But the validity of his argument does hinge on the recipients of handouts wasting our money that we give them to survive on non essentials? I don't work my ass off and pay tax to pay for non workers fags and booze. Why should I? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampster Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 I don't work my ass off and pay tax to pay for non workers fags and booze. Why should I? Why do you actually care? It's not like they're going to get any less money with the card scheme.. nor will it affect how much hard work you do or how much you pay in taxes, whatever they choose to spend the money on... Look at it this way, if you're that bothered about it.. then if they don't eat and they drink enough alcohol.. they might die more quickly, then that'll be a bit less of a burden on your hard earned taxes.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 The bit in bold - false. Many goods can be sold for a higher price. We would probably see the return of the milkman. For a bit of cash in hand, elderly people would be spared a walk and a young unemployed person could create work from thin air. Society would benefit, through the trade. Currently it clearly ain't profitable to provide a milk delivery service, as they have been going bust, destroying one of the idolised british services of years gone by when we had full employment. Gone is the milkman. Suppose a man started a milk delivery business and were pulling £2.91 an hour? 47% of minimum wage - Same rate of effective tax upon earned income for legal minimum hourly wage/ Would it be worth doing him for benefit fraud? Or removing his £2.91 an hour via loss of benefits? He would spend his earned income into the economy straight away, and such money would soon be reaped in taxes after stimulating a small amount of trade... Surely somebody should have some freedom to spend but a proportion of their earned income as they wish? Perhaps he could improve his business and create employment over time, in the meanwhile gradually increasing his net contribution to the state and black markets (so called Freemarket) - and just to trade & commerce in general? OK genius, go buy stuff at your local store and sell it on the street to people for a profit. No wonder you can't get a job. Brains of a cabbage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 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? Do people on benefits spend their cash (physical currency -"actual money") into a separate economy? How about those on a combination of wages and benefits, or subsidy - direct or indirect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swampster Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 OK genius, go buy stuff at your local store and sell it on the street to people for a profit.. erm, only the other day you were espousing that the only reason stuff is being nicked from stores is so that they can sell it on the black market? You can't have it both ways, either there is a 'black' market for this stuff or there isnt.. or wait let me guess, they shouldn't be allowed to buy high value foods like beef and coffee either? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.