Winter Fuel Allowance payments scrapped for millions of pensioners.

[Slighty batty]

20 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

 

The same arguments could be applied to lots of other state benefits and allowances.  Why provide people with actual money at all.   

 

Why not fully control the whole system through direct to supplier payments, offset credits or vouchers to make sure Claimants are legitimately using a benefit for the purpose its supposed to provide.   You cant feed your kids..... here is some supermarket vouchers with restrictions on what can be purchased - no monthly direct payments, no lumps of cash in the bank to risk temptation of being spend on other things or falling into the wrong hands.   

 

You need rent support....   right here is a credit direct to your landlord/housing provider.   No messing around persuading a landlord to accept UC or risk tenants spending it on other things.   

 

You have someone with severe addictions, special needs or unable to manage their affairs.... controlled vouchers and payments for specific suppliers for rent, energy, travel and food. That's it.  No lump sum monies for them to have to manage, no long-winded administration and assessments to ensure a suitable guardian is in place, no risk of monies being used for drugs/substances/fraud.  Just a simple process of direct from government to supplier to end user.     

 

However, you even attempt to suggest such a strictly controlled welfare system and you can hear the screams, outrage and objections from a mile away. 

My first job out of uni was with the DHSS. We did occasionally give claimants vouchers for things like school uniforms, children’s shoes, rail travel to visit partner in prison etc, even food in some cases, but often they just sold the vouchers on for cash. Then they would come into the office pretending that they’d lost them, and demanding replacements. 

[El Cid]

1 hour ago, echo beach said:

Yes, I’ve no doubt some put it towards their winter skiing holiday.

They’ll certainly be piste off!😆

 

 

Previous Governments, have cost me over £30,000 by increasing the age that I can claim the state pension, this change will cost me £200 per year, the country has never been in this much debt. I can see why they are cutting benefits.

[hackey lad]

9 minutes ago, El Cid said:

 

Previous Governments, have cost me over £30,000 by increasing the age that I can claim the state pension, this change will cost me £200 per year, the country has never been in this much debt. I can see why they are cutting benefits.

Very happy for you 

[El Cid]

4 minutes ago, hackey lad said:

Very happy for you 

 

I will still be working at the age when a decade ago they would have retired, not the fault of Labour 

But I am comfortable, because I have contributed to a private pension and saved.

[geared]

2 hours ago, ECCOnoob said:

 

The same arguments could be applied to lots of other state benefits and allowances.  Why provide people with actual money at all.   

 

Why not fully control the whole system through direct to supplier payments, offset credits or vouchers to make sure Claimants are legitimately using a benefit for the purpose its supposed to provide.   You cant feed your kids..... here is some supermarket vouchers with restrictions on what can be purchased - no monthly direct payments, no lumps of cash in the bank to risk temptation of being spend on other things or falling into the wrong hands.   

 

You need rent support....   right here is a credit direct to your landlord/housing provider.   No messing around persuading a landlord to accept UC or risk tenants spending it on other things.   

 

You have someone with severe addictions, special needs or unable to manage their affairs.... controlled vouchers and payments for specific suppliers for rent, energy, travel and food. That's it.  No lump sum monies for them to have to manage, no long-winded administration and assessments to ensure a suitable guardian is in place, no risk of monies being used for drugs/substances/fraud.  Just a simple process of direct from government to supplier to end user.     

 

However, you even attempt to suggest such a strictly controlled welfare system and you can hear the screams, outrage and objections from a mile away. 

 

Housing benefit used to be able to be paid directly to the landlord, for the most part the system worked very well.

Till the Torys scrapped it and brought in UC.

 

I'm not saying all state support needs to be so tightly controlled or restricted, but it has worked previously and the alternative has been shown to be markedly worse.

[ECCOnoob]

1 hour ago, Slighty batty said:

My first job out of uni was with the DHSS. We did occasionally give claimants vouchers for things like school uniforms, children’s shoes, rail travel to visit partner in prison etc, even food in some cases, but often they just sold the vouchers on for cash. Then they would come into the office pretending that they’d lost them, and demanding replacements. 

 

Just perhaps another example for even tighter controls then.   Mandatory ID checks, proper administration of the vouchers, maybe even go as far to have mandated centres where welfare claimants collect their supplies. 

 

With all the long technology these days it can't be that hard to run it.  Make it biometric if need be, other things are now. 

 

Amazon has entire shops where someone walks in automatically gets logged, tracked and walks out with their goods. I don't see why similar stuff can't be applied to welfare. 

 

Could go even further, apply the delivery tech available now.  A government mandated box of perfectly balanced supplies to get a family through a week . Forget all this free school lunch and breakfast club stuff, expecting teachers for feed malnourished kids.  It could all be tied in with the healthy eating drives the governments keep pushing for.  A mandated box of perfectly healthy balanced meals for a family of one, two, four, etc. no ifs or buts. If you're on welfare, that's what you get because that's what the government has decided you need. 

 

Seems a win win for a government and it's voters who seemingly strive  for more state control, state ownership, boo hiss the greedy private sector. Boo hiss neoliberalism, capitalism and global markets.  

 

If you are living off the government means surely right the government will decide exactly what you need to live on eat and how you will receive it. 

 

Bring something like that and let's see how many claimants for welfare then. For those who genuinely will need it or have no choice but to survive on it, they will be grateful for any methods of support. However, for those serial long-term unemployed and wasters expecting the state to fund their lifestyle, you watch how quick they would magically find some work if that's all they were being offered. 

[hackey lad]

19 minutes ago, geared said:

 

Housing benefit used to be able to be paid directly to the landlord, for the most part the system worked very well.

Till the Torys scrapped it and brought in UC.

 

I'm not saying all state support needs to be so tightly controlled or restricted, but it has worked previously and the alternative has been shown to be markedly worse.

Agree with you about the housing benefit. Going to cause a lot of problems for some people. 

[hackey lad]

1 hour ago, El Cid said:

 

I will still be working at the age when a decade ago they would have retired, not the fault of Labour 

But I am comfortable, because I have contributed to a private pension and saved.

I’m alright Jack 

[steved32]

Fed up of hearing pensioners saying how they've worked all their lives and now need to be looked after.

 

State pension, yes.  Winter fuel payments for the vulnerable and those who need it, yes - simplify means test.

 

I'm more concerned about my kids' and grandkids' futures and aspirations.  Labour government is doing far more in wider context to secure a brighter future for all.

 

(btw, I've worked in various capacities since age of 13 and continue to do bits of work aged 68).

[The_DADDY]

3 minutes ago, steved32 said:

Fed up of hearing pensioners saying how they've worked all their lives and now need to be looked after.

 

State pension, yes.  Winter fuel payments for the vulnerable and those who need it, yes - simplify means test.

 

I'm more concerned about my kids' and grandkids' futures and aspirations.  Labour government is doing far more in wider context to secure a brighter future for all.

 

(btw, I've worked in various capacities since age of 13 and continue to do bits of work aged 68).

My bold

Yeah. Sod em right? They've served their purpose. It's all about the kiddies.