A Tory scheme for stopping the jobless from frittering money on stuff like Sky TV

MP Alec Shelbrooke has introduced a Bill in the Commons today under which the government would stop paying any cash at all to any benefit claimants except those on disability benefits or the state pension. The rest would be given welfare cash cards which they would use only to purchase what they really need, which he listed as “food, clothing, energy, travel and housing”. This, Mr Shelbrooke reckons, would help eradicate child poverty, reduce the strain on the NHS, and restore public confidence in the welfare system.

“This is about benefit distribution and spending, not benefit allocation. It encourages responsible spending by welfare claimants; ensuring taxpayers’ money is spent wisely and for the purpose it is intended. Delivering Beveridge’s vision of a temporary security net by using benefits to create a society of strivers”.

A poll commissioned by Demos found that 59% of the country

http://order-order.com

Good idea?

 

Bad idea. Welfare doesn't buy drugs. Druggies aren't going to let laws stop them from getting drugs. Druggies have to break laws to get money for drugs.

Also, not the best idea from a humanistic moral standpoint; but the UK seems to give out plenty of welfare.

 

They'll eventually stop giving benefits to drug takers.

Why?

US 41% GDP
UK 47% in 2010 to 39% in 2015
(approx)

Not for much longer...

Welfare Reform Act 2012.

 

Well, if it increases the likelihood of crime; I can't see how I could be convinced that it's better.

For those who are responsible with their money - it's completely unfair. It's both punishing and demoralizing them for what others in their group do.

For those who aren't responsible with their money - it's not like it's going to help them - if they were already spending the welfare for other things; the problem might be that they were getting too much; and they can still pawn it off.

 

Yes the right wing in the UK like push the simplistic idea of the scroungers and the strivers.

It is the old right wing con game of the deserving and undeserving –

The deserving being those that don’t ask for help and so don’t need any. And the undeserving being those who do ask for help thereby showing that they are scroungers and wasters who don’t deserve any help.

So it was plain - the argument went – that there was no need to give assistance to the disadvantaged.

The problem was that these people were often the same individuals and families but just at different stages of life or circumstance.

And as I pointed many times this is very similar to the right wing argument often put forward today that if people are personally responsible and make “better decisions” they don’t need assistance but if they’re irresponsible and make “poor decisions” they don’t deserve assistance.

Also the free market / neoliberal ideas promoted by such right wingers are not about seeking full employment as the Keynesian based models are, it is about having unemployment because that is one of the means of driving down wage prices.

And for the same reason that is why oppose welfare programmes and want to cut them because it would increase the possibility for exploitation (as in work or starve).

Also…oh I could go on and on but lets leave it there for the moment.

 

Drug Addicts will find a way to turn anything into cash. We have something similar in Illinois - known as a LINK card. I've been approached many times (usually by some meth zombie) in the grocery store with the proposition of having all my groceries paid for with a LINK card in exchange for cash of equal value, or even less. I always politely tell them to fuck off and go buy something to fucking eat with their LINK card.

Reminds me of a time when I was going through a drive-thru and this fellow asked me for money, so he could get something to eat. I told him I'd buy him anything he wanted on the menu. He told me to fuck off and spit on me.

 

We have something similar in Illinois - known as a LINK card

It says in that link you can withdraw money from that card?
That scheme seems more about convenience rather than trying to stop people spending their benefits on "NEDD" (Non-Essential, Desirable and often Damaging) items.

Duck, I can that it is a bad idea if cards are issued only under the reasoning that it is to stop claimants frittering their benefits away - and somehow makes a moral judgement on the individual: you must not smoke or drink etc.
Then that's going a little over the top.
But for other things such as cable/internet services - you should not be able to spend the money on that.
Why should benefit claimants be able to use the money to pay off their monthly SKY bill?
When times were tough for me I had to make sacrifices - why shouldn't other people?
It seems to be amount several different issues

A compromise would be

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-18951205

How do you define 'responsible with their money'?