Here's an interesting one.
A Tory MP has proposed that benefits(1) be paid onto cash cards that can then be used to purchase goods in shops, like any other credit or debit card.
However the catch is that the card would not be able to be used for 'luxuries' which are defined as cigarettes, alcohol and sky TV. No doubt there are other 'luxuries' but these are the three reported ones.
(1) Certain benefits would not be included such as disability payments and pensions.
Guess the MP has no shares in the companies that sell Ciggies and Booze then
Cards have been tried and rejected before ... just another Tory attempt to make life worse for those who's lives are bad enough already
If people can make savings elsewhere in order to buy whatever 'luxury' they find makes their life more bearable then why shouldn't they ?
Nope, many might disagree with me on this one but to some genuine people who need those benefits a ciggie and an occasional drink is more than just a luxury it is part of being normal, it is part of being in the community and having a drink in the pub with others.
The genuine people won't drink to excess or smoke loads because they can't afford it.
But they will be punished because of the scroungers and scroungers being what they are will still find a way to buy thier alcohol and tobacco with the proceeds of thier "other income".
A step in the right direction in getting benefits to people for what they are designed for but it simply will not work. Then there will be the fraudsters with fake cards which could be as lucrative as some credit cards.
Not going to knock anyone for trying to get it right but the think tank need to re-think this one.
From what I can tell it will not effect every one
Plans being drawn up by Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith will see the 120,000 problem families targeted with Oyster-style cards which can only be used in certain shops.
Not everyone on benefits is a scrounger, not all of them can find work despite how much they try, not all of them are in a position to work.
True there are many who could come off benefits by finding work but our system encourages them not to.
I was on benefits once, I got some extra money off the system, did I deserve it, I don't know, did I need it, absolutely, could I have done something about my situation whereby I could not support myself and my family, I don't believe I could, I had a full time job, I was a soldier serving in Northern Ireland, my hours could be as much as 48 without sleep, I wasn't allowed to work for civilian employers off the base even if I could guarantee any time to do so, my army wage was below the recognised poverty line of the time, me and thousands of other forces personnel, though with £1 per day para pay and £1 per day danger money serving in an active area I was better off than many of them.
I paid my taxes even whilst getting benefits.
We need to get our payments right, paying allowances to well off pensioners is stopping poorer pensioners getting enough, paying family allowance to mega rich people like Princess Anne (as we did when her children were young and soon to the Duchess of Kent for example is bad enough but we even pay it to migrant workers such as Polish men who have left thier families back in Poland, yes they are still entitled to family allowance under EU rules, in Poland they wouldn't get it from the Polish authorities but because they are here they do with or without thier children being here, they get housing benefit if thier income warrants it even though they came here to work ?
Thousands are apparently claiming job seekers allowance in more than one name, since payments are now sent to bank accounts or by post this is easier than in the days when you had to go and collect it.
The scams are widespread and this is why we cannot afford to give the people who need it what they need but you still can't punish those that are genuine cases you have to come up with a system that works better than this one does.
Bullshit. It won't happen, mainly cos it would be totally unworkable. By way of analogy, milk tokens. Meant to be spent only on milk for the kids aren't they? You'll find any number of local shops in an impoverished area with lots of young mums and families on benefits who will accept them as if they were cash for pretty much anything. Same will happen with these cards. Govt aren't gonna insist on an itemised receipt every single spend are they, shopkeeper ain't gonna provide one, it will be a simple debit of the total amount spent from the card without showing what it's been spent on same as with any debit card receipt but even if a receipt was demanded a workaround will be found.
Forget any moral argument, it's a complete waste of time, a none-starter. Publicity seeking fluff piece from a newly elected MP hoping to make his mark in the party by appealing to the Tory right, no more.
Not sure, but seams it may be working for the Australians
Is it? Only been running six months but quick Google of basics card not working is revealing. It would appear too soon to say whether it works or not Blue?
Don't seem to be rolling it out so well. Given the appalling record of Govt IT projects likely to be required for this I reckon we'll do even worse than the Aussies.
From Hansard:
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con):
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the introduction of a welfare cash card; and for connected purposes.
The principle of the Bill is to encourage responsible spending by welfare claimants, ensuring that taxpayers’ money is spent wisely and for the purpose it is intended. It will alter the spending habits of a minority who for far too long have taken advantage of the system, getting something for nothing. Consequently, I believe that it will change the perception of benefits in this country for the better. Politicians, the media and those from varied walks of life have been complicit in tarring as idle all million recipients of one or more benefits from the Department for Work and Pensions. In fact, however, the time someone finds themselves on benefits is the time strivers and low-paid workers most need a supportive society where they are given the respect most deserve in trying to make work pay.
It is 70 years this month since the Beveridge report identified the five giant evils that plagued society: disease, want, ignorance, squalor, and idleness. Members on all sides of the House will want to praise successive Governments for their advances in eradicating these evils, but one remains prevalent today. The “something for nothing” culture encouraged by the previous Labour Government created a two-tier benefits system in which the strivers and low paid-workers were penalised for the idleness of the shirkers.
The Bill seeks to work alongside the Government’s welfare reforms to support those hard-working families who strive to be self-supporting by ending the “something for nothing” stigma of the welfare system. The introduction of a welfare cash card on which benefits would be paid would enable claimants to make only priority purchases such as food, clothing, energy, travel and housing. The purchase of luxury goods such as cigarettes, alcohol, Sky television and gambling would be prohibited. When hard-working families up and down the country are forced to cut back on such non-essential, desirable and often damaging items—NEDD items, as I call them—it is right that taxpayer-funded benefits should be used to fund only essential purchases.
No doubt, Opposition Members will say that people would be too ashamed to carry a welfare cash card, but I want to discount that argument immediately. If people did not want to be recognised as being unemployed, jobcentres would cease to exist as people would not visit them for fear of being seen in them.
Owing to the differing circumstances involved, this measure would not affect the basic state pension or disability benefits. For all other claimants, however, this move towards responsible spending would support the introduction of universal credit and the change from fortnightly to monthly welfare payments. It would place a focus on the financial planning that will be crucial in ensuring that out-of-work families take charge of their monthly spending. The welfare cash card would encourage that by prohibiting the purchase of NEDD items, thereby increasing the funds available for purchasing food and other essential commodities. It would mould financial responsibility for all claimants and provide an opportunity for out-of-work families to take charge of their finances just as they would need to when they got back into employment.
A stigma around those on benefits is commonplace, but that is neither accurate nor fair to low-paid workers who rely on the extra support that the welfare system offers. We need to stop the damaging perception that all benefit recipients are financially reckless. If taxpayers can be safe in the knowledge that claimants can no longer purchase NEDD items at the taxpayer’s expense, the concept of welfare will be viewed once again as a responsible way for people to get back on their feet. That is what the welfare state was intended to be: a safety net in times of need; a hand up, not a hand-out.
Beveridge had such a high opinion of society that he thought nobody would want to choose not to work. The last decade has proved otherwise, however, with the previous Government allowing an epidemic to fester. It is now time to modify the system so that this socially destructive state-funded way of living is no longer an option. Surely we should aim to introduce measures to enable society to be supportive and respectful of those struggling to succeed, which is what this form of financial monitoring could achieve.
Furthermore, the welfare cash card has the potential for more social good, not least by assisting efforts to eradicate child poverty. Statistics show that over million claimants have children. Prohibiting the purchases of NEDD items such as cigarettes and alcohol would leave more money for priority purchases for children, who should not be the ones to suffer as a result of their parents’ irresponsible spending. To put this in monetary terms, the Office for National Statistics has calculated that the average household spends £48 a month on cigarettes, alcohol and narcotics. If the Bill created even the slightest chance of raising those children out of poverty, or of reducing the chance of them going to school hungry or being subjected to secondary inhalation of smoke, I would argue that it was worth while.
A ban on cigarette and alcohol purchases would also inevitably impact on NHS costs. This is not to suggest that welfare claimants are purposely taking advantage of the NHS, but a reduction in smoking-related and alcohol-related admissions would be a natural by-product of the welfare cash card. Smoking-related illnesses are estimated to cost the NHS at least £2.7 billion a year in England alone, with the same cost attached to alcohol-related harm. With that figure expected to rise to £3.7 billion by 2015, it is simply wrong that the state is inadvertently fuelling the problem by allowing the use of welfare payments for the purchase of NEDDs.
The Bill is about safeguarding the use of taxpayers’ money and supporting claimants in managing their own incomes. In the 21st century, it is right that we should maximise the benefits of technology for increased efficiency and reduced bureaucracy. In doing so, we would join Australia and the USA in leading the way in which welfare payments are made to claimants. In Australia, a five-year pilot of the Basics card is under way, and in America, the 47 million recipients on the food stamp programme receive their credits on an electronic benefit transfer card.
A welfare cash card would be a sensible step forward as we move towards universal credit. The cash card would operate like any other bank card utilising the chip and PIN payment method. There is also scope to use the cash card to increase the use of public transport, through an integrated travel pass, to assist travel needs.
This is about benefit distribution and spending, not about benefit allocation. Whatever the amount that is received on welfare, it is paramount that we are sure that it is being used in the best way to benefit society. The Beveridge report modelled a welfare state using the insurance contributions an individual pays to support them when they fall on hard times. At a time when it is not uncommon for families to have third-generation benefit claimants, who have never made these insurance contributions, this model is becoming increasingly unviable and the need for reform is urgent.
This Bill would promote financial planning and spending by those in society who have fallen on hard times and require support from the state. It backs those hard-working families who feel penalised for going to work, such as the single mum in my constituency—a low-paid shop worker on income support, juggling child care but going to work because she believes it is better to work than spend a life on benefits.
We must change this vision of the benefits system. We must change this perception to support those in society who need the benefit system to help them get on and work hard in life. The welfare cash card does just that: it is not about dividing to rule, but ending Labour’s divisive two-tier benefit system and the damaging perception that accompanied it. It backs the low-paid workers and supports all jobseekers to spend responsibly, take control of their finances and get back on their feet. The welfare state can no longer be seen as getting something for nothing: it must deliver on Beveridge’s vision of a temporary security net by using benefits to create a striving society.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Alec Shelbrooke, Jessica Lee, Nigel Adams, Gareth Johnson and Kris Hopkins present the Bill.
Alec Shelbrooke accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January 2013, and to be printed (Bill 112).
there is no doubt that some out there desperately need help these should get all the help they need
there is also a large element of career unemployed who's life styles should be scrutinised to the maximum and job training schemes should be undertaken till such time as these people become employed
Typical of a a year Tory toff to dictate to the poor.
These stories of luxuries on the benefit system is I am afraid to say typical of the Tory fed Daily Mail etc.
Are people still that gullible in 2012? Obviously so. Remind me again how much this Tory earns and how much a single Mother with two kids gets again on benefits?
What gets me about all of this social welfare kind of debating is that we all conveniently forget that we all start off in life with the same chances and the same opportunities to work hard and do well in life. In my school, none of us were born with a silver spoon and all of us had the opportunity to study, work hard and do well in life. The ones I knew would do well - have done well and others who were jack The lads are now in the pub most nights complaining about the Council, The Government, the immigrants - really blaming everyone for their lot, but themselves.
I am a great believer that the welfare system should be there for people who fall on hard times through misfortune and no because of poor decisions and bad choices that they made in life. As we go through this worldwide economic correction and the former Third World become the new economic superpowers it is pretty obvious that a welfare claimant in this country should not have a better lifestyle than a worker in a country that is about to eclipse the UK in terms of economic output.
Civilisation and wealth distribution via social aid has created a class of people that this country simply cannot afford during this economic correction.
I am not sure how someone earning £75,000 a year can make you a toff. My electrician earns at least that and he is Polish. £75,000 a year PAYE means you take home about £3,000 a month or £100 a day?? That is surely not "toff" level??
I read an article this morning and I have taken a very interesting snippet from it, which makes a lot of sense to me.
The title is ' Luxury ban for our MP's ? ' The snippet out of the article is...
' MP Alex Shelbrooke is suggesting benefit claimants should be given a card instead of money that can only be used to buy essentials. As we are all in this together, perhaps MP's should be subject to the same system to ensure they are not using expenses on luxuries '.
Well I thought a very good point as benefit claimants are paid for from the taxpayers of this country, MP's are also paid by the taxpayers of this country. I mean an MP would not go out and buy three I Pads now would he for his use, or put in dodgy and fraudulent claims on his/her expense sheet now would they ? :twisted:
).
:
