Some Benefits should be given in forms of vouchers instead of cash

SingleSue

d!!! wrote: »

That's one of the annoying things in this country for the lower paid, you'd be better off not working!! But I'd rather have the self respect of working for a living if the work is available.

What is more annoying is if you have in fact worked hard all your life, paid umpteem thousands in taxes but then due to either a job loss, illness...whatever, you are labelled scum as you are claiming benefits, regardless of if it is just on the short term or not.

By the way, I agree with your last line.

ILW

Isssue Fags and Stella vouchers, best of both worlds.

sjaypink

to those who think benefits paid in voucher is far better than giving 'them' your 'hard earned taxes', a voucher system would be much more expensive to administer than cash payments.

looking deeper into the issue, much of the underlying issues of an increasing benefits culture are based on a nannying of those in receipt of benefits. issuing vouchers merely takes away more responsibility.

anyway, most people spend their money wisely and look after their children very well.

...for those that dont- do you honestly think the government cares if they spend half their money on fags and booze? how much of that goes straight back in the coffers?

Storm

To return to the OP's question - I don't think a voucher scheme would work in reality, simply because there are too many things that someone may need/want to spend the money on. As well as food there's clothes, transport, household bills etc and there's no way such a range of businesses would agree to accept a voucher (plus they'd get change in cash anyway).

Considering the rise in unemployment at the moment due to redundancies I think there is a growing number of people claiming benefits who already see it as a stigma, and it's not the right time therefore to increase it

kennyboy66_2

lostinrates wrote: »

re fast food, IMO the promlem is how cheap it is...and what nutritional costs are.

You can feed a child a burger for about a pound. I beleive it has lots of nasties in it, a bit of salt and sugar, and its not rally a balance diet. Especially if they take the single lettuce leaf or tomato out of it. I could make a burger at home for the same or less, if I bought the meat loose, but it wouln't be the best meat, but more to the point I could provide a more balanced diet on a regular basis for that, more filling. BUT if I were to feed the equivalent meals but with decent quality meat (e.g. a buger or chicken nuggets home made every day) I don't think I could do i for the price of a cheap fast food joint. Esecially if I had no access to space to grow salads etc. I'm very happy to stand corrected though, I admit I've never worked out what it would cost to make burger and chips severn nights a week!

Mince that you got in a butcher would make better burgers than the dog food that is Mc Donalds.

Once upon a time (not that long ago) chicken was considered a bit of a luxury.
For a cheap roast dinner you would have roast heart. Or you would eat other cheap cuts of meat, or offal.

Now we have the bizzarre situation were many "poor" people turn their nose up at offal, while "the rich" eat it at Michelin starred restaurants.

Both oysters & salmon were once considered poor mans food.

Tyneside apprentices went on strike in 1865 becuase they were fed salmon everyday. Perhaps familiarity breeds contempt - if only this were so with junk food!

lostinrates

Storm wrote: »

(plus they'd get change in cash anyway).

FWIW I expect it would be more likely to be a sort of debit card than an actual paper voucher for which change was needed.. But I still think its probably unworkable.

kennyboy66_2

You could draw an analogy with the voucher scheme that used to exist for asylum seekers, introduced by Labour in 2000.

It cost more to run the scheme as was handed out in vouchers (£18 million running costs compared with £15m face value of vouchers).

Voucher schemes are purely about stigmatising and humiliating people. Putting benefit claimants in the stocks would be a cheaper solution.

SingleSue

kennyboy66 wrote: »

Mince that you got in a butcher would make better burgers than the dog food that is Mc Donalds.

Once upon a time (not that long ago) chicken was considered a bit of a luxury.
For a cheap roast dinner you would have roast heart. Or you would eat other cheap cuts of meat, or offal.

Now we have the bizzarre situation were many "poor" people turn their nose up at offal, while "the rich" eat it at Michelin starred restaurants.

Both oysters & salmon were once considered poor mans food.

Tyneside apprentices went on strike in 1865 becuase they were fed salmon everyday. Perhaps familiarity breeds contempt - if only this were so with junk food!

Salmon? I love salmon...but then get accused of having expensive taste.:D

Don't like offal, never have but I blame being brought up in a middle class enviroment....

Mind you, don't like Mac D's anyway, upsets my tummy.

A_fiend_for_life

What is the total cost of benefits per annum in the uk?

How much additional cost is the tax payer prepared to pay for a voucher system as a percentage of benefits?

dog1

A_fiend_for_life wrote: »

What is the total cost of benefits per annum in the uk?

How much additional cost is the tax payer prepared to pay for a voucher system as a percentage of benefits?

Tha British tax payer will have no choice, but it will probably cost a fraction of what "going to war" cost us as a nation.
Not to mention the loss of lives.