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

Cleaver

d!!! wrote: »

Why should unemployable people have the choice how/if they get any benefits paid, after all, they haven't earned them. They are plain lazy.

That's completely, 100% true if you see the world with a mind that's not capable of understanding complex situations and you put every single subject in to a 'black' or 'white' camp.

And just as a quick correction, unemployed people are not necessarily 'unemployable' people. Some will be of course, but the majority won't be.

A_fiend_for_life

weegie.geek wrote: »

Ever been on a bus? They don't take debit cards.

Back on topic, people are already issued vouchers by the dole: http://www.healthystart.nhs.uk/

As has been mentioned, you don't have to buy the full value of the vouchers on fruit and veg, the supermarkets don't care and there appears to be nothing to stop you buying one apple and using a healthy start voucher. Much the same as using money off vouchers for things you're not even buying at Tesco.

http://www.hsru.co.uk/terms.htm

Surely that should be enforced under the counter fraud system

Yet another reason why I don't like supermarkets.

(4)
You may only accept Healthy Start vouchers in exchange for, or payment towards Healthy Start food. Healthy Start food is described on the face of the voucher as: liquid cow's milk (but not milk to which chemicals, vitamins, flavours or colours have been added or removed), fresh fruit or fresh vegetables (to which no salt, sugar, herbs or other flavourings has been added), infant formula milk based on cow's milk. More detailed information about these categories of food is in the supplier guide.


(5)
You must provide Healthy Start food to the full value specified on the face of each Healthy Start voucher that you accept.

Graham_Devon

Vouchers wouldnt work.

Not increasing benefits when the person already on benefits pops out another child is something I would be behind though.

1 amount of money, based on the situation the person claiming finds themselves in. If they want to take that situation from a bad situation to a worse situation through having more children, fine, but not on the back of the txpayer, they sort themselves out.

Their choice, their responsibility.

Only time I would change this is truly disabled people who cannot literally do any type of work, not the bad back lot. Then, up to 2 children even if they are on benefits.

lostinrates

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Their choice, their responsibility.

Their failure, our liability? (the children's welfare aside). On one hand I agree with you, but there is that nagging at the back of my mind.

ninky_2

lily76 wrote: »

I remember very clearly that a mum complains that J.oliver's cooking materials are 'too expensive'. However, she was smoking and having loads of beers in the fridge. Child Benefit or tax credit should only be used on children not their parents. Vouchers could be a better way.

don't base your ideas on what you see on television. it's largely made up for effect (i should know, i do it for a living).

tomterm8

lily76 wrote: »

I remember very clearly that a mum complains that J.oliver's cooking materials are 'too expensive'. However, she was smoking and having loads of beers in the fridge. Child Benefit or tax credit should only be used on children not their parents. Vouchers could be a better way.

They do that in America, but it is quite an expensive way to give benefits... some people estimate it costs more than 20% extra. and it has few real advantages, because in practice people end up getting vouchers for things they don't need or want. So they sell the vouchers on.

Fundamentally, I personally believe that the optimum solution is that the state should expect people to work at a minimum wage for their benefits. I don't think they should come free, but I think once earned the recipient should be able to spend it as they choose.

Imagine all the things they could do... visit elderly people, remove graffiti, make the streets clean, hundreds of other things.

Instead of wasting all this talent, we should be using it to make society better.

ninky_2

lostinrates wrote: »

she is amazingly more beautiful in real life. I'm not often awed by people, but I admit to staring, because she is, in real life, a creature of unearthly beauty.

me too and i have to say i disagree. although it was backstage at chanel couture show so maybe the many surrounding unearthly creatures (not least mr lagerfeld himself) may have made her seem more mundane.

i do tend to see a lot of strange things in my line of work.

sorry completely off topic.....

lostinrates

ninky wrote: »

me too and i have to say i disagree. although it was backstage at chanel couture show so maybe the many surrounding unearthly creatures (not least mr lagerfeld himself) may have made her seem more mundane.

i do tend to see a lot of strange things in my line of work.

sorry completely off topic.....

Oh well, beauty is subjective!

weegie.geek

lostinrates wrote: »

oyster cards?

I don't think all the doleys would fit inside London, which as fas as I'm aware is the only place Oyster operates.

lostinrates

weegie.geek wrote: »

I don't think all the doleys would fit inside London, which as fas as I'm aware is the only place Oyster operates.

Yes, but it didn't used to exist in London either