George Osborne considering freeze on benefits to save £4.4bn

The_White_Horse

SingleSue wrote: »

Whenever this has been suggested on this site before, it has been shown that this sort of system would actually be much more expensive to run than the current one...any savings made would be spent (plus loads more) on setting up and administering it.

Other problems occur in the newly unemployed who may have existing commitments which have to be paid and receiving cash enables them to meet those commitments.

Vouchers also have the ability to be abused, I remember the old milk tokens (I didn't receive them but I know people who did), and they were being sold for less than face value to buy drugs, ciggies etc.

I personally think that vouchers do not teach anyone anything, certainly not to budget as it is all set out for them, so in the event of them obtaining work, it would be that much harder for them to cope. Also, for those in a non standard family set up, a certain amount for food or clothes may not cover what is actually needed (needed rather than wanted) or may be too much for what is needed but other areas may need more.

Families and people are not uniform in their needs, we all differ to what we feel is important for our families and a one size fits all voucher system just would not work in several cases.

On a personal note - I already feel stigmatized but at least I can go to a shop and feel normal by handing over money or my debit card, if I had vouchers, I just would not be able to go shopping...I would be one of those swapping my vouchers for cash just so I could hold my head up whilst doing the food shopping rather than feeling the lowest of the low.

they need colour coded vouchers. Red means you are sponging filth, Blue means you had a job but have been on the dole less than 12 months and Green mean you have a medical condition or act as a carer for people with a medical condition. That way, only red voucher holders are stigmatised.

SingleSue

And add even more cost onto the administration of it......and you would still be marked out as a benefit claimant because you can be sure that there will be people who will just see the voucher and not bother to look further (especially if they are behind you in the queue and can't see the colours).

Sorry, not for me thanks....I would rather die first than have to hand over vouchers and tell the world in the process that I am a claimant. Yes, it is pride but my middle class upbringing allows nothing else.

abaxas

SingleSue wrote: »

Whenever this has been suggested on this site before, it has been shown that this sort of system would actually be much more expensive to run than the current one...any savings made would be spent (plus loads more) on setting up and administering it.

Other problems occur in the newly unemployed who may have existing commitments which have to be paid and receiving cash enables them to meet those commitments.

Vouchers also have the ability to be abused, I remember the old milk tokens (I didn't receive them but I know people who did), and they were being sold for less than face value to buy drugs, ciggies etc.

I personally think that vouchers do not teach anyone anything, certainly not to budget as it is all set out for them, so in the event of them obtaining work, it would be that much harder for them to cope. Also, for those in a non standard family set up, a certain amount for food or clothes may not cover what is actually needed (needed rather than wanted) or may be too much for what is needed but other areas may need more.

Families and people are not uniform in their needs, we all differ to what we feel is important for our families and a one size fits all voucher system just would not work in several cases.

On a personal note - I already feel stigmatized but at least I can go to a shop and feel normal by handing over money or my debit card, if I had vouchers, I just would not be able to go shopping...I would be one of those swapping my vouchers for cash just so I could hold my head up whilst doing the food shopping rather than feeling the lowest of the low.

Then maybe we need a more japanese system?

Benefits are much higher but can only be used 3 months out of a rolling 2 year period.

After you have used your allocation, you are on your own.

carolt

You are a lovely chap, TWH - have you thought of moving to a dictatorship where your skills could be utilised?

ILW

carolt wrote: »

But what do you do when the streets are full of drunk homeless people then, clamouring for a roof over their heads because they've drunk the rent money?

Relying on everyone to be as sensible as you are unfortunately doesn't work either.

People may kill/severely endanger themselves or their families before they get to the point where they have learned to make sensible choices, unfortunately.

If its a young child, childless couples are queing to adopt.
If the mother then wants to drink herself to death, I guess that is her problem.

michaels

Genghis Khan would be blushing and thinking somehow he had become a softie Liberal...

ILW

Generali wrote: »

Maybe.

My SiL had 3 kids by the age of 20. Her boyfriend (the father) was paying the bills and I have no problem with that.

However, it's wrong for the child and wrong for the taxpayer that someone should have children in order to 'earn' a living from benefits. The problem is what to do about it. If you're going to take money away from single mothers you're also going to take money away from their children which will lead to some unpleasant consequences.

Set up single mother hostels, 3 meals a day and some sort of vocational training, but doors shut at 8pm unless they have a job which requires later access.
May be a little mean, but would take away the encouragement to knock out kids to climb the council housing ladder.

Generali

carolt wrote: »

People may kill/severely endanger themselves or their families before they get to the point where they have learned to make sensible choices, unfortunately.

So what to do about it?

A._Badger

It really should surprise no one that if you incentivise behaviour, you get more of it. I have personally heard teenage girls seriously discussing the prospect of getting pregnant as what you could only call a 'career path'.

There are so many reasons why this is A Bad Thing (C) - unfairness to the taxpayer being just one of them.

tartanterra

carolt wrote: »

Presumably that applies to all jobs, not just the public sector. I assume you agree with doing away with all bonuses for bankers etc too.

You are aware that bonuses were brought in in the first place to ape the private sector, aren't you? - under the 'private sector good, public sector bad' mentality. The idea was that if you made the public sector more like the private sector, it would be better and more efficient.

I can't really comprehend this statement.
What have private companies bonuses got to do with it?

it's up to shareholders to approve bonuses in PLC's and nothing to do with all of us voters.
(Unless the company has been taken into government ownership like the failing banks - which, of course, shouldn't pay bonuses).

Also, private company bonuses are paid out of profits.
Civil Service bonuses are paid out of the public purse, i.e. my taxes.

If that's your best argument to cling onto your taxpayer funded bonus, I think your on shaky ground.