Benefit Cards with certain items banned - good or bad idea?

[peteyt]

Hi.

My phone which I use to get most of my news on died today at work so I grabbed the nearest paper in the staff room. I noticed an interesting article in the Sun, a paper which I don't really read before anyone makes any comments.

It was talking about how the government is looking at giving certain people on benefits cards instead of money. These cards can be made to work on only certain items, basically making sure their benefits are being used on necessities rather than luxury items, drink, cigarettes etc.

Do you think this is a good idea?

I quite like the idea. I have a strong opinion benefit wise. I have nothing wrong with people on benefits that need them and know people who can't work due to stuff such as severe illnesses. However I despise those who just go on benefits because they can, those who hate the idea of work and would rather get paid with our tax money rather than do any work. The problem however is the system can easily drag people in. I've always thought people shouldn't be allowed to be dragged too far in - you should be given enough money to survive but not enough money to keep you going for good - basically not enough money for luxury items to force people who want them to actually get a job.

The idea of these benefit cards does sound good as it might make those who want more than just the necessary items consider working. The problem however is those who definitely don't want to work will probably find some other way to make money be it crime.

What do you think?

[Samantha]

If those on benefits for a plausible reason such as a severe illness have just enough to survive, the cards are the only income they have would it still be right to cut off their luxuries? Such as if they have a child and want to spend a small amount on them for Christmas or their birthday should they be entitled to? I understand that this could work with those who can actually work.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I would love to see the idea introduced but I don't think our pitiful excuse for a government has the brains or the balls to implement it.

[Swearwolf]

If those on benefits for a plausible reason such as a severe illness have just enough to survive, the cards are the only income they have would it still be right to cut off their luxuries? Such as if they have a child and want to spend a small amount on them for Christmas or their birthday should they be entitled to? I understand that this could work with those who can actually work.

I agree with this to an extent but the idea is not to limit it to certain things, but to ban certain things. For example there would be a list of "NO BUY" rather than a list of "YES BUY".

Which means you can buy anything within reason, but there'd be a block on alcohol, cigarettes, bookmakers, other "unnecessary" things, which means you could buy christmas presents and birthday presents, so long as it's not alcohol or **** or the like.

I'm all for it as the benefits we get (we both work also, with 2 y/o child) literally go on part of the rent, water and gas and electric, so it would be fine. We don't drink a lot and if we do, we pay for it with our own cash, how it should be.

[dbgtz]

I think it would generally be better as a reclaim system rather than just receiving a set sum every week or month.

To that actual point of cards, I would agree to it. To @Samanfa; I think it would be slightly different providing toys to a child than buying cigarettes and alcohol.

[Inseriousity.]

My mum works in a shop where you can give over a card and get your benefits. I dunno how it works, anyway it does. Next door is a pub. Some walk in, get their money and waste it all in the pub next door. How is that going to help them?

On the other hand, someone who is a 'striver' as they put it, who is desperately trying to find jobs that just aren't out there, they're sensible. They do everything by the law, don't have a drink or drugs problem, should we really be restricting their access if they want to have 1 night out, for example.

[GommeInc]

A good idea, it's the sort of system that should of replaced the EMA system as that was horrendously flawed. Make it so it only works on essentials, but it would cost millions to implement such a system so all retailers can read the card and have a system installed to call out errors when a disallowed product is in their basket. So if anything it's a dream and will never happen as far as costs go.

[-Nick]

This card would save a lot of money?

[xxMATTGxx]

It also mentioned that the card would probably be a solution for people who normally use the money for other things aka known drug addicts/abusers.

[peteyt]

If those on benefits for a plausible reason such as a severe illness have just enough to survive, the cards are the only income they have would it still be right to cut off their luxuries? Such as if they have a child and want to spend a small amount on them for Christmas or their birthday should they be entitled to? I understand that this could work with those who can actually work.

I think the card would be used for set people or at least that would be the ideal way. For example people ill who can't work, I have nothing wrong with them getting benefits and spending them however they want to, even those who are in-between jobs. However if a person is just scouring, using benefits instead of looking for a job, then they would be given the card.

It reminds me of a quote I read from businessman Warren Buffet, one of the richest in the world and a very charitable person so I hear. He said:

I want to give my kids just enough so that they would feel that they could do anything, but not so much that they would feel like doing nothing

Which basically is what the government needs to do. They need to use these benefit cards to make those who want more money for luxury stuff realise they actually need to work for it.