What actually happens to people who'll lose benefits?

[HairyArsedBloke]

Are there no prisons?

[GillsMan]

Slightly OT, but one of the quotes from the USA Today prompted me.

I'd be in favour of switching to a system that provides vouchers rather than cold hard cash. I'd like to see food vouchers, accomodation vouchers (which can be given to landlords who, in turn, can redeem them for money), clothing vouchers, etc. The basics really.

As a civilized society, it's right that we have a benefits system but, IMO, the benefits should be there to provide the necessaries in life. Then, if you want more luxury items, e.g. TVs, trips to the pub, fags, etc you can pay for them yourself by working part time perhaps. In a Tesco or a McDs or a pub.

I'd be happy for some luxury items to be paid for out of the benefits system, again in the form of redeemable vouchers, such as swimming pools for children, or possibly even the adults.

I'm pretty ignorant of how the benefits system works, so I could be waaay off track here. But that's my uninformed opinion anyway.

[EternalOptimist]

I think he was referring to the Victorian workhouse

[gricerboy]

Bit of a gloomy subject...

All well and good to say they should get a job but lots of people are too useless and nobody would hire them since there'll be people with a work history competing for the same jobs.

Equally valid to say there isn't the money to pay for benefits for so many... I totally agree... but what happens after you take them away?

If you are on housing benefit and it is withdrawn, and you can't get a job in a month or so, you might well find yourself homeless since these people have no savings to fall back on. Will they genuinely find their benefits cut off with nothing else to support them?

So ignoring what such people do or don't deserve, whose fault it is, what should have been done in the past, etc, what will actually happen to said people? Are there examples from other countries who have done similar things?

I think you'll find that the ECHR will override everything the governament do, like it always does.

[vetran]

Agree completely. Vouchers preferably electronic would be very sensible.

Landlords would need to have the correct paperwork and certificates before they could collect the vouchers. Stops subletting and rogue landlords. Reduces evictions because government funded tenants wouldn't fall behind in rent. The good landlords would get paid on time, tax could be deducted at source so better tax returns.

Child minders would have to be registered and would get paid on time if they accept a dhs supported child. This currently is wide open to abuse, register with a child minder then give the kids to your mum and claim for the child minder.

Gas & electric would be paid on time etc so less interventions by social services & housing.

Give them a cross supermarket & local traders debit card. Supermarkets can target healthy eating options at card holders, they can't be used to buy fags or booze. Those caught selling booze would lose the right to accept the cards.

Then their remaining weekly benefit is paid into a basic account and they can spend it how they like.

[HairyArsedBloke]

Slightly OT, but one of the quotes from the USA Today prompted me.

I'd be in favour of switching to a system that provides vouchers rather than cold hard cash. I'd like to see food vouchers, accomodation vouchers (which can be given to landlords who, in turn, can redeem them for money), clothing vouchers, etc. The basics really.

As a civilized society, it's right that we have a benefits system but, IMO, the benefits should be there to provide the necessaries in life. Then, if you want more luxury items, e.g. TVs, trips to the pub, fags, etc you can pay for them yourself by working part time perhaps. In a Tesco or a McDs or a pub.

I'd be happy for some luxury items to be paid for out of the benefits system, again in the form of redeemable vouchers, such as swimming pools for children, or possibly even the adults.

I'm pretty ignorant of how the benefits system works, so I could be waaay off track here. But that's my uninformed opinion anyway.

In the US they don't actually get physical vouchers, but a card that they can go into the likes of Walmart and use it to buy what they like, excluding alcohol etc.

Having vouchers for individual items will make people even poorer as there will be an inevitable mismatch between what some dumb-arse civil servant / minister thinks someone's needs are and reality. It would led to a black market where items obtained via vouchers will be exchanged for cash (for less than their market worth).

It also makes people even more dependant on the state. It make people institutionalised by having all their behaviour decreed by self-righteous administrators of the voucher systems.

[MarillionFan]

I thought of the idea of vouchers last month as well.

The problem I saw with it was going to be around the resale value of vouchers(a whole new Ebay area would appear), plus matters of security & forgery. The cost would be huge.

Frankly. A good war against someone who can fight back is what we need.

[d000hg]

Are there no prisons?

Are there no workhouses?

• How many 'unemployable' people are there, living off benefits... are we talking a few million?
• How many prisons would we need?
• How much does a prison cost to build?
• How much does it cost to keep someone in prison?

This is a long-term solution since it would take years to build the infrastructure... and I'd not be surprised if it ends up costing more.


I do like the vouchers idea... but that doesn't save a massive amount does it? JSA is not that high so the main thing might be housing benefits, capping what landlords can charge and keeping houses appropriately full might be better rather than letting you keep the house you had before, if you're renting. Blocks of grim, government-owned flats might be a cost-saver but it's hard to wish that on anyone in my view!

[Mich the Tester]

I think you'll find that the ECHR will override everything the governament do, like it always does.

Do you object to the ECHR? If so, why?

[Mich the Tester]

A good war against someone who can fight back is what we need.

Erm, we've got two of those AFAIK.