Wail link - paywall free

[VectraMan]

Perhaps that will provide the impetus for them to get a F**KING JOB!

Just saying, like...

Indeed. It comes down to humiliating the poor, and you can understand why some people would object to that. But on the other hand, perhaps being unable to support yourself in life deserves a little humiliation.

[vetran]

Years ago, they used to issue milk tokens for parents with young children. The local corner shop happily exchanged them for fags. I'm sure that hasn't changed.

WMSS needs a debit card.That makes it traceable and the recipient needs to be present.

As for Rasputin dude well many people make decisions about what they can afford and do without, however I frequently find that those without jobs afford to drink & smoke both considered a luxury and bad for your health. So why should tax payers who are avoiding drinking/smoking/heating because they can't afford it so some benefit dependent can smoke 40 a day?

[SupremeSpod]

I think that this is a disgusting idea. Just because *some* people spend benefit money on booze and fags does not mean that all do. So, we're going to give a kicking to honest Jo who hasn't done anything wrong but finds himself out of work because someone else is feckless?

I don't see any difference between this and the suggestion that because *some* people cheat on their taxes, all monies should be paid directly to HMRC and HMRC will then decide who deserves to get what.

It is unpleasant, unfair and unjust.

Perhaps that will provide the impetus for them to get a F**KING JOB!

Just saying, like...

[mudskipper]

Years ago, they used to issue milk tokens for parents with young children. The local corner shop happily exchanged them for fags. I'm sure that hasn't changed.

[RasputinDude]

Yes, having read a proper article (not from the Wail) on them, the argument for their use is more balanced. I still think that they are the thin end of the wedge though. But it's not as bad as I initially thought.

[d000hg]

Now go back and read what I wrote. This is not replacing the benefit system - not anytime soon.

[RasputinDude]

I think that this is a disgusting idea. Just because *some* people spend benefit money on booze and fags does not mean that all do. So, we're going to give a kicking to honest Jo who hasn't done anything wrong but finds himself out of work because someone else is feckless?

I don't see any difference between this and the suggestion that because *some* people cheat on their taxes, all monies should be paid directly to HMRC and HMRC will then decide who deserves to get what.

It is unpleasant, unfair and unjust.

[vetran]

I assume the story is the same that the Grauniad reported yesterday?

seems like the one in the Capitalist Mail is just a bit slower than the state sponsored Grauniad.

Same basic idea but surely a debit card would make more sense?

[d000hg]

This isn't about replacing Benefits with vouchers, it's about giving vouchers in specific cases of hardship instead of cash (I wasn't aware of any of the schemes they mention though).

It sounds more like a council-sponsored take on FoodBank to me?

[TheFaQQer]

I assume the story is the same that the Grauniad reported yesterday?

[TheFaQQer]

I'm not following the link, but if it's true then I'm in favour of.

Maybe renaming them "Luncheon Vouchers" than "Food Stamps" might be more socially acceptable, though, if LVs still exist.

Something which stops people spending benefits on cigarettes, alcohol and drugs gets my vote.

[Bunk]

Do you think they deliberately chose that photo because of the VPL?

[vetran]

Food stamps fair or foolish?


Food stamps to replace cash handouts for the poor and vulnerable in benefits shake-up | Mail Online