Yes, yes. A thousand times yes!!

[Mr Mystery]

Just having a browse on the BBC website, when I found this article.

[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19792066[/url]

I have been hoping this might happen for some time. For the work blocked, it's discussing public support for a UK food stamps type thing for those living on benefits.

Now, word of warning, the article itself isn't great, presenting as it does fairly polarised opinions.

But, I do like the principal of this. The card could, would and in my opinion SHOULD prevent the purchase of luxuries. Tobacco, Alcohol, Gambling, all luxuries. You want them, go earn them. You shouldn't be getting them from the state, as you simply do not need them to survive. And it annoys me when (slightly hyperbolic I know) you see people on benefits with the latest DVDs, or worse Bluray films. Simply put, I do not believe that benefits should provide that sort of disposable income.

However, that would have to come at a price. For instance, state funded childcare should be reintroduced. The costs of childcare mean for many on benefits, finding work just doesn't pay. That is a truly ludicrous situation. When I was a nipper (1983 to be precise) I went to Nursery, right up until I started school. Not only did it mean Mumsie Mystery could get a part time job (adding an income to Daddykins Mystery's full time wage) but it meant I was already learning. Surely, perhaps even clearly, that is a win/win situation? Even if the parents don't get a job, the kid is getting an early education, and socialising with other kids.

Why we don't have this is a mystery to me. When you have a job, spend your cash on whatever you like, that's your right. But when for whatever reason you find yourself dependant on state aid, don't expect a particularly glamorous standard of living!

As an addition and to encourage people into work, offer state provided job roles whereby you can earn some luxuries money. Offer the minimum wage equivalent. Jobs can range from gardening public areas to assisting with childcare (CRB's allowing of course).

What is I feel beyond refute is that the current system needs an overhaul!

[DarkLink]

I've got a friend who works for Costco here in California. Over here, apparently a significant number of food stamps go to alcohol, and then they buy cheap junk food with the leftovers.

Fundamentally, the flaw with welfare in general is that the poor don't need a paycheck, they need a means of providing for themselves. That means a job, not a welfare check. Teach a man to fish, and all that. Welfare checks are a poor substitute.

[Mr Mystery]

They are, which is why I feel they should go back to be a stop gap.

The whole point of Britain's welfare originally was as a safety net to help those in need whilst they found new work. It's somewhat mutated since then. I know it might seem a bit brutal, but overall they should not be the equal of working for your money.

I'm not wanting this to turn too party political, as the various governments have all done their bit to get us where we are today. But something has to be done. If you offer an easy way out such as a life on benefits, of course some are going to exploit it.

There's talk in the linked article of making it a sort of charge card, which can't be used for certain things. And I am fully in favour of restrictions being applied.

[ElectricPaladin]

Yeah... I basically think you're right. I'm a teacher, and I often think that public assistance should be like scaffolding. You don't just say "kids, do this project!" You work them up to it with successively more complex projects and increasing independence. By college, the students should be able to do all sorts of things - take notes, write papers, perform experiments - that they can't do in middle school. If we assume that ending up on public assistance means that somewhere along the line something went wrong, then we should use public assistance to help people learn what they need to learn.

On the other hand...

People on public assistance are grownups. Whether we like it or not, the way our society works is that grownups only have to learn if they want to. You can't make them in the same way that you can make kids learn (well, try to, anyway...). I'm leery of a system that tries to infantilize people based on their degree of economic achievement. This brings me to my second point...

I don't think that the assumption that everyone on economic assistance needs to be protected from bad choices is fair. Sometimes it's just bad luck or the rampant unfairness of our system. Put yourself in someone else's shoes: your industry dries up, you get injured and can't do your job anymore, or the economy just hits a bump and you're one of the ones who falls off the wagon. Is it really ok that now in addition to being forced to rely on the dubious kindness of the government, you also can't buy a beer or a pack of cigarettes? Once you strip away the assumption that people on public assistance are screw-ups, it just seems cruel.

[Mr Mystery]

In Britain, we have a separate diability benefit. Actually, we have two. Their's incapacity for when you suffer an injury you'll recover from, and Diability Living Allowance for the permanent cases.

Disability living allowance is there primarily for those who not so much can't work, but are limited in terms of the fields they can work in to ensure a certain standard of living. Many disabled people would love to work, but physically (or indeed mentally) cannot. This I have no problem with. Their disability shouldn't be a disbarment to normal adult life. After all, there but for the grace of a celestial being I don't personally believe in go I. At least not yet (I could get squished by a car, and be wheelchair bound following, with a brian injury....)

But for those who just don't have a job, and nothing really preventing them from working, benefits should not present as a long term alternative. The problem might well be massively overstated but there do exist those who have never worked. Straight from school into the dole queue, and there they remain until death. And it's that we need to tackle. Yes, it could well create 'haves and have-nots'. But are you really a have-not, or are you more a 'could have by getting off my arse'.

To go with this, we do need to reassess the overall pay. Hell, I'm 32 and landed my first job with an actual living wage this year after several years of trying. But apart from brief periods of unemployment, I've never depended on benefits. And even then I got something like £65 a week at most. And I do not begrudge my taxes going to help less fortuitous people. But when it's getting to the end of the month, and I'm wandering around town with little money left, it gets right on my tits when I see the same old long term benefit claimants yet again pissed up on cheap booze being a nuisance.

Want booze? Want smokes? Want a nice telly like what I have, THEN GET A JOB. Your benefits should not extend to luxuries. Ever.

[Cap'nSmurfs]

Elephant in the room: what happens when there's no jobs (such as in a recession) and wages have been stagnant for about thirty years (as a result of deliberate political and economic decisions)? The problem right now isn't welfare, it's employment. Rights, wages and even jobs themselves have been cut and scaled back. Lots of people are being fired right now. It's all very well to say "get a job", and there's a discussion to be had on welfare and benefits, but there's so much more going on than just "people are lazy/unmotivated/scroungers".

Unfortunately the latter is the narrative peddled by the sorts of people who don't want you to pay attention to the real problems - like where all that money's been going for thirty years of neoliberal economics.

[eldargal]

While I support food stamps up to a point (for families to ensure children get good food not just junk food rubbish), you simply can't take away peoples right to spend their money how they see fit based on a minority who abuse it.

[Wolfshade]

While I support food stamps up to a point (for families to ensure children get good food not just junk food rubbish), you simply can't take away peoples right to spend their money how they see fit based on a minority who abuse it.

I suppose that that is a kin to your employer saying what you may and may not spend money on.
Since we can't take away the right for people to spend their money, we should just take away their money.
Interesting, it has been said many a time that Britian during rationing was at its healthest, while that isn't just down to the food available (1 war time apple is nutrionally worth about 4 now apples), but people were physically active, no sitting down watching TV for 10 hrs straight, and arguably there was a better sense of community.

[Psychosplodge]

Mine already does that, everytime you buy anything, or go on holiday he's questioning the cost, and he reckons if you can afford that he's paying you too much...

[eldargal]

That would be worse, again it means punishing most people for whom the safety is net is just that over the actions of a minority who exploit it.

Since we can't take away the right for people to spend their money, we should just take away their money.