'Smart cards' plan to stop benefits being spent on drink

[scaramanga]

I guess it's wrong, although kids don't ask to be born. When they are here, it's probably better that their parents raise them. If their parents are skint, it's probably beter they get given some help. You can blame me for having a kid, but f*ck it -- we get one life and if you want to have kids, you just gotta do it and make the best of it. If that means playign the game, so be it.

The government could perhaps legislate that the minimum wage is higher. Instead, they decide that they want business to have a subsidy, whereby any low wage employers who want children will have their incomes topped up by the state. Perhaps sterilise everyone who earns below a certain amount, but then where will the low wage bods of the future come from?

The thing that will really boil your p1ss is that I'd probably be financially better off if we had another kid -- we'd get a bigger house too. A couple of years ago, me and the mrs were living with my parents -- when we moved out, I made sure we moved into a 1 bedroom place, because I knew we'd want to have a child at some point, and that if we only had a 1 bedroom place when she was born, the council would get us a 2 bedroom place. Now we live in a 2 bed bungalow in the countryside for a cheaper rent than the private rental of the 1 bed house we were previously in, with a more secure tennancy to boot. Annnnd, if we were to have another kid, because the 2nd bedroom is small, we'd be eligable for a 3 bedroom house ( I know this because that's what happened with the previous tennants here).

To further anger you, I am pretty sure that if I cut down my hours of work from the current 40+ to a 30 hour week, my benefits would rise to make up the shortfall - I'd get the same money overall each month for working less hours per week. This is something that I'm going to do in the future, because it'd be a bit stupid not to.

If you are gonna be a skint, low wage worker, then you just have to play the game and life can be ok. Probably not ok by your standards (I gather you earn a few quid Scara) but not too bad. I'm not going on loads of foreign holidays or driving round in a new car made from plasma tellies, but life is alright.

As for whether it's right, well from your point of view then no. I'm a feckless, irresponsible waster who should never have decided to have children. I should have worked in my low wage job until I either bettered myself, or dropped dead childless. The government is taking money from your pockets and putting it into mine, so my wife can stay at home while I work. Your tax money allows my business to keep their wages low for the drones that work in the warehouse.

It's the single blokes I feel sorry for. They will get the same sh1tty wage, but no help whatsoever. The government, it seems, wants to encourage people to have children at all costs.

Your wife has the choice to work though doesn't she?

I suspect that most of us here with kids had to both work in order to give them the lifestyle we want to. So the question really is why should the state encourage your wife not to work? It just seems ridiculous.

All of that aside, it's not what the government gives you that I find offensive, it's your pride in having twisted the system to take more of our money.

 

[the dza]

Your wife has the choice to work though doesn't she?

I suspect that most of us here with kids had to both work in order to give them the lifestyle we want to. So the question really is why should the state encourage your wife not to work? It just seems ridiculous.

All of that aside, it's not what the government gives you that I find offensive, it's your pride in having twisted the system to take more of our money.

I'm just doing what's best for me and mine as life currently stands. This stuff is there if you are on a low income, to not use it would make no sense. My wife wants to work in the future. If she had a job, she'd still be on maternity leave I guess (you get a year iirc), and as that's a statutory amount, we'd still get benefits to top it up and she'd still be at home. Same situation. The only thing I have 'twisted' was to ensure that we'd be elligable for a council house, because I could never afford to buy a place and I want security of tenure. That's playing the game, but no rules have been broken. It's pragmatism. Social housing is there for people on low incomes, so I'm not exactly doing a Bob Crow.

As for taking your money, the goverment does that. Do you honestly think they are interested in taking less of it? The only difference is what pockets it will end up in. As I said earlier, they'll give you headlines so that you get percieved value for money and hopefully your vote. I'll vote for the crumb givers, and if none of them are giving anything my way, I just won't bother to vote. And things will remain pretty much the same.

If I get given less or more, your life won't change at all. That's the reality.

 

[Bullet]

In Belgium everyone is given Food Vouchers/Card credit, even those with a salary receive a small percentage in the form of the food vouchers. Almost everyone paying in the Supermarkets uses them for their weekly shopping and they can't be used on cigarettes or alcohol.

If everyone had one of these cards and not just those on benefits then surely that would be a good workaround for the argument of those people feeling stigmatised.

For those that are working these vouchers/credit is also tax-free which is a slight benefit.

Interesting post dingdongo - I didn't know that about Belgium. Everybody gets the card, so it is not stigmatised it is just a portion of your pay because everyone needs to buy food. Good way of avoiding the stigma that.

I agree that IDS will somehow make the scheme totally flawed with an £8bn overspend

 

[Roy1983]

Totally in agreement with this. Sooner the better too.

 

[Richie]

Your wife has the choice to work though doesn't she?

I suspect that most of us here with kids had to both work in order to give them the lifestyle we want to. So the question really is why should the state encourage your wife not to work? It just seems ridiculous.

All of that aside, it's not what the government gives you that I find offensive, it's your pride in having twisted the system to take more of our money.

You know Scara I think we agree on a lot of things but on this we have differing opinions.

I personally don't have a huge problem with what dza is doing, because that's the way the game is played. The blame should absolutely fall on the shoulders of the government for allowing it to happen and creating perverse incentives for people.

I was talking about this with my dad earlier, he was well off and absolutely didn't need child benefit, but he'd have been a fool not to take it. The problem is the system, don't hate the player hate the game.

Incidentally I feel the same way about companies avoiding tax. Blame the government for complicating the tax code so much that loopholes are inevitable. To expect people not to use them is foolish.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

All this talk of stigma, people like to stigmatise those men that decide to wear stockings, holds ups and a little bit of make up. I say fcuk society.

 

[Paxtonloudmouth]

Scara are you a tory mouthpiece ? Wages are what a persons job is worth ? So a banker is worth over three million pounds a year to a bank that needs to be bailed out ?

How can this possibly make sense. Plus there is no evidence that people will move abroad what so ever. Just fear mongering. Also I am far more worried that those that we need to run society will move abroad through poor wages. When the unions do it you call it holding the country to ransom,when millionaires do it you call it good business sense.

You are a free market dogmatist. You **** off religion for it lacking any empirical or rational basis which is quite correct it has none,however the last five years has shown your political ideas to be just as vacuous. You **** off the state,and yet your big business relies upon it,far more than this guy who decides to look after his children.

Anyway you are just a Jehovah's Witness in Milton Friedman clothing.

 

[scaramanga]

Scara are you a tory mouthpiece ?

Nope - I'm no fan of the Conservatives, they're just the closest thing we have to a part that understands economics

Wages are what a persons job is worth ? So a banker is worth over three million pounds a year to a bank that needs to be bailed out ?

Yep, otherwise they wouldn't pay it. A person is worth whatever it costs to get them to do the job - that's why minimum wage is such a ridiculous concept.

How can this possibly make sense. Plus there is no evidence that people will move abroad what so ever. Just fear mongering. Also I am far more worried that those that we need to run society will move abroad through poor wages. When the unions do it you call it holding the country to ransom,when millionaires do it you call it good business sense.

There's plenty of evidence. Look how much gets made in China now because base costs are so high in Europe. If we had a lower cost base then we'd still be competitively producing some of those products.

You are a free market dogmatist. You **** off religion for it lacking any empirical or rational basis which is quite correct it has none,however the last five years has shown your political ideas to be just as vacuous.

Care to explain how?

You **** off the state,and yet your big business relies upon it,far more than this guy who decides to look after his children.

Again, care to explain rather than just throw empty suggestions about. Without business, there are no wages, without wages there are no taxes and without taxes there is no money for your government to waste.

As it was put by someone with a far better understanding of politics and economic than you or I could ever hope to reach:

"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money"

Anyway you are just a Jehovah's Witness in Milton Friedman clothing.

If we're just going to throw random insults around that have no relevance to the point in hand, you are a child rapist in a German's clothing

 

[scaramanga]

I'm just doing what's best for me and mine as life currently stands. This stuff is there if you are on a low income, to not use it would make no sense. My wife wants to work in the future. If she had a job, she'd still be on maternity leave I guess (you get a year iirc), and as that's a statutory amount, we'd still get benefits to top it up and she'd still be at home. Same situation.

That's different entirely - pretty much everyone takes maternity leave. Does the government still pay out if your wife chooses not to work after that? I'd find it surprising.

The only thing I have 'twisted' was to ensure that we'd be elligable for a council house, because I could never afford to buy a place and I want security of tenure. That's playing the game, but no rules have been broken. It's pragmatism. Social housing is there for people on low incomes, so I'm not exactly doing a Bob Crow.

Can you not afford a house or just not afford one where you want to live? I think a major problem at the moment in this country is that people will take a council house rather than move somewhere cheaper and buy.

As for taking your money, the goverment does that. Do you honestly think they are interested in taking less of it? The only difference is what pockets it will end up in. As I said earlier, they'll give you headlines so that you get percieved value for money and hopefully your vote. I'll vote for the crumb givers, and if none of them are giving anything my way, I just won't bother to vote. And things will remain pretty much the same.

If I get given less or more, your life won't change at all. That's the reality.

If you get more it has to come from somewhere. That somewhere will be tax increases (or deficit increases which will later require tax increases) which will disproportionately fall upon my shoulders.

 

[scaramanga]

You know Scara I think we agree on a lot of things but on this we have differing opinions.

I personally don't have a huge problem with what dza is doing, because that's the way the game is played. The blame should absolutely fall on the shoulders of the government for allowing it to happen and creating perverse incentives for people.

I was talking about this with my dad earlier, he was well off and absolutely didn't need child benefit, but he'd have been a fool not to take it. The problem is the system, don't hate the player hate the game.

Incidentally I feel the same way about companies avoiding tax. Blame the government for complicating the tax code so much that loopholes are inevitable. To expect people not to use them is foolish.

I agree with leaving loopholes - a simple tax system (preferably flat rate), taken at source, with no double taxation would be paid by far more people/companies. Considering how quickly the tax free allowance drops off at £100K, I wonder how many people in this country are telling the revenue that they earn £99,999 - plenty I'd bet.

As for taking what's available I don't agree. When I was made redundant I could have easily taken benefits but chose not to as I'd have been ashamed to be living off of other people.

 

[Paxtonloudmouth]

Nope - I'm no fan of the Conservatives, they're just the closest thing we have to a part that understands economics



Yep, otherwise they wouldn't pay it. A person is worth whatever it costs to get them to do the job - that's why minimum wage is such a ridiculous concept.



There's plenty of evidence. Look how much gets made in China now because base costs are so high in Europe. If we had a lower cost base then we'd still be competitively producing some of those products.



Care to explain how?



Again, care to explain rather than just throw empty suggestions about. Without business, there are no wages, without wages there are no taxes and without taxes there is no money for your government to waste.

As it was put by someone with a far better understanding of politics and economic than you or I could ever hope to reach:

"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money"



If we're just going to throw random insults around that have no relevance to the point in hand, you are a child rapist in a German's clothing

This will go around and around I fear. You say without business there will be no wages,and I will say without workers there will be no business.
The wages at the top of the financial sector were no value for money,hence why there unsustainable and the state had to bail them out. State bail out ? Does that sound like the free market to you ? That is a failure of your model. I would have thought you would be anti state interference in the market ? Just as I would assume you were with the coal mines ? So how could you support a bail out of a collapsing sector ?
China is far ahead due to its population and horrible human and economic rights violations ? Is that the model you want to copy ?
Thatcher the great economist ? The woman who had two recessions under her premiership? She put all her eggs in the Hayek basket. Hayek was without a doubt a great economist and thinker,however wrong I feel he got most things. Even I can praise a talented enemy. However Thatcher was not a talented economist.

 

[scaramanga]

This will go around and around I fear. You say without business there will be no wages,and I will say without workers there will be no business.

People will work for whatever they think the job is worth, just as employers will offer what they think the job's worth. If UK wages are too low and people go elsewhere then they will be replaced by people for whom the UK wage seems high. If not, then wages here will increase until we can find the right people.

I work in an industry where many of our employees are on minimum wage - most of them are Polish and live on around half of it sending the rest home. The work is completely unskilled and requires no education - as far as I'm concerned we're paying well over the odds. Those same people would do that same job for £5 an hour.

The wages at the top of the financial sector were no value for money,hence why there unsustainable and the state had to bail them out.

Wages weren't the reason for state bail outs - wages at the top are still the same as they ever were. Don't like it? Then buy shares and have your say at the AGM.

State bail out ? Does that sound like the free market to you ? That is a failure of your model. I would have thought you would be anti state interference in the market ? Just as I would assume you were with the coal mines ? So how could you support a bail out of a collapsing sector ?

No it doesn't and I don't support it. Failing banks should have failed - it would have forced a situation where banks would have to be more open with depositors in order to encourage their business. I'd put my ISAs in a 4% return guaranteed rather than a 6% that might go pop, wouldn't you?

If the financial crisis has shown anything though, it's that capitalism will continue driving forwards despite some pretty big setbacks. That's more than can be said for any alternative vision.

China is far ahead due to its population and horrible human and economic rights violations ? Is that the model you want to copy ?

Not at all, that wasn't the point we were discussing. I just cited it as evidence of work going elsewhere when the cost base gets too high. If the UK has a minimum wage of £10 and in Germany it's £7, expect a lot of menial work to head that way.

Thatcher the great economist ? The woman who had two recessions under her premiership? She put all her eggs in the Hayek basket. Hayek was without a doubt a great economist and thinker,however wrong I feel he got most things. Even I can praise a talented enemy. However Thatcher was not a talented economist.

She made it through two recessions with the country stronger than ever before - that's an incredible achievement. Unless of course you're Gordon Brown, the only person in the world who still believes that recessions can be entirely avoided.

 

[Paxtonloudmouth]

Of course recessions are part of the model,that is the problem with it. Plus I am not Gordon Brown fan,who would have agreed with you far more than with me.

On the wages point. Under your logic why pay at all ? Plus it is fanciful to think everyone can just up sticks and move for an extra 2 pound an hour.People have reasons for staying in a country.Plus say everyone agreed with you and moved to the country that payed best. What would then happen to the rest of the worlds economies ? Also your argument also only makes sense with full employment. With a surplus labour market people will never have the choice to work for what they feel they deserve.

On the banks we seem to agree. It should have been allowed to fail,at least it would have shown consistency. However I disagree with your idea that capitalism has bounced back,it is just in the position where it will fail again by the very nature of it.

The country was not stronger than ever before. In fact we had black Wednesday only a year after she left.Your political history is incorrect.

 

[scaramanga]

Of course recessions are part of the model,that is the problem with it. Plus I am not Gordon Brown fan,who would have agreed with you far more than with me.

On the wages point. Under your logic why pay at all?

Because if we don't pay, people will just go elsewhere and get paid.

Plus it is fanciful to think everyone can just up sticks and move for an extra 2 pound an hour.People have reasons for staying in a country.

That's their choice just as it is mine. I could earn more elsewhere and so could they. They don't have the right to complain about low wages if better ones are available elsewhere though.

Plus say everyone agreed with you and moved to the country that payed best. What would then happen to the rest of the worlds economies ?

They would have the least employable people, but they'd still get employees because everyone has to work somewhere.

Also your argument also only makes sense with full employment. With a surplus labour market people will never have the choice to work for what they feel they deserve.

They will if they go elsewhere to work. Remove the comfort from the benefits system and people will go looking for work elsewhere.

On the banks we seem to agree. It should have been allowed to fail,at least it would have shown consistency. However I disagree with your idea that capitalism has bounced back,it is just in the position where it will fail again by the very nature of it.

But if it's still going, it's not failed. Maybe you consider it a failure, most economists would consider a crash and a recovery something that just happens from time to time.

The country was not stronger than ever before. In fact we had black Wednesday only a year after she left.Your political history is incorrect

I agree that membership of the ERM was a terrible thing - I really wish Thatcher had never given in on it. It's one of the reasons why I'm no fan of the Conservatives - they get a truly great, once in 3 generations leader and they stab her in the back to further their own careers.

 

[camspur]

VAT is small beer for multi millionaires, other taxes affect them more.

The VAT on a Lamborghini Aventador is £ 44,000 not exactly small beer.

 

[Paxtonloudmouth]

Because if we don't pay, people will just go elsewhere and get paid.



That's their choice just as it is mine. I could earn more elsewhere and so could they. They don't have the right to complain about low wages if better ones are available elsewhere though.



They would have the least employable people, but they'd still get employees because everyone has to work somewhere.



They will if they go elsewhere to work. Remove the comfort from the benefits system and people will go looking for work elsewhere.



But if it's still going, it's not failed. Maybe you consider it a failure, most economists would consider a crash and a recovery something that just happens from time to time.



I agree that membership of the ERM was a terrible thing - I really wish Thatcher had never given in on it. It's one of the reasons why I'm no fan of the Conservatives - they get a truly great, once in 3 generations leader and they stab her in the back to further their own careers.

So the basis of your argument is get on your bike and move. The problem with your argument is that social cohesion would suffer. There would be no community,no roots,in fact no identity outside of an economic one.

It did fail it was bailed out. It was saved by the state. You may not like that fact,but it is a fact none the less.

 

[Richie]

As for taking what's available I don't agree. When I was made redundant I could have easily taken benefits but chose not to as I'd have been ashamed to be living off of other people.

That's fair, but its become quite an old fashioned view. My grandfather refused benefits, he looked at it as charity and saw it as him not being able to take care of his own family.

These days everyone is on some kind of benefit, the state pays us from cradle to grave. To expect people to refuse benefits they are entitled to is a fools errand. The change has to come from the government side.

 

[scaramanga]

The VAT on a Lamborghini Aventador is £ 44,000 not exactly small beer.

Not to mention the £40 in duty and VAT it would cost to drive one from my house to central London and back.

 

[camspur]

Yep, otherwise they wouldn't pay it. A person is worth whatever it costs to get them to do the job - that's why minimum wage is such a ridiculous concept.

That is actually a falacy thrown out there by employers to keep salaries at a certain level.

There are people, equally employable, that would do a job for less than the "going rate" and that is true at ALL levels be it merchant bankers, proffesional footballers or street cleaners.

 

[inkpenspur]

Failing banks should have failed - it would have forced a situation where banks would have to be more open with depositors in order to encourage their business.

I agree completely... the decision by Brown to bail out the banks was entirely political, and I bet if the first bank in question had been called Southern Rock and was based in Guildford as opposed to Northern Rock, based in Saudi Sportswashing Machine then he would have let it fail. The precedent to let them fail would then have been set. Instead he made a rod for his (and our) backs