TBH, that sounds like a rather unlikely scenario but, even so, all that'd happen would be that a person in that position would draw out the money in cash, it'd get flagged up on the DSS system and they'd be asked about it.
They'd explain their situation and a quick check of their postcode would verify their home location and anybody with half a brain would accept the explanation.
my life is unlikely?
ps you seem to be under the misapprehension that people with half a brain work for the DWP.....
as IDS proves even 20% brain function is over the limits allowed.
Or, just perhaps, we are having a discussion - being a discussion forum and all It's all a bit of fun isn't it, passing a bit of time on the interwebby
True, I must admit I forgot to add at the end of that post.
TBH, that sounds like a rather unlikely scenario but, even so, all that'd happen would be that a person in that position would draw out the money in cash, it'd get flagged up on the DSS system and they'd be asked about it.
They'd explain their situation and a quick check of their postcode would verify their home location and anybody with half a brain would accept the explanation.
Trouble is system like this dont work, in the USA , toilet roll you cannot buy as its classed as a luxury and not allowed on the food stamps
Si_Crewe, I think a lot here reckon you to be working for IDS rather than trying to come up with some kind of solution.
Trouble is, it seems like the same old "rights vs responsibilities" argument that's often the case.
Everybody's interested in their rights but they're not at all keen on having any responsibilities attached to those rights.
Honestly, I'm a bit of a leftie at heart and I'd be the first to vote any party who abused such a system out of office.
Thing is, what we're actually discussing, here, shouldn't actually be an ideological concept. It's just about creating the most efficient means of administrating the benefits that people are entitled to.
In a private company, you don't give people a chunk of cash, pay their bills, pay for their taxis, hire their cars, buy their food etc.
You just give the employee a company credit card, let them spend the money, review the credit card bill and sign it off.
If that wasn't the best way to do it, companies would do it a different way instead.
Don't see why a similar system couldn't be applied to benefits.
Trouble is, it seems like the same old "rights vs responsibilities" argument that's often the case.
Everybody's interested in their rights but they're not at all keen on having any responsibilities attached to those rights.
Honestly, I'm a bit of a leftie at heart and I'd be the first to vote any party who abused such a system out of office.
Thing is, what we're actually discussing, here, shouldn't actually be an ideological concept. It's just about creating the most efficient means of administrating the benefits that people are entitled to.
In a private company, you don't give people a chunk of cash, pay their bills, pay for their taxis, hire their cars, buy their food etc.
You just give the employee a company credit card, let them spend the money, review the credit card bill and sign it off.
If that wasn't the best way to do it, companies would do it a different way instead.
Don't see why a similar system couldn't be applied to benefits.
But very little evidence that people are not spending thier benefits properly, just creating more admin, and before you know it you can only buy this brand and only buy healthy food no biscuits allowed, not allowed to buy dog or cat food or fish food if you have a goldfish, no allowed to buy your children any sweets and the list goes on.
the amount of money the MPs/civil servants/horrendously unfit for purpose private companies like AToS or G4s would get in backhanders making sure all the contracts went to their cronies....it would be a total disaster.
i see the idealistic nature of what you propose.
much like the ideal theory the soviet union tried out.....and failed.
power corrupts.
off to the siberian gulag with you you spent your state pension on an unapproved book and used your state potato to distil home made alcohol....
Trouble is, it seems like the same old "rights vs responsibilities" argument that's often the case.
Everybody's interested in their rights but they're not at all keen on having any responsibilities attached to those rights.
Honestly, I'm a bit of a leftie at heart and I'd be the first to vote any party who abused such a system out of office.
Thing is, what we're actually discussing, here, shouldn't actually be an ideological concept. It's just about creating the most efficient means of administrating the benefits that people are entitled to.
In a private company, you don't give people a chunk of cash, pay their bills, pay for their taxis, hire their cars, buy their food etc.
You just give the employee a company credit card, let them spend the money, review the credit card bill and sign it off.
If that wasn't the best way to do it, companies would do it a different way instead.
Don't see why a similar system couldn't be applied to benefits.
So no WINE or other Booze for the Christmas party. That money should have went on essentials for the company. Same rule applies.
Nothing to stop them from stocking up on Baby milk and then selling it for cash.
Trouble is, it seems like the same old "rights vs responsibilities" argument that's often the case.
Everybody's interested in their rights but they're not at all keen on having any responsibilities attached to those rights.
Honestly, I'm a bit of a leftie at heart and I'd be the first to vote any party who abused such a system out of office.
Thing is, what we're actually discussing, here, shouldn't actually be an ideological concept. It's just about creating the most efficient means of administrating the benefits that people are entitled to.
In a private company, you don't give people a chunk of cash, pay their bills, pay for their taxis, hire their cars, buy their food etc.
You just give the employee a company credit card, let them spend the money, review the credit card bill and sign it off.
If that wasn't the best way to do it, companies would do it a different way instead.
Don't see why a similar system couldn't be applied to benefits.
So the company, ie. the government, would pay the fees on these prepaid cards (they aren't free, mine is £5 per month or a percentage of each transaction, my choice - I chose the fee as I use it quite regularly, ex bankrupts have few choices when it comes to how they can shop online!). The accounts may be free to set up, but everything has charges.
An example, using Cashplus as an example for fees - £0.99 per transaction (or £4.95 monthly fee), £2.00 for ATM withdrawal, issuing of card £9.95. This is one of the cheapest cards around, too! Some don't give a monthly fee option but charge per transaction as a percentage of transaction, that can really add up!
Or are we talking about the government creating it's own banking system of sorts, although somebody has to pay somewhere. Perhaps they would out-source the whole thing, which would be very costly indeed.
Surely people don't buy tampons on company credit cards? (or, if they do, they have to repay it?)
Of course there are responsibilities with the rights of receiving state assistance if you qualify for it. For example, you receive Child Tax Credits, you bring up your family - some of which is assisted by that extra financial help - be it to heat the home, feed the family, buy them toiletries, toys, books, clothes, furnish their homes, light their homes, etc. If the child isn't being cared for properly, usually some third party gets involved - social services, schools, police even. Then they don't get Child Tax Credits.
If you receive JSA, you have already jumped through a million hoops to receive that - there are systems in place now so ridiculous that people can't breathe without being sanctioned, and then they (and their children) starve.
Pension credits - surely people have earned those by the time they qualify, do you really want to know how much Steradent they buy?
Carer's Allowance - well, that's for people caring for somebody, they can't receive it without the person involved receiving a disability benefit of some kind, which they have also jumped through hoops to qualify for, this I do know from personal experience. Carer's allowance is a 'wage' for looking after somebody so that the government doesn't have to pay carers to do it.
PIP - very hard to qualify for these days, very hard to even have your claim looked at on time; if you do end up receiving it, trust me you qualify. Do the government really need to know how many incontinence pads you may use, or whether you use it to hire a motability car, how many miles you may travel in that car and where to? How many prescriptions you pay for, if you have to pay for them, and what for? What specialist equipment you may use it on, whether you pay an additional carer or assistant for further help, etc.?
But very little evidence that people are not spending thier benefits properly, just creating more admin, and before you know it you can only buy this brand and only buy healthy food no biscuits allowed, not allowed to buy dog or cat food or fish food if you have a goldfish, no allowed to buy your children any sweets and the list goes on.
Agreed tim...
The only plus side will be the money the government get from companies buying the data.
And if you think that wont be allowed, stop being gullible.
Trouble is, it seems like the same old "rights vs responsibilities" argument that's often the case.
Everybody's interested in their rights but they're not at all keen on having any responsibilities attached to those rights.
Honestly, I'm a bit of a leftie at heart and I'd be the first to vote any party who abused such a system out of office.
Thing is, what we're actually discussing, here, shouldn't actually be an ideological concept. It's just about creating the most efficient means of administrating the benefits that people are entitled to.
In a private company, you don't give people a chunk of cash, pay their bills, pay for their taxis, hire their cars, buy their food etc.
You just give the employee a company credit card, let them spend the money, review the credit card bill and sign it off.
If that wasn't the best way to do it, companies would do it a different way instead.
Don't see why a similar system couldn't be applied to benefits.
Nothing to stop them from stocking up on Baby milk and then selling it for cash.
See, that's the sort of thing that might seem like a genuine concern at first glance but I'm not sure it stands up to further scrutiny.
I mean, are we to assume that your average person is going to use the card to spend, say, £60 on food from a supermarket and then take it all down to the pub and sell it for £30 cash-in-hand?
For what?
What're they going to do with the £30 cash that they couldn't have legitimately done with the card?
It's certainly true that you're likely to get smackheads and wino's doing that but the current system seems to favour those people rather than attempting to make things better for the millions of people who use their benefits money legitimately.
And, if you're saying that, given the opportunity, everybody would act in a similar manner to MPs, it seems a little hypocritical to criticise them for their actions.
Course, we're not actually talking about "the same kind of system" at all, so it's a bit of a moot point.
Here's to a proper, compassionate Labour government!
Steady on.
The only thing that's hated as much as attacks on benefits around here is the Labour party.
Mostly, I assume, by people who aren't old enough to remember Thatcher.
The only thing that's hated as much as attacks on benefits around here is the Labour party.
Mostly, I assume, by people who aren't old enough to remember Thatcher.
One wonders who such people do actually vote for.
It is very much a race to the bottom. What happens when we get there?
And, if you're saying that, given the opportunity, everybody would act in a similar manner to MPs, it seems a little hypocritical to criticise them for their actions.
Course, we're not actually talking about "the same kind of system" at all, so it's a bit of a moot point.
So why is it so important to know what people are spending benefits on, but not as important to know what MPs are spending money on when it all comes out the same pot. What are you trying to find out. Sorry it it the same, same pot public pot. If you want to know what every person spends benefits on, then i want to know what evey civil servant spends tax payers money on, seems fair to me as i need to know that tax payers money is not being spent on wine champane cigers, we already know that MPS get subidies food and boooze and money for second homes, but sorry when we have thousands of families without a home it only seems the right thing to do
So the company, ie. the government, would pay the fees on these prepaid cards (they aren't free, mine is £5 per month or a percentage of each transaction, my choice - I chose the fee as I use it quite regularly, ex bankrupts have few choices when it comes to how they can shop online!). The accounts may be free to set up, but everything has charges.
An example, using Cashplus as an example for fees - £0.99 per transaction (or £4.95 monthly fee), £2.00 for ATM withdrawal, issuing of card £9.95. This is one of the cheapest cards around, too! Some don't give a monthly fee option but charge per transaction as a percentage of transaction, that can really add up!
Or are we talking about the government creating it's own banking system of sorts, although somebody has to pay somewhere. Perhaps they would out-source the whole thing, which would be very costly indeed.
Surely people don't buy tampons on company credit cards? (or, if they do, they have to repay it?)
Of course there are responsibilities with the rights of receiving state assistance if you qualify for it. For example, you receive Child Tax Credits, you bring up your family - some of which is assisted by that extra financial help - be it to heat the home, feed the family, buy them toiletries, toys, books, clothes, furnish their homes, light their homes, etc. If the child isn't being cared for properly, usually some third party gets involved - social services, schools, police even. Then they don't get Child Tax Credits.
If you receive JSA, you have already jumped through a million hoops to receive that - there are systems in place now so ridiculous that people can't breathe without being sanctioned, and then they (and their children) starve.
Pension credits - surely people have earned those by the time they qualify, do you really want to know how much Steradent they buy?
Carer's Allowance - well, that's for people caring for somebody, they can't receive it without the person involved receiving a disability benefit of some kind, which they have also jumped through hoops to qualify for, this I do know from personal experience. Carer's allowance is a 'wage' for looking after somebody so that the government doesn't have to pay carers to do it.
PIP - very hard to qualify for these days, very hard to even have your claim looked at on time; if you do end up receiving it, trust me you qualify. Do the government really need to know how many incontinence pads you may use, or whether you use it to hire a motability car, how many miles you may travel in that car and where to? How many prescriptions you pay for, if you have to pay for them, and what for? What specialist equipment you may use it on, whether you pay an additional carer or assistant for further help, etc.?
Your argument is that to qualify for most benefits, people have to jump through hoops.
Too bloody right they should - so that those who truly qualify for benefits receive it and those who don't have to get off their arses and pay for themselves.
Your argument is that to qualify for most benefits, people have to jump through hoops.
Too bloody right they should - so that those who truly qualify for benefits receive it and those who don't have to get off their arses and pay for themselves.
The biggest increase of people having to jump though the hoops are in work, just a pity MPs dont have to jump throw the same hoops to get thier benefits sorry i forgot they use the words allowance or expensese to claim not benefits, but when they can give thier job up because to be able to only claim £26,000 for a second home is not enough of tax payers money, dont forget that is just the rent, not the running cost they can claim
Your argument is that to qualify for most benefits, people have to jump through hoops.
Too bloody right they should - so that those who truly qualify for benefits receive it and those who don't have to get off their arses and pay for themselves.
Too bloody right. I hate it when people have worked all their lives and then need temporary help from the state while they sort themselves out.
Comments
my life is unlikely?
ps you seem to be under the misapprehension that people with half a brain work for the DWP.....
as IDS proves even 20% brain function is over the limits allowed.
True, I must admit I forgot to add
Here now I've just passed a bit more time
Trouble is system like this dont work, in the USA , toilet roll you cannot buy as its classed as a luxury and not allowed on the food stamps
Trouble is, it seems like the same old "rights vs responsibilities" argument that's often the case.
Everybody's interested in their rights but they're not at all keen on having any responsibilities attached to those rights.
Honestly, I'm a bit of a leftie at heart and I'd be the first to vote any party who abused such a system out of office.
Thing is, what we're actually discussing, here, shouldn't actually be an ideological concept. It's just about creating the most efficient means of administrating the benefits that people are entitled to.
In a private company, you don't give people a chunk of cash, pay their bills, pay for their taxis, hire their cars, buy their food etc.
You just give the employee a company credit card, let them spend the money, review the credit card bill and sign it off.
If that wasn't the best way to do it, companies would do it a different way instead.
Don't see why a similar system couldn't be applied to benefits.
And what does that mean?
Does it mean the concept is unviable or does it mean somebody's been a bit dumb with their classifications?
And that is before you take into account its probable abuse by any government...
But very little evidence that people are not spending thier benefits properly, just creating more admin, and before you know it you can only buy this brand and only buy healthy food no biscuits allowed, not allowed to buy dog or cat food or fish food if you have a goldfish, no allowed to buy your children any sweets and the list goes on.
i see the idealistic nature of what you propose.
much like the ideal theory the soviet union tried out.....and failed.
power corrupts.
off to the siberian gulag with you you spent your state pension on an unapproved book and used your state potato to distil home made alcohol....
So no WINE or other Booze for the Christmas party. That money should have went on essentials for the company. Same rule applies.
Nothing to stop them from stocking up on Baby milk and then selling it for cash.
Because what are these system meant to do apart from cost a fortune in admin
An example, using Cashplus as an example for fees - £0.99 per transaction (or £4.95 monthly fee), £2.00 for ATM withdrawal, issuing of card £9.95. This is one of the cheapest cards around, too! Some don't give a monthly fee option but charge per transaction as a percentage of transaction, that can really add up!
Or are we talking about the government creating it's own banking system of sorts, although somebody has to pay somewhere. Perhaps they would out-source the whole thing, which would be very costly indeed.
Surely people don't buy tampons on company credit cards?
Of course there are responsibilities with the rights of receiving state assistance if you qualify for it. For example, you receive Child Tax Credits, you bring up your family - some of which is assisted by that extra financial help - be it to heat the home, feed the family, buy them toiletries, toys, books, clothes, furnish their homes, light their homes, etc. If the child isn't being cared for properly, usually some third party gets involved - social services, schools, police even. Then they don't get Child Tax Credits.
If you receive JSA, you have already jumped through a million hoops to receive that - there are systems in place now so ridiculous that people can't breathe without being sanctioned, and then they (and their children) starve.
Pension credits - surely people have earned those by the time they qualify, do you really want to know how much Steradent they buy?
Carer's Allowance - well, that's for people caring for somebody, they can't receive it without the person involved receiving a disability benefit of some kind, which they have also jumped through hoops to qualify for, this I do know from personal experience. Carer's allowance is a 'wage' for looking after somebody so that the government doesn't have to pay carers to do it.
PIP - very hard to qualify for these days, very hard to even have your claim looked at on time; if you do end up receiving it, trust me you qualify. Do the government really need to know how many incontinence pads you may use, or whether you use it to hire a motability car, how many miles you may travel in that car and where to? How many prescriptions you pay for, if you have to pay for them, and what for? What specialist equipment you may use it on, whether you pay an additional carer or assistant for further help, etc.?
Agreed tim...
The only plus side will be the money the government get from companies buying the data.
And if you think that wont be allowed, stop being gullible.
See, that's the sort of thing that might seem like a genuine concern at first glance but I'm not sure it stands up to further scrutiny.
I mean, are we to assume that your average person is going to use the card to spend, say, £60 on food from a supermarket and then take it all down to the pub and sell it for £30 cash-in-hand?
For what?
What're they going to do with the £30 cash that they couldn't have legitimately done with the card?
It's certainly true that you're likely to get smackheads and wino's doing that but the current system seems to favour those people rather than attempting to make things better for the millions of people who use their benefits money legitimately.
And, if you're saying that, given the opportunity, everybody would act in a similar manner to MPs, it seems a little hypocritical to criticise them for their actions.
Course, we're not actually talking about "the same kind of system" at all, so it's a bit of a moot point.
Here's to a proper, compassionate Labour government!
Steady on.
The only thing that's hated as much as attacks on benefits around here is the Labour party.
Mostly, I assume, by people who aren't old enough to remember Thatcher.
One wonders who such people do actually vote for.
It is very much a race to the bottom. What happens when we get there?
Mmmmm.
All I know is that I am a lot better off working than I was before.
Maybe it will help encourage more people to come off benefits when they don't really have to rely on them for their income.
Your argument is that to qualify for most benefits, people have to jump through hoops.
Too bloody right they should - so that those who truly qualify for benefits receive it and those who don't have to get off their arses and pay for themselves.
The biggest increase of people having to jump though the hoops are in work, just a pity MPs dont have to jump throw the same hoops to get thier benefits sorry i forgot they use the words allowance or expensese to claim not benefits, but when they can give thier job up because to be able to only claim £26,000 for a second home is not enough of tax payers money, dont forget that is just the rent, not the running cost they can claim
Too bloody right. I hate it when people have worked all their lives and then need temporary help from the state while they sort themselves out.