Should the proposal to block benefit claimants from purchasing cigarettes and alcohol be implemented?
The Conservatives propose using restricted pre-paid cards for long-term unemployed benefit claimants without adequate prior National Insurance contributions. Their plan would cut payments by 30% after six months for those able to work and block spending on alcohol, cigarettes and gambling to encourage employment and save an estimated £538 million annually. Labour has called the scheme unworkable while promoting its own employment support package.
7 Opinions
Simple answer, no. The three things mentioned are addictions, as difficult to break free from as drug addiction. It won't work, even with a prepaid card, food can be exchanged for cigarettes and alcohol. If you have ever been addicted to smoking, gambling and/or alcohol, you will understand. To break free strong will power is needed as well as wanting to stop. Nanny state again, trying to dictate how we live, remove freedom of choice.
Unemployment benefits are so low anyway that nobody would choose to live on them. People choosing benefits as a lifestyle try to claim disability as that can double or treble what you get. Trying to control existence-level benefits is inhumane, as I know several youngsters that have applied for hundreds of jobs without success. We don't need to cut benefits for the unemployed; we need action to create opportunities. We need growth!
I see the point and I see why this seems like a good idea. However Australia tried this exact cashless debit card scheme for years and scrapped it because it was an unworkable disaster. It doesn’t stop addiction as it just creates a black market where people sell groceries for cash at a discount to buy cigs + alcohol. Then to add insult to it, private contractors pocket millions in card administration fees whilst benefits get cut by 30%.
Yes although I really hate any form of nanny statehood. Unfortunately, many of today just can't be trusted to use the benefits money as it was intended so it is spoiled for those that do. I don't see how it could actually be enforced anyway.
If they correctly implement this, I'd be all for it. So mild yes, but it seems like this would be pretty difficult and open to fraud in practice. E.g. in the US, food benefits are administered in this way, but beneficiaries will 'sell' the money on the card to other people or crooked shopkeepers.
I can't see how this could be achieved. Better to create environment rewarding work.