universal credit | The Savvy Senorita

A poll commissioned by one of the many ‘think tanks’ has come up with a surprising response; people would be in favour of benefit claimants receiving vouchers, or indeed a ‘debit card’ solely to purchase ‘agreed’ items, such as food.

Needless to say these findings have provoked disgust from anti-poverty campaigners, who have been questioning the so called findings as the response of those ignorant to the full facts, and influenced by propaganda surrounding benefit claimants from the UK media.

Alison Garnham, director of the Child Poverty Action Group, was the findings harshest critic, stating that we could discount what 59% of the research group agreed upon, vouchers for societies ‘slouchers’.

“In the United States in the 1960s, welfare rights campaigners argued for food stamps for certain groups on the basis that some of them were alcohol abusers, but it’s not an argument that ever took traction in the UK because people would find that offensive. I think we have a very different culture. I just don’t think it would be acceptable in the same way,” Alison Garnham, Demos fringe meeting at the Labour Party conference.

In the United States, ‘food stamps’ are in the form of pre-payment card (debit card of sorts), that is then used by the claimant to purchase food and other essentials, which do not include the ‘luxuries’ of life such as alcohol and tobacco.

Well maybe Alison Garnham should think again, as the findings of this research demonstrates that people don’t think changing the current benefit/ social security system would be ‘offensive’. Many do in fact feel that this benefit ‘charity’ should end;

77% said yes to monitoring people with a substance or gambling addiction, and 69% for those with a criminal or anti-social history.
68% agreed the government should stop all recipients from spending their benefits on gambling.
54% agreed with the government should prevent people spending their benefits on unhealthy items such as cigarettes or alcohol.
46% opposed benefits being spent on branded goods such as Nike trainers.
38% backed a ban on buying junk food and 35% on holidays.

(Poll was carried out by Populus Data Solutions, based on a survey of 2,052 adults)

With Universal credit making an appearance very soon, six work related benefits will be lumped together, making this an ideal candidate for such controlled measures, and a pre-payment style card.

In fact, so far not even Prime Minister David Cameron has denied that he is not completely averse to exercising more control over how claimants spend their money.

Leaving out the fact that Universal Credit is just a one size fits all benefit, which benefits no-one, not even the working UK populace. How would such a pre-paid card (debit card) exercise such control, and prevent people from just living their normal lives? Well, online gabbling would be blocked by such cards. Such transactions wouldn’t be permitted, therefore they wouldn’t gain authorisation; like a debit card refused for lack of funds in the bank.

OK, but how can a mere debit card encourage people to make more healthy choices, surely this is a tougher question to answer? Does anyone have the right to control or outlaw what people choose to eat, drink or even smoke? Even the Police department responsible for stamping out illegal substances can’t boast that feat! People will do anything to get what they want; they do for drugs! So will this ‘ban’ increase the illegal selling and distribution of alcohol and tobacco? Will people commit even more crime to get such items one way or another?

I know the inspiration for this debit card system has originated with parents and families in mind. People on benefits are seen to choose those above luxuries over actually feeding their children. On a tight budget even one pack of cigarettes is surely unnecessary though; if it means more food on the plate, electric in the meter or clothes on your back, which would you choose? There are people out there who do blow all their money on nothing, regardless of their children or their house hold responsibilities; but how can we intervene completely, maybe stop paying them altogether? Don’t such issues also affect those who work too?

I agree that any benefit isn’t a charity hand out, it is there for hard times; even charities stipulate where their money can go to, and how it can be utilised, but again how can you differentiate between the people in receipt of a benefit? There are claimants who have never worked, and not because they cannot, but because they don’t want to; then again there are those who have worked, and want to work, and also those who are indeed too ill to work. I know I wouldn’t want to have anyone treat me like a brain dead moron just because I was claiming a benefit; I would not appreciate being told where to and what to buy. Plus, it is also the stigma attached to using such a ‘card’, its letting everyone know; ‘Hey, I’m on benefits’, setting people up for ridicule. It is a too general answer to a problem, as not everyone on a benefit is a scrounger. So where do you draw the battle lines and makes the distinctions?

I know there are people on benefits who go away on holidays, buy iPhone’s, drive nice cars, have great big televisions, and have nights out wearing the best clothes; I have seen that happen quite frequently, but it is not the genuinely needy people who do this. Those that con the system are also usually working and claiming (fraud), gaining illegal earnings from something or just don’t care about what happens when the money has run out. Not everyone claiming walks the straight and narrow, just like everyone who works doesn’t! Yet, I still want to control my money whether I work or have benefit; I think that would be my right as an intelligent and educated person who has worked and contributed into the system!!! I am not a feckless individual, even if there are those out there who are! Why should decent people bear the brunt, as they are the people who will suffer; who won’t break the law to get more money, and they will struggle to survive.

I do feel the poverty situation is being ignored here too, as people on benefits aren’t the only ones in poverty. I know people who work, and are so overwhelmed by just paying their way because the cost of living is ever spiraling out of control. They can’t afford to eat, go on holidays, and buy expensive food and all the rest. Yet, I do know benefit claimants who can have those luxuries! So again how can we iron out all these contradictions from an entrenched and ineffective system, without the innocent and genuine suffering? How do we help everyone who needs help?

In addition, one of the most striking findings of the Demos ‘think tank’ survey was that 18-24-year-olds were one of the most likely age groups to call for government controls on how benefits are spent. Yet, these are the majority of people out of work in the UK. Plus only 2052 people were asked in the survey, not a gargantuan amount. How was the sample of participants chosen, where were they from; location and family background? Would be interesting to know.

Nothing in the UK social security/ benefit system is clear cut, therefore why should any of the decisions regarding its future be? Are those in power the right people to make the judgements? Surely those who live a real life need to have their say, before they are faced living their lives under some rule they then cannot change or influence.

Shameless; the true life of a benefit ‘scrounger’?

Copy Right Notice:
© Bex Houghagen and The Savvy Senorita, 2012. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Bex Houghagen and The Savvy Senorita with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

At the moment there has been plenty of media coverage about ‘Social Security’ and ‘Welfare’. It seems if it isn’t the UK, it is Spain or the US that are fighting for more or less of the ‘Nanny State’.

The ‘Nanny State’ is a complex, and often antiquated system founded upon a set of ideals, which works to maintain the status quo of welfare, so it is available for everyone to access; but is it still doing its job and is it this enough in the modern world? Could a radical shake-up of the system be justified? How radical a change would be called for or tolerated to help to reform or re-create the system? Especially a system which might have served a country for so long, it is difficult to imagine being without it.

Welfare in the form of unemployment, sickness and disability benefits have changed lives; brought people out of poverty, saved people from poverty, and helped to support millions. Yet, there are always a number of individuals who spoil the system, flouting the premise of welfare rules just to con the country out money for nothing. This is where the negative begins to impact upon welfare, and soon the rot sets in to unravel any good that was ever done by it.

It is common knowledge in the UK that there are people claiming a benefit under false pretenses, Hell, I should know I have worked with said people! I know the scams and I know they are completed successfully as the system has no safe guard to prevent such fraudulent actions. Consequently, the amount of tax payer’s money leaking from the system every year is unquantifiable. Reasons being are that fraud is difficult to prove, and the evidence alone can take time and yet again money to pursue. So, how can this misuse of time, money and services be prevented?

It seems there is no answer, no Government has found one anyway, or maybe they are unwilling to do what is necessary to stop this. Maybe it would be too radical a step, but then what would be worse; continue pouring billions down a never-ending drain every year, or, fix the problem once and for all so those who truly need help get it!

The fact that there is help available for all, as long as people meet the eligibility criteria for a benefit, is a great thing, but therein lies the parody. A 24-year-old who is physically fit and able, can in theory and practice, claim unemployment benefit in the UK forever. The whole world seems to know this too, as there are many who come to the UK in search of work, and then they too end up claiming benefits. There was a case in the ‘Daily Mail’ recently regarding a Latvian woman, with 10 children, claiming every benefit available to her and still; demanding more. Now, there are people working in the UK, barely scraping by, what with the economy being as dire as it is; but yet they are not eligible for any help, why, because they work and are deemed wealthy enough. Yet, someone who has never worked, and there is no reason that they can’t, is eligible to take from a pot they have never paid into. The contradictions in the system go on and on to the point where people are beginning to question; what is the welfare system truly there for? Is it for those who genuinely need its help or is it just for those who want to scam the system?

I have met so many people who don’t claim what is rightfully theirs, because they feel ashamed, don’t understand the process or don’t know they are eligible; and then I have met others who milk it dry. I have met young men and women who could secure work, and even turn down jobs just to stay on benefits. I have met men of 45 made redundant having worked since the ages of 14 and 15, and they are told they can only claim a benefit for 6 months, and their mortgage payments won’t be covered by the welfare system. Yet, I have seen people claiming they live alone, when they have a partner with them, and they are receiving housing benefits for houses they don’t even live in! I have met people with extreme physical disabilities who get refused benefits, and some who don’t even think to try to claim anything as they just go to work; whilst a person with psoriasis is deemed disabled! Aren’t these the very contradictions which prove the system isn’t working as it should be? That the help isn’t being received by those who truly need it?

Oh, and one final thought: during my time working in the unemployment sector, one specific case stuck with me, and it wasn’t as unusual as it might sound. It was of a man in his late 30’s (physically fit and healthy), married with 5 children; he and his wife had been claiming benefits for many years. He said himself it wasn’t worthwhile him working, though he had been offered jobs, because the salary was so little compared with what benefits he received. Between unemployment benefit, tax credits, child benefits, housing and council tax benefits the man’s income for a month was £2000. That is equivalent to somebody’s monthly salary, and they wouldn’t be eligible to receive any benefits.

So, is it worthwhile maintaining a welfare system that perpetuates unemployment, because it provides more stability and income than an actual job, or, is it about time there were more restraints, and checks to ensure that only the truly in need received the help? Maybe a sliding scale of benefit payments, which could be assessed and based on individual needs, so that not everyone receives the same amounts? Or, is it time to bin the system and start all over again?

What do you think? What is the welfare system like where you live? Have you experience of the system? Do you think it works or is it failing? Do you think welfare doesn’t go far enough, and people need more, not less?

Leave comments below, thanks!