Benefit vouchers

For those in need of benefits to assist with everyday living provide vouchers rather than cheques. The vouchers could be redeemable in supermarkets round the island, utility companies and possibly petrol stations. The vouchers could include a restriction so that they cannot be spent on cigarettes or alcohol. Both these items are luxury items and not necessities that the benefit money should be used on. Vouchers could vary depending on the benefit being claimed, such a child benefits being for childcare vouchers, children's clothing, etc. Job seekers allowance could be used for clothing, food and bills. This would hopefully encourage the money to be spent on what it's actually intended for and go some way to helping those struggling to get on their feet. This would also stop those genuinely in need being penalised or ending up with reduced benefits as a result of those abusing the system

Why the contribution is important

Benefits are for those who need assistance making ends meet but currently there is no measure on how the money is actually spent. It's important that the money is used appropriately and effectively to help those claiming to become self sufficient. Luxuries such as holidays, satellite television, alcohol, cigarettes, etc should come out an individuals own pocket and when not funded by the government would hopefully encourage individuals to work harder to become self sufficient and have the choice of what to spend their money on. This make take longer for some but at least they would have food on the table and a roof over their head while working towards this goal

by pent on April 05, 2017 at 09:58PM

Current Rating

4.875
Average score : 4.8
Based on : 8 votes

Comments

  • Posted by brockley April 05, 2017 at 22:52

    I agree totally. Benefits should be just that - benefits. Money is a separate incentive. If a person in need of food is hungry - give them food or food vouchers. If a person is in need of housing - give them vouchers to get a roof over their head. There should be no choice about what form charity takes. After all - charity is not a right.

    As long as it's financially less attractive to work rather than take cash benefits, why would any long time claimer change!

    As long as the minimum wage is less attractive than cash benefits, why would anyone switch? Regardless of their work ethic?

  • Posted by thinktank April 06, 2017 at 16:15

    Totally agree although the "namby pamby liberals" amongst us may think it stigmatises those people on those kinds of benefits, but hey ho, it is better to work and pay taxes like the rest of us. It could in fact encourage them to go to work instead. Good on ya!!!!
  • Posted by bindyk April 06, 2017 at 18:01

    This comment has been removed by a moderator.

  • Posted by ninjadispenser May 06, 2017 at 18:48

    In England they started giving the claimants the money for their rent instead of paying the landlord directly and guess what? The number of tenants who stopped paying rent because they had spent it shot up to record levels,then the landlords wanted them out because of non payment and then we had folks bleating that they were' vulnerable ' and unable to work out that this wasn't "extra" money,but that they were now responsible for paying their own rent out of their benefit payments. Yeah,right,what they DID realise is that it would be up to the landlord to take them to court which takes time and money and in the mean time they get free housing and THEN the council has to re-house them!! WOW. What a scam and no wonder you see in the adverts for rental properties 'NO DHSS' as landlords get stung both ways.
Log in or register to add comments and rate ideas

Idea topics