Social Welfare "Credit Cards"

MassDeb8r

Ok we know the story - more than €20BN will be spent this year on social welfare.

So should the minister for social protection introduce a welfare "credit card" as is the case in Australia whereby the idea is to ensure welfare is spent appropriately http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-18951205

We all know there are those who are genuine cases for welfare (elderly/disabled/carers etc) and then there are those who simply choose not to work - long term welfare recipients who turn down employment opportunities in order to keep their welfare benefits.

I think it is it is time to get tough with those who choose to take advantage of the soft system that we have in place. In the US state of Michigan last year the Governor signed into law a four-year lifetime limit on cash welfare benefits, (with exemptions for those with a disability who can’t work, those who care for a disabled spouse or child and those who are 65 or older).

Ideas like these are long overdue for Ireland, the Minister of Social Protection should focus just as much on those who are in gainful employment and to protect that sector of society rather than those who detract from it week in, week out because they choose to.

srsly78

So easy to get around this. You buy bread+milk using card, mate buys smokes+booze using cash. Then you barter.

jank

srsly78 wrote: »

So easy to get around this. You buy bread+milk using card, mate buys smokes+booze using cash. Then you barter.

So we should just stick our heads in the sand and let some fleece the state?
I would welcome any change to the current setup where the process is made more efficient with cost savings. Surly we all should want that?

srsly78

We do. But this would actually be more complicated than the current system, thus it would cost more to administer. Not to mention all the extra "training" the public servant unions will demand.

And as stated above it's pretty easy for people to still get their smokes and booze.

nxbyveromdwjpg

srsly78 wrote: »

So easy to get around this. You buy bread+milk using card, mate buys smokes+booze using cash. Then you barter.

That doesn't sound like it'll be easy at all in practice

aphex™

How would it know if I'm buying alcohol or bread in Tesco?

srsly78

Likely that retailers would only be allowed to accept payment for subsistence items with the card. This would be very easy to do for the big chains like Tesco - all their stuff is computerised already. Would be just adding an extra field to database indicating whether an item is subsistence or luxury. This might already be done, since VAT isn't applied to subsistence items?

antoobrien

O.P. this has been done in a few other threads, do we need another one to discuss this?

maybe strart to punish the fckers who brought the country to its knees not the working class...

That would be...the working class. After all they were the ones buying all those properties (unless you really believe there is an idle rich class here).

Dont be at yourself

It makes sense to me: approve nationwide retailers like Tesco, Dunnes, Superquinn, Supervalu, Spar, Centra, Penneys and others to accept payment, on the proviso that their POS system will restrict the sale of alcohol, tobacco and other products (not necessarily even ban the sale of such items, just restrict it).

Hell, even if just acts like a regular credit card that won't allow withdrawals, it will still remove a massive amount of money from the black economy (for cigarettes, hard drugs, cash-in-hand nixers etc) that's costing us all €5 billion every year in lost taxes.

Bannasidhe

aphex™ wrote: »

How would it know if I'm buying alcohol or bread in Tesco?

Perhaps everyone should send in their shopping receipts to the dept. of Social Protection so their fraud squad can check they are buying the right things?


Aldi and Lidl don't take credit cards. Not many people on basic SW can afford to shop in Tesco.

What about people who want to just buy milk in the local shop - many of these have a minimum spend limit when paying with a card.

Many people would have a problem with Mrs Busybody down the local shop knowing their business - or is one not allowed any pride or privacy when one is unemployed?

No shopping in Farmer's markets for SW claimants?

Anyway - so what if someone gets 188 euro a week and buys what ever they want with it ? They are still getting 188 euro so if they go hungry because they bought fags and booze, that's their choice.

And yes- many people are just getting the basic 188 euro a week.

who_me

I don't get it - how is someone buying drink instead of food with their social welfare money taking advantage of the system?

If they have a legitimate right to welfare, let them spend it however they choose. If they have no such right, they shouldn't be getting the money/credit in the first place.

This system would only cost money, and achieve little, IMO.

Chips Lovell

I worked in a shop for years when I was younger. We used to accept butter vouchers. Invariably, they were never spent on butter.

sligoface

oh god another one of these threads, when will they end. people in low to average wage jobs seem to think that the reason they'll never be wealthy is because they're propping up people on the dole, so they come out and say 'hey i got a cunning plan to sort out those lazy bums and then they'll start working.' well i have worked since i was 16 years old and have been unemployed for nearly a year now despite having a college degree, doing fas courses and having over 12 years of experience. i rarely drink any more but you're going to tell me that i shouldn't be able buy a bottle of wine to have with my dinner if I want, or get my mother a bottle of bailey's for mother's day?

get off your high horse, just because you have a job doesn't mean you get to tell an unemployed person how to spend their welfare money. there are half a million unemployed in this country, and there sure as hell isn't half a million jobs. give us a plan to sort THAT out, then i'll be impressed.

have to admit when i see someone starting these threads, i start to wish that they would lose their jobs tomorrow. then let them see how hard it is for jobseekers at the moment when they send out cv's and get no replies for weeks on end and then a PFO letter two months later. in the meantime they'll be straight onto the state benefits forum wanting to know what they're entitled to. unemployment is basically a contagious disease in the country at this point, and very few are truly immune to it, businesses full of loyal workers are closing every week.

later12

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

I worked in a shop for years when I was younger. We used to accept butter vouchers. Invariably, they were never spent on butter.

Good Heavens man.

Are you telling me that the poor don't sit around all day eating butter?

The myth isn't true?

Bannasidhe

later12 wrote: »

Good Heavens man.

Are you telling me that the poor don't sit around all day eating butter?

The myth isn't true?

They don't eat it silly, the vouchers were for the poor who were waiting to get a place on a FÁS butter sculpting course (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butter_sculpture) but they were too feckless to save the vouchers.

daenerysstormborn3

sligoface wrote: »

oh god another one of these threads, when will they end. people in low to average wage jobs seem to think that the reason they'll never be wealthy is because they're propping up people on the dole, so they come out and say 'hey i got a cunning plan to sort out those lazy bums and then they'll start working.' well i have worked since i was 16 years old and have been unemployed for nearly a year now despite having a college degree, doing fas courses and having over 12 years of experience. i rarely drink any more but you're going to tell me that i shouldn't be able buy a bottle of wine to have with my dinner if I want, or get my mother a bottle of bailey's for mother's day?

get off your high horse, just because you have a job doesn't mean you get to tell an unemployed person how to spend their welfare money. there are half a million unemployed in this country, and there sure as hell isn't half a million jobs. give us a plan to sort THAT out, then i'll be impressed.

have to admit when i see someone starting these threads, i start to wish that they would lose their jobs tomorrow. then let them see how hard it is for jobseekers at the moment when they send out cv's and get no replies for weeks on end and then a PFO letter two months later. in the meantime they'll be straight onto the state benefits forum wanting to know what they're entitled to. unemployment is basically a contagious disease in the country at this point, and very few are truly immune to it, businesses full of loyal workers are closing every week.

The people on the dole that most people have a problem with are the long-term unemployed and not looking for work. I'm sure when you were working you scowled at the thought of people drawing the dole for years on end without anyone batting an eyelid. They are the people that need to be targetted not the unfortunate people who find themselves out of work due to the recession and are trying as hard as they can to find work. Unfortunately though, it will be extremely difficult to implement a system whereby these two different groups of people can be distinguished from each other.

Something needs to change about the Social Welfare system in this country, not just people in receipt of unemployment benefits but the entire system. What they have in place has been in place for many years and is clearly flawed and something needs to change.

To an extent I do feel bitter towards the long term unemployed who are making no effort but at the same time, the system that is in place enables them.

The best way I could see such a card implemented would be to ensure that the money stays inside of the state.

Lets face it, if someone is spending their dole on Cigarettes and Alcohol it's essentially going back into state coffers anyway. Of course, that's to disregard the damage done socially...

Bannasidhe

pixiebean22 wrote: »

The people on the dole that most people have a problem with are the long-term unemployed and not looking for work. I'm sure when you were working you scowled at the thought of people drawing the dole for years on end without anyone batting an eyelid. They are the people that need to be targetted not the unfortunate people who find themselves out of work due to the recession and are trying as hard as they can to find work. Unfortunately though, it will be extremely difficult to implement a system whereby these two different groups of people can be distinguished from each other.

Something needs to change about the Social Welfare system in this country, not just people in receipt of unemployment benefits but the entire system. What they have in place has been in place for many years and is clearly flawed and something needs to change.

To an extent I do feel bitter towards the long term unemployed who are making no effort but at the same time, the system that is in place enables them.

This recession is now, what, at least 3 years old and shows no sign of abating so at what point do people begin to fall into the 'long-term' category?

The dept of Social Protection cannot deal with the claims of people who are applying for SW now how does anyone expect them to find the resources of trawl through close to half a million claims and determine who these 'long-term unemployed' are so they can be penalised while leaving all the 'other' claimants alone?

The time to deal with the so-called workshy was when we had full employment and were issuing visas to migrant workers to fill the gaps in our labour force. It's far too late now and any measure brought in would be applied across the board - hitting those who worked for decades, paid PRSI and tax just the same as those who never worked.

carpejugulum

MassDeb8r wrote: »

Ok we know the story - more than €20BN will be spent this year on social welfare.
...

Your proposal would actually increase it.

We need to:
- lower the rates across the board
- have a timeline so that the rates go down automatically after certain periods
- link people's PRSI contributions with their welfare entitlements

daenerysstormborn3

Bannasidhe wrote: »

This recession is now, what, at least 3 years old and shows no sign of abating so at what point do people begin to fall into the 'long-term' category?

The dept of Social Protection cannot deal with the claims of people who are applying for SW now how does anyone expect them to find the resources of trawl through close to half a million claims and determine who these 'long-term unemployed' are so they can be penalised while leaving all the 'other' claimants alone?

The time to deal with the so-called workshy was when we had full employment and were issuing visas to migrant workers to fill the gaps in our labour force. It's far too late now and any measure brought in would be applied across the board - hitting those who worked for decades, paid PRSI and tax just the same as those who never worked.

I agree with you. That's pretty much what I just said.

Bannasidhe

pixiebean22 wrote: »

I agree with you. That's pretty much what I just said.

I was expanding on what you said - sorry, should have made that clear.

daenerysstormborn3

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I was expanding on what you said - sorry, should have made that clear.

Ah sound :P

woodoo

srsly78 wrote: »

So easy to get around this. You buy bread+milk using card, mate buys smokes+booze using cash. Then you barter.

It would put an extra barrier to squandering the dole on drink in place. And not everyone would be willing to do barter likt that. They may be embarrassed. I support the credit card for welfare. I was on the dole years ago and it wouldn't bother me in the slightest now if i had to use one of those cards.

carpejugulum

woodoo wrote: »

It would put an extra barrier to squandering the dole on drink in place. And not everyone would be willing to do barter likt that. They may be embarrassed. I support the credit card for welfare. I was on the dole years ago and it wouldn't bother me in the slightest now if i had to use one of those cards.

Do you really think this would cure alcoholism?

woodoo

carpejugulum wrote: »

Do you really think this would cure alcoholism?

No and it don't think that is the aim. The aim is to reduce the welfare budget. If there is a constant difficulty getting alcohol and cigarettes on the dole it may act as an incentive to get off the dole as fast as they can.

Bannasidhe

woodoo wrote: »

No and it don't think that is the aim. The aim is to reduce the welfare budget. If there is a constant difficulty getting alcohol and cigarettes on the dole it may act as an incentive to get off the dole as fast as they can.

and go where?

jank

Interesting that any mentioning of welfare reform immediately draws indignation and a negative attitude. As I said, an efficient and cost effective welfare system should be in everyone's interest. Maybe we wouldn't have to cut services and raise taxes by the same degree.

Aint Eazy Being Cheezy

If a person on the dole has their access to booze/cigarettes curtailed by some new system, be it an SW credit card or whatever, and they want them badly enough they'll just turn to crime to get the money.

Give people the cash and let them spend it as they see fit. It's not a massive amount of money.

[Jackass]

This isn't really a feasible idea for a number of reasons.

There are moral and privacy issues, whereby who gets regulated? The life time dole recipient might not be able to buy alcohol and smokes (amongst the most heavily taxed goods, effectively handing the money back to the state), but then the short term redundant worker who has paid tens of thousands in tax over his / her life should be subjected to such humiliation and policing?

I strongly believe in welfare reform, but this idea, quite frankly, is idiotic.

Count Dooku

jar_of_coins wrote: »

If a person on the dole has their access to booze/cigarettes curtailed by some new system, be it an SW credit card or whatever, and they want them badly enough they'll just turn to crime to get the money.

why crime was growing when benefits were rising?

ROCKMAN

Count Dooku wrote: »

why crime was growing when benefits were rising?

maybe the rise in figures from 2003 to 2008 has nothing to do with the dole rising but more to do with the fact that there was more money and goods about during the boom years to be robbed .

mikemac1

Count Dooku wrote: »

why crime was growing when benefits were rising?

Pat Kenny show covered this

Violent crime was up during boom times, a lot of it down to drug gangs.
Less money around nowadays and while drugs will always be with us there is less money here and so less gang members and less crime

And young people with money in their phóca out drinking to excess and all that crime that can come from this.

Nowadays a lot of them are not even in the country

Burglary is up though, to be expected during a recession

To the OP-I posted a suggestion something like this a while back in the Fine Gael public submissions forum when they invited cost cutting suggestions from the public (remember that??) but never heard anything back, entirely as expected.

My idea was similar to the Australian system, but less draconian, in that it rewarded sensible purchases on basic essentials without forcing or stigmatizing welfare recipients.

The idea was this. Rather than clogging up post offices for a couple of days every week, issue a social welfare debit card that can be used to withdraw cash out of the ATMs of any of the Nationalised banks, OR purchase in-store at a bulk buying discount rate negotiated by public service procurement departments at all the most commonly used outlets. Say 5-10% off in all the most common grocery stores, clothes shops, petrol stations, etc, etc. It's not much, but when you're on welfare, every penny counts, and it would amount to a significant saving for the taxpayer, which could be better used elsewhere.

With such a system, the state makes savings in administration costs in staffing post offices which are empty half the week and busy the other half, gets better use out of the staff, infrastructure and systems in the nationalized banks we're paying for, gets proper data on how families actually spend their social welfare payment via transaction tracking on the card statements, and also sees what percentage of social welfare goes on "non-essentials" (the cash withdrawals value on each card). Furthermore, recipients have an incentive to purchase in places which gives the state better value for the money it's spending on the welfare bill.

We also have a ludicrous situation where public money (which is costing us 4-5% in interest) is being given out in cash to be spent, in part, on services like buses, rail, electricity, gas, etc, etc, from various semi state bodies which are already being subsidised by more state money, much of it at the same 4-5% EU/IMF interest rates.

This is a crazy way to operate. If any private company's cashflow were being managed this way, it's CFO would be out on his or her ear. There's a saving to be made in the same way as the debit cards procurement system i mentioned, by offering credits or vouchers for many of the essential state services and utilities which many of the unemployed use heavily each month. These vouchers for services such as gas, transport etc, could be provided far more cheaply by our public service than cash could be and could be requested in varying values by recipients, for example €30 cash, or a voucher for €40 worth of bus vouchers, or gas credits, where the net cost to the state is the same or even less. Both sides get better value and the same service is provided.

Why not use the machinery of the state to assist the unemployed where possible, rather than paying out the single most expensive commodity we could use (cash) at high interest rates, just for it to be spent back into the system. Because that's the way it's always been done?

later12

I am not quite convinced that social welfare credit cards as described above are the best way of saving money in light of the cost that may fall on users of the service, and on society, in terms of forcing society's or governments values on private citizens, and especially the poor, to the extent of dictating the contents of their shopping baskets.

Whilst I do believe that the principle of conditional cash transfer payments might have some value, especially for NEET (Not in Education, Employment or Training) youngsters leaving school, and whilst I accept that this is a form of imposing society's values on the individual, I feel that imposing society's values on how an individual legally behaves outside of his or her education, employment and training endeavours is none of the state's concern.

Unemployment welfare transfers assist individuals during a period of job-seeking or retraining; they do not constitute payment in order to control other aspects of an individual's private life.

Count Dooku wrote: »

why crime was growing when benefits were rising?

Are you attempting to make a direct relationship between increasing benefit transfers and criminal activity?

Lots of things were going up between 2003 and 2008 ; why are you arbitrarily focusing on welfare rates?

Correlation does not imply causation.

Solair

I don't really see the point.

There are always going to be some alcoholics and idiots who blow all their money on booze.

However, the vast majority of welfare recipients lost their jobs and are on welfare because they can't find another one because our illustrious leaders in the political parties and the civil service managed to drive the economy into a brick wall through poor regulation, lack of fiscal planning and lots of other things!

I am getting a bit sick of this tarring the unemployed with the same brush as waster alcoholics. It rally is a bit much.

The situation in Australia's VERY different. It has extremely low unemployment and a buoyant economy. So, it's likely those on the dole are much 'harder cases' than the situation in Ireland.

Also, Australia's very fond of nanny-state interventionism and is in many ways increasingly right-wing too.

Setting up a system like this would cost huge amounts of money, would stigmatise very genuine welfare recipients. I mean, seriously, it's bad enough having no job but it would be 100% worse if you had to take out your "I am on the Dole" card in order to buy food!

We need to fix our economic mess and re-train people who are no longer able to find jobs due to having the wrong skill sets.

I don't think FAS / Solas is acting quickly enough to move people into areas where they might have hope of actually finding work.

Cutting down on welfare fraud in Ireland would be rather simple.

1) Just issue photo ID cards for the specific purpose of collecting welfare. Universities, bus companies etc all manage to do this.
Quick check of photo ID at the post office and bob's your uncle - problem solved with low tech, cheap systems.

Rollout out of a debit card would just cost a fortune and would play right into the hands of some group of banking industry / card processing lobbyists who probably just want a % of the welfare budget!

Not only that, but you would make it very difficult for welfare recipients to pay for a whole range of things that they may need to use e.g. small rural shops that don't have credit card machines, pay for house repairs etc etc..

You would basically be saying to dole recipients who may have had their lives and livelihoods destroyed by GOVERNMENT INCOMPETENCE that they are too stupid to manage their own cash!

The net result of such a scheme would be 1% - 2% of the Welfare budget going to Visa or MasterCard !

Count Dooku

later12 wrote: »

Are you attempting to make a direct relationship between increasing benefit transfers and criminal activity?

then it should be not much relationship between decreasing benefit transfers and criminal activity

Count Dooku

Solair wrote: »

Setting up a system like this would cost huge amounts of money, would stigmatise very genuine welfare recipients.

Not much, LASER cards infrastructure already in place and will be empty when banks will finish replacement LASER cards by VISA debit

Solair wrote: »

I mean, seriously, it's bad enough having no job but it would be 100% worse if you had to take out your "I am on the Dole" card in order to buy food!

there are much worse things
at least it can allow to reduce welfare fraud, especially to abroad

Count Dooku

ROCKMAN wrote: »

maybe the rise in figures from 2003 to 2008 has nothing to do with the dole rising but more to do with the fact that there was more money and goods about during the boom years to be robbed .

now robbers will have to compete with state

later12

Count Dooku wrote: »

then it should be not much relationship between decreasing benefit transfers and criminal activity

You're not really serious...

Count Dooku

later12 wrote: »

Count Dooku wrote: »

then it should be not much relationship between decreasing benefit transfers and criminal activity

You're not really serious...

Why crime didn't increase in Germany, when they reduced welfare?

later12

Count Dooku wrote: »

Why crime didn't increase in Germany, when they reduced welfare?

Are you undertaking this line under the assumption that we are suggesting that lowering welfare rates cause crime rates to increase, is that it?

If you are suggesting what I think you are suggesting, that the graph above shows a direct causation between welfare rates and crime rates, I have to tell you I think that is beyond naive and bordering on the absurd.

later12

later12 wrote: »

I am not quite convinced that social welfare credit cards as described above are the best way of saving money in light of the cost that may fall on users of the service, and on society, in terms of forcing society's or governments values on private citizens, and especially the poor, to the extent of dictating the contents of their shopping baskets.

I would hazard a guess that any savings in the relatively low tech, high staff post office system would more than make up for any additional costs incurred in our banks, which were run (until relatively recently) as a private entity with a focus on controlling operational costs.

Regardless of all of this, i would say that using bank accounts to deposit welfare payments and verifying identity periodically via social welfare offices (thus taking the post office system out of the equation entirely) would be a more efficient way of distributing welfare benefits.

On the issue of whether we would be forcing this system on welfare recipients or not, i do agree that the situation here is not the same eithwer culturally or economically, as the one in Australia at present, but what if the recipient was given a choice between:

A-A debit card which will allow you to withdraw your €188 cash per week from an ATM in the republic of Ireland only, no questions asked, for you to spend as you please, OR:

B- A debit card, cash, and vouchers package, in amounts decided by you, which will allow you to access significantly more than the €188 cash value of the dole payment per week in discounted in-store groceries, state services, utilities, etc, but will still also allow you to withdraw a certain value of hard cash from an ATM if you need to for discretionary reasons.

Most genuine social welfare recipients and their families that i know of are just looking for a way to stretch their social welfare payment as far as they can and feed their families and keep a roof over their heads. I can't think of anyone in that category who would have (or could afford) any moral objections to option B. In fact i would expect it would be significantly more popular than option A, which the handful of drinking, smoking, dole wasting shams that give everyone else a bad name could easily opt for. This would be keeping everyone happy, helping families on the dole, making savings for the state in many areas, and generating useful data for the dept of Social Protection.

later12

I can't remember how much the post office processing of post office payments to claimants costs ; I seem to recall that it is substantial. However, less than 50% of payments go through the post office, most payments already go through via EFT to financial institutions.

One would have to devise a system whereby the difference in the costs between An Post's handling of these payments and the cost of administering the system with private retailers or a private financial services corporation facilitating payments with the merchant would be adequate to make the exercise worthwhile. I'm not sure if that's the case. Especially since it brings up the question of social welfare fraud and the increased vigilence and monitoring that would be required by a Department with an already heavy workload, by the sound of it.

We have to bring economics into the question as well I'm afraid; any level of "bulk buying" produce by government is liable to cause unattractive problems for competition in the private marketplace and for consumer prices. The conventional wisdom would suggest that poor people tend to spend their household income very carefully in terms of getting value for money. I'm not particularly comfortable with the idea of that idea of social welfare purchases being taken away from the claimants as a function of many individual utilities into a decision making process of the state, whose preferences might not always be in the best interests of the people, their preferences, and the wider consumer economy.

later12

later12 wrote: »

I'm not particularly comfortable with the idea of that idea of social welfare purchases being taken away from the claimants as a function of many individual utilities into a decision making process of the state, whose preferences might not always be in the best interests of the people, their preferences, and the wider consumer economy.

So is there no better way than the current system of distributing the single most expensive resource we could use for the purpose (ie: Cash) and not even attempting to eek out some efficiencies in the process?

later12

I don't see why EIT should be considered particularly expensive except for the fact that An Post seem to charge quite a lot for its processing. I just think the difficulties that even a voluntary an in-kind benefits & EFT transfer system would cause in terms of (a) monitoring social welfare fraud and (b) adversely affecting competition in the retail sector could make the benefits of changing the system dubious at best.

I don't think the current cash transfer system is our biggest problem, or even one of our big problems.

Apparently the DSP are issuing a report on improving efficiency in their payments & e-payments later this year; that might be interesting.

Count Dooku

later12 wrote: »

The conventional wisdom would suggest that poor people tend to spend their household income very carefully in terms of getting value for money.

Do you mean shopping on "black market"?

later12

No I'm talking about day to day expenses like groceries.

what are you talking about?

Count Dooku

later12 wrote: »

No I'm talking about day to day expenses like groceries.

what are you talking about?

smuggled cigarettes, "cleaned" diesel etc

later12

I have no idea how many welfare recipients smoke or drive ; let alone how many of them buy illegal cigarettes or fuel.

I have little doubt but that you don't know either. That's a fair statement, isn't it?

old boy

a couple of things spring to my mind, the first is welfare tourism is very high, it proves that the department inspectors are a waste of a resource, having people signing on once a month is for some a license to steal, the second looking for work, where does one look, when some one signs on they need to be acessed properly see what work they are capable of, then each week then they sign on they recieve a print out of whatwork or course is advailable within a set no distance of the claiments accomadation, then when the claiment applies this is entered on the list, after a set no of non applications a deduction in payment is made, it is then possible to check on who is making an effort.

cristoir

These threads make me laugh. If you have been paying PRSI for years and are made unemployed you are entitled to spend the 197 Euro on booze, hookers and coke if you feel like it. It is your money!