What do we think about this proposal from National?
National is investigating smart cards to stop beneficiaries spending welfare payments on booze, drugs or gambling.
The proposal involves paying about one-third of benefits for seriously at-risk families directly to supermarkets.
The money could be accessed only with smart cards similar to existing loyalty cards, which would block the purchase of selected items, National welfare spokeswoman Judith Collins said. "It wouldn't have to be everybody who's a beneficiary, but for those who are clearly not looking after their kids in terms of being able to get them fed before they go to school, we should be looking at it."
Ummm. How would I rip this off? I know. I'll swap my food purchases with a mate for booze and ciggies.
She buys $30 worth of booze and ciggies. I buy $40 worth of food. We swap. She's got more food and I've still got my "luxuries". The kids are still going hungry but I don't care.
And I'm still getting two-thirds of the cash I was so I can still play the pokies. In fact I'll need to spend more on the pokies trying to recoup what WINZ aren't giving me.
No worries.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Tsk Lindsay...that sort of thing just doesn't happen and is a fiction in your nasty right wing mind....or at least thats what this Anonymous jerk would have you belive on this thread...;-)
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=21121041&postID=115165920475567057&isPopup=true
The main issue I see with the "food stamp" plans (hightech or otherwise) is they tend to need a "high trust" intermediary like supermarkets to even have a first step in succeeding.
Problem is that means that you are telling all those beneficiaries they have to use the (hopefully) local supermarket - instead of the local fruit shop which actually tends to be where they *should* be going.
So I would tend to disagree with this proposal on exactly the same grounds as the "free" student loans - it incentivises the wrong behaviours.
You have found the flaw in this otherwise good plan.
The food will be traded.
But the exchange rate will be a bit steeper than 25%
More like 100%
Not to say it isn't worth trying.
The current system sure isn't working.
Excellent; a gravity free speculation-a-thon. What's your proposal Lindsay? Hand out food and then monitor to confirm that it's eaten in the correct order?
Ever the realist Oswald. Even 100 percent will wash though. Collins is proposing this for 'high risk' households where children are neglected. Back up Judith. Why are we paying these people to have those kids? This kind of stuff might be an improvement but it's still skirting around the real issue. And we will have to keep increasing the group of targets. Treating the symptoms instead of the cause.
Lindsay, you said the real issue is "paying these people" to have kids is the real issue; again, what are you proposing?
backin15
http://lindsaymitchell.blogspot.com
/2006/06/way-forward.html
Lindsay, I disagree with your proposal not least of all for reasons similar to those Belt notes. But also because I believe there is a legitimate role for governments to support families (I'm assuming you don't share this view however), including families that have parents who have separated. I fear your proposal would simply result in a greater numbers of impoverished families.
Backin15
Your entitled to protect the status quo.
I want to do things differently.
Your entitled to want to do things differently too Lindsay, but you're quite wrong to mischaracterise my views as reactionary.
What's problematic is that it's not clear what you want to do beyond casting adrift people adrift in some sort of spartan experiment. That's not an alternative policy, that's just sloganeering.
Post a Comment