Vouchers idea
Many practical difficulties
In the BBC debate Should benefits be linked to community service?, some people say that they would like benefits to be paid by vouchers rather than by cash as it is just now. Anybody who seriously considers this idea will realise that there would be many practical difficulties. I can certainly see a case for the government paying water, telephone, gas and electricity bills and reducing the monetary benefits accordingly. Bus passes and train passes could be easily organized, with further reductions in monetary benefits. Beyond that, things would get very complicated.
Shared accommodation
One set of problems arises where people on benefits live with people who have jobs, so would such people be allowed vouchers for gas, electricity and water? Maybe not, but telephones, while not essential, are useful in job-hunting. Even if those with jobs are expected to foot the basic costs, they shouldn't be expected to foot the costs of the unemployed person's calls relating to their job-hunting. Identifying these calls would be easy enough, but setting up a system to reclaim the cost of the calls would be more complex than that. Much more complex.
Environmental implications
Another problem, at least where gas and electricity are concerned, is that in these days of environmental awareness such a scheme may remove any incentive to save energy. As things stand, I don't bother switching on the heating in the winter except briefly when we get exceptionally cold weather (and I do mean exceptionally cold - I didn't even do so during the early months of 2009). I've learned that it really is cheaper to put on extra layers of clothes and this allows me to spend money in other ways. If all my heating is paid by vouchers, I'll use it and forget about those extra clothes. If it makes global warming worse, so be it.
Television
The TV licence fee could also be paid via a voucher although, as I explain in my TV licence fee page, I've decided to do without a TV because I think the TV licence fee is unfair. If the TV licence fee were to be paid as part of my benefits, I'd buy a TV once I'd saved up the money, remembering that a cheap one costs less than a single year's TV licence fee. Of course, there are those who would say that TV should be classed as a luxury item, but I rather doubt that it would be. Nevertheless, I can imagine that a decision on how to classify TV, whichever way the decision would go, is likely to be extremely controversial and it's probably a good reason for the government not to go for vouchers.
With TV not classified as a luxury item, perhaps benefit claimants would be given a voucher for a new TV every few years, the interval to be the subject of another debate.
Food
I expect food vouchers, if they were valid to spend in shops, would be even more problematic. I know that coupons were brought in after the second world war, but things were very different then. Everybody had to use the coupons and supermarkets were in their infancy, insofar as they existed. Most people still bought their food over the counter in a small shop of the type depicted in Open all hours. I am also aware of the healthy start scheme for young Children although I haven't studied the details.
However, both of those schemes related to specific ranges of products. I'm sure that more general food vouchers for unemployed people could be implemented (and I've read claims that it happens in other countries), but it would be a costly exercise. I'd like to know how such schemes actually work. I buy ready meals that require no knowledge of how to cook. Under a voucher scheme, would I be forbidden from buying such foods and be forced to learn how to cook? If so, would I get government assistance in that learning? Or would I be allowed to buy whatever food I like? Or would I be able to use the vouchers to buy whatever products I could afford in the local supermarket?
As the major supermarkets sell a lot more than just food these days, the last option would seem to defeat the idea of controlling what people buy with vouchers, but the other options would create problems for the supermarkets. Can you imagine the trouble at checkouts caused by somebody trying to buy something they're not supposed to, getting into a big argument and holding up the queue? The supermarkets are fully aware of the potential problems and would strongly oppose such a scheme. They have no wish to be the government's rationing police.
We know that a lot of people hate unemployed people already. Seeing me or anybody else paying with a coupon, they are immediately able to identify who is claiming benefits. They could do this by standing outside job centes, but they'd have to waste their own time. As they are in supermarkets anyway, they can do this task without wasting their time. Who knows what punishment they may decide to mete out when they get outside the door - or even within the supermarket?
There is another way of distributing food aid that avoids the use of supermarkets or other conventional shops (though they might choose to support the scheme behind the scenes) involving the use of charities. The government is considering such a scheme already, to be used initially to help those who are waiting for claims to be either processed or re-assessed. I know that the government faces potential strike action over public sector job cuts, and if that happens there could be many delays in processing claims, so this may be part of their preparation to fight the strikes. Nevertheless, I fear that this may be the thin end of the wedge, and that it could be followed be other measures to convert benefits into vouchers.
Clothes, furniture, etc.
Even unemployed people need to buy clothes, furniture, stationery and various other things sometimes. How could a voucher scheme be designed to cater for all these? The only way I can think of is to set up "benefit claimant shops". These would only sell things that are deemed allowable with vouchers. It would be extremely expensive to set up such a system, but it could be done.
Punishment
Of course, those people suggesting vouchers really want to somehow ensure that unemployed people only have access to those things that they deem necessary to survival by denying them monetary payment of any kind. What they forget is that these people need to do more than just survive to have a chance of impressing potential employers. That sometimes means spending money on things that aren't necessary for simple survival but which may be helpful (even if indirectly) in finding work. For example, I sometimes spend money on computer equipment and software. Other people may spend their money in other ways that suit their requirements.
Apply for grants
The idea that I or anybody else should have to apply for permission to spend money on computers or whatever is untenable. My Social fund experience was bad enough, while the hostility of jobcentres provides further evidence of what grant applications would be like. As soon as we apply for something, we are assumed to be scrounging. If I had to ask permission for such things, I'd do without instead unless I felt I had no real option. Theoretically, that would cut down on public spending, but it would depend on the long-term consequences.
Computers
With the increasing importance of computers in modern society, it is possible that a voucher scheme could cover computers but even if it did, it would only cover the basics. Maybe my broadband connection would be allowed as part of my telephone bill, if that were paid by voucher. The libraries already have some computer facilities that are free to local residents (whether employed or not). While I welcome these and use them, they aren't a substitute for having a computer at home. Even if I give up my telephone (an idea that I've considered but rejected for the time being at least), I'd still be able to copy stuff between my computer and public computers, enabling me to do a lot of stuff offline at home. I'm sure there would be arguments about what other things vouchers should be issued for too.
Just another currency
In any case, the idea that paying benefits as vouchers would stop people drinking and smoking (if that's their choice) is nonsense. Vouchers would become just another form of currency. I can imagine that if unemployed people don't feel that they need to spend as much on essentials as the vouchers entitle them to, they may come to an arrangement where they pay part of somebody else's food bill out of their vouchers in return for something that they can't buy otherwise. It wouldn't be as blatant as that, but you can see how a voucher system, like any other system, can be circumvented. In my case, I've never smoked and I don't bother with alcohol while I'm unemployed. That's my choice, but other people make other choices. It isn't easy living off state benefits and it's not meant to be, but it would be interesting to see how some supporters of the new proposals that the government outlined in July 2008 would cope with the current system, let alone how they would cope with the harsher regime that they want. The fall-out from the 2008 banking crisis could be interesting.
I don't like the idea
Vouchers don't appeal to me but they aren't the worst of the various ideas suggested. Nevertheless, it's clear that if the intention is to completely replace monetary benefits, they present a whole new set of problems to any government thinking of introducing them. They'll also present unemployed people with a new set of challenges if they are ever introduced.
It seems unlikely
Personally, I rather doubt that it will happen. The government is in the process of replacing housing benefit for those living in private property with local housing allowance so that people are paid a fixed rent allowance according to the area in which they live. This move is in the opposite direction from a voucher scheme.
No comments:
Post a Comment