@bankhaunter wrote:
Food stamps are both demeaning and stigmatising.
They do indeed take away a lot of choice, give poor value as they can be used only in certain shops preventing people from buying in markets etc where they might get some food cheaper and no change can be given so the entire amount of any stamp has to be spent in the one place.
Where people are in receipt of benefits, it should be up to them to choose what they spend it on, it is not up to others to dictate that, whether or not they decide to put being warm above that of what they eat that day for example.
Needn't be one or the other of those choices either - provide an energy stamp as well.
Housing benefit used to be paid direct to landlords, was that demeaning and/or stigmatising or did it ensure that rent arrears were kept to the minimum so that benefit recipients weren't made homeless?
The statement was made by Joe, "The UK is one of the worlds richest countries,and personally i think it is a disgrace that people have to rely on foodbanks just to eat" - food stamps would make sure that wasn't the case.
If you don't like the idea of the basic needs for survival. heating, clothing, housing, food being provided by the state to those in need then you can't complain if the recipients of benefits don't choose to spend those benefits on providing for the basics before spending it in other ways.
I'm NOT suggesting the state should ONLY provide those basic items but they should come first then any additional benefits the country can afford can be paid in cash.
