Food vouchers for crims - where do you stand?

[BrilloPad]

Shoplifters given food vouchers as

This is disgraceful - people that steal food are spending their dole money on luxeries. Only people who are totally desperate steal food and clearly money needs to be spread more evenly.

Where do you stand?

[Freaki Li Cuatre]

I cant see that doing anything other than encouraging shoplifting. Absolutely insane.

[NotAllThere]

So the trick should be to give out luxury vouchers so the toerags can spend money on food.

[Dominic Connor]

Corollary

One idea I've been trying to write about is around what degree of control there can be and should be by the state on how people it pays, or we pay...

There now exist pre-paid credit cards and in the US these have proved mildly popular amongst employers and some state governments.

I wonder what would happen if they were crossed with supermarket loyalty cards ?

Benefits of various kinds are a serious chunk of what is spent in supermarkets, enough that the threat of losing that business would get the attention of any chain.

It is not very hard to program their systems to not accept certain cards as payment for alcohol, cigarettes, etc.
A bit of work yes, but given the billions involved worth doing.

Obviously there would need to be some cash element for bus fares, etc but it would stop people on benefits spending so much money in ways the state might not like.

Incentives could be built into the system.

The point of loyalty cards is for the shop to understand what you buy in order to get you to buy more, so I'm betting they already have most of the setup to allow them to work out how much you are spending on bad nutrition like convenience food and how much on fruit and veg.

Thus claimants could be limited to a certain % of unhealthy foods, sweets etc and if they choose things deemed better for them, they would be rewarded.
This could have a useful degree of precision, parents could be rewarded for buying good stuff for their kids, pregnant women could get certain things at a serious discount or even subsidy. People with cancer could get foods that help maintain body weight along the same lines at a far lower cost to the taxpayer than using pharmacies.

Because the government would instantly become a bigger customer for Sainsburys or Tesco than the whole of Scotland and Wales put together, it could negotiate these discounts from a position of strength. Supermarkets do this to their suppliers, how many tears would be shed if it were done to them ?

Also this could have a sliding scale, a certain amount of fat & salt are necessary to be healthy, that can be incentivised. No reason why people who are morbidly obese cannot be put on special measures.

Nor need it be draconian, a couple of pints per week can be put in an allowance.

What about gas and electricity bills you say ?

Again this can be debited from the card being a legitimate expense and perhaps the government could negotiate here again because of buying in bulk. Take the case of pensioners, knock 10% of their bills and remove some of the fear and stress they endure from energy firms and you've done a seriously good thing at no cost to the taxpayer at all.


Of course there will be fiddling by claimants who really want fags, booze and pies, but when you're dealing with millions of people, you play the averages.

[BrilloPad]

I cant see that doing anything other than encouraging shoplifting. Absolutely insane.

How desperate do you have to be to steal food?

[BrilloPad]

One idea I've been trying to write about is around what degree of control there can be and should be by the state on how people it pays, or we pay...

There now exist pre-paid credit cards and in the US these have proved mildly popular amongst employers and some state governments.

I wonder what would happen if they were crossed with supermarket loyalty cards ?

Benefits of various kinds are a serious chunk of what is spent in supermarkets, enough that the threat of losing that business would get the attention of any chain.

It is not very hard to program their systems to not accept certain cards as payment for alcohol, cigarettes, etc.
A bit of work yes, but given the billions involved worth doing.

Obviously there would need to be some cash element for bus fares, etc but it would stop people on benefits spending so much money in ways the state might not like.

Incentives could be built into the system.

The point of loyalty cards is for the shop to understand what you buy in order to get you to buy more, so I'm betting they already have most of the setup to allow them to work out how much you are spending on bad nutrition like convenience food and how much on fruit and veg.

Thus claimants could be limited to a certain % of unhealthy foods, sweets etc and if they choose things deemed better for them, they would be rewarded.
This could have a useful degree of precision, parents could be rewarded for buying good stuff for their kids, pregnant women could get certain things at a serious discount or even subsidy. People with cancer could get foods that help maintain body weight along the same lines at a far lower cost to the taxpayer than using pharmacies.

Because the government would instantly become a bigger customer for Sainsburys or Tesco than the whole of Scotland and Wales put together, it could negotiate these discounts from a position of strength. Supermarkets do this to their suppliers, how many tears would be shed if it were done to them ?

Also this could have a sliding scale, a certain amount of fat & salt are necessary to be healthy, that can be incentivised. No reason why people who are morbidly obese cannot be put on special measures.

Nor need it be draconian, a couple of pints per week can be put in an allowance.

What about gas and electricity bills you say ?

Again this can be debited from the card being a legitimate expense and perhaps the government could negotiate here again because of buying in bulk. Take the case of pensioners, knock 10% of their bills and remove some of the fear and stress they endure from energy firms and you've done a seriously good thing at no cost to the taxpayer at all.


Of course there will be fiddling by claimants who really want fags, booze and pies, but when you're dealing with millions of people, you play the averages.

As soon as you start treating one part of society as less human than others than its the thin end of the wedge. It ends up like jews in Nazi Germany or Yugoslavia in early 1990s.

[EternalOptimist]

What can possibly go wrong, eh Des?

maybe you could get their bar code tatooed on the wrist, to save on plastic

[amcdonald]

As soon as you start treating one part of society as less human than others than its the thin end of the wedge. It ends up like jews in Nazi Germany or Yugoslavia in early 1990s.

At the moment it's the middle classes being penalised more than others, all this is doing is spreading the pain round a bit

[xoggoth]

The "thin end of the wedge" argument is pretty much an argument against ever doing anything sensible whatever.

What is the point in trying to distinguish between dedicated criminals and the desperate, without getting into their heads how can we really know? Are dedicated criminals any more to "blame" than anyone else? If we on here had had the upbringing that some had would we be any better?

For the sake of the rest of us, it sometimes just makes sense to draw certain lines in society. Thieving should never be rewarded.

[AtW]

Thieving should never be rewarded.

It should always be rewarded.

By jail.