| exnihilo
|
| 923305. Wed Jul 11, 2012 6:09 am |
 |
|
| CB27 wrote: | | The proposal I've given only allows for goods under the "value range", which includes all the cheapest versions of the basics, so other goods are not covered. |
Why not just go the whole hog and introduce rationing as your scheme basically says "you can't decide what food you eat, we will do that for you".
As I said above, there may be problems with the current scheme but nothing compare to the problems that this would create and cash is always going to be simpler than any alternative. |
|
|
|
 |
| PDR
|
| 923315. Wed Jul 11, 2012 6:30 am |
|
|
| 'yorz wrote: | | Is massunderestimating the same as misunderestimating? |
No - one is a matter of the wrong dress size while the other the risks of leaving a teanage daughter alone in the house.
PDR |
|
|
|
|
| Neotenic
|
| 923337. Wed Jul 11, 2012 7:54 am |
|
|
| Quote: | | It's not the core data that's the same; each one of these transactions has a specific interface with a specification and a protocol to implement it. The core data structures are as different as a different thing that was in a particularly contrarian mood. |
Indeed.
I have more experience with the practicalities of what would be this type of scheme in reverse - financial companies are required to send astonishing levels of data to us. One of our data collecting systems receives in the region of ten million pieces of information per day.
In abstract, all these firms are doing broadly the same thing, and have to report data in fairly obvious, standardised fields. The really high-frequency system is used for monitoring market transactions. So, in theory, this should be relatively straightforward.
But in practice, it is an enormously complex undertaking. The systems these firms work on have all been implemented and updated in different ways at different times.
Even for the more straight-forward, lower-frequency reporting, we have four different main methods by which data can be submitted, with at least half a dozen variations on the two of those which are systems based (the third is simply inputting the data manually via a web browser, and the fourth is paper-based.) to accommodate the variations in how the various systems operate.
And the vast spread of technical resource and capability we see between Big Bad Bank plc and Herbert & Herbert Insurance Brokers Ltd will be every bit as pronounced as those between Tesco and the little corner shop, operated as a Spar or Costcutter franchise.
But, aside from the technical issues - I can't help but think that if the types and quality of products that can be purchased with such a card are limited to a fraction of those that are available in any given store, that means that the most active battleground on a daily basis will be between the benefit claimant and the poor soul sat at the cash register.
I think that having to tell someone that what they've chosen to have for tea is ineligible, and that they have to go and pick something else would be a thoroughly dreadful affair. |
|
|
|
|
| CB27
|
| 923352. Wed Jul 11, 2012 8:53 am |
|
|
| PDR wrote: | | It's not the core data that's the same |
That's a manipulation of what I said.
| CB27 wrote: | | They might be completely different, but at their core they have data which is identifiable to all banks and financial institutions |
| Neotenic wrote: | | I have more experience with the practicalities of what would be this type of scheme in reverse - financial companies are required to send astonishing levels of data to us. |
I could mention that I spent years working on ensuring daily information is updated to housing databases in different organisations I've worked in which collected thousands of records each day, some of which were payments, some of which were benefit records, others were works orders for maintenance/caretaking/grounds maintenance/etc, records came from various different sources in different formats, including numeric and alphabetic information that needed to to be dataloaded to the correct fields. If you counted the number of fields and the number of records dataloaded on a daily basis, I wouldn't be surprised if they were sometimes in the millions on some days. I'm not exactly coming from a position where I don't know what's involved, I just didn't think I needed to mention it to back up my arguments :)
| Neotenic wrote: | | But in practice, it is an enormously complex undertaking. The systems these firms work on have all been implemented and updated in different ways at different times. |
Yes, which is why such a project needs to be mapped out properly and tested exhustively, which is what I expect any professinal to do (and why I wouldn't trust Capita...)
| Neotenic wrote: | | Even for the more straight-forward, lower-frequency reporting, we have four different main methods by which data can be submitted, with at least half a dozen variations on the two of those which are systems based (the third is simply inputting the data manually via a web browser, and the fourth is paper-based.) to accommodate the variations in how the various systems operate. |
Sounds to me like the office you worked in lacked in a technical report writer, or at least someone who had access to sql reporting to write ad hoc reports. If someone came up to me with a request for a particular ad hoc report, depending on how many queries, prompts, universes, etc, were involved it could take anything from 2 minutes to a day, anything longer would have meant a serious IT projects. Once you understand the basics of report writing, using the likes of TOAD and Business Objects is not that difficult.
However, all of this takes away from the reality of what work this entails. The information that the Government would release would be a list of items with a tree of perhaps 3-4 nodes at most (i.e. Bread/White/Sliced/800g, or Milk/Fresh/Skimmed/2pint), which will include the price to charge to the card. Considering the information that supermarkets keep, I would guess they actually have trees of many more nodes because they need to keep information on brand, supplier, promotions, store, etc. The information exchanged between Government and supermarkets is not that much. The payment information is a separate database and dealt with separately. For shops it will be the "Value Range" brand which they already have which qualifies for the scheme.
| Neotenic wrote: | | I think that having to tell someone that what they've chosen to have for tea is ineligible, and that they have to go and pick something else would be a thoroughly dreadful affair. |
I'm having to repeat things over and over again. From the outset it will be made clear that only the "value range" will qualify. In smaller chains and franchises this might be more difficult, but it'll be a case of helping them identify the products more clearly. Mistakes will be made, but not in the big numbers. We already see people able to deal with buying promotion products, or buying products that qualify for certain rewards, and the mistakes are quite minimal.
| exnihilo wrote: | Why not just go the whole hog and introduce rationing as your scheme basically says "you can't decide what food you eat, we will do that for you".
As I said above, there may be problems with the current scheme but nothing compare to the problems that this would create and cash is always going to be simpler than any alternative. |
Two points here.
The first is that I absolutely agree this is a type of rationing. If people are relying on benefits anyway then the chances are they are looking for the cheapest possible prices they can get. If they live in areas where there are no big supermarkets and prices are therefore higher, this scheme could actually help them. It will also ensure that people can spend the money on food and necessities and not on alcohol, cigarettes, etc. They will still have some benefit as a payment, which will be a small amount, and they can spend it as they like, but I think the majority of welfare should go on necessities and not luxuries.
I also want it to be rationing because I think there are some people collecting benefits who are not spending the money they receive on necessities either because they don't need to. There are some people who qualify for benefits but don't need them, and I think rather than take that benefit away, it's easier to let them chose if they want to use it or not. If you take away cash and replace it with the choice of using a payment card or paying for other goods, I think this could reduce the welfare bill a bit.
The second bit about cash being simpler than any other alternative, I completely disagree. I mentioned in another thread I think cheques have had their day and should be out soon, and I think contact payments and mobile technology could threaten cash itself sometime in my lifetime. As it is, we can see how cash has been replaced by how most of us are paid our wages, how we pay most of our bills. Petty cash is fast disappearing from most offices, to be replaced by payment cards and expense claims. Cash is slower to process and slower to account for, and it reduces any control you have over your transactions. |
|
|
|
|
| Neotenic
|
| 923365. Wed Jul 11, 2012 9:37 am |
|
|
| Quote: | | If you counted the number of fields and the number of records dataloaded on a daily basis, I wouldn't be surprised if they were sometimes in the millions on some days |
Just to clarify, the ten million number I was talking about is transactions - we collect about 20 fields of data against each transaction.
And, indeed, that is just one of many systems.
| Quote: | | Sounds to me like the office you worked in lacked in a technical report writer, or at least someone who had access to sql reporting to write ad hoc reports. |
Thanks for that - I suppose if you are going to misunderstand my point, you may as well do so in a patronising fashion. ;)
As it happens, I know my office's technical report writer fairly well - it is me. We don't use either of the packages you mention, but we do use a comparable one.
But my actual point was that the problems we face are a mirrored position to the problems with your scheme. Our issues are in sucking (or having sucked for us) data in a standardised format out of the many and various disparate systems utilised by the firms under our purview. I do believe that they would be broadly similar to the problem of pushing central information in a standard format out to the disparate systems of food retailers.
| Quote: | | From the outset it will be made clear that only the "value range" will qualify. |
That's all well and good in theory, but we all know that human behaviour doesn't work like that.
Speed limits, smoking restricitions, fluid bans on aircraft - all of them are widely publicised and widely known. But does that mean nobody speeds, has a crafty fag in the middle of a crowded venue or has a go at getting their sun block or toothpaste through security in their hand luggage?
I think not.
And, even then, the people that have to deal with those transgressions are police, bouncers or border security. All of whom have rather more authority with which to placate an angry and/or embarrassed transgressor than the average check-out operator.
Of course, it would be thoroughly delightful if people actually abided by the restrictions, and only placed eligible items in their shopping trollies, but I think it would be rash to assume that people will offer 100% compliance, so we do need to think about the ramifications of non-compliance.
Indeed, people bungling a multi-buy promotion may mean that their total bill is, a pound or two higher than it would otherwise have been, but attempting to buy ineligible items with the card would result in flat refusal, potentially after queuing for some time on a busy Saturday afternoon and in front of a whole row of strangers trying desperately hard not to appear judgemental.
That, to me, is a recipie for all manner of unpleasant confrontations.
Oh, one other thought that has just occured to me - what about the potential for an effective black market? Someone goes into a shop and buys, say, £40 worth of 'essentials', which they then promptly sell on to someone else for £35 cash, which they can then spend on white cider or crack cocaine. |
|
|
|
|
| PDR
|
| 923376. Wed Jul 11, 2012 10:20 am |
|
|
| Neotenic wrote: |
Oh, one other thought that has just occured to me - what about the potential for an effective black market? Someone goes into a shop and buys, say, £40 worth of 'essentials', which they then promptly sell on to someone else for £35 cash, which they can then spend on white cider or crack cocaine. |
Which is what happens widely with "Food Stamps" in the colonies.
PDR |
|
|
|
|
| cornixt
|
| 923386. Wed Jul 11, 2012 10:50 am |
|
|
I don't know people seem to think we will go from a system where we give people cash to one where we designate exactly what they buy to eat.
Give them cards that can be only used to buy food. They will find the cheapest place/way to buy what they want. You don't have to designate bread or milk prices, someone with only 5 quid to spend is not going to buy posh bread at the most expensive shop in town. They might buy Jaffacakes as a treat but it will not be the bulk of their shopping. Seriously, have any of you ever lived on a tiny budget? You think about shopping in a completely different way. |
|
|
|
|
| Efros
|
| 923387. Wed Jul 11, 2012 10:56 am |
|
|
| Been there, I've bought the 3p a can beans from Shoprite (now bust I think). Pot of home made soup would cost about 2 quid and along with a loaf of bread would feed me healthily for 3 days. The major cost item on the weekly budget was cheese. |
|
|
|
|
| CB27
|
| 923389. Wed Jul 11, 2012 11:00 am |
|
|
I like this view that people on benefit and wwilling to spend money on other stuff are the type to go for white cider or cocaine, a bit of a stereotype there :)
I've said it at least a couple of times before, some of these questions have been covered. Cornixt mentioned the abuse of EBT cards a couple of days ago and the move to introduce IDs to the card, I then linked to a Wiki page to explainm more. I thought it was kind of obvious this would be needed to make the system work.
I'm finding the questions being asked are there to just find holes which can easily be fixed, and not a real discussion on the merits of such a scheme, and no one's even come up with any alternatives.
Back to neo's answer, I've said it lots of times before, the individual transactions do not have to be handled by the Government, they are already being processed by the shops themselves. What does need to be processed is a list of the 40-50 essential items and their prices that each chain has in their range. If we're talking about 20,000 chains as a fairly liberal figure, and 50 items each, you're talking about 1 million records a day, representing the whole country, I don't see that as a huge number. For each chain you're talking about updating 50 records per day - I think they can cope with that :) |
|
|
|
|
| Neotenic
|
| 923391. Wed Jul 11, 2012 11:15 am |
|
|
| Quote: | I like this view that people on benefit and wwilling to spend money on other stuff are the type to go for white cider or cocaine, a bit of a stereotype there :)
|
I would have thought that it was fairly self-evident that in order to commit benefit fraud, you have to be claiming benefits.
Of course that is not to say that all people who claim benefits want cheap booze and crack. And, indeed not all boozehounds and crackheads claim benefits. But the number that fall into both camps is certainly greater than zero.
| Quote: | I'm finding the questions being asked are there to just find holes which can easily be fixed, and not a real discussion on the merits of such a scheme, and no one's even come up with any alternatives.
|
The alternative is the status quo which - though not perfect - has flexibility and simplicity on its side.
I do not think the case has been made convincingly enough that a convoluted, centrally-managed scheme of permitted and (by definition) verboten commodities for those on benefits is a preferable one. |
|
|
|
|
| exnihilo
|
| 923398. Wed Jul 11, 2012 12:38 pm |
|
|
| I'm slightly miffed by the assertion that all of the posts countering this idea are just nit-picking rather than a genuine opposition to what I, for one, see as a costly, cumbersome, divisive, patronising and unnecessary change. |
|
|
|
|
| PDR
|
| 923409. Wed Jul 11, 2012 2:49 pm |
|
|
I think what CB is saying is that his proposal's fundamental flaws are hidden by its plethora of superficial shortcomings.
PDR |
|
|
|
|
| CB27
|
| 923414. Wed Jul 11, 2012 3:29 pm |
|
|
exnihilo, don't be miffed, I didn't say all posts countering my arguments. What I found interesting is that there are a couple of replies regarding the merits of the proposal, including the one that mentioned rationing, which I then answered, but what I found myself answer more in the last couple of pages is the technical questions over databases and product pricing, which ironically is already proven workable by schemes like the EBT card in the US, reward cards, etc. Don't mind PDR, he's just jealous he couldn't come up with a sensible question :p
Neo, I'm surprised you say the status quo has flexibility and simplicity on its side. There's nothing simple about the current welfare system, and that's something the Conservatives have been pointing out for years, though they never suggested an alternative. As for being inflexible, I personally think bringing in a universal cap on benefits regardless of where you live or your personal situation is completely inflexible, but that's what's on offer, I'm looking at an alternative way of reducing welfare costs while at the same time not punishing those who need their benefit the most.
As for the Godwinesque idea of "verboten commodities", I'm pretty sure I've mentioned now more than once that this proposal will use some of the benefit to be paid via this payment card, and with some actual money still being paid to claimants. This will mean they will still be able to spend some of their benefit on items which are not essential should hey want to, but not to the same amount as before. |
|
|
|
|
| Neotenic
|
| 923459. Wed Jul 11, 2012 8:05 pm |
|
|
| Quote: | | Neo, I'm surprised you say the status quo has flexibility and simplicity on its side. There's nothing simple about the current welfare system, and that's something the Conservatives have been pointing out for years, though they never suggested an alternative. |
It wasn't a comment on the complexity of the welfare system, just the delivery method.
And, as the myriad of different benefits also shows, the more complex the system, the easier it is for people with the time and inclination to figure out a way to play it to their advantage.
Personally, I think there would be similar savings to be made from doing away with the tax credit system and simply raising the minimum threshold for income tax instead. It has never really made sense to me that taxes are, in essence, collected by one hand only to be paid back to people by the other.
| Quote: | | that's something the Conservatives have been pointing out for years, though they never suggested an alternative. |
....it is about this stage in the conversation, were it inverted, that you'd make some condescending comment about needlessly introducing party politics. This is especially true as I have been pretty much exclusively and deliberately focussing on the practical challenges of implementing your proposed scheme.
Whether you stop doing it yourself, or stop chiding others for doing it, I shall leave to your discretion.
| Quote: | | the Godwinesque idea of "verboten commodities" |
I didn't realise that simply using German vocab was Godwinesque.
I dunno - I guess that the problem for me here is that being on benefits is, for many, humiliating enough - and I just think that this would make the process even more demeaning. If people have already spent the 'discretionary' part of their benefit, then suddenly at least 80% of a good-size supermarket becomes out of bounds. And I don't think that would be particularly conducive to a positive outlook.
Sure, it might just be horrific enough that it is enough to push people to take any job that comes their way, rather than hanging about on benefit waiting for a better one to materialise, and that may not be a completely bad thing - but I thought that 'nasty' tactics were the domain of the Tories?
;-) |
|
|
|
|
| CB27
|
| 923486. Thu Jul 12, 2012 3:07 am |
|
|
| Neotenic wrote: | | Quote: | | that's something the Conservatives have been pointing out for years, though they never suggested an alternative. |
....it is about this stage in the conversation, were it inverted, that you'd make some condescending comment about needlessly introducing party politics. |
The irony being was that I thought I was pointing out a positive aspect that they pointed it out, and simply added the disappointment that they never offered an alternative, I didn't realise it was coming across as a go at the Conservatives.
| Neotenic wrote: | I dunno - I guess that the problem for me here is that being on benefits is, for many, humiliating enough - and I just think that this would make the process even more demeaning. If people have already spent the 'discretionary' part of their benefit, then suddenly at least 80% of a good-size supermarket becomes out of bounds. And I don't think that would be particularly conducive to a positive outlook.
Sure, it might just be horrific enough that it is enough to push people to take any job that comes their way, rather than hanging about on benefit waiting for a better one to materialise, and that may not be a completely bad thing - but I thought that 'nasty' tactics were the domain of the Tories? |
That's the problem, I don't think benefit needs to be seen as humiliating. Some decades ago the idea of receiving state pension was introduced as a benefit and no doubt many people saw it as humiliating, but we now see it as a right despite it being the largest part of the Welfare bill.
I'm not looking to humiliate people from taking their benefit, which is why I understood a long time ago that food vouchers themselves won't work, and I was looking towards payment cards as a way of combatting this.
My aim is not about forcing people who need support to avoid taking benefit or look for work**. My proposal was aimed at giving people the choice of whether they use their benefit for the purpose it's given or not. The stereotypical person I'm targeting is the young person still living with their parents and not paying rent or contributing to the household shopping, and using their benefits for enjoying life and therefore not wanting to work. £50-£70 a week might not sound like much, but if you have no bills or obligations it's a fair amount to play around with. Obviously I'm giving one example, but there are other people targeted bby this proposal.
I personally don't think it's a nasty tactic, I think it gives the choice back to the individual, and if anything will help some people in some areas where they have little access to cheap supermarkets (ironically this is quite common in some deprived areas), by ensuring their shopping is at the cheapest recognised rate. It will also help a lot of younger people who seem to rely on ready made meals and unhealthy food, this is something I saw very frequently when I dealt with benefit claimants who lived independently for the first time (fining that ready made meals were stretching their budgets), and I've also seen it in other young people who move away from their parents for the first time and are relying on their parents' assistance.
** I don't think forcing people into work by starving them or humiliating them is the right way, we should be encouraging people to work and contribute to society through positive means. |
|
|
|
|
