Some high profile ppl, outraged by the dismal food parcels on show have demanded vouchers be used instead ‘which can exclude booze and fags’. Vouchers are better than the boxes. But you know what is even better than vouchers? M.O.N.E.Y.

Vouchers cost money to administrate and process. And can be restricted to big supermarkets. Money can be used buy cheaper (and often better) produce in a market. By using vouchers we are spending money to reduce the value of money.

The idea that vouchers are necessary to guide spending is baseless. People on lower incomes are used to budgeting – to the penny – day by day. Why do we think they cannot cope with extra funding for kids’ lunches?

Why not disburse the whole benefits system through vouchers? (Because it would be cumbersome & strip recipients of dignity & autonomy). Shaving off a chunk and voucherising it makes no sense.

I can’t believe I have to say this, but: people on a low income do not love their children less. They are not going to prioritise non-essential items for themselves over their kids’ food, any more than anyone else would.

Rather, the adults in low income families are used to going without *essential* items for themselves in order to feed their kids: https://cpag.org.uk/sites/default/files/files/policypost/Poverty-in-the-pandemic_update.pdf

And finally, the big one – the (usually unspoken) myth: people are not in poverty because of fecklessness that must be controlled through vouchers. Many things, esp, austerity, pandemic etc contribute. Poverty is a structural ill, IT IS NOT A PERSONALITY PROBLEM.

This thread should include a shout out to @stephenkb, one of the few voices advocating cash transfers instead of vouchers.