Welfare reform and the recession

seb

Having large numbers of people spend their entire lives on the dole is part of Brown's 'fairness' agenda. The number of working age people here who have nothing but permanent idleness to look forward to could, by late 2009, be nearly the same as the population of Sweden. The tragic abuse of the welfare system is something Labour wants and needs to prolong, not reform.

Forlornehope

One quick, but crude, answer to some of this is to cap benefit payments at a maximum of 60% of the median after tax income.

Ian C

If it really were "widely thought" that a downturn was a bad time to reform welfare, it shows how stupid those who "widely think" are.

I have written here on several occasions that now is the time to strike with radical reform of welfare and tax in order to give material change to the (dis)incentives that are the current system of tax, NI and 'benefits'.

It is in circumstances such as we find ourselves that the voting population are delighted to reject politicians who promise 'something for nothing' as Labour do as a matter of political philosophy since their foundation. This is why Labour get elected when the country is feeling rich and can afford a Labour 'conscience' and Conservatives when we have to sort the mess of that conscience out.

I am afraid that politics in the UK is that simple - which is why it is in disrepute. If it were a struggle of practical philosophies with a constitutional cap on what any government is allowed to spend or take from anyone in taxation the country might pay attention to really understand the different ways in which our money can be spent. And government would not waste anything like as much nor try to get so involved in our lives.

We would all manage much better, be more entrepreneurial and there would be few incentives to financial abuse of the taxpayer.

Anan

Why is no-one in the media reporting that the "get a job or do some volunteer work" policy was first proposed by Cameron early in 2008 or 2007! At the time Labour laughed at it, and now they completely copy it. If there are any Conservative supporters who are stupid enough to swallow the Labour argument of "He has no policies so don't vote for Dave" - let this be the clearest example of what would happen if Conservative policies were announced before the election! Anyway there is no reason for an opposition party to announce any policies until time for publication of an election manifesto so I really don't see what all the fuss from the media is about. (Well, I do: to help Labour copy them and then to report it as Labour's idea, and then say that the Conservatives have a very similar policy, which means there's no difference between the two parties and therefore you might as well just vote for the known devil and keep those nasty Tories out.)

Narked-off

Simple enough - benefits are a safety net, not a life style. Limit them to 1 year on benefit for every 3 years worked. That means that for an average working life of 40 years you get 10 years of benefits to support you which should be more than enough.

Those leaving school would have 1 years worth and then they need to contribute back to the system for 3 years before they get any more. They might even start paying attention in class as they would need good grades to get work.

Foreigners get nothing until they contribute 3 years worth.

Clean, simple and transparent and it solves a lot of problems.

Will J

Abuse of the welfare system? Isn't half the problem that such people are simply making legitimate use of the welfare system? Many are merely exercising the perverse rights that this naive and spendthrift government has given them.

Verity

Ian C - I concur. One answer: Food stamps. To allow the able jobless to survive until they find a job.

It worked in the US.

The notion that the employed should be treating non-producers to beers, when many would have to think twice before they stood a round in a pub, and cigarettes is lunacy. And lottery tickets?

Food stamps means you find your own money for toothpaste, soap, washing up liquid, bus fares ... These are not the responsibility of taxpayers. Life without a job shouldn't feel vaguely comfortable.

Again, they should have their franchise invalidated until they're employed. Once there is no reason (votes) for the socialists to cater to them, they will lose interest in them and the money hose will be turned off.

Verity

And while I'm on a roll, local councils should have to get their salaries endorsed by the voters annually in a referendum. I think this would put an end to town clerks being paid more than most people in the private sector. In the same referendum, the local residents would have the opportunity to mark a checklist on whether they want street football coordinators, real nappy coordinators, diversity officers, Bengali translators and so on. I believe this would concentrate minds and drastically shrink the employment rolls in most local councils in Britain. What on earth is Caerphilly Council, for example, doing with over £12m to invest in a bank in Iceland? What are they doing with "over 9,000 employees" for God's sake, "delivering a wide range of services" to only 171,000 people? That is one council employee for every 19 people.

I checked their situations vacant and came up with the following "jobs":

Domestic Abuse Coordinator. How does that work, I wonder?

Here's another one I don't understand: "Night Care Worker (Waking Nights) x 2.

Perhaps they should employ someone that can rite eNglish coorect.

Donna

Verity, whilst I agree that life without a job shouldn't be comfortable, I'm not sure paying ONLY for food and nothing else is the way forward.
Put it this way: you've been working in a car factory for the last decade, and now you've been laid off. You go down the job centre and are told that there's not an awful lot out there at the moment, but give it a few weeks and something will come up. Is food the ONLY thing you have to pay out for during those few weeks? No...

Donna

or am i rising to the bait here?

Verity

Donna - No, no! Of course not!

Surely someone who has been working in a car factory for the last decade has something put by for a rainy day? If they don't, whose fault is it?

Is it the fault of paternalism that their expectation is that in the event of something untoward and unpleasant (their place of employment tragically closing down), they are relieved of responsibility to support themselves because it wasn't their fault?

However, I would even give you that, in addition to food stamps for them and their families, there might be tokens - not money - which might be exchanged for soap, washing up liquid, laundry detergent, bog rolls and the like in some lower end supermarkets that don't sell branded products.

Tokens.

That can only be exchanged for the goods listed. Not beer, cigarettes, lottery tickets, plasma TVs, cellphones, trainers or similar lifestyle accoutrements.

These are their private responsibility; not the responsibility of a bunch of strangers known as "taxpayers" through the agency of the state.

I agree, though, that those who have been provident over the last few years, under the inept and borderline insane guardianship of the British economy are not to blame if the value of their pensions, their houses and their savings have deep-sixed.

But food stamps and tokens for three months, I could agree to.

Hysteria

I think Verity is on to something quite important here - the very fact that people know they are only going to get "tokens for the exchange of goods" means people would be much more minded to save cash for the "other stuff" whilst in paid employment. I reckon the correction in behaviour might be pretty damned quick - so on that basis I support the concept

But - the free market being what it is - a secondary market would spring up as people sold their vouchers for cash - unless we have some complicated civil service agency, added cost to administer or even an ID card system -
(argh - slaps forehead......!)

And in any case - isn't a voucher that can be exchanged for a range of items just called "money".........!

Verity

Hysteria, well, the tokens I have in mind could only be used for an extremely limited range of products and maybe even brands. As in generic laundry detergent, generic shampoo, generic deodorant, etc.

You are correct about a secondary market springing up, of course. This did happen with food stamps in the US, but I think the FBI closed most of the rings down. I'm sure it still goes on to some extent, life being what it is. But on the whole, food stamps serve their purpose in that people are kept alive, but conscious that this is all they're getting unless they get up off the couch.

In fact, I'm warming to my tokens-for-ancillary goods idea. Manufacturers could manufacture specific crap lines to sell only for government tokens. Another incentive to get off food stamps and tokens and into a job. And if people sold their tokens in order to buy a packet of fags, they would have to do without the things the tokens would have bought.

Verity

Hysteria - These tokens would only be accepted at specific stores and only for a specific line of products - mainly hygiene products, like soap, washing up liquid, laundry detergent and similar. They wouldn't be interchangeable with money.

Hysteria

hmmmm - I reckon on balance it makes sense - at the edges there would be a black market, some counterfeiting and all the rest of it - but the underlying principle seems sound and should help us as a society break out of the "something for nothing" mentality.......

erm - where do we start then !!!????

Verity

Not with David Cameron. That's for sure. David Davis could do it. Patrick Mercer could do it. John Redwood could do it. Michael Howard could have done it. But Mr Empathy? No.

Veering wildly off topic, but one of the things I cannot stand about David Cameron is the Eton clique he's surrounded himself with. As though he couldn't trust anyone else. It's really offensive. Does anyone else find it offensive? Posing as Mr Ordinary, but keeping the Old Bullingdon Boy clique firmly around him. And they're not even talented. Or interesting. I can't tell them apart.