The cost of the welfare state - challenges posed and solutions

[brad465]

I waited until I could find an article that wasn't from the Daily Fail before responding to this.

Tories would prevent long-term jobless spending benefits on alcohol and cigarettes

The proposals would also see benefits cut for people who are able to work but have failed to hold down a job.

www.bbc.co.uk

What a load of nonsense! It's is a gross invasion of privacy for starters; if someone is fulfilling their commitments (ie, looking for work as agreed with the DWP work coach), what business is it of the state to dictate how people spend their money?

The "Back to Work" card is unworkable anyway. What's to stop someone from going to Tesco, buying £x worth of groceries with their BtW card and then asking a friend or family member to buy a booze to the same value? Unless you want to put in place legislation that criminalises anyone who knowingly buys alcohol for an unemployed person, it's just silly.

In any case, someone buying alcohol or tobacco from a supermarket is instantly handing a large proportion of their money back to the treasury.

The tobacco lobby might have something to say about that policy idea.

 

[styles]

The tobacco lobby might have something to say about that policy idea.

The tobacco lobby can jump off a cliff

It depends whether it would include vapes or not. Smoking tobacco has been on the decline for decades, and we now have the graduated age increase for selling tobacco coming in.

But ultimately, much like milk tokens, people will find ways around this.

It'll likely hurt the treasury coffers more also, given how much tax is applied to tobacco and alcohol.

 

[martin butler]

Trouble though is any reform of the welfare state will impact politically on whoever is proposing them, because you're really dealing with a lose- lose scenario, cut the welfare to some, to give more to others, and that's another section of society with an axe to grind,

What's the two biggest outlays on the governments account? Pensions and the NHS, cut back on pensions, and you can forget about ever having power again, cut the NHS, and again, people won't stand for it, so you only do it if you're only interested in one group of people, those who can afford very good private pensions, and private healthcare, and everyone else can go to hell in a hand cart.

 

[styles]

Trouble though is any reform of the welfare state will impact politically on whoever is proposing them, because you're really dealing with a lose- lose scenario, cut the welfare to some, to give more to others, and that's another section of society with an axe to grind,

This is true of most policies though.

Take the issue of driving in London. Sadiq Khan has pushed through 20mph speed limits on pretty much all red routes, road narrowing to facilitate new cycle lanes, low traffic neighbourhoods, a massively expanded ULEZ, and ended the EV exemption from the Congestion Charge.

At every turn he's faced opposition and undoubtedly he's lost votes from some who were opposed to each of these ideas.

But he's stuck with them because by and large he's a signpost, not a weathercock. He's set a direction, campaigned relentlessly on that basis, and as a result he's been re-elected time and again.

And what's interesting is if you look at issues like low traffic neighbourhoods, while traffic evaporation typically takes 12-18 months to kick in, once they're in place, a majority of people then say they support the schemes. So it is possible to set a direction and convince people that it's the right way to go, even if, on day 1 of policy implementation, many of said people 'lose out'.

Without commenting on this specific policy of Badenoch's, it is possible to convince people of your argument and regain their support after initial opposition to your ideas.

 

[JamieL]

What a load of nonsense! It's is a gross invasion of privacy for starters; if someone is fulfilling their commitments (ie, looking for work as agreed with the DWP work coach), what business is it of the state to dictate how people spend their money?

This is the problem in a nutshell - the sheer entitlement! It is not their money - it is taxpayer funded aid taken from others to address the hardships caused by the individual's failure to find work and contribute. It is high time that came with more stringent conditions. The State imposes some requirements on all of us - but if you are funded by the State as your defacto employer and at the expense of others then it is right the State can specify how, where, when and on what you spend that aid. If you consider that a breach of privacy, don't take the aid! The Tory proposals are a step in the right direction but even then fall short of what is needed.

 

[AlterEgo]

This is the problem in a nutshell - the sheer entitlement! It is not their money - it is taxpayer funded aid taken from others to address the hardships caused by the individual's failure to find work and contribute. It is high time that came with more stringent conditions. The State imposes some requirements on all of us - but if you are funded by the State as your defacto employer and at the expense of others then it is right the State can specify how, where, when and on what you spend that aid. The Tory proposals are a step in the right direction but even then fall short of what is needed.

They're unworkable and desperate proposals which won't do anything like get people back into work. Funnily enough it'll result in a reduced tax take if it does work.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This is the problem in a nutshell - the sheer entitlement! It is not their money - it is taxpayer funded aid taken from others to address the hardships caused by the individual's failure to find work and contribute. It is high time that came with more stringent conditions. The State imposes some requirements on all of us - but if you are funded by the State as your defacto employer and at the expense of others then it is right the State can specify how, where, when and on what you spend that aid. The Tory proposals are a step in the right direction but even then fall short of what is needed.

Alternatively it might be better if the state actually employed them to do something that's useful but isn't usually done, e.g. litter picking, weeding, park keeping etc. We would all benefit then, and it'd be reasonable that they spend it how they wish as it's earned through work.

The state probably couldn't afford to pay full time minimum wage to everyone on the dole who could work but doesn't, but it could afford to scale the amount of work as a part time job to equal the minimum wage for N hours based on what is paid. And it probably should. Lots of public realm type stuff needs doing, while we pay some people who could do something (either because they can't find work or choose not to) to do nothing.

 

[AlterEgo]

This is the problem in a nutshell - the sheer entitlement! It is not their money - it is taxpayer funded aid taken from others to address the hardships caused by the individual's failure to find work and contribute. It is high time that came with more stringent conditions. The State imposes some requirements on all of us - but if you are funded by the State as your defacto employer and at the expense of others then it is right the State can specify how, where, when and on what you spend that aid. The Tory proposals are a step in the right direction but even then fall short of what is needed.

They're unworkable and desperate proposals which won't do anything like get people back into work. Funnily enough it'll result in a reduced tax take if it does work.

What the state ought to consider more is job creation schemes and hopefully one which gives the individual some purpose, which could also save on our mental health bill.

 

[Cdd89]

What the state ought to consider more is job creation schemes and hopefully one which gives the individual some purpose, which could also save on our mental health bill.

I guess a version of this was tried with WorkFare. But obviously more controversial since private companies were the beneficiaries.

 

[DarloRich]

I wonder how many politicians and ESPECIALLY Tory politicians, have actually claimed benefits.

 

[styles]

I guess a version of this was tried with WorkFare. But obviously more controversial since private companies were the beneficiaries.

WorkFare was basically a way for employers to get away with paying less than minimum wage.

 

[SuspectUsual]

This is the problem in a nutshell - the sheer entitlement! It is not their money - it is taxpayer funded aid taken from others to address the hardships caused by the individual's failure to find work and contribute. It is high time that came with more stringent conditions. The State imposes some requirements on all of us - but if you are funded by the State as your defacto employer and at the expense of others then it is right the State can specify how, where, when and on what you spend that aid. If you consider that a breach of privacy, don't take the aid! The Tory proposals are a step in the right direction but even then fall short of what is needed.

You honestly believe that the state should specify how people in receipt of benefits should spend them?

You don’t think that’s just a tiny bit over the top? Perhaps you want food stamps, or the unemployed having to wear a special badge?

And let’s be realistic - it is utterly unworkable, and any attempt to impose it would cost a fortune to administer and be doomed to failure.

I wonder how many politicians and ESPECIALLY Tory politicians, have actually claimed benefits.

Well.

All of them.

Subsidised food and drink in the workplace for a start

But more relevantly, Helen Whateley MP who is everywhere trumpeting how we need to cut benefits. Lives an hour from work yet chooses a taxpayer funded second home that costs us £39,000 a year, plus bills.

If someone said they couldn’t do a job because it was an hour’s commute she’d go absolutely crackers.

99.9% of people with that length of commute - which is hardly excessive these days - would do it at their own expense and think it was perfectly normal

Utter hypocrisy. Politicians need to get their own house in order before they start their sanctimonious lecturing

 

[martin butler]

Clearly reform of Welfare is needed What i would do is to offer incitements to people who want to work, but have not been able to find a job, accept voluntary work, or vocationary training, and the state will pay you the equivalent of the national min wage, pay for your college fees etc, whilst your studying and financial assistance whilst they get back on their feet for the first 6 months of finding a job,

That's the carrot, now comes the stick, refuse to either find work, or agree to training, and you get placed on a scheme, based on what your skill base is, that you have to attend, or you lose a percentage of your welfare , and three strikes, and your out, you lose all welfare for 6 months, unless you have very good reason, ie mental health, or disability

 

[Krokodil]

If someone said they couldn’t do a job because it was an hour’s commute she’d go absolutely crackers.

Worth noting that people on Universal Credit are expected to consider anything within 90 minutes.

 

[GusB]

This is the problem in a nutshell - the sheer entitlement! It is not their money - it is taxpayer funded aid taken from others to address the hardships caused by the individual's failure to find work and contribute. It is high time that came with more stringent conditions. The State imposes some requirements on all of us - but if you are funded by the State as your defacto employer and at the expense of others then it is right the State can specify how, where, when and on what you spend that aid. If you consider that a breach of privacy, don't take the aid! The Tory proposals are a step in the right direction but even then fall short of what is needed.

Dearie me, where to begin... For a start, you're assuming that everyone who is unemployed has never worked and never contributed. If someone has worked for 30-odd years, suddenly faces redundancy and can't find a job right away, are you going to suggest that they've never contributed? I'd say that it is their money.

The Back to Work card Is a ludicrous idea that will be easy to circumvent and, like many other government projects involving technology, it will fall on its arse on day one because someone in Whitehall didn't implement it properly. Maybe we should monitor their shopping too - "sorry, Sir George, we're not allowed to sell you another bottle of Chateau Merde de Taureau because you've exceeded your unit count for the week." How about we pay the state pension the same way? No wee sherry for you, Mrs Jones - the state is paying and we can't subsidise your tipple.

It's incredibly authoritarian and you can guarantee that it wouldn't just end with baccy, booze and betting. They'll be after the biscuits next.

Also, you really ought to do some research. Universal Credit does come with stringent conditions and if someone doesn't meet their claimant commitment then sanctions can be applied. Surely you knew that, though.

That's the carrot, now comes the stick, refuse to either find work, or agree to training, and you get placed on a scheme, based on what your skill base is, that you have to attend, or you lose a percentage of your welfare , and three strikes, and your out, you lose all welfare for 6 months, unless you have very good reason, ie mental health, or disability

See above - The Stick already exists and it does get wielded.

Isn't it amazing that all these people are calling for a more punitive system when they're utterly clueless about the punitive system that already exists?

 

[SuspectUsual]

Worth noting that people on Universal Credit are expected to consider anything within 90 minutes.

Well there’s a thing. If only an interviewer had the nous and balls to point it out to her

(I know she’s not the only one)

 

[JamieL]

Dearie me, where to begin... For a start, you're assuming that everyone who is unemployed has never worked and never contributed. If someone has worked for 30-odd years, suddenly faces redundancy and can't find a job right away, are you going to suggest that they've never contributed?

If you read the proposed policy, you will see there is a six month grace period and the example you cite would have sufficient credits for many years of full rate benefits.

The Back to Work card Is a ludicrous idea that will be easy to circumvent and, like many other government projects involving technology, it will fall on its arse on day one because someone in Whitehall didn't implement it properly. Maybe we should monitor their shopping too - "sorry, Sir George, we're not allowed to sell you another bottle of Chateau Merde de Taureau because you've exceeded your unit count for the week." How about we pay the state pension the same way? No wee sherry for you, Mrs Jones - the state is paying and we can't subsidise your tipple.

Most processes can be circumvented or avoided but that doesn't stop us implementing them. The amount of people who dodge car insurance for example is eye-watering - but we don't abandon it. In this case, I am sure with the threat of significant sanctions there will be a deterrent. Perhaps the use of the card can be limited to the main supermarkets so close tabs can be maintained on what such individuals are buying - AI could be used to do a 100% review of all purchases.

 

[Tetchytyke]

it is taxpayer funded aid taken from others to address the hardships caused by the individual's failure to find work and contribute.

...or the employer's failure to pay a wage that someone can live on. 2.2m people on Universal Credit are in work.

Benefits paid to people in employment are an employer subsidy, not an employee subsidy.

Equally, perhaps the use of the card can be limited to the main supermarkets so close tabs can be maintained on what such individuals are buying.

Deary me.

You're constantly whingeing about the administrative burden on businesses but here you are demanding that we impose further administrative burdens and overheads on retailers.

Do retailers have to opt in to accept benefit payment cards? What does the application process look like? Who administers the applications, who decides which retailers can accept the card? Who decides which items are luxuries and which items are not luxuries? Who makes sure a retailer doesn't ring a beer through as Diet Pepsi?

Are retailers expected to make sure that the person using the card is the recipient of the card? How are they expected to document that? What happens if they don't document it? Who is checking?

You really don't have the foggiest idea what real life is like, do you? If you give someone their benefits a restricted payment card and they want alcohol then they'll just sell the card, or they'll buy expensive non-perishable items and sell them. Or they'll find a retailer who will be happy to ring through an item as something else. Or they'll just steal it. How are you stopping it? Who is footing the bill for the enforcement? Will the enforcement cost more or less than the money you're trying to save?

Of course, explaining any of this to Kemi Badenoch is like trying to explain quantum physics to my pet cat.

 

[SuspectUsual]

Perhaps the use of the card can be limited to the main supermarkets so close tabs can be maintained on what such individuals are buying

So people on their uppers on a council estate on the edge of town can’t shop at the shop near them but have to schlep into town.

To be fair, it’s exactly the sort of solution the civil service would put in place because it’s devised in an office by people on salaries north of 100k without any lived experience of the “problem” they’re solving

 

[Tetchytyke]

So people on their uppers on a council estate on the edge of town can’t shop at the shop near them but have to schlep into town.

Or they'll go to their local criminal fixer who will buy their £80 payment card off them for £40 cash.

As you say, a policy devised by someone who has only the most tenuous grasp on what real life is like.

 

[JamieL]

So people on their uppers on a council estate on the edge of town can’t shop at the shop near them but have to schlep into town.

It would get them out and about so probably a good thing?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Thursday at 19:53 ==

As you say, a policy devised by someone who has only the most tenuous grasp on what real life is like.

Real life is going to work and getting paid. Not getting free handouts paid by others who are going to work.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Real life is going to work and getting paid. Not getting free handouts paid by others who are going to work.

Nice deflection, but I asked you several questions. Do you have an answer?

 

[SuspectUsual]

Or they'll go to their local criminal fixer who will buy their £80 payment card off them for £40 cash

Yeah, I was just discussing it with my partner and we both said that’d be what happened

[EDIT]

The other thing we said was it’s a slippery slope. What’s next? You can only buy from a defined range of foods that are deemed acceptable to the state (perhaps on health grounds - maybe unlikely), or you can only buy foods manufactured by a defined list of manufacturers or sold by a defined set of retailers (all of whom by complete coincidence will be major donors to the governing party)

Oh. The Tories. The party of freedom of choice. Except when they’re not

 

[Cdd89]

The way it works in the good ol' USA is various shops have signs saying "food stamps accepted" scrawled on them. They are invariably the seedier shops.

I'm not sure why this is a formula we are so keen to copy or indeed why we care if someone uses their allowance to buy alcohol (from a financial perspective, not a welfare perspective obviously).

On the other hand tapering down universal credit for long-term claimants is not the worst idea, as it's relatively easy to administer, but it needs thought to deal with the start of someone's working life (I'd argue years in education should count, like how they do for NI), and the reality is the 100% rate is already a pittance for many people in many circumstances. If it meant the full rate were increased a bit to compensate, and those on the lower rate got access to training and other schemes so they're not trapped in penury for the rest of their lives, then I think I'd be supportive.

 

[AlterEgo]

Real life is going to work and getting paid. Not getting free handouts paid by others who are going to work.

Real life is having responsibilities towards others, which would probably change your perspective. Of course that's just a BS mantra as well because real life for everyone looks different and it's very convenient to be self satisfied. That isn't defending the idea that people have to work, but your ideas about how to achieve this aren't grounded in the same reality as people who have experience of things like disability and unemployment. They're just things to tell yourself and maybe some other people on the Internet.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Real life is having responsibilities towards others, which would probably change your perspective. Of course that's just a BS mantra as well because real life for everyone looks different and it's very convenient to be self satisfied. That isn't defending the idea that people have to work, but your ideas about how to achieve this aren't grounded in the same reality as people who have experience of things like disability and unemployment. They're just things to tell yourself and maybe some other people on the Internet.

Thats all fair enough but reality is more and more people are on some sort of benefit which still isnt fully understood

 

[AlterEgo]

Thats all fair enough but reality is more and more people are on some sort of benefit which still isnt fully understood

It's understood quite well. A lot of people are on longer term sickness benefits because the UK is a place with declining living and health care standards. You can't fix that with a stick. There are a lot of people with SAD (stress anxiety or depression) who are not being given the proper motivation to get back into work, too. That's something that needs a change in thinking to sort, starting with the complicity of doctors to just sign people off basically on request.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Thats all fair enough but reality is more and more people are on some sort of benefit which still isnt fully understood

It’s understand quite well. About half of Universal Credit claimants have health problems which limit their ability to work or are caring for people who have health problems. About a third are actually in work. The remainder are out of work and looking for work.

Mental health is one area where things are getting worse. Some of it is because we are pathologising normal human reactions: someone in extreme poverty may well be very distressed but that distress is a direct and normal consequence of not having enough money to eat and heat, or a direct consequence of being in insecure work. But some of it is because mental health services have always been at the bottom of the funding pile and there simply isn’t the support available for people to lift themselves out of distress.

Mrs Tyke (I should call her Dr Tyke really) is a Clinical Psychologist. When she was in the NHS she was supposed to be working with patients who are in significant distress but not extreme distress. Instead the services which were there to deal with extreme distress were overloaded and so everyone fell down a tier and she was dealing with extreme levels of distress. This meant nobody was getting what they needed. People with lower levels of distress were left with nothing but a few pills, maybe they’d get six sessions of CBT but only after a six month wait.

That's something that needs a change in thinking to sort, starting with the complicity of doctors to just sign people off basically on request.

Doctors can only sign people off for limited periods of time, though. After that, the DWP assesses the person.

I wouldn’t describe doctors’ decisions as complicity. If someone is in distress the doctor has limited tools available to them: Prozac and maybe you’ll also get six sessions of CBT if you’re really lucky and you can wait.

What else can the doctor do? Refuse to sign someone off? If someone’s too distressed to work they’re too distressed to work.

And employers are, by and large, simply not interested in supporting their staff with things like reduced hours or phased returns to work. Their views are generally that staff should work or resign, and they’ll push people down the incapacity route very quickly. Employers’ occupational health services are not your friend.

 

[brad465]

If you want people to make sacrifices (i.e. lose welfare), then those ultimately responsible for the overall situation we find ourselves in have to go to jail at the same time. At least then they can see those responsible are having a harder time than themselves. A classic example of where this should have happened but didn't is the banking crash - if we sent the bankers to jail, austerity would have been more tolerable, and the populists who thrived off it wouldn't have got traction. This would have also encouraged the remaining bankers and other execs to be more responsible, leading to an environment that would have lessened austerity overall.

Today it would be water company CEOs, and around the world, tech barons (though they've paid off politicians to make sure that doesn't happen anytime soon).

 

[RT4038]

If you want people to make sacrifices (i.e. lose welfare), then those ultimately responsible for the overall situation we find ourselves in have to go to jail at the same time. At least then they can see those responsible are having a harder time than themselves. A classic example of where this should have happened but didn't is the banking crash - if we sent the bankers to jail, austerity would have been more tolerable, and the populists who thrived off it wouldn't have got traction. This would have also encouraged the remaining bankers and other execs to be more responsible, leading to an environment that would have lessened austerity overall.

Today it would be water company CEOs, and around the world, tech barons (though they've paid off politicians to make sure that doesn't happen anytime soon).

Did any of the bankers or Water Company CEOs actually break any laws for which they could be put in jail for? If not, then those ultimately responsible are the lawmakers, for having a legal framework that has allowed whatever you think has been responsible for the 'overall situation'. So lets put them in jail too. The lawmakers, who likely didn't envisage the overall situation panning out as it has, were elected by the people who have, in the main, really enjoyed their higher standard of living since the 1980s. So lets put them in jail too.

And of course there are the architects of the welfare system, the rolling out of which has also caused the costs and the undesirable side effects - lets put them in jail too.

The 'overall situation' can be traced back to before the Industrial Revolution - plenty of people to put in jail there. Unless the water company CEOs or tech barons have broken any specific laws (which specify jail sentences before they committed them), they can't be sent to jail. The more that jail is threatened for CEOs the harder and more expensive it will get to recruit such people.