Skip to main content

Not a good start to 2013 from Mr Ian Duncan-Smith

I do really wonder who is advising Ian Duncan Smith. He is using some very spurious statistics. He is looking like a man possessed. He is on a mission and has decided not to listen to those he no doubt regards as 'on the wrong side'.  Like all missionaries he won't rest until we are all converted or damned. Some say: Stop! You are making a big mistake! But he knows what is best. He is rescuing us all from damnation. He says he has 'brought back fairness to welfare.'

Mr Duncan Smith makes the extraordinary claim that tax credits increased by 58% ahead of the 2005 general election. Working Tax Credit introduced in April 2003 was the first national in-work financial support introduced in the UK designed to help people in work. It was designed as an incentive to 'make work pay'. It wasn't seeking to drive people back to work by cutting benefits for those unemployed or disabled. On the contrary, it was keeping people in work by increasing income. So what of Mr Duncan Smith's claim?

Between their introduction in 2003 and the 2005 general election working tax credits were increased in line with inflation. I doubt any government would win an election with an inflation rate of 58%! So Mr Duncan Smith is talking nonsense. So what could he mean by claiming that they increased by such rate? Perhaps he is referring to take up.

Tax credits at £23.7bn are the biggest slice  (27%) of the welfare cake, followed by Housing benefit (16%) and child tax credit (12.8%).  Incidentally, unemployment benefit is just 1.2% of the welfare budget; so much for 'shirkers' dragging us all down! The true cost of working tax credit however is not the headline figure. To get a true cost we would have to subtract the increases expected in other areas of the welfare budget if it was to be scrapped. Welfare budgets tend to reflect financial needs; housing, food and groceries, heating etc. These costs don't go away because a government may chose to cut a particular part of the welfare budget. IDS talks of wasted spending and fraud. No doubt the system has its share of fraud, as does the tax system in general. But does WTC work?

One of its aims was to 'make work pay', to act as an incentive so that people were not trapped by losing benefits if they chose to work.  IDS says it doesn't work. It is difficult to estimate the extent to which it does. How many people chose to take low paid employment rather than remain on unemployment benefit. I suspect few people really choose to be unemployed. That is a convenient myth fostered by the government to divide us into virtuous workers and sinful 'scroungers' and 'skivers'. Ed Miliband put them straight at PMQs by reminding Mr Cameron that the biggest slice of benefits goes to those in work and not the unemployed.

The problem with any system that subsidises low pay is that it provides less incentive for employers to pay decent wages. Companies like Starbucks take advantage of the British taxpayer by paying below the minimum. As such they are a subsidised business but pay little or no tax. A staggering 5 million workers receive below the minimum wage. That is the problem. That is what we should be addressing. We should be addressing the issue of low pay at its source.

All workers should be paid at least a living wage; a wage that covers essentials of food, housing, heating and clothing. The way to drive welfare dependency down is to increase the well-being of people. Simply cutting benefits drives them deeper into poverty. In the end it is all counter-productive. For the sake of cutting one slice of the welfare cake, the government ends up increasing the slice resulting from poor housing and ill health. They perpetuate the vicious cycle of poverty. I have little hope that the missionary zealots in the government will recognise this. But it is my New Year message to Mr Duncan-Smith, Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.   We don't

Noise pollution puts nature at risk

 "I just want a bit of peace and quiet!" Let's get away from all the hustle and bustle; the sound of endless traffic on the roads, of the trains on the railway, and the planes in the sky; the incessant drone; the noise. We live in a world of man-made noise; screeching, bellowing, on-and-on in an unmelodious cacophony.  This constant background noise has now become a significant health hazard.   With average background levels of 60 decibels, those who live in cities are often exposed to noise over 85 decibels, enough to cause significant hearing loss over time.  It causes stress, high blood pressure, headache and loss of sleep and poor health and well-being.   In nature, noise has content and significance.  From the roar of the lion, the laughing of a hyena,  communication is essential for life; as the warning of danger, for bonding as a group or a pair, finding a mate, or for establishing a position in a hierarchy - chattering works.  Staying in touch is vital to working

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba