Skip to main content

Welfare 'dependency' - cart before the horse?

A new report published today by the right-wing think tank Centre for Policy Studies presents some interesting statistics on 'welfare dependency'.

In a new Economic Bulletin,  Adam Memon, Head of Economic Research reveals that 51.5% of households still receive more from the state than they pay in tax.
 
The report also shows that:
 

  • Net dependency of the middle fifth of households has fallen by 27% since 2010/11.
     
  • The poorest are still suffering from high taxes.
     
  • Deeper welfare reform is needed to reduce dependency and raise incomes.
     
  • Inequality is now lower than at any time under New Labour.
The report draws its statistics from the office for National Statistics.  You might think then that this is an 'objective' assessment.  But it requires a note of caution, not about the statistics themselves, but the assumptions. 

Adam Memon, the report author says:
 
“Welfare dependency is an economically destructive phenomenon which tears at Britain’s social fabric. It reduces the incentive to work and earn more whilst keeping people trapped in a cycle of low aspirations, low productivity and low pay. The welfare state must protect the vulnerable and encourage self-reliance but for too many households it has become a permanent trap.
 
Net dependency at 51.5% is still too high. Simply attempting to alleviate difficult economic conditions with welfare payments can only ever be a short term fix. Indeed, the case for making a further £12 billion of savings in the welfare budget rests not only on the need to reduce the budget deficit but also on the need to reform welfare to boost employment and encourage growth in real wages. The Government must press ahead with deeper welfare reform.”

The use of the word 'dependency' is in vogue.  We hear it from across the political spectrum. It conjures images of a malaise or an addiction, as if the poor are addicted by benefits. It makes the assumption also that such 'dependency' can be 'cured' by withholding the benefits - a kind of welfare cold turkey.  The poor will of course suffer withdrawal symptoms but in the end all will be well.  Their dependency will be cured. 

It also puts the cart before the horse.  What drives 'dependency' is low pay and poor prospects.  Of course welfare might push wages down, but the assumption, presented by the Prime Minister that miraculously wages would rise if the government cut welfare is economic nonsense.   If the government wants to reduce the need for benefits, then it should ensure that wages rise and there is a reduction in zero hour contracts.  Simply cutting benefits will drive more into poverty. 

The report emphasises another statistic so often ignored, or rarely stated.  The poorest pay proportionately more tax than do the rich. 

The report points out that the richest fifth of households paid £29,200 in tax over 2013/14 which equates to an average tax rate of 34.8% of their gross incomes. The poorest fifth of households paid £4,900 in taxes over the year. Whilst this is much less in absolute terms, at 37.8%, it is proportionately
even higher than paid by the richest households.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As