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

Post a Comment

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
7 comments
Read more

Prioritising people in nursing care.

There has been in recent years concern that care in the NHS has not been sufficiently 'patient centred', or responsive to the needs of the patient on a case basis. It has been felt in care that it as been the patient who has had to adapt to the regime of care, rather than the other way around. Putting patients at the centre of care means being responsive to their needs and supporting them through the process of health care delivery.  Patients should not become identikit sausages in a production line. The nurses body, the Nursing and Midwifery Council has responded to this challenge with a revised code of practice reflection get changes in health and social care since the previous code was published in 2008. The Code describes the professional standards of practice and behaviour for nurses and midwives. Four themes describe what nurses and midwives are expected to do: prioritise people practise effectively preserve safety, and promote professionalism and trust. The
Post a Comment
Read more

The unethical language of 'welfare dependency'

It is unethical to stigmatise people without foundation. Creating a stereotype, a generalised brand, in order to  demonize a group regardless of the individual and without regard for the potential harm it may do is unfair and prejudicial. It is one reason, and a major one, why racism is unethical; it fails to give a fair consideration of interest to a group of people simply because they are branded in this way. They are not worthy of equal consideration because they are different.  It seeks also to influence the attitudes of others to those stereotyped. If I said 'the Irish are lazy'; you would rightly respond that this is a ridiculous and unfounded stereotype. It brands all Irish on the basis of a prejudice. It is harmful certainly; but it is worse if I intend it to be harmful. If I intend to influence the attitude of others. And so it is with 'the unemployed'. All I need do is substitute 'work-shy' and use it in an injudicious way; to imply that it applies to
2 comments
Read more