The benefits system

[Andy Hunt]

How should the benefits system be reformed in the light of fossil fuel depletion?

Giving people enough to keep them alive seems sensible if it can be afforded. But should the state ask for community work to be done in return? Could this be a source of cheap labour which can be used to replace mechanised processes, for example in agriculture?

And the child benefit system - one criticism of the current arrangement is that it encourages some women to get pregnant simply to supplement their income, and the benefit paid doesn't actually get spent on the kids. Should it be reduced, or even abolished, to discourage population increase?

Or should the current system be maintained by a tax on the super rich?

Tricky questions . . .

[Quintus]

Having millions of people unemployed, long-term is asking for trouble and social breakdown.

Even if Britain’s economy was able to afford it, is it sensible to have so many people idle while the country’s food, transport, energy, educational and social infrastructure need so much work? I also don’t think it is good for people’s health and psychology to remain unemployed indefinitely.

The US’s New Deal had its problems but at least the building of dams brought electricity to rural areas, whilst the Civilian Conservation Corps worked in National Forests and Parks on assorted natural resource projects.

A good first step would be recognising the size of the problems facing the UK.

[Quintus]

Child benefit for the first 2 children only? However, if this change was introduced I’d like to see the money saved spent on tackling child poverty.

[contadino]

How should the benefits system be reformed in the light of fossil fuel depletion?

Giving people enough to keep them alive seems sensible if it can be afforded. But should the state ask for community work to be done in return? Could this be a source of cheap labour which can be used to replace mechanised processes, for example in agriculture?

And the child benefit system - one criticism of the current arrangement is that it encourages some women to get pregnant simply to supplement their income, and the benefit paid doesn't actually get spent on the kids. Should it be reduced, or even abolished, to discourage population increase?

Or should the current system be maintained by a tax on the super rich?

Tricky questions . . .

So to paraphrase, should Work Houses be reintroduced?

[Mark]

Child benefit for the first 2 children only?

This is an idea I've supported for quite some time, although I'd only pay full rate for the first child, 1/2 rate for the second and nothing for the third onwards.

At the risk of sounding 'Tory', whilst jobs exist I don't agree for the State to pay money to those that can work and get nothing in return. I've always thought that there should be some return even if its only a 'token'. For example, you could be asked to collect aluminium cans from the street for 1 day per week and a minimum target set. This would (1) be a return to society for the benefit money, (2) a way to clean-up environmental grot spots and (3) a minor revenue stream. I guess the down-sides are (1) some people would just nick the cans out of other peoples recycling boxes, (2) it might be expensive to administer and (3) the H&S risk of cuts, Weils Disease etc.

Nothing is ever easy in these type of debates......

[Andy Hunt]

So to paraphrase, should Work Houses be reintroduced?

Well, I have heard that the Tories want to run schools as charities, so why not?

[RenewableCandy]

I've become a fan of the Citizens' Income, as a replacement for the bewildering array of benefits currently buzzing around. It solves at a stroke that awful business of losing all your benefits (including Housing and Council Tax payments) as soon as you step back into work, resulting in a differential taxation of 98% or whatever it is.

It would allow for people to work shorter hours, or intermittently, if they like, without having to faff about restarting the bureaucratic process each time their circumstances change, so in a way it would lead to a more-flexible workforce. It would iron out all the complicated and intrusive stuff you have to do with partial or part-time families, because you probably wouldn't need to have child benefit as well. Indirectly and in the longer term, it would discourage low-occupancy households because unlike today's benefits it would not be reduced by living together.

And any extra costs of this system should be paid for by a tax on the super-rich, or possibly that Robin Hood Tax on bank transactions.

A lot of those people now charged with administering the present system will of course be out of a job. This is sad but needn't be catastrophic because they, too, will still have an income.

The net personal effect will be that people will still look for work, but not be so desperate to find a job, any job, as people are now. And anyone absolutely miserable in their work will have the option of resigning without going totally broke. Result: a happier, and therefore probably more productive, workforce, and a population of unemployed who are less likely to resort to crime.

Hmm, it'll never catch on, will it ?

[Quintus]

I've become a fan of the Citizens' Income, as a replacement for the bewildering array of benefits currently buzzing around. It solves at a stroke that awful business of losing all your benefits (including Housing and Council Tax payments) as soon as you step back into work, resulting in a differential taxation of 98% or whatever it is.

Interesting idea. There are probably many variations on this.

No benefits, no means testing; just a ‘Guaranteed Minimum Income’ for all adults who do x hours voluntary work, e.g. £80-100pw. Perhaps the only complication would be an extra sum for each of the first two children. Any additional work done taxed without regard to whether they receive the GMI.

The only problem is that whole country might decide to tighten their belts and survive on the GMI; income tax would dry up and national and local governments would end up having to put up service and sales taxes etc. I suppose at least we'd get a huge amount of voluntary work done!

A system like this could only be introduced after a massive shock of some sort; whereby the status quo was no longer an option.

[J. R. Ewing]

Giving people enough to keep them alive seems sensible if it can be afforded. But should the state ask for community work to be done in return? Could this be a source of cheap labour which can be used to replace mechanised processes, for example in agriculture?

If there's work to be done it should be classed as a job, period. They should be paid fairly and equally.

I think it's dangerous to make people work for bennefits as to me it's nothing more than slave labour.

[Quintus]

Giving people enough to keep them alive seems sensible if it can be afforded. But should the state ask for community work to be done in return? Could this be a source of cheap labour which can be used to replace mechanised processes, for example in agriculture?

If there's work to be done it should be classed as a job, period. They should be paid fairly and equally.

I think it's dangerous to make people work for bennefits as to me it's nothing more than slave labour.

Yep, I'm all for classing "work to be done" as a "job", without any stigma.

Under the system I describe (above) everyone gets a Guaranteed Minimum Income’ for voluntary work, they are not unpaid slaves. We should consider how "fair and equal" the current system is; for decades we've had millions without any sort of work or any serious prospect of getting any. If we do nothing it's only likely to get worse.

[cubes]

If there's work to be done it should be classed as a job, period. They should be paid fairly and equally.

I think it's dangerous to make people work for bennefits as to me it's nothing more than slave labour.

The problem isn't the people who want to do work - they can normally find a job sooner or later, it's the ones who don't (and know how to use the system). These are the only ones it would effect long-term, and better we get them off their arses than let them just take money off us. You might call it slave labour, I'd just say they are contributing to their upkeep. There's nothing stopping them getting better paid work.

[RogueMale]

I'm all for a citizen's income too: everyone, no matter what their circumstances, is given the same amount as of right, paid for by taxing all their other income at the same percentage rate. It should be just enough to survive on (food, clothing and shelter).

This is the policy of the Green Party and was the policy of the old Liberal Party.

Of course, it does assume the proper working of our current economic system. Perhaps if it fails, the income should be replaced by a plot of land to grow food? I haven't given this much thought for the reason that it's entirely hypothetical at present.

[Quintus]

I'm all for a citizen's income too: everyone, no matter what their circumstances, is given the same amount as of right, paid for by taxing all their other income at the same percentage rate.

Worth mentioning Warren Buffet's objection that the rich pay "far, far less" tax than everybody else - and this was written before the issue of the massive bail outs to the mega-banks that the public will be paying back for generations.

Put simply, the rich pay a lot of taxes as a total percentage of taxes collected, but they don’t pay a lot of taxes as a percentage of what they can afford to pay, or as a percentage of what the government needs to close the deficit gap. Mr. Buffett compiled a data sheet of the men and women who work in his office ...

It turned out that Mr. Buffett, with immense income from dividends and capital gains, paid far, far less as a fraction of his income than the secretaries or the clerks or anyone else in his office. Further, in conversation it came up that Mr. Buffett doesn’t use any tax planning at all. He just pays as the Internal Revenue Code requires. “How can this be fair?” he asked of how little he pays relative to his employees. “How can this be right?”

Even though I agreed with him, I warned that whenever someone tried to raise the issue, he or she was accused of fomenting class warfare.

“There’s class warfare, all right,” Mr. Buffett said, “but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/busin ... every.html

[J. R. Ewing]

OK lets put it this way.

what your saying is that people who are considered 'scrounges' should do what is regarded has community work for minimal pay. well surely Teachers, Police, Council employees are only doing community work maybe they should only receieve minimal pay, whilst the real workers miners (what's left of them), oil rig workers, farmers, farm hands, etc. recieve proper wages as these are the real support to modern society.

[Keela]

JR I think you are missing the point.

Teachers et. al. work a full working week for a full working pay.

Those who recieve benefits on the other hand (if I read the previous poster the way I think he means) are to be asked to do something to rightfully "earn" their cash. So in reality they are being given a job.

However truth is they will be unused to the work ethic and so will not be as productive as an individual who is accustomed to a full working week. Therefore it is likely their "work" will be a token gesture in the right direction to qualify for their payments.

I imagine this noble idea isn't done because it would cost more to administer than the work achieved would be worth. Think of all the admin of sorting through the various "sick lines", "family deaths", "car broke down", "exceptional family circumstance" etc. We have some students here who are not used to the school ethic of daily attendance..... we know the game that can be played to get out of attending.

"What do you mean you don't believe my granda died?" (Like it's only the fourth one in two years...... !)

Unfortunately plain logic dictates that if there is an easy resource available then there will be those who adapt well to making full use of the resource. That's just life. So when we have 2nd and 3rd generations of folk who treat this as a way of life - is it a problem?

How long can those who work continue to support an increasing population of those who live lifetimes on benefits?

Is there an answer? Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be an answer that is socially acceptable. So we all let the situation continue while it still "works".