A benefit to all?

First off, I have to admit I don’t know quite how the new ‘universal benefit’ is going to work, I’m sure some out there have a clue, currently I don’t so I’m reserving judgement, what I do know is that the current system encourages dependency on benefits, so I can see where Ian Duncan Smith is coming from.


Parents should get a job rather than rely on handout if they want to lift their children out of poverty, Iain Duncan Smith will declare today.
The Work and Pensions Secretary will insist that employment, not a few extra pounds in welfare benefits, is the key to lifting families out of poverty, as he unveils plans to replace all other out of work benefits from 2013, with the Coalition’s new universal credit. Mr Duncan Smith claims the reform will remove incentives to stay on welfare rather than moving into work.

What ought to be common sense in that anyone with a job is better off than anyone on basic benefits seems to have been lost over the years, along with a strong work ethic. Yes I know all the arguments on how people might lose their homes if they can’t pay the rent, child poverty etc. But it cannot be right either that anyone willing to work should end up worse off than had they remained unemployed.

I do mean unemployed as well, I don’t mean the sick and I don’t mean the retired. Different rules should apply there.

What is essentially needed is a hand up, not a hand out, minimum benefits being a place where you can survive but not thrive.. The next problem of course being how do we make sure that the benefits that are paid actually get spent on necessities rather than luxuries?

Well short answer is we can’t, not unless we go to a voucher system, then all we’d probably end up with is a black market in vouchers for fags and booze, such being human nature. However a system where having a job is shown to be a smart move strikes me as a good start.

Next step is providing full employment…

4 comments for “A benefit to all?

  1. Greg Tingey
    June 15, 2012 at 8:03 pm

    And a halfways decent wage WITH that employment, as well …..

    • DisenfranchisedOfBuckingham
      June 16, 2012 at 9:38 am

      If you’re worth it you will get a half decent wage. Good staff are always hard to find and employers pay to keep them. Of course troublesome staff are more expendable and obviously not worth as much.

      • Furor Teutonicus
        June 16, 2012 at 10:24 am

        Bollocks they do. For bosses “minimum wage” means MAXIMUM wage. Long gone are the days when firms paid anything other than a few cents difference to any other firm.

        And NO boss worth HIS pay would pay more wages than he could get some scabby pole, or half illeterate indian call center worker to work for.

        Aye. I would be willing to work for scabby pole wages. But YOU tell my landlord he must only charge scabby pole rent, or the electric, that they can only charge the same for electric that some half wit working from a Bombay telephone box with a London telephone directory pays to heat his cardboard box next to the Railway line.

  2. john in cheshire
    June 15, 2012 at 8:57 pm

    QM, I agree with you. But, where are all these jobs to come from? When the majority of jobs created over the past several years are going to immigrants, where it is more profitable to be in civil and public employment, doing none jobs – and once in it’s generally a job for life; where the burdens placed on anyone who thinks of starting a company and hiring employees are so onerous that I’m sure most give up before they start, then taking away benefits – even if it is the right thing to do, which it is – when there are no jobs to be had, will only exacerbate the situation. Get rid of the immigrants, get rid of the public service (that’s a joke too, mind) jobs, get rid of the bureaucracy, especially health and safety legislation, smothering entrepreneurs and maybe things will begin to change for the better.

Comments are closed.