And apart from that, given what some MPs consider to be moral behaviour, I'll take no instruction from the likes of them....
Since the pandemic, the number of working-age people out of work as a result of long-term illness has swelled by more than 750,000. There are also more people claiming health-related benefits – both means-tested out-of-work benefits, and the personal independence payment (Pip) that helps meet the additional costs of disability, which isn’t means-tested and is paid regardless of someone’s work status. One in 10 working-age adults now receive health-related benefits, up from one in 14 before the pandemic.
How on earth did we ever get to this? Well, in part, it stems from the Tories eagerness to fudge the umemployment figures:
No other wealthy country has experienced a trend as marked as this, suggesting it’s not purely about Covid or the cost of living (though it’s worth noting the UK is only now spending roughly the average for comparable countries on disability benefits). It’s more likely to be a product of how these have interacted with the UK’s public services and welfare system.
The low rates of out-of-work benefits for those who lose their jobs – eroded since 2010 – have probably pushed more people towards applying for disability benefits than in other countries.
And now someone's attempting to do something about this state of affairs, there's outrage.
Starmer aides have been busy briefing that cutting these benefits will resonate with swing voters. That seems unlikely to placate the Labour MPs – including frontbenchers and the normally loyal – who are angry about this not because they think it’s a vote loser, but because they think it’s immoral. Benefits have been pared to the bone since 2010 by successive Conservative chancellors – the poorest decile of families with children lost an astounding £6,000 a year on average between 2010 and 2024 as a result of changes to the tax-benefit system.
They didn't 'lose it', though, they simply should never have had it. We shouldn't be paying people to be idle.
When benefits pay for everything and pay it reliably, the jump to the uncertainty of work and the minimal benefit of working just to survive increases the reliance on state welfare.
ReplyDeleteBenefits can't be pared down much: rents are rents, the lack of local government owned social housing means that benefits now has to pay profit to landlords on top of what it would have paid to house welfare claimants.
The introduction of the minimum wage has locked in a base wage that all employers dive for to reduce the wage bill and maximise profits. It's too low to provide a decent living but too high for small firms to bear. Even managers are being paid the same minimum wage the people they manage are on.
It's all messed up. Work should allow you to a earn a living, with some disposable money after you've paid all the bills. In-work benefits shouldn't be necessary, the government shouldn't be topping up the wages of employees.
Work doesn't pay because the majority of small employers can't afford it because the cost of doing business is so high, only large corporations that can negotiate tax exemptions can do business successfully.
The jump from benefits to work is too massive and too complicated.
Someone somewhere is taking huge sums out of the economy. Companies pay the absolute minimum in wages and charge the absolute maximum in order to maximise profits for shareholders. Companies are allowed to take out loans to pay shareholder dividends rather than reinvest.
Until the whole economy is reshaped and a more sensible model is adopted, it's only going to get worse and more and more people on benefits will be reliant of fewer and fewer people paying taxes.
We're circling the drain and no-one is doing anything about it because the people making the rules are the people making money from the things that are wrong with the economy.