On the topic of social security for disabled people my starting point is that I’m jolly grateful I was born and have remained relatively normal in both body and mind. That’s not to say that I wouldn’t have liked a better body (better hand, foot and eye co-ordination to make a better fist of cricket and football) and a better mind (I’ve never been very good at spelling, and acknowledge that I’m probably better at explaining other people’s ideas than having original ones myself) but I’ve managed to qualify for and hold down a job which I thoroughly enjoyed and always managed to pay my way.
That is true of the overwhelming majority of people in the UK .
So why on earth is a Labour Government – A LABOUR GOVERNMENT – seeking to balance its books by cutting the help for disabled people rather than raising the taxes of we comfortable so that those less fortunate can be enabled to live as decent a life as their disabilities allow?
Surely, after eighteen hundred years of Judaeo-Christian teaching, topped up in recent years by Hindus (“dana “ and “seva”) Sikhism (Vnda Chhakna) and Islam (alms giving) that should be a no-brainer.
To argue that we abled bodied and minded in our society can’t afford it is nonsense. The latest figure I can find, (for 2002) states that our national income per head is £37 371. If that were shared out equally every family of four would be receiving just coppers short of £160 000 a year.
Of course it isn’t shared out equally, and I’m not suggesting it should be: I’m simply using the figure to demonstrate that we are a very rich society indeed and can well afford to look after those members of our society who, for one reason or another, can’t live comfortably without help from the rest of us.
Labour should show some courage, grasp the nettle and do what it was elected to do (along with restoring the overseas aid budget, removing the two child limit, and sticking to net-zero and its green agenda).
Instead they seem to be as desperate as the Tories to make sure that no-one at the bottom of the pile cheats the system and gets something for nothing. I believe this fear to be without foundation.
Years ago I heard a Humanist on the radio argue that everyone of us has three “wants.” These are
· ""to know that at least someone cares what happens to us (usually a spouse, a parent or child, or maybe just a friend);
· to be able to feel that someone else has benefitted from our having lived;
· and to pay our way."
No one actually wants to be a scrounger.
OK maybe the odd one slips through (and we all have our pride, so maybe some people boast of living off the system as that seems be the only way to survive, so they pretend it’s a choice, but they would much prefer the alternative.)
Labour has argued, with every justification, that the country cannot be turned round in just one parliament. This will be even more likely if they waste this first term. The should stop looking back over their shoulders, implement the policies for which they were elected and sow the seeds for an even more progressive second term.
That is true of the overwhelming majority of people in the UK .
ReplyDeleteThis isn't, actually, true. I'm not sure if the net contributors to the treasury are actually in the minority (though I wouldn't be surprised if they were) but even if they are in the majority it's a slim, not overwhelming, majority.
Remember to 'pay your way' it's not just about paying taxes: you have to pay more taxes than you are receiving in benefits, subsidies and public services. It's actually at quite a high salary level that that kicks in — most people not on higher rate tax aren't paying their way, for example, once you work it out net.
to look after those members of our society who, for one reason or another, can’t live comfortably without help from the rest of us.
I don't think anybody wants to stop helping those who really truly can't live comfortably without help. The problem is people who are perfectly physically capable of working but who choose not to because they say they have, for example, anxiety about getting a job. If someone really cannot work then of course they should be supported. If someone simply finds it easier not to work then they need to get over themselves, or starve.
(St Paul is with me on this, by the way; when he heard of meetings in the early church who were having their generosity taken advantage of by freeloaders, he was in no doubt as to how to deal with them).
No one actually wants to be a scrounger.
This clearly isn't true. Lots of people are lazy and, if offered an easy way to make money, will do that rather than working hard. Why else do people play the lottery, for example, other than the hope of winning enough that they can give up working? Heck, if I didn't need to pay the rent I would certainly quit my job tomorrow! And my job is an indoor one with no heavy lifting!
And why do railways spend so much money on ticket gates and fare inspectors if — according to you — no one actually wants to scrounge by travelling without buying a ticket? Why not just not bother with all that expense? The reason of course is that if it's possible to ride for free then people will ride for free. Not everyone, of course, but enough people.
And it's not a new thing: as mentioned above, there were people who, once word got around that the early Christians were a soft touch for the old charity, turned up to scrounge off them We know this to be true because why else would St Paul have had to have been so clear about how to deal with them? The desire to benefit without paying is a universal throughout human history. Why would we, in this one country at this one time, be absent what is otherwise omnipresent?
Having said that, in fact of course sometimes people who don't wish to be scroungers can get trapped into scrounging by bad policy. So for example if a young person is given money because they say they are anxious, and then they are told that if they get a job that money will be taken away — and if that money is more than they could reasonably earn at the start of their job, so to take the job would mean that they ended up living on less than when they were scrounging — the scrounging becomes, not an act of laziness, but a rational economic act. So it's good that the government is trying to remove those morally indefensible policies which make scrounging rational. Let's see if they succeed.
Thaksl for your detailed thoughts, but I prefer to take the more optimistic view, which I suspect is held by most of the professionals concerned with the issue.
ReplyDeleteI prefer to take the more optimistic view
ReplyDeleteThe naïve view, you mean.
But of course it’s fine for you to take that view and therefore get taken advantage of, as long as it’s only your own money you are wasting.
But I hope you would agree that while you can do what you like with your own money, you should not be allowed to hand out my money to the lazy and undeserving — and therefore you should not raise my taxes on the basis of your naïveté.
Every society will harbour a few "lazy and undeserving" but we should not punish the overwhelming majority of people who genuinely need support just to stop a tiny number getting away with it. Just learn to "grin and bear it" and be happy that you're able to function normally without help (as I assume you are.)
ReplyDeleteEvery society will harbour a few "lazy and undeserving" but we should not punish the overwhelming majority of people who genuinely need support
DeleteDo you agree that we should only help those who are genuinely in need of support? Then you and I are in agreement.
And there’s a way we can both be happy: me, who doesn’t want to pay more taxes, and you, who wants more money to go to those who genuinely need it. And it’s this: we stop giving money to those who don’t genuinely need it, and give what we save to those who do genuinely need it instead. How does that sound for a plan? What in that plan could you possibly object to, given you are we should be helping those so genuinely need it and not those who don’t?
Just learn to "grin and bear it"
As long as we live in a democracy you will need my vote to enact your plans, and telling me to ‘grin and bear it’ makes it much less likely you will get my vote.
ReplyDelete"Do you agree that we should only help those who are genuinely in need of support?
Of course I do and that is what the system tries to do. But thousands of disabled people are now being told that their help is being cut, sometimes by several thousand poinds a year, not because their condition has improved, but becasue the government needs the money for something else.
They are the wrong target to choose. The government should find the money from us, the comfortable.
Of course I do and that is what the system tries to do.
DeleteTried, but clearly fails, because millions of people are being paid money when they are perfectly physically capable of work. Do you deny this is happening?
. But thousands of disabled people are now being told that their help is being cut,
If they are not genuinely in need, then you and I would both agree that their 'help' (which isn't really help because it's not needed) should be cut, right?
And if the cuts are falling on those who do genuinely need help then that is a matter of the cuts being badly implemented; but we both agree, don't we, with the principle that payments to the millions of people who are currently getting help but shouldn't be should be cut?
They are the wrong target to choose. The government should find the money from us, the comfortable.
Surely the right target is the millions of people who are currently being paid money but at not genuinely in need of it because they are capable of working but simply find it easier not to. Do you not agree that if they were all cut off from the money they are wrongly receiving, by tightening up the eligibility rules to exclude those who are not genuinely in need, then there would most likely be enough to not just maintain the current levels of funding for those who genuinely need it, but increase that funding.
Because you and I both agree that those who genuinely heed help should be helped, and those who do not genuinely need helped — don't we?
You claim that "millions" are not "genuinely in need." How do you know? This is just a supposition which is probably far from the truth. I suggest you re-listen to the BBC Radio 4 programme "In touch" about how blind popple are likely to be affected. (I heard it this morning - 23rd March -at about 05.40hrs but it was probably a repeat.)
Delete