Another Job well done by Labour

[JAG]

Yeh I apologise for my remarks in terms of the racism thing, you know sometimes you do get worked up over little things. For that Shambles you have my apology.

EA - I am of the opinion that a blanket benefit system like you state, however fair in theory, it is not. We should have a welfare system which is disproportionately helpful to those at the very bottom not simply equal all round. This is in fact the biggest difference between the Lib Dems and Labour - still. The Lib Dems favour a middle class welfare state, with everyone given equal chances and everyone given the same, from the lowest working class to the highest payed middle class. Where as Labour are still about giving more to those at the very bottom before anyone else and if necessary without giving anything to anyone but those in the worst off positions, it is why they are still to the left of the Lib Dems and why they are still a lefty party.

It should be disproportionately better for those further down because it is those people who struggle most and so need more. The forms are a neccesary evil, even if it can seem the opposite.

[English assassin]

But the flat rate benefit acheives that. At the moment you have two systems of bureaucracy, one doling money out and the other collecting it in. You can acheive the same effect with one system, taxation, thereby enabling you to sack about a billion civil servants in the DSS (ha, how ironic, they will have to sign on, except there will be no more signing on under this system) and spend the money on something more useful.

If you like you give everyone the benefits and then you take it back off the people who don't need it. it sounds perverse but its actually easier. And its just as progressive as you would like in terms of giving more to those who need it.

[Don Corleone]

Jag,

There's a problem with taking a philosophical slant to dedicate all of societies resources to those on the bottom. While yes, many down there just need a hand and we should look for ways to encourage their development, there are many, many members of this segment that are there because have neither the ability, nor the drive, to be anywhere else. Sad but true.

There is a certain segment of society that consumes without production, and feels entitled to do so. Is it your argument that society must consume itself in order to supply these n'er-do-wells with their hearts' delights?

Let me give you an example. In the United States, people 'living below the poverty line' frequently have public housing of at least 1600 ft^2, air conditioning, cable television (enhanced, not basic) and yet, recently, a judge declared that 'broadband internet access', not just dialup, is a basic right that the local housing authority must provide. Why? These people aren't working, and they're not using the internet to better themselves. Does the government have a moral obligation to provide people who won't work with progressively better and more expensive diversions to while away their day with?

As far as tax credits for poor people, how do they serve any purpose if you're already not paying any taxes? Would you give them back more then they put in on their returns? EA's absolutely right about a Flat Tax accomplishing what you claim to want. Almost every proposal I've ever heard for it puts a floor in at 35% median income or higher. Many start at 50K US per household.

[LordMonarch]

Consumerism leads to abuse of the welfare state as individuals see the NHS, social welfare etc. throught the eyes of consumers not as citizens. Correspondingly, they treat the NHS like a consumer product and New Labour tries to pander to them by offering choice.

They have even managed to turn political parties into products, where each party creates policies based on focus groups etc.

Politicians primary role should be advocacy, the education of the public. Having them pander to citizen's baseless fears over MMR etc. as an abrogation of their duty.

Fields made a rather ascerbic comment about Beverly Hughes when he was Pensions Minister and he had to work with her.

"She thinks Beveridge is a drink."

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

What a funny man.

[Pellinor]

But the flat rate benefit acheives that. At the moment you have two systems of bureaucracy, one doling money out and the other collecting it in. You can acheive the same effect with one system, taxation, thereby enabling you to sack about a billion civil servants in the DSS (ha, how ironic, they will have to sign on, except there will be no more signing on under this system) and spend the money on something more useful.

If you like you give everyone the benefits and then you take it back off the people who don't need it. it sounds perverse but its actually easier. And its just as progressive as you would like in terms of giving more to those who need it.

I would tend to agree. The problem with "tax credits" is that they are nothing of the kind: they often exceed the tax paid by the person involved, and in any case are calculated with absolutely no reference to the person's taxpaying position.

The only reason they are called tax credits rather than benefits is for the look of the thing: importantly, if they were called benefits than the "tax collected" line of UK Plc's accounts would be much higher, and so would the "welfare spending" line. This way it looks as if the UK is a low-tax, low-spending jurisdiction.

If you kept them separate from the main tax system then life would become a lot clearer - like the way NI is separate from income tax, though administered by HMRC. Mind you, to take that example, if NI were aligned much more closely with IT then life would be simpler yet (why not have the same definition of "earnings", for example, rather than 2 definitions and a raft of patching legislation to plug the unnecessary gap?).

Cheers,

Pell.R.