Re: Can the government fix what it has created?
- From: Mel Rowing <mel.rowing@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 02:43:58 -0700 (PDT)
On Sep 21, 8:04 pm, Andy Walker <n...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Mel Rowing wrote:
[Citizens' Income:]
It still operates on the principle that money is taken from one pocket
and placed in another without any further exchange being effected and
without justifiable cause or reason.
At some level, all taxation [and any benefit system] is of this
nature. But in the end, "justifiable" is a political decision, not an
absolute. I note that your previous response talked about the "deserving
poor"; sadly, that too is a political decision. You and I might well
not agree about whether particular cases are "deserving"; much worse,
the civil service does not permit "deserving", but only tick-boxes. So
we have to cast people into one of two boxes -- benefits or not -- based
on rigid definitions ["Do you work more than 20 hours?", "Do you have
savings of over #8000?", "Are you registered disabled?", ...], not on
woolly questions like "Are you idle?". Do you *want* a "them and us"
society, in which "they" are continually at war with "us"? Because that
is what we have, it's divisive, demeaning and unfair, it encourages
snoops and jobsworths, and it's time we did something about it.
Like it or not, there is a high degree of social consensus as to how
people should behave in such matters. There is a social expectation
that adults should support themselves and in most cases that means
working. There is also an expectation that society will maintain
those who by reason of illness, disability or age are prevented from
supporting themselves.
Surely this latter social task or duty is sufficient burden in itself
without worrying about those who merely have no wish to maintain
themselves.
It still allows or even facilitates decisions by certain individuals
to cease all contributions towards society whilst continuing to help
themselves to at least a proportion of the rewards.
If paid, as it should be, at subsistence levels, then those who
cease all contributions towards society are really not getting very much.
What constitutes "subsistence" itself is the subject of a value
judgement once you move more that a crust away from starvation.
This of course is always trotted out even under present arrangements
"How is anyone to live on benefits?" "Could you live on £x" per
week?" In today's climate the answer "You aren't supposed to!"
"Benefits are intended simply to tide you over" would seem unduly
harsh.
I've come across quite a few of these people and have experienced a
number of incidents that don't exactly ingratiate them to me. I
remember for instance (and this was back in the 70's) when our
youngest had grown out of them offering a well looked after pram and
pushchair to social services. They didn't want them! "These days,
mums want new not second hand!" I was told. I'll bet they do if
somebody else is paying!
I therefore put a classified ad in the local paper and made us a few
pounds. The first lady who came to look bought them. She was not on
benefits. She worked and couldn't afford not to look for a bargain.
Your typical dolie draws benefits which admittedly don't amount to
much, but add to that extra benefit drawn for wife or cohabitee every
child, rent free, council tax free living, free school meals for the
kids, a bit of cash in hand gardening, painting, decorating, odd
jobbing, building work, cab driving, cleaning and what have you and
they seem not to do too badly.
To illustrate my point, the next time you see one of these
documentaries on TV showing one of these deprived estates where every
house has someone who is unemployed in it, take a good look at the
kids who the cameras invariably attract. Look at the play gear they're
wearing. Look at the bikes they ride. Now perhaps not all of them
"Shop at the Coop" but every house will have at least 1 colour TV
(probably more and whether any are licensed is another matter) TV
recording equipment, a Hi-Fi system (useless without CDs) Walkmen,
Ipods, mobile phones.
They don't do so badly!
I wouldn't want to live like that, you wouldn't, nobody I know would.
More importantly, *everyone* who does contribute earns extra rewards
from the system, whereas under the present system many people find
themselves in one or other of the many poverty traps.
What constitutes a poverty trap?
Money derived from benefits has exactly the same spending power as
that which is earned. From that point on its a matter of morality. If
a beneficiary makes a simple calculation of what he will earn in any
job offered and then deduct any benefits (as well as what can be made
on the side) lost then inevitably there is going to be
disillusionment. I've heard them say they can't afford to get out of
bed for less than £x per week. They consider they would be working for
nothing rather than supporting themselves. You will never hear one say
he gets his benefits for nothing!
OK CW or CI do seem to move somewhat in the direction of addressing
the poverty trap in as much as you cannot lose CI or CW. As you say,
one can only add to it. However CI/CW still has to be taxable in as
much as it would push one over or further over tax thresholds. I
suspect that the kind of people I have been talking of would have no
misgivings regarding making similar cynical calculations like that I
have just described. The black economy which leads to a twilight
society is more prevalent than is commonly realised.
CI does not pay any of these people a certain sum "for" doing
or choosing anything. It pays them enough to survive [and no more]
because they are members of a civilised society. If you want widows
and the severely disabled to receive more, then this has nothing at
all to do with CI, but with a residual benefit system. But you're
going to end up with the same problem as at present. Governments
don't do "severely" disabled, just as they don't do "deserving".
You would have to provide rigid definitions, and those who "game"
the system will do better than those who are honest and those who
do their best to overcome their problems.
I don't see how or why the two systems could run side by side!
But you are right! Those who don't play by the rules are better off
than those who do and this is the basic problem with all methods of
social welfare provision. You will always get fraud and that is the
very reason why you will always have a need for the "snoops and
jobsworths"
When I from time to time put a few bob in a collecting tin I make
value judgements.
A "few bob" in a collecting tin is better than a kick up the
backside, but it doesn't solve any real problems. The scale of the
problem is of a different magnitude.
At one time that's was all that was available short of Parish Relief
which was severe in its application. The problem is of a totally
different magnitude of course but the principle remains exactly the
same. It's still a matter of taking from one group to give to another.
However, in the one case the transfer takes the form of a voluntary
gift whilst in the other it has become a statutory obligation. It is
inevitable that the "feel good" or even righteousness factor is
replaced, at least to some extent, by resentment.
In order that the general public shall be at ease with any system it
must be seen as fair and to do what is expected of it. As I see it a
welfare system is primarily intended to see individuals over a period
of misfortune and, on a more permanent basis, to support those who
through disability, illness or age are unable to provide for
themselves.
It is not, in my view, intended to fund alternative lifestyles and
that is just what it has increasingly become.
Some kind of tapered benefit might be the answer.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Can the government fix what it has created?
- From: Andy Walker
- Re: Can the government fix what it has created?
- From: A. J. Moss
- Re: Can the government fix what it has created?
- References:
- Re: Can the government fix what it has created?
- From: Mel Rowing
- Re: Can the government fix what it has created?
- From: Andy Walker
- Re: Can the government fix what it has created?
- Prev by Date: Re: Enoch Powell Was Right
- Next by Date: Re: Enoch Powell Was Right
- Previous by thread: Re: Can the government fix what it has created?
- Next by thread: Re: Can the government fix what it has created?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
