Benefits

There has been talk in the papers recently of state benefits being capped. It's now time for me to stick my oar in.

I think it's an excellent idea. To my mind the point of benefits is to keep people out of poverty; to sustain them in a reasonable manner of living while they sort themselves out or to compensate individuals who are no longer able to work. They should not be an alternative to having a proper job.

A cap to me seems like it would create a good incentive to find gainful employment. It's the state saying, "we won't let you starve but if you want luxuries then earn them". A sensible cap might be the equivalent of being on minimum wage. After all, if the state thinks that is sufficient to live on, then why should it be paying more? It would certainly put an end to the situation many find themselves in, where it is more lucrative to survive on benefits than it is to work. The daughter of a friend of mine is hitting 30 and only just beginning to catch up in earnings with those that have never worked.

A further extension of this would be to replace money with either tangible items or vouchers that are specifically redeemable. This can already be partially seen with the motability benefit where the state will essentially buy, insure and maintain a car for those with severely impaired mobility. If they want to get a better car, they can supplement the purchase out of their own pocket. The system seems rather neat and certainly ensures the funds go on the purposes intended. A further extension of this could be food vouchers, redeemable in local outlets. Furthermore, make the value variable in respect of the items purchased; in short a food voucher of whatever value could be used to purchase three times more fresh meat and veg than processed, chemical ridden crap. It sounds a bit Soviet style I admit but at a stroke, it could be possible to nationally improve diet with the associated health benefits and reduce the dependency culture which is developing. What's not to like.

Of course I realise it is not that simple. There will be exceptions to every rule. An obvious example of this are disabled people who either may not be able to work or may not be able to afford the support they need on their salaries. State aid may well outstrip the nominal cap I suggested. For this I have a truly radical idea; give officials who know the case discretion to provide what they think is necessary.

How are we going to fund all this? Good question. Hopefully the money saved by implementing a cap would go some way to covering higher costs for others. Encouraging people into employment may well also generate more tax revenue which can go to covering the cost. These are mere guesses, I have no idea if this would be the case nor do I know how to start calculating it. Either way, it must be possible to reform the system as it stands for the better.

It will be interesting to see the outcome of the current debate and it's long-term implications.

JR