Why Osborne must REDUCE benefits

Benefits trap #1 650

Benefits trap #2 650

Look at the above infographics and it becomes very clear that for a lot of people work really doesn’t pay. Our over generous benefits are a genuine lifestyle choice for many hundreds of thousands of people. Why work when other people (taxpayers) will pay pretty you much the same money for you to be on a permanent holiday? In fact after paying for transport etc these people would be worse off if they worked.

Osborne has to fix this and the best way is by reducing benefits so that work does pay.

Social Justice 650


1 Comment

  1. Bruce,

    I understand the point you are making about the perception of benefits being unfair when located in the lowest earner bracket. It is certainly one of the bugbears of social benefits instigated by governments. However it seems like the idea of what best to do about it hasn’t been considered fully.

    There is an automatic jump within your argument to the conclusion that the best way to deal with it is to hope George Osborne, the chancellor, should reduce benefits to the lowest earners. You have acknowledged and brought up an interesting set of figures, but have jumped to a conclusion without any real evidence of its efficacy, simply picking what seems to be the most obvious answer, without care for its implications. It’s a shame as I feel the subject has potential for interesting exploration, into what new solutions could be found, rather than settling for the obvious.

    You could have suggested that the minimum wage be increased, or instigated a living wage, to create a better incentive to work at the lower end of the income scale. You could have suggested that there be better tax breaks as income increases, preventing a sweet spot of fiscal crossover between working and non working. You could have suggested that the tax bracketing system be altered, moved up or down, or completely overhauled to account for the anomaly. You could have suggested that instead of removing benefits such as housing and JSA from people as soon as they start earning a small amount of income it is actually held in place, up to a higher bracket than it is previously, or even increased, to encourage better benefit from those who work even a little bit (thus increasing the notion that work is rewarded).

    You also seem to infer that the current benefits offered for low earners, is equatable to a holiday, which is, I feel, wishful thinking. It is a living allowance and barely that in most cases.

    The benefits system is not in place to allow those avoiding work to go on holiday, for a start it doesn’t pay enough. And it would only be on holiday in some place in the UK, no travel would be afforded. The benefits system doesn’t act as a discouragement to work, only to the identified crossover points where it becomes complicated, and thus yes, should be explored how it could be fixed. The benefits system offers a very small and simple safety net that most will have at some point used irrespective of their background.

    Let’s have more debate on this!


Leave a reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.