The Welfare System: Encourage The Lazy, Enrich The Needy

June 28, 2012 by Anastasia Kyriacou in UK Affairs with 8 Comments

If we can spend £32 billion on an extra fast train to Birmingham and back, then I think we can afford a few changes in the welfare system to encourage the lazy to give something back, whilst lending the needy a true helping hand.

‘Slash’, ‘axe’, ‘strip’ and ‘scrap’ have been the most popular verbs used to describe PM David Cameron’s latest proposals in relevance to housing benefits for young people.

Coming from someone adamant on dismantling elitism, whilst Cameron may be blindly accused of merely trying to please his Tory backbenchers, some of his suggestions make absolute sense – notably in relation to community work. If Cameron’s wishes were to be commanded, 5000-10,000 people under the age of twenty-five could be forced to take part in community work if they do not find employment or training after two years. Am I the only one who thinks being able to live comfortably without having to work a single hour in two entire years has First World spoilt brat written all over it?

Perhaps the people in protest of this concept seemingly don’t know enough of the facts to be resentful. Maybe if they were aware that two billion pounds made up of their tax money is going towards perfectly competent people because they are “workshy”. Not working whilst the rest of the world works is criminal in the sense it means one is not merely borrowing, but taking other people’s money with no need or intention to return it. Community service is therefore not only the perfect opportunity for one to put back some of what society has given them , but will inevitably stand as an incentive for young people to work for money.

Nonetheless, there are unquestionably a handful of young people in desperate situations who are genuinely not popping kids out like pringles for a bit more wonga; the character Link from the nineties novel ‘Stone Cold’ is a perfect example, considering he was forced into a life of tramp-hood after fleeing from an intolerable household. This is why simply ‘slashing’, ‘axing’, ‘stripping’ or ‘scrapping’ housing benefits for young people is not efficient. The welfare system instead needs to be approached with positive reform – changes to improve, not merely abolish.

For instance, whilst Cameron suggested the “culture of entitlement” must be addressed in order to boost the economy, the problem desperately needs to be addressed from a social perspective rather than a terribly (and typically Tory), economic one. Long term efficacious change is only possible with internal reform in the welfare system – reform that goes further than mere policy alterations to please political party members. More investment must go in to really addressing the situation of those sincerely in need of state support, such as analysing individual cases in order to really appreciate who needs what. It is time for the system to work with the individual as opposed to the collective, because a general outline of who qualifies for housing benefits for example is clearly not sustainable.

This is not an optimistic, costly ideal, but a promising solution that has the potential to pave the path to positive change. Ultimately if we can spend £32 billion on an extra fast train to Birmingham and back (the high-speed rail network), then I think we can afford a few changes in the welfare system to encourage the lazy to give something back, whilst lending the needy a true helping hand.

Tagged community work, David Cameron, tax money, Tory, Welfare System, young people

Share this post

About Anastasia Kyriacou

Anastasia is reading BA History at the University of Birmingham and is the Amnesty International campaign manager for the University's student group.

View all posts by Anastasia Kyriacou →

JamieshaJune 28, 2012 at 3:17 pmReply

Sorry this is long but…

Don’t you think analysing on an individual case-by-case basis is time consuming and would be a frankly unnecessary burden on an already over-stretched body? This would also be costly, and delay payments for those who really do need them. I know it may only have been an off the cuff suggestion but you don’t really seem to suggest another way. What is ‘positive change’? Is there really a ‘culture of entitlement’ amongst those receiving benefits? I thought that phrase was aimed more at ‘First World trustafarians’…

The funding for the high speed train is a long time coming – i’m not all that concerned with it but I do see that it is one of the busiest commuter trains (I had to do this route myself for some time). The fastest route (Virgin) was an hour and a half, add the underground and it ends up over twice the average Londoner commute. Not sure they’re entirely comparable areas of spending.

However, the proposal of community service is a very good idea but may not work for all young people – we can’t assume that all under 25 are the same – some have children, most have rent or university/educational costs and so on. Balancing some kind of work, low paid or part time, making ends meet and then doing compulsory community service could be disheartening. Nobody should be ‘forced to take part’ in anything – it should be a voluntary, rewarding and productive. In other words, it should be an attractive option and not a penalty of receiving benefits.

WheresOurVoteJune 29, 2012 at 4:23 pmReply

Of course it will be time-consuming and costly but social services exists relatively efficiently (as far as I know) and its work focuses on directly dealing with individuals. The scheme I’m suggesting about assessing each individual case would actually be less time consuming then social services in the sense after a case is has been properly looked in to there is no looking back unless the individual claims their situation to have changed. Social service cases on the other hand work with the individual in the long term. Furthermore, the housing benefit scheme focusing on individuals would work hand in hand with social services in the sense it will potentially identify cases that need to be taken care of by social serves; subsequently reducing pressure off of the welfare system as the whole due to its more specialised and proficient teams. I didn’t suggest another way because this is what I believe to be the solution.

Projects like the High speed rail may save a bit of time but it can wait! It should not be a prioritised investment, especially when the NHS can’t even afford to give old people cataracts these days. Trust me, I go to uni in Brum and live in London so I’m extremely familiar with the journey which often makes me feel quite nauseous and however much I would love to get home 20 mins faster, at the end of the day I doubt I’d be able to afford it. The HI2 will be very expensive and not accessible for everyone.

You’re right, any form of coercion is not really humane, but compulsory is seemingly a lot more pleasant. If an under 25 is in education then they won’t be expected to work, and I haven’t said anything about scrapping the grant system who do need a helping hand at uni.

“I wouldn’t go to school if I didn’t get my EMA” is exactly the attitude which needs to not be tolerated. Getting paid to go to school should not be an incentive. Having to do community service if you’re not working is an excellent incentive to get kids doing something productive either actually giving back to the community which if they aren’t enjoying it then it will encourage them to work for money at least.

I agree with you on the way community work should be presented more positively. The fact that its associated with words like “disheartening” needs to change. It should not be a negative thing that only naughty criminals do. At the end of the day,community work is giving something back. We all need to learn how to enjoy giving rather than this incessant, greedy and ruthless, take, take, take.

b034June 28, 2012 at 5:00 pmReply

In relation to Housing Benefits – if the taxpayer should be more resentful to recipients of Housing Benefits, is it not important to consider where this money is going? Clearly there is a problem with ever increasing rates of rent within the UK. Should the taxpayer not be resentful that a large proportion of their taxes are subsidising people with buy to let mortgages which the Housing Benefit ultimately ends up in the pocket of? You state that “a general outline of who qualifies for housing benefits for example is clearly not sustainable,” but surely this must also be looked at from an economic viewpoint. When a person working full time for minimum wage needs to have their wages topped up in benefits – living costs are either too high, or pay too low – and this is surely not sustainable either.

WheresOurVoteJune 29, 2012 at 4:00 pmReply

If you’re referring to benefit fraud when you talk about where resentment should be directed then yes part of the reformed welfare system I suggest that properly addresses the individual, will eliminate the benefit fraud where most of the resentment derives from.

b034June 29, 2012 at 4:42 pmReply

@WheresOurVote I am not talking about benefit fraud (which is obviously a cause of resentment) but the fact that property prices are so high in this country because of buy to let mortgages. My point was that the people who “benefit” from Housing Benefits are the people who rent the properties out to the tenant. This is where the tax payers money ends up. Many people on Housing Benefits work, albeit on a low wage, and cannot afford the high rents. The rent is paid to the landlord with help from Housing Benefits. So who in this situation ends up the winner as rent is pushed up more and more? If, as you state, “only the desperate” should get benefits, how would you deal with people that don’t earn enough to pay all their rent? Would they have to become homeless and only then would they be saved from their own “laziness?”

Also, are you seriously suggesting that the answer to mass unemployment is ebay and gumtree? How can you suggest that the recession has no impact on people’s ability to find work? If in June 2008, 1.6 million were unemployed and in April 2012 that figure is almost double with 2.6million unemployed, are you suggesting that a further million people have decided to just doss about and it has in no way anything to do with the economic situation in this country?

WheresOurVoteJune 29, 2012 at 8:26 pmReply

Cameron’s idea is for young people to live with their parents if they can’t afford their own rent…. Most young people who just miss out on housing benefits already have to live with their parents still – rent is unaffordable not just for low earners but for the majority of earners under 25.

Of course the recession has had an impact for instance making many people redundant. However, the focus here is on 16-25 year olds who are yet to properly enter efficient employment or training. This is because the sector of young people are a really small, but important portion of the working population -small in the sense their employment wouldn’t be the solution to mass unemployment, but important in the sense young people need to get on the working ladder asap, any legitimate way they possibly can not just to help recover the economy but more importantly to help themselves.

As I said before, unemployment does not mean no jobs, the suggestions I made were perfectly valid. They are evidence that jobs exist amongst this mass unemployment.

ShaniquaJune 28, 2012 at 8:36 pmReply

A quarter of the under 25′s are out of work or not in education not because they don’t want to work but because we are slap bang in the middle of a recession. You want to cut housing benefits & JSA..where will these people go..? And don’t pretend like these young people are living a charmed life; they are not. They are living just above the poverty level, and, believe me, that ain’t a nice place to be.

Young people are constantly being told they are shit. Your qualifications are shit, your GCSE’s need reforming, your degree could be studied by a rabbit, you have no value in society as we don’t want to employ you. And now you want to take their homes away..? You’ll have a riot on your hands love, mark my words.

WheresOurVoteJune 29, 2012 at 3:48 pmReply

@Shaniqua This whole recession excuse is appalling – has nobody ever used the website gumtree.com? There thousands of jobs in areas all across the UK available this very second. It’s just people don’t want to do them. People are too fussy and not desperate enough, which is why i’m arguing only the desperate should get benefits i.e. those who can’t afford to be fussy. Ebay is a great way to make money it’s just effort – effort which people can’t be bothered to make. Also I don’t think people are aware of temping perhaps where an agency finds you a job and you give them a small portion of your profit.

The problem is many people don’t realise that in order for capitalism to be sustainable, a certain level of unemployment is essential so the market is more mobile. High unemployment is bad of course, but high unemployment doesn’t necessarily mean 0 jobs. There are always jobs.

Love we already had a riot – riots that were organised on blackberry’s by supposedly those who aren’t living a charmed life. A lot needs to change both culturally and economically, I think we can both agree on that

8 Comments

JamieshaJune 28, 2012 at 3:17 pmReply

Sorry this is long but…

Don’t you think analysing on an individual case-by-case basis is time consuming and would be a frankly unnecessary burden on an already over-stretched body? This would also be costly, and delay payments for those who really do need them. I know it may only have been an off the cuff suggestion but you don’t really seem to suggest another way. What is ‘positive change’? Is there really a ‘culture of entitlement’ amongst those receiving benefits? I thought that phrase was aimed more at ‘First World trustafarians’…

The funding for the high speed train is a long time coming – i’m not all that concerned with it but I do see that it is one of the busiest commuter trains (I had to do this route myself for some time). The fastest route (Virgin) was an hour and a half, add the underground and it ends up over twice the average Londoner commute. Not sure they’re entirely comparable areas of spending.

However, the proposal of community service is a very good idea but may not work for all young people – we can’t assume that all under 25 are the same – some have children, most have rent or university/educational costs and so on. Balancing some kind of work, low paid or part time, making ends meet and then doing compulsory community service could be disheartening. Nobody should be ‘forced to take part’ in anything – it should be a voluntary, rewarding and productive. In other words, it should be an attractive option and not a penalty of receiving benefits.
- WheresOurVoteJune 29, 2012 at 4:23 pmReply
  
  Of course it will be time-consuming and costly but social services exists relatively efficiently (as far as I know) and its work focuses on directly dealing with individuals. The scheme I’m suggesting about assessing each individual case would actually be less time consuming then social services in the sense after a case is has been properly looked in to there is no looking back unless the individual claims their situation to have changed. Social service cases on the other hand work with the individual in the long term. Furthermore, the housing benefit scheme focusing on individuals would work hand in hand with social services in the sense it will potentially identify cases that need to be taken care of by social serves; subsequently reducing pressure off of the welfare system as the whole due to its more specialised and proficient teams. I didn’t suggest another way because this is what I believe to be the solution.
  
  Projects like the High speed rail may save a bit of time but it can wait! It should not be a prioritised investment, especially when the NHS can’t even afford to give old people cataracts these days. Trust me, I go to uni in Brum and live in London so I’m extremely familiar with the journey which often makes me feel quite nauseous and however much I would love to get home 20 mins faster, at the end of the day I doubt I’d be able to afford it. The HI2 will be very expensive and not accessible for everyone.
  
  You’re right, any form of coercion is not really humane, but compulsory is seemingly a lot more pleasant. If an under 25 is in education then they won’t be expected to work, and I haven’t said anything about scrapping the grant system who do need a helping hand at uni.
  
  “I wouldn’t go to school if I didn’t get my EMA” is exactly the attitude which needs to not be tolerated. Getting paid to go to school should not be an incentive. Having to do community service if you’re not working is an excellent incentive to get kids doing something productive either actually giving back to the community which if they aren’t enjoying it then it will encourage them to work for money at least.
  
  I agree with you on the way community work should be presented more positively. The fact that its associated with words like “disheartening” needs to change. It should not be a negative thing that only naughty criminals do. At the end of the day,community work is giving something back. We all need to learn how to enjoy giving rather than this incessant, greedy and ruthless, take, take, take.
b034June 28, 2012 at 5:00 pmReply

In relation to Housing Benefits – if the taxpayer should be more resentful to recipients of Housing Benefits, is it not important to consider where this money is going? Clearly there is a problem with ever increasing rates of rent within the UK. Should the taxpayer not be resentful that a large proportion of their taxes are subsidising people with buy to let mortgages which the Housing Benefit ultimately ends up in the pocket of? You state that “a general outline of who qualifies for housing benefits for example is clearly not sustainable,” but surely this must also be looked at from an economic viewpoint. When a person working full time for minimum wage needs to have their wages topped up in benefits – living costs are either too high, or pay too low – and this is surely not sustainable either.
- WheresOurVoteJune 29, 2012 at 4:00 pmReply
  
  If you’re referring to benefit fraud when you talk about where resentment should be directed then yes part of the reformed welfare system I suggest that properly addresses the individual, will eliminate the benefit fraud where most of the resentment derives from.
  - b034June 29, 2012 at 4:42 pmReply
    
    @WheresOurVote I am not talking about benefit fraud (which is obviously a cause of resentment) but the fact that property prices are so high in this country because of buy to let mortgages. My point was that the people who “benefit” from Housing Benefits are the people who rent the properties out to the tenant. This is where the tax payers money ends up. Many people on Housing Benefits work, albeit on a low wage, and cannot afford the high rents. The rent is paid to the landlord with help from Housing Benefits. So who in this situation ends up the winner as rent is pushed up more and more? If, as you state, “only the desperate” should get benefits, how would you deal with people that don’t earn enough to pay all their rent? Would they have to become homeless and only then would they be saved from their own “laziness?”
    
    Also, are you seriously suggesting that the answer to mass unemployment is ebay and gumtree? How can you suggest that the recession has no impact on people’s ability to find work? If in June 2008, 1.6 million were unemployed and in April 2012 that figure is almost double with 2.6million unemployed, are you suggesting that a further million people have decided to just doss about and it has in no way anything to do with the economic situation in this country?
    - WheresOurVoteJune 29, 2012 at 8:26 pmReply
      
      Cameron’s idea is for young people to live with their parents if they can’t afford their own rent…. Most young people who just miss out on housing benefits already have to live with their parents still – rent is unaffordable not just for low earners but for the majority of earners under 25.
      
      Of course the recession has had an impact for instance making many people redundant. However, the focus here is on 16-25 year olds who are yet to properly enter efficient employment or training. This is because the sector of young people are a really small, but important portion of the working population -small in the sense their employment wouldn’t be the solution to mass unemployment, but important in the sense young people need to get on the working ladder asap, any legitimate way they possibly can not just to help recover the economy but more importantly to help themselves.
      
      As I said before, unemployment does not mean no jobs, the suggestions I made were perfectly valid. They are evidence that jobs exist amongst this mass unemployment.
ShaniquaJune 28, 2012 at 8:36 pmReply

A quarter of the under 25′s are out of work or not in education not because they don’t want to work but because we are slap bang in the middle of a recession. You want to cut housing benefits & JSA..where will these people go..? And don’t pretend like these young people are living a charmed life; they are not. They are living just above the poverty level, and, believe me, that ain’t a nice place to be.

Young people are constantly being told they are shit. Your qualifications are shit, your GCSE’s need reforming, your degree could be studied by a rabbit, you have no value in society as we don’t want to employ you. And now you want to take their homes away..? You’ll have a riot on your hands love, mark my words.
- WheresOurVoteJune 29, 2012 at 3:48 pmReply
  
  @Shaniqua This whole recession excuse is appalling – has nobody ever used the website gumtree.com? There thousands of jobs in areas all across the UK available this very second. It’s just people don’t want to do them. People are too fussy and not desperate enough, which is why i’m arguing only the desperate should get benefits i.e. those who can’t afford to be fussy. Ebay is a great way to make money it’s just effort – effort which people can’t be bothered to make. Also I don’t think people are aware of temping perhaps where an agency finds you a job and you give them a small portion of your profit.
  
  The problem is many people don’t realise that in order for capitalism to be sustainable, a certain level of unemployment is essential so the market is more mobile. High unemployment is bad of course, but high unemployment doesn’t necessarily mean 0 jobs. There are always jobs.
  
  Love we already had a riot – riots that were organised on blackberry’s by supposedly those who aren’t living a charmed life. A lot needs to change both culturally and economically, I think we can both agree on that

Comment & Analysis

The Welfare System: Encourage The Lazy, Enrich The Needy

Share this post

About Anastasia Kyriacou

8 Comments

Leave a reply Cancel reply

Search

Sign up to our newsletter!

Social

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Latest

Pages