The Independent notes:
Plans to make the long-term unemployed do unpaid manual labour for their benefits could push vulnerable people into a "downward spiral of despair", the Archbishop of Canterbury warned yesterday.
In a forthright intervention into the debate on welfare, Rowan Williams said he had "a lot of worries" about the scheme, which will be formally unveiled this week by the Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith.
His comments will irritate Coalition ministers — particularly the Tories, who remember their party's fractious relationship with the Church of England under Dr Williams' predecessor in the 1980s, Robert Runcie.
I commented on the same proposals yesterday.
The Archbishop is right to be worried. The Conservatives are also right to be worried. The Church of England provided effective and appropriate opposition to its programmes to undermine society in the 1980s, and I sincerely hope that they will do so now that the Conservatives have returned to the attack, seeking to destroy all that is good about the communities in which we live.
I note some think that was is to be formally announced later this week is a simple PR stunt and that few if any will be subject to the type of enforced labour referred to in the weekend newspapers, no doubt with the active assistance of leaks from The Department for Work and Pensions. I am not so sure,and even if few will be involved, I remain profoundly concerned. Let's catalogue what is happening:
1. Because of cuts in housing benefit many unemployed people and people on low wages will be forced out of their homesand into low income ghettos;
2. Unemployment, currently supposedly standing at 1.4 million people, but with maybe 1,000,000 to be added to the total when cuts in disability benefit force those claiming that relief to seek work whether they are able to do it or not, and with at least 1.6 million people to be made redundant as a result of cuts in the state and private sectors resulting from the ConDems’ economic policies, will rise as a consequence to 4,000,000. In such an environment the number of new employment opportunities to be created by the private sector will fall. The number of long-term unemployed will, inevitably, rise.
3. Those long-term unemployed are to have their benefits cut, over and above cuts in their housing benefit. This will marginalise them in society . And, if as I predict, the deficit does not fall, largely because of increasing benefit payments, they will be made to bear the blame for this. This will increase the stigma attached to their position.
4. Having been forced into this invidious and marginalised position through no fault of their own the long-term unemployed will now be forced to work. As Jackie Ashley asked in the Guardian this morning:
What happens to someone, already feeling crushed and useless because they have been sacked, and then turned down, who does not want to spend 30 hours a week in front of the neighbours, scrubbing graffiti? Will they be watched by security guards, or made to wear identifiable uniforms?
The question is fair. How else will control the enforced? We can be sure that it will be the private sector we will be supervising these people, and at the same time will be undermining social services, employment opportunities that previously existed in the public sector whilst undermining opportunities to tender for this work from small private enterprises that might otherwise undertake it if enforced labour did not.
I believe this is a co-ordinated,and significant attempt to create a marginalised group in society on whom the deficit can be blamed. We all know that the blame for the deficit rests with bankers. The evidence is compelling, clear and undeniable.But they wish to maintain their position in society and this co-ordinated policy by their friends in government to ensure that the blame can be shifted to the victims of the crash, rather than the perpetrators of the crash, is the type of social engineering that the right always engage in.
And in that case all decent people,from the Archbishop of Canterbury onwards, have a duty (I stress, a duty) to oppose what this government is doing because next they will come for you.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Richard, time and again, you prove yourself to be way out of touch with normal people. This has nothing to do with the deficit. Does the government have no other business to deal with? Dealing with the work-shy and successive generations of some households living on the dole is a priority too. Look at the bigger picture -this is something required to make people contribute to society instead of just taking from it.
George Osborne, famously, has no Plan B. He says he prefers a Plan A.
In response to a claim from the Chartered Institute of Housing reported today that by 2025 no one on state housing support will be able to afford two-bedroomed accommodation anywhere in the south of England, a spokesperson for the Department for Work and Pensions said that it was trying to deal with the “problem now, not in 10 years’ time or in the future … For example, no one predicted the 80% growth in housing benefit over the last decade. We want to deal with today’s issues.” Presumably those then in government who failed to predict that 80% rise were also trying to deal with “the problem now”.
We seem to be blessed now with unashamedly instant government, little interested in the future.
It seems rather odd to me that a government that purports to believe in a meritocratic system would do so much to keep the wealthy wealthy and the poor poor. It is a government that claims the private sector will drag us out of our problems, yet it is also a government that seems determined to prevent some of the would-be entrepreneurs like laid-off plumbers, electricians, builders and so on from advancing their circumstances by undermining the support they receive from the state.
I read ‘The Affluent Society’ recently and was fascinated by the concept that the welfare state should provide a safety net for individuals that allows them (and indeed the country) to carry on living whilst out of work and at the same time move sensibly towards more productive or modern industries. As old industries fade, so new ones requiring new workers emerge. However, the ConDems seem hell bent on preventing that.
You completely ignore the plight of those working and paying the taxes to finance the unemployed. There is a practical and moral limit as to much tax we will pay.As in the 1980s ,unemployment may reach 4 million,but economic growth will return in the private sector. Brown’s creation of non-jobs for all was unaffordable social engineering by the left.DO you seriously believe that the coalition government is right wing,having taken 800,000 people out of income tax?
The Archbishop is finding his voice – its about time those in the Church with a ready made platform i.e. he speaks, it gets reported, started shouting. Let’s hope he is ready to perservere and not retreat to the inner-sanctums of Lambeth Palace for the next few months.
@william
Unemployment may reach 4 Million, but economic groth will return to the private sector.
So that’s alright then! I’ll sleep well knowing the “downward spiral of despair” will be worth it in the end.
What is a neo-liberal’s definition of compassion? Or can they not bring themselves to even form the word on their lips?
@ vi___sa and @ william
Who the hell owns these houses? Where the hell does the money go? It goes into the pockets of landlords and management companies, so if demand is removed from the market rental income for private landlords will reduce, reducing the value of said properties. So anyone (or anything) that owns a property rented out to welfare-funded tenants will lose out. That’ll really help private sector growth..err…
As for “successive generations of households living on the dole..” – how about we do something about the successive generations of households evading tax?
@vi__sa
Of course there are a few work shy
But the number is very small
Get real
This is about finding people to blame other than bankers
I am the one in real; tough – you are promoting the untrue propaganda
@william
Nonsense
First that’s not how the government finance system works – Osborne is spinning lies about that too
Second your belief in growth in the private sector is right now a fantasy – but the poverty the government creating is real
Do you have no concern about real poverty
Have you no one you know who will not be victimised by the government?
It seems to me that, whatever side of the political fence you are on, Britain has become a much more divided society over the last 50 years. There are huge divides that need to be healed. It astounds me that when a politician says that the unemployed should be prepared to travel to find work he is criticised, yet most working people commute, often large distances. So immediately those in employment feel that they are fnding the lifestyle choices of others, rather than giving support to those looking to help themselves.
There are large numbers of people in Britain who do not work and who live in communities where very few do work. They lead lives that most of us would regard as unsatisfying: daytime TV, short-term relationships, children by multiple partners, the whole culture of ASBOs and drug abuse etc.
What I don’t understand is why the left thinks this is a good thing. You spend all your time criticising the wealthy for trying to avoid their responsibilities: surely you need to accept that for a society to function everyone needs to participate and that just as wealth is no excuse for opting-out, nor is (relative) poverty.
@mad foetus
a) Most people do not travel far to work
b) Most unemployed would be quite happy to travel to work
c) We’re talking people living anywhere in the south of England being unable to live ion benefit in the future
d) Thatcher destroyed those communities. It’s not their fault there’s no work. And people need to live in their own communities – by and large
e) Given you’re from jersey that prevents immigration, what do you propose?
@ mad foetus
Your moniker is apt.
Nobody here is suggesting that “this is a good thing”; everybody on the left side of the argument is far more concerned with eliminating exactly the circumstances you highlight, rather than perpetuating them, which seems to be the strategy of the right.
I’m all for full employment (as a target); I’m all for narrowing the gap between rich and poor; I’m all for satisfying lives for everyone, but cutting benefits from the unemployed won’t ever lead to that.
On the specific point of travelling for work – as Richard says I’m sure most unemployed people would be more than happy to travel for work, but travelling for work requires travelling to interviews and involves paying for the travel. Given the massive level of unemployment in the country and the rising cost of travel, it hardly seems that the right environment exists.
@mad foetus
I agree with your first sentence. I’m also one of the unlucky people who has to travel a considerable distance to my place of work (86 miles each way), though lucky enough to have a job where I’m able to use new technologies to also make working from home possible.
But consider this: if I were earning the minimum wage working full time (and many minimum wage jobs are actually part time), what proportion of my earnings is it reasonable to expect me to spend on travel to and from work?
That will vary from person to person, of course, depending on disposable income. But it strikes me that many of the people who I’ve recently heard ruminating on how unemployed people should be prepared to travel to often poorly paid jobs have absolutely no idea how poorly paid – and thus what a dire standard of living – many people actually experience.
And here’s a real example taken from my own recent experience that illustrates my point.
About a month ago I arranged to meet my son for an early evening drink in a bar in the town in which I live. Later in the evening several of his friends joined us before he and they headed off elsewhere. After a short while I noticed that three of them had no drinks. When I asked why they told me very sheepishly that it was because the cheapest beer (a continental lager) in the bar which we were in was just over £3 a pint and that as they only earned minimum wage this was more than half what they took home in pay for every hour they worked.
I have to say I was shocked and disappointed with myself that this hadn’t dawned on me (and is why Weatherspoons – which is where they would normally drink – does so well)- largely because like many, many people, I suspect, I have no experience and thus no real comprehension of how low the minimum wage actually is.
To make matters worse for them (and for how out of touch I’ve become), they explained that their employer (a major bingo hall operator) also had a policy of only allocating the hours they would be working each week less than one week in advance. So, late one week they would find out that rather than working a full week they’d only be working three days. This they told me was common practice amongst employers of ‘unskilled’ labour nowadays. The result was they could never plan their spending because they never knew much in advance what they might actually earn.
This is the reality of ‘flexible’ labour markets and of low pay and inequality in the UK in the 21st century – even for those who want to work – and I for one am ashamed that it’s come to this.
@Ivan Horrocks
Well said – let’s do the math shall we? An annual season ticket from Chelmsford in Essex (near where I live) into London Liverpool St costs £3,120. Assuming that someone were to live in Chelmsford and make minimum wage working 40 hours a week at £5.93 per hour, they would be making about £12,400 per year before tax. This means that over 25% of their gross wage would be going on travel costs. And as a proportion of net wages the travel costs would be even higher – probably over 30%.
Once you add in housing costs and essentials such as food and clothing it’s very difficult to see how someone on minimum wage could be a commuter. And that’s not a long commute – only 30 minutes station to station on a good day (which are few and far between, given National Express’s service record, admittedly.)
This situation is going to get worse, not better, because the ConDems are raising rail fares by 3% above inflation for the next 4 years. So, a (roughly) 12% real terms hike… that would take the season ticket up to about £3,500. And all this is without a London travelcard on top which would hike prices up another £600.
Extortionate public transport fares are much more of a “jobs tax” than anything that Labour was planning in 2010, believe me.
vi__sa
Dealing with the very small number of ‘work-shy’ in the long-term unemployed category is certainly not a “priority.” As the government itself will be adding many of it’s own employees to the unemployment queues, I would suggest government “priorities” should be in the areas of job creation: forcing banks to lend some of the money they’ve been given, channelling growth opportunities into areas of high unemployment, providing an employment bridge until non-banking sectors get back on their feet having been knocked-for-six by recklessness in the city.
Getting a few work-shy people (reluctant or infirmed) to paint railings and pick litter is not going to make much difference when they’re about to be joined by armies of people with recent workskills, vocational qualifications and degrees.
William
Regarding the “practical and moral limit as to much tax we will pay.”
There is also a legal limit as to how much tax should be paid, Unfortunately, there are many individuals and corporations, who choose not to pay their taxes according to the limits set out in law. The amounts are staggering. Far greater in value than the value obtained by pushing a few long-term unemployed out to pick-up litter.
And, who is dropping all this litter? Walk around most industrial estates and you’ll find plastic shrink-wrapping hanging in mesh fencing, cartons and labels strewn around, and vending-machine coffee cups in gutters and shrubberies.
RichardSM,I agree there is a large problem of evaded/avoided taxes that flys in the face of what parliament intended.But as Lawson showed in the 1980s, at a certain level tax rates become unproductive.I hope it is not in dispute that the middle classes, earners can be taxed at any level.
@william
you clearly know remarkably little about tax, or what Nigel Lawson did
The truth was that Nigel Lawson cut tax rates but at the same time considerably extended the tax base
As I have explained here often, tax collected equals the tax base times the tax rate minus the tax gap
In, as was commonplace before about 1987, the corporate tax base was zero whatever the rate made no difference – to the outcome was zero
Lawson dramatically increased the tax base by reducing capital allowances and abolishing stock relief during the course of the media 1980s
The reduce the tax rate from 52% to 33%, but the consequence was he dramatically increase the tax take
But the in no doubt – he did not prove that certain tax rates are unproductive. far from it. The rate he used is much higher than that which is now proposed for this country. What he proved was that if you extend the tax base you collect tax
That is why so much effort has been put into extending the tax base ever since
And that is also why no one has paid any attention to the pronouncements of Mr Laffer, except that is bar mildly deluded neoliberals who have no idea about economics or accountancy, let alone tax
William,
“Brown’s creation of non-jobs for all was unaffordable social engineering by the left.”
What non-jobs?
What was unaffordable?
What social engineering?
What makes you think Brown was on the left?
The long-term unemployed already do “work placement”
They “go to work” at a normal workplace and get paid……their benefit plus travelling.
They are also ridiculed at their “place of work” by those on the usual wage/salary.
I suppose the “new” idea will have rubbish collected by the unemployed (so there will also be redundancy among those employed collecting/cleaning at the moment.
Then there is the cost…..you just cannot put untrained people onto places like building sites. Practically the entire industry is now extremely safety conscious. They may well get paid a quid an hour, but they will need protective equipment (personal Protective Equipment regulations) (hard-hats, protective glasses,hearing defenders, waterproof clothing, boots), they will need training (Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations) etc…etc.
But wait !
Lord Youngs review of safety legislation is ongoing……I think I smell a rat !
Richard, you live on another planet.Lawson raised tax receipts from income by cutting the Healey theft rates to 60 percent.He simplified corporation tax,that’s all. You seem to think that the present government had and has the option of sorting out the deficit by ignoring the capital markets which may or may not buy gilts,or could charge whatever rate it likes on income.The coalition chose 28 percent because the treasury rightly thinks Laffer was right.
The extension of the tax base has nothing to do with it.
Lawson cut the top rate of income tax and receipts FROM INCOME TAX went up. Ignore the other taxes.
Receipts went up because the rich stopped paying accountants large sums of money to dodge tax and just paid up.
@Howard
Your income figures should include the various benefits that would accrue to such a person, in order not to distort your percentages!!!
Richard, the basic flaw in the quote is the “unpaid” bit. If someone is capable of working then it does not seem unreasonable that they should be required to work in order to gain the benefit. Something that Keynes was in favour of as I recall. And nothing to do with fault at all.
@alastair
then as I have noted time and again, give them a real job
deliver genuine Keynesian policies, boost the economy, create long-term, stable, secure employment with training attached, holiday pay, and rights and then these people will take an active part in the economy again. What you want consigns them to continual uncertainty, stress, financial plight, and desperation
Can’t you see that?
@william
I’m not on another planet. I was a tax accountant in the 1980s and know exactly what I’m talking about. I also studied the laffeer curve and there is no evidence, whatsoever, that the laffer effect has been found in any major developed economy.
I can most certainly assure you that people did not stop tax avoiding in the 1980s because tax rates are being cut. Far from it. Tax avoidance was right. I well recall it. You are promoting an urban myth
The truth was that if yields went up it was because of the boom that Lawson was generating, and because the cut in first-year allowances and stock relief also affected the self-employed
get your facts right and your comments might have some relevance. As it is, they are simple nonsense
you can’t even get the coalition’s chosen Corporation tax rate right
I really doubt that this idea of forcing people to work will work. You can make a guy go to a park, put a rake in his hand, but what then. Will he actually do anything useful. Or will we need a gangmaster there cracking the whip? Now there’s a non-job. It’s really hard to amke people actually work when they don’t want to. Easy to produce the “appearance of work”. We all know the guy who is always marching purposefully down the corridor carrying a sheaf of “important” papers!
As for the tax base, I started working in tax in the mid 80s. I remember how much things were tightened up in that area. People younger than me would find it hard to credit how crap the system was back then. I picked up files where tax returns had not been filed for over 5 years etc etc. I am inclined to accept Richard’s analysis that tax take was increased by enlarging the tax base. It ties in with my eperience.
@Richard Murphy
so what is a “real” job? The Keynesian answer was simply to provide employment to dig holes and fill them in. The Osborne approach is to get the long term unemployed into a work like environment. But the effect is the same. And both would look to the see employment rates in the economy grow as a result. And there was me thinking you espoused Keynesian policies?
Richard, the coalition chose the unusual figure of 28 percent for CGT, not corporation tax,because the Treasury seems to thinkas I do, that the Laffer curve is right.
@mad foetus
You are dead right. You are asking exactly the right questions. So do all folks I speak to in public. From the poor all the way up to the elite. The question remains, why do all the experts keep ignoring you? Experts on all sides.
There must be a powerful force stopping them. You will find on every single occasion it is rooted in property rights. And unearned incomes. By far the greatest being private property in land. Land is owned by people on the left and right. They both have it therefore cannot go there in dialogue. They are ALL deeply complicit. People who do not own it, aspire to owning it. THIS is what is stopping justice above all other things. Our leaders and experts tell you it is irrelevant though. So you are screwed.
Here is a classic graph showing the wealth divide in all its glory. These are irrefutable facts. Children can understand them with great ease. Yet our experts apparently cannot! This is a great surprise.
Real Reform: Where Are My Wages Going Mr Osbourne?
People commute long distances because they cannot afford the rent/interest for city land. simple. A primary cause of carbon emissions.
People cannot help themselves because they are taxed to death to pay for subsidies to the wealthy land owners. Tax on your work is perfect protectionism for land owners. Truly unjust.
The vice you mention all springs form this. When you have been robbed of you wages indirectly by rent, it seems fair to rob it back again. I do not blame them. Pirates essentially
People are involuntarily employed and involuntarily unemployed. I liken it to a modern day form of slavery. Wage slavery. We are working for land owners big and small. Simple
“for a society to function everyone needs to participate “
Never a truer statement. Wealth is not the problem. it is the distribution of that wealth that is exactly the problem. and the large proportion goes to land owners as unearned income.
Well done and keep asking this essential questions until the experts can remove themselves from the Matrix
@william
sorry, I did not notice what tax you were talking about
But with regard to capital gains tax – the evidence is emphatic. When Nigel Lawson set capital gains tax rates at the same level as income tax tax avoidance went down and tax yields went up
There was never, there is not, and will not be, a laffer impact on this
I know that there are right-wingers who claim otherwise. The evidence is, as far as I can see, incomplete and fails to take into consideration other factors such as economic climates
@alastair
utter and complete nonsense
We need new schools, hospitals, roads, coastal defences, green energy, transport systems, and more
And all you can do is make stupid comments
Who is the time waster here?
we could do the positive things by creating real jobs for real people with real pay, real training and long-term futures that provide benefits for our economy
You want them to pick up litter
You should be ashamed of yourself
This comment has been deleted. It failed the moderation policy noted here. http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/comments/. The editor’s decision on this matter is final.
It did not seek to add to debate