I have sought to define fairness on this blog this morning. I have suggested that fairness is subjective and contextual and cannot therefore be determined without consideration of the facts that the person using the term uses in support of their claim of perceived justice or injustice.
So, what of a welfare cap? Is that fair?
My answer is, straightforwardly, no it is not. If you believe, as I do, that the role of government is to ensure that those suffering misfortune through no fault of their own do not suffer unduly as a consequence then to demand a cap on what I call social security payments must be unfair. That is because such a cap, that insists current provision as adjusted for inflation, is sufficient very obviously does not consider the fact that circumstances may change.
I am, of course, aware that the propose cap excludes basic pensions (but not other age related provision) and excludes basic job seekers allowance, but its scope remains enormous nonetheless and as such fails, completely, to consider changes in circumstance in society which will now, legally, be precluded from consideration when setting the social security budget.
Let me take three examples where injustice might result. First, suppose there is a boom in rents. The welfare cap will not be allowed to consider this even if it arises as a result of failure to meet housing demand.
Second, suppose there is a significant increase in national income going mainly to a few in society: those on benefits will see their relative well being cut, and inequality now matters, as even the IMF has admitted. As they have also said, it is not just the tax system that must beat that inequality; social security has a role to play too. This role is now being taken, very deliberately, out of the equation meaning inequality will be harder to tackle.
And thirdly, what if we have a rising population? This seem likely. What then? Remember, this cap applies to all child related social security including, even, maternity pay.
Of course, in practice, there is a limit to what any society can afford to redistribute of its wealth. I have to accept that. But, to define that in terms of financial limits set at an arbitrary point in time and which then fails to take into account all possible changes in subsequent circumstances is not just to create a crass and arbitrary decision making tool, it's also more obviously a tool intended to increase inequality in society which is why I applaud all politicians who oppose the cap today.
Neoliberalism embraces a philosophy that says that what those who subscribe to that creed think of as losers should pay the price of their failure. We saw it when neoliberals demanded that banks should be allowed to fail without consideration of the cost to society. We are seeing it here too. The welfare cap is indication of that belief that the loser should pay in action. This is a policy proposed by those who think themselves the winners to claim more of the rewards of society at cost to those they consider losers. This policy needs to be be named as such. And it needs to be said that this is unfair because it is socially unjust. I will do that. I hope others do as well.
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:
I agree Richard but we are not really talking about ‘wealth distribution’ here but income ‘creation’. In the case of welfare it is the Government putting money into the economy which, as a currency issuer it can do with fiscal and monetary policy controlling its flow and elimination. That this Government should be putting money into circulation is proven by the fact that bank compensation for misselling has been a factor in growth. By capping welfare all that happens is money is taken out of circulation which then impacts the private sector leading to job losses and a vicious circle. Of course, without LVT, there is a certain amount of urinating in the wind,as the mortgage and rent scam preserves the rentier economy intact -without this changing there can be no progress.
The corollary is that there is no longer a minimum standard of food and shelter to which a child or anyone else is entitled.
My question is at what age is this justified because children should be expected to bear responsibility for the shortcomings of their parents.
Of course rich children deserve their rich parents.
Why are children responsible for their parent’s failings?
Are shareholders responsible for the failings of their companies?
Why do children have unlimited liabilities but shareholders do not?
‘If you believe, as I do, that the role of government is to ensure that those suffering misfortune through no fault of their own do not suffer unduly as a consequence then to demand a cap on what I call social security payments must be unfair.’
What if that suffering is a fault of their own? Isn’t this definition entirely subjective as well? If one perosn is earning well and another not, is the person on a lower income being treated unfairly?
The welfare cap is set to be around 120bn, then increasing with CPI. If this level is unfair, what level do you think it should be set at?
I accept income differentials
I do not think all differentials fair. Many in the UK are not. That is why we need a living wage. Someone who does not enjoy that is not suffering through their own fault. They are being abused
I would tackle the issues first
Then I would set a budget
But I would never set a cap. That’s a cart before horse policy and anyone with an inkling of sense should realise it
Another example of Labour falling back into bad habits, triangulating and accepting the Conservatives insane economic narrative. What’s the point of winning an election if all you’re doing is adopting the policies and (broken) philosophy of the opposition ?
Can a social security cap be rational?
Have these people in the tripartite coalition decided that social security spending,in a society that is organised around a private sector which denies any responsibility to its host and protector, will be unchanging for evermore?
What happens after the next crash?
How does this sit with the increasing, willed trends of un/under employment and wage repression across europe? The only conclusion must be that it is intended to accelerate them.
I can see the dreadful, tactical logic of this bill, to reduce government to pointless wrangling over accounting entries, as the ‘debt ceiling’ pantomime serves in the US.
Andrew is right, government spending is income creation, therefore it must be directed to the ruling class, to perpetuate their security.
Addendum:
Andrew is right, government spending is income creation, therefore it must be directed to the ruling class, to perpetuate their security.
After all, they can’t get by withgout a lot of help from the state.
Slightly off topic but on Radio 4 this morning there was a good article about gambling. And as mentioned, when I was in court recently there were lots of cases of phone companies going after the unemployed for the unexpired portion of their 36 month phone contract. Any review of food/health websites will quickly confirm that for many, cheap processed junk food is more widely available than affordable, fresh veg.
It’s not so much welfare that is the problem as the fact that the poor seem to be the main target for the most rapacious forces of capitalism. I wonder if anyone in power would ever suggest closing down betting shops in poor areas and replacing them with co-operatives selling fresh food (subsidised if necessary)? Whatever money is spent on welfare should go into improving the lives of those of welfare and aiming to give them more control over their lives, not on filling the coffers of those who seek to exploit the poor.
I find it deeply ironic that this thread comes hot on the heels of yesterday’s discussion on the direction and identity of the Labour Party (‘principles mot platitudes’. The decision by all but a handful of Labour members to vote with the coalition highlights what little chance their party has of winning the election next year.
The problem with a discussion of this nature, however, is attempting to frame the debate in terms of ‘fairness’.
I understand, Richard, that your spiritual beliefs mean that fairness is, for you, the driving force behind your work, and I applaud that. But as you rightly point out fairness is an extremely subjective measure, and that makes discussions such as this the biggest weapon in the arsenal of the Neo-liberal commentators. The principle of ‘fairness’ is subverted with ease because of that.
“Is it fair that people on benefits should receive more than hard working people?”.
Unfortunately, the people most likely to vote in 2015 are those that feel they have a vested interest in the outcome. (Given the Labour Party’s complicity in the enactment in this measure I see little or no reason for the poorest 40% to exercise their franchise).A better way to challenge the issue is in the effect it has on the economy.
By consistently refusing (or being incapable) of challenging the narrative offered by the Tories, Labour have painted themselves into a corner.
I am neither a politician nor a statistician but (were I in their place)I would have commissioned a co-efficient to establish what percentage of the money paid in benefits to each income group is returned to the treasury. As the poorest in society have insufficient income to save or invest I would guess that a (disproportionately) large amount ends up back where it started, in the Treasury coffers, en route paying for the continued survival of local shops and services, and, as we know, making correlate savings in healthcare costs. By comparison the rentiers and property speculators are sucking money out of the welfare system at an alarming rate, much of which of course the chancellor will never get his dirty little hands on.
Which is more damaging to the UK economy? (I’m sure M Hollande is more than happy with the billions continuing to be paid to social vandals ATOS).
If Labour want to cap benefits they should commit now to building council houses and bringing the (more than one million) empty homes back into use which would attack the heart of the problem (excessive rent costs), and rebalancing the economy towards the Midlands, the North, and Wales and Ireland,(and of course Scotland should they choose to remain with us) where housing is relatively cheap and plentiful.
Discussions of fairness are for many of us at the centre of the debate, but they will not win the hearts and minds of an increasingly embattled and embittered electorate. Challenging the faux-economics of neo-liberalism can.
I agree – challenging faux economics is the issue
I believe you know many of these people, Richard. Can you tell me why they are so incapable of attacking the inane and illiterate ideology of the right? Their persistent failure to do so is astounding. From the outside it almost looks deliberate!
Remember some in Labour full embrace the logic of the neoliberal right