The FT has reported that:
Ministers are examining proposals to grant banks access to all of the accounts of benefit claimants.
They added:
Officials in the Department for Work and Pensions have been asked to investigate the proposal as a possible means to ensure welfare recipients do not hold more funds than they claim to, according to people briefed on the matter. “We are looking at whether it would be possible to get access to claimants' bank accounts in the same way they get access to all of your accounts when you apply for a mortgage,” one official said.
This worries me for three reasons.
First, whilst I oppose fraud of all sorts, the focus given to this issue is inappropriate; there is little evidence of significant real benefit fraud. That which takes place is vastly lower than the underclaiming of benefits. That is a much more serious issue in the UK because it means that people in need do not get the support they need and are entitled to. That is where the government's focus should be.
Second, I worry that the data, once collected, will be used for other purposes. The government is not good at providing safeguards on such issues.
Third, I really do wish the government could be as worried about tax fraud. What we know is that hundreds of thousands of companies in the UK trade fraudulently in the UK at all times and do not then settle their tax bills. They do not, in fact, ever file accounts or tax returns, and with completely casual indifference to the billions lost as a result - which sum will considerably exceed the total amount of UK benefit fraud by a very long way - those fraudulent companies are then struck off the Register of Companies that is very half-heartedly maintained by the UK government, with their owners then having the right to repeat the process as many times as they like.
There are easy ways to limit this abuse:
- Make company registration a lot harder so that proof of identity is required. It is absolutely absurd that it still is not.
- Remove limited liability for tax liabilities owing by companies unless directors can prove that their companies failed through no fault of their own.
- Require that banks report whenever a bank account is opened, and then at least once annually, to HM Revenue & Customs which companies they provide services to, who they think beneficially owns and controls that company, where they might be contacted, and what sums are deposited each year.
If they do that, the amount of UK corporate tax fraud will tumble, with the massive added advantage that honest businesses in the UK would be supported as a result.
Instead, the government is targeting benefit claimants. Why is that?
- Do they hate benefit claimants?
- Do they secretly think corporate tax abuse is OK?
- Are they ignorant of the options open to them?
- Do they not care that the real problem with benefits in the UK is that people are not claiming what they are entitled to?
I wish I knew.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
We should look at cracking down on deliberate company fraud, but the focus around be on companies that pay their shareholders or directors in a period while not paying the tax they then owe.
From speaking to a few insolvency practitioners, I gather there are many small companies at the moment that are looking at being closed down having not recovered from lockdown. Where they got Bounce Back loans to retain staff the directors are being told the British Bank requires the banks to object to the company being struck off already, forcing those directors to already put in further thousands more from personal funds to close down the company. This is not a point where they should be hit with a further new liability unless they used directors loans or other means to extract the BBL for themselves.
I think you are confusing issues here
Labour are fixated on focus groups and keeping the main stream media owners happy.
What’s easier for Labour, dealing with alleged widespread benefit fraud or actually dealing with tax evasion? Fraud of course. It generates “look how tough we are” news coverage.
There is also the striking similarity with Musk’s actions of grabbing personal data. What’s the end game?
Your second question, why does the government allow hundreds of thousands of companies (company directors…) in the UK trade fraudulently, not then settle their tax bills or even file accounts or tax returns’ is the more interesting. The scale of dysfunction and loss is not generally appreciated.
Your first question helps explain why many people due benefits don’t claim.
Why? In a word, politics. And that leans on the simple stories we tell ourselves about people we don’t know. Are people mostly good or mostly bad?
It is easy to point a wagging moral finger at the “undeserving poor” and the “benefit cheats” who are abusing our generosity. That is why for example we have penal sanctions regimes, long and complicated forms, and burdensome “tests” of capability, to place hurdles in the way of people claiming the benefits they need. It is why we claim back thousand of pounds of allowances from carers who have the temerity to earn a pound more than we say is allowed. It is why we deny benefits to people who have more than the two children we say is permitted or have more than the number of bedroom we think they should have (irrespective of how those circumstances come about or actual need). So we start from a position of suspicion not generosity, and impose heavy compliance burdens on the majority to catch a small volume of fraud. This is the scolding mother-in-law state, not the nanny state.
Whereas any measure to improve compliance by businesses and companies, particularly small businesses, are “red tape” that hold back “entrepreneurs”. Which simultaneously enables fraudsters who abuse the system and penalises the majority who obey the rules. If there are almost no checks on compliance and virtually no penalties for breaches, why should anyone follow the rules?
Much to agree with
Might they find it easier to pursue/attack the weak and not the strong?
Might they believe/find that they get more attractive coverage from the main stream media when they “hunt” the poor rather than effectively manage any difficulties associated with the wealthy?
Ditto thé possible attraction of actual/potential Reform voters.
“The principal purpose of (contemporary) politics is to keep the voters entertained and so more manageable and less alert to realities.” ( From H. L. Menken)
You may well be right
Thuggery against the vulnerable has a strange appeal to politicians
It also appeals to the ordinary voter, happy to blame their neighbours (or immigrants, who are even worse off) for stagnant wages and rising costs, but not the bosses busily gaming the tax and subsidy system and buying politicians. After all, they just heard about George down the road, who lives on benefits and doesn’t want to go to work (and might be on C4’s next benefit scrounger expose), while they have to. “Should be conscripted!” Get total control of the narrative and you need not fear the truth.
Right wing politicians (including the current Labour Party) need scapegoats to pin the blame on for problems caused by their own indifference and lack of caring.
Agreed.
There is a small amount of benefit fraud. But the biggest part of it is not individuals “fiddling the welfare” but organised professionals running fake letting agencies for fake tenants and collecting housing benefit/allowance payments, usually with multiple IDs and bank accounts. They can and still will run rings round the sort of measures propsed by HMG.
I can remember the misery caused by the overpayment of tax credits and the debts that resulted. More recently we have the injustice of carers being massively overpenalised for tiny mistakes with earnings limits.
This “benefit fraud” campaign is Liz Kendall reaching for the well used DWP dogwhistle.
Why?
To try and steal votes from Fa***e.
And the victims will be, once again not the organised crooked fraudsters, but stressed out people already living on the edge.
“Do they hate benefit claimants?”
NO, but going after them generates useful headlines and turns attention away from the rich (included in that category – newspaper & media owners).
Thus benefit claimants are an easy target – for those in gov that don’t want to go after their sponsors (the rich).
In the 19th and early 20th century the nascent agricultural workers union and landowners battled not just about the usual pay and conditions, but also about allotments, and even workers’ gardens. Why? Because ANY support, however modest, workers might gain outside wage labour strengthens their negotiating position. There’s a lesson there, I think.
It is ridiculous that it is easier to start a limited company than to open a personal bank account.
Agreed
Such benefit fraud as exists will almost entirely be recycled into the economy, unlike the proceeds of tax fraud which may well be offshored into the Cayman Islands, etc. Obsessing over the former whilst accepting the latter is seriously damaging to the Treasury’s stated aims.
Many offshore instantly returns to the UK via the banking system
…where it languishes unspent in the super-rich’s bank accounts, or spent on property that pushes up house prices? Or are things not as bad as I imagine?
The obvious point I might make is that while the Government indeed successive Governments have gone on the warpath over benefit fraud there has been a steady erosion of the states ability to maintain ‘law and order’
The Prisons and Courts are in crisis, Fraud in its widest sense remains a low risk crime, there are major issues with Waste Crime, and a Road Safety Emergency has been declared in the West Midlands.
Not only did the last Government cut 20000 Police Officers but HMRC & Local Authority enforcement has been cut and in the case of trading standards more or less shut down in many areas.
Thats before you get to the well publicised abuses of Companies House, let alone the stuff that gets mentioned on this blog.
Might I suggest that we need a long term commitment to sort out the Courts and what I will loosely call Prisons, rebuild enforcement capacity and look at how we can ‘apply pressure’ legally at offenders weak spots but of course its not going to happen
According to FullFact:
✅The government overpaid £9.7 billion in benefits payments, whether through fraud, claimant error or official error.
✅The overall tax gap was £39.8 billion (the difference between the amount of tax that should theoretically have been collected)
I’m not excusing the overpayments, but I think I would be focusing more on the tax gap.
Having said that, the UK government is not “short” of £39.8 billion, it can spend that amount any time it wants.
Source:
https://fullfact.org/online/benefit-fraud-vs-tax-evasion/
All agreed, Ian
Ever wondered why the government rolls fraud and overpayments into one figure? Because government errors and overpayments are pretty much half of the given amount, meaning fraud is a tiny percentage of the benefit budget. It’s a total con designed for the billionaire farther and farther right wing media (and the bbc which takes its cues from them) to lead others to believe that the whole amount is from fraudulent claimants. Those folk in the middle and lower then kick down rather than kick up at the far more crooked/criminal tax avoiders with all their scams, or the under policed fraudulent companies.
Agreed
This little development is more significant to this country in my opinion than events in the U.S. This is really bad.
I would engage with Prof Paul Spicker of Robert Gordon University about this:
I hope this link goes through and readers can dip into this. (the link does not work, I’ve had to remove it) but go to his ‘ Introduction to Social Policy’ page and then scroll down to F for ‘Fraud’ – his comments on a 2017 review are instructive.
This move by government – a Labour government I ask you – is just another clear fascist ruse to look for people who can be turned into threats, so that government can look as though it is doing its job whilst it lets the rich make hay at your expense.
Thatcherism is back and it is meaner than ever before.
It is well known that qualification for benefits -rather than automatic registration/entitlement – causes all sorts of problems for claimants because the application system just cannot deal with the complexity of individuals’ lives.
As I said, this is very bad.
I was reading the other day that sweet shops (who along endless vape shops and barbers’ exist mostly just for money-laundering purposes) on British high streets are full of imported US ‘candy’, advertised on Tiktok, full of all sorts of ingredients banned in UK. British govt isn’t able to sort out the money-laundering happening on the high street and banned foodstuffs being sold, not out of the back of the lorries, but in supposedly legitimate shops on the high street, but they want the access to people bank accounts to stop, in a wider picture, practically negligible, benefit fraud. I’m so happy Labour have all their priorities sorted.
Only the other week the outcry was all about an uptick in shoplifting – mainly a poor people crime – and the lack of prosecution thereof.
Yet those shops you’ve mentioned have proliferated all over my town in the past couple of years. The ‘sweet shops’ are often sited in places nobody seems to go in. Given the levels of tax fraud, money laundering, consumer fraud (ie those set up specifically to fleece people before ‘disappearing’ until their owners set up again under new names), bank fraud, and so forth perhaps we need a second police force set up across the country to deal solely with financial crimes? The current situation sure isn’t working for anyone but the criminals.
I think that would be an excellent idea…
We could call it HM Revenue & Customs
HMRC is a bit toothless though. A strong criminal enforcement department with the ability to cut through the cr*p and prosecute the individuals rather than fines for a company.
They would need to be like the old HM Customs & Exise.
I think it is the old ‘undeserving poor’ myth. “It is bad enough that feckless, lazy, workshy wasters get free money to spend on smoking, drinking and gambling without them cheating their way to getting even more than they are entitled to.” Sadly that concept still resonates with many people. Benefit claimants are quite visible in society.
Companies that defraud HMRC are less visible and, incredibly, don’t generate the same public anger.
It’s another area where education is lacking.
I’ve written here briefly before about my last DWP assessment for PIP, which I had to attend on the changeover from Disability Living Allowance to PIP. To be honest the assessor made me feel like a criminal being questioned by the cops. I wrote a very long thread on the Benefits and Work website about the whole of my assessment journey, which I wrote from notes made at the time. I’m just giving a few quotes here (J is my husband and M is me):
J. We arrived maybe ten minutes early for our 9am interview. When we saw someone come out of the front door we realised it was open and I went to ask if we could come in. The young lady I was speaking to went to fetch the ramp, but needed help from another lady to get it fixed right. (One does wonder whether this was or was not an arranged ploy to see how Maggie coped.)
M. Shortly after we arrived a young woman arrived in a wheelchair with a much older woman (Mum? Grandmother?) pushing her, she looked very very pale and ill and worried. (deleted my comment about her) Then a woman came and asked for my name and then proof of identity. I offered a selection, including Birth Cert, 2016 letter from DWP about benefits I get, Blue Badge and more I’ve forgotten now! She went off with the Blue Badge, presumably to photo copy it..
J. Lady introduced herself as “Pam” and I think she may have had a name badge. She said she didn’t normally work there but had been called in “from Anfield” as cover for someone on holiday. We didn’t have the nous to make sure exactly who she is, but can probably find out.
M. This leads me to believe that she works for ATOS as there’s an ATOS centre in Anfield, but the private clinic doesn’t have a branch there. So I think you were right about ATOS renting rooms there, X and Mrs Y. Strikes me as a bit underhand – makes you think you’re going to see a *real* physiotherapist who does the job with *real* people. 🙁
J. The general tenor of the interview was a bit sympathetic and a bit business like, certainly no locking of horns. It was clear she had read Maggie’s forms. Only bit that rankles was when Maggie apologised for breaking down in tears while enumerating all her difficulties and problems when Pam said “Don’t worry you’re not the first Claimant to cry in front of me, and I doubt you’ll be the last”. We would have preferred “not the first *person*… ” But if, for example she is actually employed (and trained by) ATOS, perhaps she doesn’t see any “people” anymore, only claimants..
M. It was really only when we got out and I started thinking about it later that I thought it felt quite demeaning to be called a Claimant. It’s objectifying the person and making them less of a person in my view. It was then that my hackles began to raise.
J. Most of the questions she asked were keyed to questions on the form – maybe attempts to start a conversation and see whether or not there were discrepancies with the written answers on the form. Or to gain a better understanding of the answers? The question which came across vaguest is the one “can you *plan* a journey?” (maybe this is deliberately open-ended?)
M She enlarged on this question, asking If I could walk could I find my way to the local shops? Yes. Then Could you find your way into Town? I was less sure of this, but I don’t get the feeling she really took it onboard. It may have been here that she asked about did I use buses or trains? Used bus once in London when visiting daughter, but it was very difficult as only the one space for wheelchairs and buggies. Never use train, drive places only. Neglected to say when going to visit daughter & grandchildren in London that we have to take 2 days to drive down there, stopping in hotel on M6 Toll road overnight, and similar on way back. More fool me. It shows that can’t do a journey that long. Oh well.
J. One question not on the form was:
“Did you ever work?”
M. Strikes me that the way it was put was REALLY loaded!!! I replied that I was working when I got sick. ” What did you do?” I was a Medical Laboratory Technician in the Regional Cytogenetics Unit. I cultured blood, and looked at chromosomes in blood cells. “Do you have a degree?”. No, I have an HNC in Clinical Chemistry. Head of department employed technicians for some jobs as they are cheaper than Graduates.
J. Somewhere along the way we got into the subject of gardens, and she told us about the bee houses and bee-friendly flower bed she had made for her grandchildren, but still didn’t see many bees. To which I chipped in “It’s hardly surprising we don’t all see more bees and butterflies when you look in the gardening section of a supermarket and see mainly poisons for killing this that or the other! No comment at the time, but while we were wrapping things up she made a point of recommending some weed-killer she uses that kills them all in a few hours whatever the weather.
M. It was something on QVC, she recommended the person who does this stuff: (Website deleted as it no longer sells nasty insecticide stuff)
J. Pam queried why Maggie was taking Calcichew (Vit D and Calcium supplement)) did she have osteoporosis? Maggie said taking this one as it has no aspartame. Pam agreed aspartame not good.
M. She also asked why I taking Folic Acid. Reply was on routine blood test found to be low in Folic Acid. We also talked a bit about my high cholesterol and diet, though I think that was earlier when she asked about eating.- which she didn’t get – it was all about my muscle ache in jaws and not interested in my total lack of appetite. And difficulty eating and finding smell of food repulsive.
J. She asked why Maggie had the lung test -.
M. I told her about the Liverpool Healthy City stuff that is supporting this. I saw a nurse in GP’s surgery, over 65 invited to take part. I told her about having Chest CT scan, but neglected to tell her that I”d had possible exposure to asbestos in the past. Doesn’t matter as Chest CT results were all clear.
M. Oh prior to that she asked why I’d mentioned maybe having COPD. Reply was that I’d done the huffy stuff into the tube for the nurse at lung health check and my result was rubbish. Admitted to being a smoker herself (though trying to cut back) then Pam showed us her vaping device. I replied I’d cut back a lot using the vaping stuff, but didn’t manage to share I’d cut down from 40 a day to around 10 a *week*. Unfortunately I’m so stressed now over the ATOS assessment I’m back to certainly over 20 a day, probably more.
J. Pam said “ME has been around for a long time now but there doesn’t seem to have been much found out about it”. To which Maggie replied “There is some research in Australia showing changes in brain scans, and some immune stuff that I don’t understand.”
M. Pam asked me to do some physical stuff: Not necessarily in order (forget order):
Put hands behind neck.
Put hands up and down (from wrist).
Touch 1st finger to thumb.
Raise leg to horizontal from knee.
Flex foot up and down from ankle…. Which is when Pam noticed my R ankle was swollen compared to left. I suggested might have had an insect bite, that I had become sensitised to some insects I didn’t know what, they brought me out in horrid blistery stuff. She said “Like Hives?” But I didn’t manage to answer as not like Hives as I’ve had Hives and def not the same! I answered with a quote from my Dad about this kind of stuff – “Whelks and Bubucles”
Raise knee while she was pushing it down.
Grasp her fingers.
J. Maggie has less problem with strength than with stamina, which was not tested.
Interview was very detailed at first – eg medications etc – but seemed to rush over too much as allotted time ran out.
She asked about “difficulty eating” – for example strength to chew – didn’t seem to understand difficulty wanting to eat, difficulty finding anything which is not instantly disgusting.
Why did she waste our time telling us that current advice for back pain is not to sleep on a firm mattress/surface?
Given that the purpose of this interview was for “Pam” to ask Maggie questions, we are a bit surprised to come away with info that:
She has planted bee-friendly plants in her garden.
She has put in bee-hotels.
Her grandchildren are aged 8, 5, 2.
8 year old boy chase the 5 year old girl with worms etc but 2 year old doesn’t mind.
This came up when Maggie said (as an example of her difficulties) she was upset that twin grandchildren and other grandchildren (now age 3 and about 10 months) are too noisy and/or obstreperous for her to be around.
Last question – what was the worst thing?
Reply – Not being able to handle or be with grandchildren.
Too much of the interview was about eg medications (which was in the form) which left her little time to explore further any of the other answers, which might have been more useful.
===================================
I won’t go into all the rest of the long story other than to say that she lied about me in her report. Over and over. I lost my Motability car. I was awarded low Care and low Moving Around. I complained to ATOS about the assessor and also got my MP involved, who was incredibly helpful and kind.
The whole thing with getting it “looked at again” which made no difference, then applying for and going to Tribunal took ages. In fact missed Tribunal as their letter didn’t arrive! But they agreed another date, and I won! I hope what I’ve shared here gives you an idea of what torture the whole thing can be for somebody who’s sick. Sorry this is such a long post!
Just in case anyone is interested, or anyone here ever needs to claim PIP, you can read the whole story here:
https://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/forum/10-dla-esa-queries-results/110744-called-for-dla-to-pip-assessment-at-private-physio?start=0
I admire your resilience and am glad you won. Go well, and thank you for sharing.
Here is some reasonably recent info on tribunal appeal success rates & other stats.
When I ran a food bank tribunal appeal successes were 67-70% which, despite DWP excuses as to why, is evidence of a cruel system. I won’t call it broken because I think it is meant to be like that.
Tribunal appeal success rates have fallen back a bit, the article suggests that is because DWP throw in the towel more often and rightly so.
My direct professional experience ended in 2017, but I still hear the same story anecdotally from friends and neighbours.
It is a wicked system and there is strong evidence to suggest that is by design.
My experience is that the DWP system is designed to grind claimants down.
Do you want the authorities to turn a blind eye?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-68774242
Why not read what I wrote?
And then note, this has nothing to do with what I was talking about.
Are you really stupid enough to so grossly misread what I said?
And why aren’t you excited by tax cheats? Please explain.
Phil
The same ‘authorities’ you speak of regularly turn a blind eye to the freebies the State grants the rich.
It is a crewel way of subjugating the most vulnerable people in society with no benefit other than to say to the voting public look we are doing something to tackle scrounges. It is dire rhetoric that adds to the already abhorrent inhuman system that treats the disabled as less human beings and has been highlited as such by the UN. What do they hope to see in the accounts of these people, £75 chopping board for an autistic that has sensory needs to ‘get the right one’ would this be seen as excessive. This could lead to the DWP deeming expenses as excessive and reduce the benefit further. Why should another man deem what is needed/ excessive or necessary, and what gives them the right to exercise this control to the point of prying, pick on someone who can at least fight back these disabled people are the most vulnerable yet the most gifted beautiful beings when will they see that!!! Makes me inconsolably angry as I am one they are targeting, I cannot claim what I am entitled to as a disabled person as I am seen as not disabled enough as such I don’t have the money to support my disability I live in deep poverty and have a 12 hour job I can’t leave that is negatively affecting mentally and physically, I am not a scrounger, i have a IQ of 120, I have a postgraduate degree and I have been left in the capitalist heap, a part that doesn’t play in the system. The government should clean house well before picking on us and I can’t believe I’m saying that about labour!!!!!!
John Pring The Department: How a Violent Government Bureaucracy Killed Hundreds and Hid the Evidence (Pluto Press) is a detailed account of how disabled people are treated by the authorities. A harrowing read.
My alarm bells sounded after reading the Bill’s proposal when it ends with this, ‘the Public Sector Fraud Authority (PSFA) will implement a “test and learn” when utilising these [proposed] powers’.
Is this the UK government’s Single Transferable Party’s version of Elon Musk’s fire first and if possible ask questions later approach of DOGE ?
I am a regular commentator and Richard knows who I am but as I work in this line of business I will if permitted post anonymously.
Based on my experience the DWP spends a good deal of time and effort on performative cruelty and being obstructive but very little time looking at the information in front of it.
The DWP has details of all income reported via PAYE but time and time again doesn’t look at it.
I suggest that this is where a lot of what I will loosely call ‘benefit not properly paid’ comes about – just look at Carers Allowance and it also happens with Universal Credit.
During COVUD it was a junior Civil Servant who realised that literally thousands of UC claims were being paid to the same bank account, hence the fraud type of organised fraud referenced above, BUT something that basic checks could have prevented
May I be so bold as to suggest that there is potential to reduce ‘improperly paid’ Social Security benefits BUT there isnt the political will to do so as it would mean diverting resources used to be cruel to basic checking that would not delay properly made claims?
But ‘Social Security Fraud’ is good for Governments, if the figures went down that would not do.
Thanks
Apologies, but….LABOUR Government my arse!
At the age of 78 I have been a Labour supporter and campaigner all my life but this lot….never again, I’m so despondent after enduring the last 14 years of rabid toryism.
Sorry forgot the url to evidence
https://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/news/dwp-now-more-likely-to-give-in-before-an-appeal-hearing
I sympathise with all those trying to claim benefits from a callous government who care nothing for those who need their help and are only concerned with helping the rich. I am disabled but having a good pension do not need to claim benefits but although I have serious mobility issues I have been denied a blue badge that would have been helpful to me. When I was working as an educational psychologist I encountered parents who needed financial support which was often denied to them on spurious grounds. The lack of this support obviously impacted negatively on their children which led to all sorts of issues . We live in a cruel society where the only interests that are protected are those of the rich and the old, poor and disabled are not only disregarded but punished.
I realise that this is nothing compared to the cruelty with which people with disabilities are treated, but it gives some indication of the nonsense of DWP rules.
New style JSA can be claimed by anyone who works less than 16 hours per week and has NI contributions over a 2 year period within the last 3 years (more or less). The whole point of it is that it is contribution-based, not income based, so savings and partner’s income are ignored. My husband is a Director of our small ltd company and works about 10 hours per week, so applied for this benefit.
After form filling and an interview he was advised that he was eligible for the benefit. However he would receive no money as he is paid more than £90.50 per week (that is the amount of the benefit) and this would count agaist the amount to which he is entitled.
He is permitted to work up to 16 hours per week. He must have worked in the last 2 to 3 years, so is very likely to be aged over 21. NMW for those aged 21 and over is 11.44 per hour, so he would be paid just over £180 per week for working 15.75 hours.
Why is this benefit shown as being available for those working up to 16 hours per week, when there is no benefit available if they work 8 hours per week. When we queried this they said he should still apply as he would get NI credits. But he is earning enough to get NI credits anyway.
When I worked for the DHSS in the 70’s its purpose was to find ways to help people. That purpose is long gone.
I agree
When benefits are added up, such as housing benefit, having a hard cut off of more hours than would earn enough to withdraw that benefit on is own may make more sense.
It does often seem, however, like a system that is expensive to administer and open to abuse relative to a simpler one like Universal Basic Income that doesn’t create high nominal taxation rates on low income
But UBI creates many other perverse consequences
What consequences would you expect from UBI, and based on what studies? And why would you expect them to be worse than the vicissitudes of the current system?
The research I’ve seen from this and European countries has shown an increase in entrepreneurial intent as well as increased happiness.
https://openaccess.city.ac.uk/id/eprint/16544/1/2013_Policy_Paper_Financing%20the%20Social%20State-_Richard_Murphy__Howard_Reed_%28Social_State_-_Idleness.pdf
To put it simply, that won’t work.