A cap on the total amount of benefits that people receive begins rolling out across England, Wales and Scotland today. The cap applies to those aged 16 to 64 and means that couples and lone parents will no longer receive more than £500 a week, with single people limited to a maximum of £350 a week.
A cap on the total amount of benefits that people receive begins rolling out across England, Wales and Scotland today. The cap applies to those aged 16 to 64 and means that couples and lone parents will no longer receive more than £500 a week, with single people limited to a maximum of £350 a week.
Extraordinarily popular, the policy is supported by some 70 per cent of the electorate, meaning one risks the charge of elitism in pointing out that in this instance the mass is probably of lower intelligence than its constituent parts.
The fact the benefit cap is popular in fact makes it all the more likely that it is bad policy; for what politician can resist pandering to the crowd when it chimes with their political leanings?
The problem is that the cap tackles a real problem from the wrong end.
Clearly it is undesirable for people to be claiming large amounts in benefits rather than earning their keep through a job. But when commentators and politicians wax lyrical about the amount of benefits being paid to individuals and families they are in reality talking about something quite different.
We, the taxpaper, are often not subsidising claimants at all, but rather handing large sums of money to private landlords who don’t particularly care whether it is the state or the individual who pays their rent – they know that benefit claimants will be conveniently on hand to take the flack which should by rights be directed at them.
Just this morning a new report came out detailing how a third of Britain is now effectively off-limits to lower income families because of the increasing cost of rent. This being the case, it shouldn’t be a surprise to learn that the benefits bill has also been increasing – the key point which the government has seemingly missed is that the state is subsidising landlords, rather than tenants.
Another non-sequitur is the idea that driving down the living standards of the unemployed is what makes work pay.
Ministers insist on repeating those three precious words: “making work pay”. It’s a clever rhetorical trick but it’s also an inversion of the truth. Reducing the living standards of the unemployed is not the same as ensuring that job pay what they should; and declining living standards for those without work is more likely to have a downward effect on the wages of those in work than it is to make anything pay.
In this sense, ‘making work pay’ is a bit like snatching away a homeless person’s cardbox box and claiming that in the process you’ve made mortgages more affordable for everyone else.
The benefit cap will also punitively hit families with lots of children; or more accurately, it will hit children who are unfortunate enough to be born into large families.
In the pilots for the cap around 80 per cent of those hit were single parent families. The idea that it is possible to put a set cap on how much money a family requires regardless of how many children there are also defies logic. More children cost more money, obviously.
It goes back to politics, though. It’s popular to be seen to be ‘cracking down’ on the entitlements of poor people with children, probably not unrelated to the fact that our society has always been terrified of the poor breeding too much.
We should, however, stop trying to think that there is some easy solution on child benefits. You either provide adequate money for parents to feed and clothe their children or you don’t. By paying less money to parents the government may think it is punishing them but it is in reality punishing their children.
The question then is this: is it ok to punish children for the behaviour of their parents or isn’t it?
Don’t hold your breath in waiting for the correct (and no doubt unpopular) answer.
One thing that is clear from all this is that the Tory view that rich people will not work unless they are given money whereas poor people will only do so if they are not is now a majority one.
In combating this the left has to be honest – it is a bad thing for people to be on benefits when they could be in work – but it also mustn’t sacrifice principles for popularity: the benefits bill is a consequence of much larger failures and won’t be significantly reduced by indulging narratives about “fecklessness”.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
44 Responses to “The benefit cap tackles a real problem from the wrong end”
Insolito
I’ve been on here a couple of times to criticise posts, but fair’s far: this is a great piece. It’s considered, well-argued and also, vitally, correct. Thanks for saying it. Now all we have to do is do something about it…
OldLb
private landlords who don’t particularly care whether it is the state or the individual who pays their rent
=========
It’s the individual. You’re behind the times Benefits claimants get the money from the state. It isn’t paid to the landlord directly.
=========
Reducing the living standards of the unemployed
=========
Direct result of Labour’s policy of getting 5 million migrants into the UK. Most are low skilled, so they compete for housing and jobs with the people you profess to want to help. In reality, you’ve screwed them.
If we take that 26K median wage level and look at the other disaster, pensions. If that worker had invested their NI, 627K after 40 years. State pension costs 152K. You’ve spent 475K of their cash. You’ve made them poor.
========
The benefit cap will also punitively hit families with lots of children; or more accurately, it will hit children who are unfortunate enough to be born into large families.
========
Correct. Now interestingly, they are the cheap options. Philpott. 3 adults 17 kids, is cheaper than 10 adults 10 kids. By a long way. That’s the disaster. Philpott creamed the money, and its not just the 26K. Free schooling – 6K each child. Free health care 2K each. Free pensions. … The cost is vast, and its coming at other people’s expense.
So why omit the effects of Labour’s policies on the poor? Why omit the true cost of people on welfare? Why omit the effects on others rather than just your client state?
I know the reason, if you were to confess to the state of affairs, that 70% would be even higher. People have tweaked that the Ponzi game is up. So they will insist they get paid, and those on welfare can sing. Direct result of running such a scam.
Jacko
What we need to do is to stop these people being born in the first place.
I favour a mass sterilisation program of all poor people who’ve had two children. They haven’t got the money to look after any more, there aren’t the jobs for the children to do, they have a greater propensity to commit crime and are a net drain on society’s resources. In short, they are useless to society and simply create negative social externalities. Without them, there would be more money to go around and we can then concentrate that money on improving the lives and opportunities of the fewer poor that we do have.
John
Nice bit of eugenics there. More to the point history shows many of the most successful people come from humble begginings, I would suggest their begginings is what drove them to success!
Sterising the poor isn’t going to solve the problem, though it may patch it somewhat. Livings standards need to be raised and immigration controlled. Those are two seperate issues neither of which has anything to do with mass breeding of the poor.
John
It’s the individual. You’re behind the times Benefits claimants get
the money from the state. It isn’t paid to the landlord directly.
=========
you’re missing the point; the money may go to the individual but do you think they DON’T pay the landlord!? The money being charge is too high; which is why people are being priced out of the South. I should know; with two jobs totalling over 40 hours I still can’t hold down a place of my own in any half-decent area of the SouthEast.
=============
Direct result of Labour’s policy of getting 5 million migrants into
the UK. Most are low skilled, so they compete for housing and jobs with
the people you profess to want to help. In reality, you’ve screwed them.
If we take that 26K median wage level and look at the other
disaster, pensions. If that worker had invested their NI, 627K after 40
years. State pension costs 152K. You’ve spent 475K of their cash. You’ve
made them poor.
========
Whom have you made poor? There may be a high number of low-skilled migrants into the UK (frankly given the conditions in some of the East European countries I can’t blame them for wanting to leave) but THEY STILL pay NI. Unless they’re working off the record, but if a UK citizen had taken that job they’d STILL be off the record and the money STILL lost.
Is you’re point there are more people in Britain than there otherwise would be? It’s possible, but they spend money in our shops, pay our taxes etc etc. If the system works the way it should then it wouldn’t matter. If the system ISN’T working the way it should then you should fix the system, not the kick the person who exposes the situation out! Don’t shoot the messenger.
========
Correct. Now interestingly, they are the cheap options. Philpott. 3
adults 17 kids, is cheaper than 10 adults 10 kids. By a long way.
That’s the disaster. Philpott creamed the money, and its not just the
26K. Free schooling – 6K each child. Free health care 2K each. Free
pensions. … The cost is vast, and its coming at other people’s
expense.
So why omit the effects of Labour’s policies on the poor? Why omit
the true cost of people on welfare? Why omit the effects on others
rather than just your client state?
I know the reason, if you were to confess to the state of affairs,
that 70% would be even higher. People have tweaked that the Ponzi game
is up. So they will insist they get paid, and those on welfare can sing.
Direct result of running such a scam.
==============
If I recall correctly this site was swimming in critique’s of ‘New Labour’ at the time so, again, I’m unclear as to your final point. We shouldn’t offer free schooling? This country illiterate enough as it is! We shouldn’t offer free healthcare? I can agree with that one partially; the NHS is unsustainable and the longer we don’t tackle the issue the worse it gets
To which policies are you refering? Labour started trying to address this issue and the fallout from that led to David Cameron claiming he’s the ‘heir to Blair’. Warning bell right there. If that is to be believed, then, Cameron thinks Blair was doing the right thing. So yes; Labours policies were, in hindsight, wrong. But then you should concede so are this governments as they are continuation of the same ideological view. Labour doesn’t equal Left. It’s a party not a political standpoint.
Indeed I could argue the last labour government was more right-wing in some areas than the Thatcher Government. Handing power over to the Bank of England? Madness! (Good idea though; allows for plausible deniability)