Letter: Blair's project

Owen D. Umpleton
Tuesday 23 December 1997 19:02 EST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Sir: There is indeed no doubt, as Polly Toynbee says (article, 22 December), that the whole welfare system needs reform. It is far from the platitude that she assumes, however, to say that unemployed people should be "prodded" into work.

Whilst it is true that National Insurance should no longer pay out according to notional contributions made, it is far from obvious that all payments should be made according to need. Assessment of need, otherwise known as means-testing, has, when applied to state benefits, the very undesirable side-effect of creating poverty traps. It is in any case redundant when we have an existing system of assessment in the form of income tax.

What is so degrading, even unethical, about the present system is the withdrawal of benefit from a marginally employable person who starts to earn a little money. This is the equivalent of an income tax rate of at least 70 per cent and sometimes over 100 per cent on the earnings of the very poorest of our people. They don't need "prodding". Removal of the present disincentives would suffice. Benefits can be universal while income tax looks after the inequality.

OWEN DUMPLETON

Washington, Tyne and Wear

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in