LETTER: Flaws in means-tested benefits
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.From Mr James McCormick
Sir: The announcement by the Department of Social Security that one in three households is now in receipt of a means-tested benefit should focus attention on the driving forces that have caused this ("Tories preside over rising benefit culture", 9 August).
Neither Alan Duncan, MP, nor the Secretary of State for Social Security, Peter Lilley, appear to have analysed adequately why the UK has reached this position. Reduced benefits for the unemployed, favoured by Mr Duncan, are likely to push some off the register entirely and others into petty crime.
The Jobseekers Allowance will reduce entitlement to unemployment benefit, with the likely result of pushing thousands of those currently on insurance benefits onto means-tested income support six months earlier. By forcing modest savings to be run down, it will also impose a disincentive to save.
Mr Lilley poses the stark choice between removing means-tested benefits and making them universal. The question we ask is what purpose such benefits do serve and ought to serve. The inquiry of the Social Justice Commission pointed to the flaws in the benefits system. Hundreds of thousands of people remain trapped on income support because it is more secure compared to low-paid jobs.
Unemployed homebuyers have to find jobs paying enough to cover the mortgage or stay on income support. By building bridges back to the labour market - by making income support more flexible and by introducing a tapered mortgage benefit - savings could quickly be achieved through lower unemployment.
In the longer term, a modernised social insurance system, acknowledging changes in the labour market is the best way to reduce means testing.
Yours sincerely,
James McCormick
Research Fellow
Institute for Public Policy
Research (IPPR)
London, WC2
10 August
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments