Letter: Obliging the unemployed to train without obliging society to provide them with jobs
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: John Major wants to get the unemployed back into some kind of work (report, 5 February), but he knows as well as anyone that even the most limited workfare scheme would be massively expensive, and would involve direction of labour unparalleled since the end of National Service.
However, there is a way forward. Among the mass of controls he also wishes to destroy is the benefits earnings rule, which acts as the most effective disincentive to the unemployed who have the opportunity to earn money from part-time or short-term jobs. What John Major should do is to modify the rule so that those who are receiving benefits may earn up to, say, pounds 60 a week without losing benefit.
If, at the same time, benefits were to be included as taxable income, then those gaining employment in this way would become payers of tax and thus would contribute to the costs of their own benefit.
In this way, more of the unemployed would be encouraged to keep in contact with the world of work, would contribute to a more buoyant economy, and would reduce the net cost to the Treasury of the benefit system. They would undoubtedly create more jobs.
Yours sincerely,
RON SONNET
Southsea,
Hampshire
5 February
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments