In Support of (Some) Contributory Welfare
Posted: 28/01/2014 | Author: The Political Idealist | Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Beveridge, Labour, news, Politics, RR, social justice, society, taxation, UK Politics, welfare state |Leave a comment »Last week, I wrote an article in which I expressed qualified support for Rachael Reeves’ proposals for reform to Britain’s social security system, including supplementing Job Seekers Allowance for those with long National Insurance contribution histories.
As I have come to expect from my readership, my opinion was rigorously challenged. The articulate blogger Chris Talman said:
May I ask why you are supportive of the contributory principle? Personally, I am opposed to it, as I believe that we should not institutionalise inequalities within the welfare state. The state should ensure that all people enjoy a dignified existence and a comfortable standard of living, regardless of employment status or previous tax contributions. Additionally, as you touched upon, people can contribute to society and culture in ways that are not immediately obvious, and as such, it is wrong to view waged employment as being the only venerable form of societal contribution.
And to an extent, I agree with Chris that the welfare state should help everybody who needs helping, not just those who have paid their way in the past. That’s why I think there is little mileage in basing disability benefits, for example on contributions. No, contribution based benefits could only ever extend to unemployment and possibly old age benefits, and even then they should only act as supplements to the basic rates. And as I said in my original article, National Insurance (or NI, which is equivalent to a social security tax) is in serious need of reform if we are to use it to gauge somebody’s contribution to society. I’d like to see much NI credits granted or beefed up to stay-at-home parents, carers, those who volunteer on a regular basis, and have an allowance for young workers who haven’t had time to build up a long NI history.
But I maintain that a contributory element in particular benefits is desirable.
In particular, I support any move away from means testing, to whatever extent that is practical, and back to the combination of universal and contributory benefits envisaged by the great liberal thinker William Beveridge in his report planning a better society after World War Two. The starting point for any welfare system should always be the question: “who needs help?”. That’s why universal benefits should be expanded. In the Netherlands, for example, every person is entitled to domestic water supply as a human right, so everybody is given an allowance of free water. It still needs paying for, and it is through general taxation (and I see an argument for subsidising water and energy up to a certain level of usage, paid for by a surcharge on excess usage- but that’s a topic for another day) but there is no pretense that access to water is linked to ability to pay, as it simply isn’t in practice in a civilised society.
When Beveridge talked of Family Allowances and a National Health Service, he did not envisage them being eroded with means-testing and token charges. That undermines the philosophy of sharing and solidarity that is supposed to support the welfare system. I think that we need to return to that philosophy if we want to protect the political viability of it.
However, there are limitations to the universality model, which is why it cannot be used on its own. There has been a tren over the past 40 years to replaces that second principle, contributions, with means testing. The problem with the latter is that is arbitrarily divides rich and poor (which is an open invitation to divisive elements like the Coalition government to smash the system); it penalises people from getting higher incomes if their benefits are withdrawn too abruptly- and that’s the system’s fault, not the claimant’s- and it does leave gaps for a small but toxic minority to take advantage of the system.
For example, I don’t agree with immigrant bashing. Time and time again, I’ve made clear my straightforward opinion on the benefits that a balanced immigration policy brings to a country like Britain. However, I do think that there is an inconsistency in a system in which a French person could claim full JSA here, yet a Brit could not claim the full equivalent in France. By all means, let us pay a liveable benefit to all unemployed people looking for work. But why not recognize that someone who has worked hard, in one way or another, to benefit this country deserves extra support when they fall on hard times?
