Social Dependency – Doesn't Help Anyone

How the rich used to live.

Whenever you hear people talking about the reform of the "Welfare State" it's usually best to duck, shove on a Kevlar helmet and run for the nearest cover.

There are few areas of political life which are used to better effect to empasise the tribal allegiances of political parties. For me, it's irrelevant because I have no tribal allegiances. I'm torn between the "since none of them support me, I'll support none of them" and "I'd never want to be a member of a club that would accept me as a member" camps of political thought. However, I do have views on the daft welfare system the UK has built up in the last few years.

Why should my views carry any weight?

Well, I'm a UK citizen with children. I have a vested interest in the system from that perspective. Also, I have used the welfare system on several occasions. I'd like to say I've benefitted from it – but that would be untrue. And lastly, as a taxpayer, I have an interest in seeing how my tax money is spent.

OK, so I have children. Of what relevance is that?

Perhaps not too much – but I have an interest in seeing that my children are not paying for all their lives for the greed and stupidity of their father's generation.

And it is driven by greed and stupidity, yes. We have a system now that rewards failure fabulously. The more failure you can cram into your early years, the more you will be rewarded.

For instance, if you don't bother to work, if you show yourself as feckless and incompetent, and promiscuous, and thereby create a large family, you will be rewarded. You will be given a council house or flat, you will be told that after a certain amount of time you can buy that house (at a large discount), and still be paid sums towards your children and living expenses.

Where is the logic in the state building, at high expense to the taxpayer, a series of houses which are then to be given to people for them to sell at a profit? And let's be clear – many of the people who are shoved into council homes are going through a short period of financial trouble. Why should they be rewarded with low rents for life because of a short term problem? And then be sold their house at a discount?

It makes no sense whatsoever. We need rental homes for people who get into trouble and need a short period of stability to get back into work, but the idea that those who are hard up for a limited period should expect to be given cheap accomodation for life is moronic.

There are others who have claims on council housing. A large number of young women now live in council housing because they have children, and they need somewhere to live.

This has become another disaster. Originally it was felt to be a good idea to let young mothers have somewhere safe to live. I am no social scientist for modern times, but I can see the logic. There was the move to help war widows after the two world wars, and the idea of single parent families caught the public's attention – and the swinging sixties led to more unmarried mothers who, it was felt, should not be demonized. They needed sympathy and kindness, not bullying.

Result? There are some now who think that rather than get qualifications to leave school and better themselves, it's easier to get pregnant. The state will come to their aid, it will provide housing, pay for the children, provide an income for the mother.

And what an income.

People are up in arms now because there is talk of capping the support which the state will give to families. It will be capped at some £26,000. Twenty six thousand pounds! Ye Gods! That is more than most authors can hope to earn – at a recent investigation it was learned that over three quarters of all authors earn less than this. And since some of this income is tax-free, the actual income involved could be as high as the mid-thirty thousands.

It is easy to see how people could see this as a potential money-spinner. They have a child, are provided with a house, with money to help bring up a child, with money for their own income. Their bills are paid for, their rates and other taxes compensated. It is an easy concept for someone who is too feckless to want to work.

In the past, if you needed support, the Church would provide it.

But there are more who, rather than being blameworthy, deserve our sympathy.

Some who are honourable, and who only want to be able to pay their own way, can be trapped by this comfortable existence. They don't necessarily want to stay on benefits, but if getting a job means losing money, because the benefits are significantly better than any potential salary, those people don't deserve to be villified for choosing to stay on benefits rather than see their income drop. It's human nature to want to keep the money coming in.

That is a big problem. We have a massively expensive benefits system now. It involved tens of thousands of social workers, admin managers, tax administrators, and other civil servants. They draw money in from taxation, absorb a large sum themselves, and pay out the residual amount. The system itself tempts some to remain on benefits for life, and no doubt makes some people utterly unemployable. Those who want to get back to work can be persuaded not to bother because the salary may not give such a good standard of living as the benefits.

And at  a time when our social housing stock is at the lowest level for – what? Fifty, seventy years? – we are still selling the houses at a discount to those who live in them – a bonanza for some, paid for by all the rest of us.

It's being said that now, because of the proposed cap on benefits, children will be forced into poverty, and many made 'homeless'.

That is a damning conclusion. Clearly all Conservative politicians are evil, home-wrecking devils who seek the destruction of all the poor.

Garbage. The definition of 'homeless' in this context apparently means that the child is forced to share a room with a sibling.

Excuse me, but when my family lived in large houses, because we were a large family, my brothers had to share their bedroom. It didn't make the family poor or homeless. We were neither.

My children until recently had to share a bedroom. It had nothing to do with us being poor or on the brink of homelessness. Many families which are struggling to get by on reasonable wages cannot afford the cost or upkeep of a house large enough for a bedroom per child. Only those who live on social security can afford that luxury, apart from the top 5%, perhaps, of the income earners in the UK. It is a stupid, deliberately dishonest term.

OK – full disclosure here. I was very lucky when I was younger, and had two good jobs in my twenties. However, those jobs went bust, and after that I had a series of other jobs, all of which lasted for a limited time during the last recession. I had to claim social support at various times.

At no time could I claim mortgage support, even though I was potentially eligible. I did claim the weekly allowance, which kept me in food, but it certainly was not a luxury.

All the companies I worked for went bust while I was still employed by them. As a result, by the time I was in my early thirties I had lost all my savings, and it was only good fortune, and some excellent advice, that I managed to keep my house and not fall further into the mire. I managed to get a book accepted, and that way set myself up on a new career as an author.

I do not think that all those who're on social support or who live in council housing are lazy, workshy or stupid. However, the system is setting people up for exactly that.

This system is failing. It worked for a short time, but in paying people to have children, paying their rent and rates, providing council housing for life, we have created a culture of dependency that doesn't help anyone. It must be changed because we cannot afford it.

We need to return to a culture of self-sufficiency and independence.

Tagged: kevlar helmet, uk citizen, welfare state, welfare system