X

Create an account to continue reading.

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles
For unlimited access to The Spectator, subscribe below

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles

Sign in to continue

Already have an account?

What's my subscriber number?

Subscribe now from £1 a week

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
 
View subscription offers

Already a subscriber?

or

Subscribe now for unlimited access

ALL FROM JUST £1 A WEEK

View subscription offers

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Login

Don't have an account? Sign up
X

Subscription expired

Your subscription has expired. Please go to My Account to renew it or view subscription offers.

X

Forgot Password

Please check your email

If the email address you entered is associated with a web account on our system, you will receive an email from us with instructions for resetting your password.

If you don't receive this email, please check your junk mail folder.

X

It's time to subscribe.

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access – from just £1 a week

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
X

Sign up

What's my subscriber number? Already have an account?

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Your subscriber number is the 8 digit number printed above your name on the address sheet sent with your magazine each week. If you receive it, you’ll also find your subscriber number at the top of our weekly highlights email.

Entering your subscriber number will enable full access to all magazine articles on the site.

If you cannot find your subscriber number then please contact us on customerhelp@subscriptions.spectator.co.uk or call 0330 333 0050. If you’ve only just subscribed, you may not yet have been issued with a subscriber number. In this case you can use the temporary web ID number, included in your email order confirmation.

You can create an account in the meantime and link your subscription at a later time. Simply visit the My Account page, enter your subscriber number in the relevant field and click 'submit changes'.

If you have any difficulties creating an account or logging in please take a look at our FAQs page.

Coffee House

Spending cuts must start with welfare

16 June 2010

9:04 AM

16 June 2010

9:04 AM

The new and independent Office
for Budget Responsibility
estimated that interest payments on public debt are set to rise to £67 billion a year by 2014-15. The hole in the public finances is so deep that every cut in
spending that can be made should be made. Few commentators have grasped that tinkering around the edges, such as with “efficiency gains,” will not be enough. The only way to eliminate
the deficit and to begin the task of repaying public debt is through making deep cuts in spending and for people to take more responsibility for themselves.
 
Cuts must start with welfare. The UK government spends more on welfare than on anything else. Welfare spending has increased in good times as well as in bad, with the total bill doubling in real
terms to around £200 billion since 1988.
 
The government has received little bang for its buck from this increase in spending. International research shows that the UK not only has one of the most expensive welfare systems in the world but
is also one of the worst performing, with low living standards for children and high rates of inactivity among young people, substance abuse, teen pregnancy and sole parenthood. Welfare spending
does not need to increase; it needs to improve.
 
In an alternative Budget released today, Taking the tough choices, Reform identifies two ways to improve welfare spending.
 
The first way is to move from politically-motivated child poverty targets based on relative annual income and to instead focus on improving the performance of the poorest families in the school
system, on ‘welfare to work’ and on reducing the mobility blocks in welfare. By expressing the government target in terms of relative poverty governments have been encouraged to
continually increase benefit spending, when the better route would be to pursue a high and more even spread of skills.
 
The second way is to cut the tens of billions of pounds in benefits paid to well-off families (‘middle class welfare’). Since Reform first proposed cutting middle class welfare in April last year there has been a growing
consensus that these cuts are the right thing to do. Frank Field, the new Poverty Tsar, has suggested that the
Child Benefit should be taxed or no longer provided to families with older children. Evidence shows that middle class welfare provides few real benefits, with close to 90 per cent of spending on
the Winter Fuel Allowance, for example, going to families who are not in fuel poverty.
 
The cost of all middle class welfare, which Reform estimated at £31 billion a year, also means that taxes need
to be higher and fewer resources are available to help the poor. The temptation to attract votes means that benefits for middle class voters become more generous while poor families are left with
scraps. Benefits paid to working families now account for nearly twice as much of the welfare budget as benefits to families out of work.
 
One concern with cutting middle class welfare is that lower income families who receive programmes like the universal Child Benefit would lose out. But these families could easily be compensated,
such as by increasing the Family Element of the Child Tax Credit. Some commentators misleadingly argue that that the take up of these other programmes is poor among low income families but this is
not the case. Among families out of work, for example, the take up of the Child Tax Credit is a high 97 per cent, which is the same as the overall rate for the Child Benefit. Where there are
concerns take up can be increased through improving administration, such as having simpler application forms.
 
The key is to make means-testing work, not to give tens of billions of pounds to well-off families.

Patrick Nolan is a consultant at Reform

Give something clever this Christmas – a year’s subscription to The Spectator for just £75. And we’ll give you a free bottle of champagne. Click here.


Show comments
Close