Increase the National Minimum Wage and slash the benefits bill!

On reason why the welfare bill is so big, is because of the gradual drift since the 1970s towards subsidising low earnings through the benefits and tax credits system.  This was started by the Conservatives under Edward Heath with Family Income Supplement and Rent Rebates, added to by the Thatcher government's mass shifting of public subsidy from bricks and mortar to rents for those on low incomes with the introduction of Housing Benefit and then accelerated under New Labour with the introduction of Tax Credits. 

The Coalition's Universal Credit will just make this worse by reducing the "withdrawal rate" when people earn and the automatic adjustment of benefits through the proposed Real Time computer system will provide a ready workforce which can be called in and sent home when it suits employers - public subsidy not just of low pay, but poor employment practises too.

It stands to reason that if wage levels increase, the amount paid out as public subsidy through benefits and tax credits is reduced and now the Resolution Foundation and the Institute for Public Policy Research have quantified this.  Specifically, increasing the National Minimum Wage would save the public purse a net £2 billion.  It is surprising that there seems to be no government research into this which I discussed in an earlier blog.

Here is a summary of the Resolution Foundation and IPPR research in their press release:

PAYING A LIVING WAGE COULD SAVE THE UK BILLIONS

Introducing the living wage across the UK would save the Treasury just over £2 billion a year, a new study will reveal.

The analysis from the Resolution Foundation and the IPPR think tanks to be published early in the New Year is the most detailed examination yet of the potential impact of the living wage on the public finances. The living wage is a pay level calculated as the minimum hourly rate for a basic but acceptable standard of living and currently set at £7.45 outside London and £8.55 in the capital.

The new analysis suggests that its introduction nationally would add around £6.5 billion to the gross annual earnings of the country’s employees.

However, the report shows that the Treasury would collect more than half of the initial financial gains from a living wage – around £3.6 billion - in the form of higher income tax payments and national insurance contributions, as well as lower spending on benefits and tax credits.

But the study also examines the extra costs to the public purse of paying a living wage to all public sector workers. It suggests that wage costs would increase by more than £1.3 billion – leaving an overall public saving of more than £2 billion.

The report will also look at the possible effects of a living wage on labour demand, recognising that the lower national minimum wage (currently £6.19) is set by the Low Pay Commission to avoid risking jobs and that an immediate shift to a universal living wage across all sectors may not be feasible.

As a start, the report will recommend, all Whitehall departments and London boroughs should pay their staff at least the living wage by April 2015 and explore the costs of paying sub-contracted staff the same rate. The London weighting means that most public sector workers already earn at or above the London living wage, so introducing the living wage for all staff would cost relatively little in the capital but would set a precedent for others to consider following. Only six London boroughs currently are accredited living wage employers -Lewisham, Islington, Camden, Lambeth, Hounslow, and Southwark.

Five million people are paid less than the living wage, three million of whom are women. Yet more than 85 per cent have permanent contracts. More than 3 million households (13 per cent) contain at least one adult earning less than the living wage. Fewer than 45,000 workers have achieved a living wage as a result of recent campaigns.

The report builds on research previously published by Resolution Foundation and IPPR which showed that the cost of paying a living wage would add less than one per cent to the wage bills of firms in sectors such as construction, food production and banking.

Kayte Lawton, Senior Research Fellow at the IPPR  said: "At a time when typical wages have flatlined but prices have continued rising, concerted action to drive up levels of pay for low earners is an essential component in the improvement of living standards. As a first step, making sure that all council staff in London are paid at least the living wage wouldn’t cost very much but would be an important symbol of political leadership. Councils in other parts of the country, like Glasgow and Newcastle, have shown that the living wage can be affordable even though the costs are higher."

Matthew Pennycook, Senior Analyst at the Resolution Foundation, said: "There are significant overall public savings to be made from paying a living wage, on top of the beneficial effects it would have on reducing working poverty. Public-sector employers are well-placed to expand the living wage and to set an example which the private sector can follow."

Workers earning less than a living wage across the country:
32% in the North East (375,000 people)
31% in Yorkshire and Humber (714,000 people)
31% in Wales (344,000 people)
30% in the West Midlands (617,000 people)
28% in the East Midlands (552,000 people)
27% in Scotland (623,000 people)
27% in the South West (583,000 people)
25% in the North West (683,000 people)
24% in the East of England (593,000 people)
23% in the South East (843,000 people)
20% in London (581,000 people)

More forced, unpaid labour

A report that compulsory unpaid work for Jobseekers Allowance claimants will be extended.  I did warn you.  All the evidence (examples given in this blog) shows that this won't reduce unemployment, so the government's response will be to extend it further: 9 months? 12 months? Forever?

Note the typically hopeless comment by the useless Liam Byrne MP.

Cameron's welfare reform speech

Cameron's much publicised speech on Monday about further cuts in benefits for people of working age is deeply worrying.  The issue of housing benefit for under 25s has caught the headlines, but there is a danger that this obscures the clutch of other very nasty ideas.

The model being promoted is a USA-style welfare system.  Now this is the country with the worst health outcomes in the wealthy world, the worst inequalities, the worst crime figures and any visitor to the US can tell you tales of the hordes of mentally ill, disabled and destitute people to be seen on the streets.  Over one million families in the USA are homeless and 10% of the US population have to resort to a food bank at some point each year.  It really is the last welfare system that any government with half a brain should want to copy.

Obama is so concerned about the injustice and negative economic effect of their welfare system that he has made efforts to increase the level of welfare payments in and some states have been reining in their workfare programmes and have prosecuted private welfare-to-work providers for mass fraud.  Of course, Cameron conveniently ignores these aspects.

That aside, I was deeply concerned about the wild inaccuracies about the benefits system in Cameron's speech.  Either he was misbriefed by civil servants or he chose to ignore briefings. 

I find it amazing how people in the UK are generally pretty cynical about politicians' truthfulness - lies about the Iraq War, expenses scandal, broken Manifesto promises, etc.  However, as soon as a politician slags off benefit claimants, everyone believes them!

Anyway, here are some examples of the fibs in Dave's speech:

"Tens of thousands of incapacity benefits reassessed and found ready for work".  Not true.  People are found not to meet the very high threshold for "limited capability for work", not "fit for work", let alone "ready for work".  As his Minister Chris Grayling conceded not long ago, very many coming off benefits for the sick have significant health issues.  And then we all know how flawed the re-assessment process is anyway.

"..instead of a complicated pension with endless top-ups there will be a straightforward, flat rate of £140 per week".  Not true.  Very many poorer pensioners will still have to claim the housing credit element of Universal Credit (so complex, the DWP still hasn't been able to announce details) and try their luck at claiming one of the many new local versions of council tax support.  So three bodies will have to be applied to, as opposed to the current two.

"Half of new [DLA] claimants never had to provide medical evidence".  That's because the DWP usually write direct to the claimant's doctor and/or seek evidence from an ATOS doctor - it's called efficiency.  Anyway, if this is so flawed, all you have to do Mr Cameron is to get people to supply such evidence without turning the disability benefits system upside down from April 2013 as you are doing.

"Someone can get £130 a week DLA by simply filling out a bit of paper".  Pray, what's the evidence that this is the case?  As the parent of a child who received DLA after a struggle (you said so at a reception you hosted at the House of Commons in 2007 - I know, I was there), you ought to know better.

Cameron then gives the example of a working couple without children taking home £24,000 a year with a couple down the road who have 4 children and get £27,000 a year in benefits for not working.  Of course they get more...because their needs are greater because they have children.  If the working couple had children, they'd get benefits and tax credits to help out, so it's a completely false and highly misleading comparison.  Apparently the workless couple also get £140 per week housing benefit - where does this figure come from?

As regards housing benefit, there really is a simple solution:  bring in rent controls like most other countries have and stop landlords being subsidised by and dependant on the benefits system.  Sadly government policy is going in the other direction by forcing up rents in the social sector to 80% of the private sector. 

"[19 year old young person] left college and went down to the jobcentre to sign on for Jobseekers Allowance, she found out that if she moved out of her parents' place she was automatically entitled to housing benefit".  Now which planet is this man on?  Life is not at all like this.  First, this mythical young person would have to find a landlord who accepted people on housing benefit.  They she'd have to somehow raise the money for a deposit and rent in advance (two months in practice, as HB is paid usually one month in arrear), then pay to equip the place.  And even if she could somehow do all that on her own, the DWP's own figures show that two thirds don't get all their rent paid by HB.  The evidence from DWP was published just last week and is here.  Then the young person has to feed. and clothe herself and pay her water, fuel and transport out of all of £56.25 a week (assuming they don't have a shortfall in their HB).  So Dave, please explain how your example can happen in real life?

"It pays not to work".  Again not true.  The problem is the means tested system which penalises people for trying to work combined with our high land costs in the UK, high costs of travel and high costs of childcare.  That's assuming the system actually works and doesn't screw up people's income or ask for money back because of some official cock-up.  Of course, that'll never happen under Universal Credit will it?

"[causes of poverty]...debt, family breakdown, educational failure or addiction".  What about our persistent problems of high unemployment since the 1980s and the extent of low pay?  And anyway only 4% of working age claimants have any addiction and you do get addicts in work - ask any musician.  But then putting it this way, Cameron gives out the message that poverty is all down to the financially incompetent, spouse-deserting, unintelligent boozers and druggies in our midst.

"If someone is signed off work with a bad back there's no requirement to take steps to get well to keep on receiving that benefit".  Well actually, they wouldn't have got benefit for the "bad back", even under the old system, unless it was a serious and chronic problem which could not be sorted out easily.  Anyway, what Cameron says is again not true.  People who get ESA and who are in the work related activity group can be required to identify rehabilitation they could do. 

And on it goes.  Half truth followed by distortion followed by innuendo.  Also outrageous that his "facts" have not been challenged by the useless Liam Byrne.

Forced labour for benefit claimants - a scathing analysis

Jonathan Portes is the former Chief Economist at the DWP and the Cabinet Office and he now heads up the National Institute for Economic and Social Research.  His blog contains a devastating critique of the government's plans to force benefit claimants to work for their benefits.  Read it by clicking here.

Mandatory work activity - more pain for more people

Yep. As predicted the government extends the scale of mandatory work activity for unemployed people, even though the DWP's own research shows it makes virtually no difference to long term benefit numbers.  Oh well, don't let statistics get in the way of a good bit of welfare bashing.

The only reported opposition from the utterly useless and disengaged Labour spokesman, Liam Byrne MP (please Birmingham, make him mayor), is that the scheme would not help that many people. Nothing about opposition to the principle of workfare or its destructive effects on job creation, wage levels (which then require public subsidy via benefits/tax credits) or how it actually prevents helping people moving into paid work.

Forced unpaid labour for the Jubilee

Media reports about unemployed people being made to do unpaid work as stewards on the Jubilee Pageant.  And also made to sleep rough as part of it. 

This is an inevitable result of all the main political parties' obsession with punishing unemployed people through forced labour.  Sign a petition against this by clicking here.

Unpaid labour. A free workforce for employers and funded by the taxpayer.

The government looks set to announce a significant move to extend compulsory unpaid labour for people on Jobseekers Allowance.  www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/may/26/work-free-programme-expanded-government?newsfeed=true

The arguments have all been made elsewhere against this, self-defeating, punitive and stigmatising provision of an unpaid workforce which does not create any jobs.  But then it's a great way to force people off benefit and into the shadowlands of "no work no welfare" while also shifting the blame for unemployment onto jobseekers.

This can only come about because the opposition from the mainstream has so far been pretty hopeless.  Voluntary bodies, local authorities, advice agencies, trade unions and the Labour Party, with a few notable exceptions, have failed to build an alliance of principled and organised opposition to this.

Mark my words, if the government gets away with this, they'll be back for more.