Great. First people who don’t open their curtains are terrorists, and now they’re benefits scroungers. What next, paedophiles?

As someone who keeps their curtains permanently closed because I’m basically agoraphobic and scared of being observed at all, all Cameron and the Sun are doing are justifying every fear and anxiety I could ever have about the outside world. And for all the Lib/Tory emphasis on “civil liberties”, the message is clear: if we can’t watch you whenever we want, you must be up to something.

(Oh – and the other reason I keep my curtains closed is that in the couple of days I didn’t have a curtain up 7 years ago, some little scrote or other broke into my house and nicked my TV and video. It’s not a mistake you make twice.)

They could, of course, be shiftworkers. Or do they have some kind of sign discernible only to The Sun?

@1 Actually the counter terrorism ad you’re referring was originally published under the Labour Government – not that that means much as the ad was made by and published on behalf of the security services who always act the same no matter the government.

“It chooses instead the easy, obvious target…”

Is that because the target _is_ obvious and easy, as even you admit? How about articulating solutions to the problem, rather than shooting the messenger…?

Morlock, if the problem is stamping out fraud, there is no solution, other than stamping out benefits altogether. Worse, the more you “tighten” requirements, the harder you make it for genuine claimants to make a claim – whilst not actually affecting the dedicated fraudster all that much at all, because they’ll find a way to play any system. And when the amount lost to fraud is less than half the amount lost to official error, I’d say it’s been beaten down as far as the law of diminishing returns makes it practical to beat it down and it’s time to move the focus onto other things.

Unfortunately, I have a feeling that the agenda of those who keep harping on about the horrors of benefit fraud is to dispose of benefits altogether.

Morlock: Surprisingly, I think for the most part that Iain Duncan Smith has the right idea (apart from the “work makes you free” cobblers). The system is too complicated, and there are disincentives to work: the difficulty is, as Duncan Smith is already realising, it costs more in the short-term and possibly even in the long-term when the proposed solution is topping up the wages of those who do find a job. What we have instead then is this divide and rule, where the undeserving poor are pilloried regardless of the consequences for those who are deemed to be worthy of subsidy. It also doesn’t help when there are simply not enough jobs to go round for those on jobseeker’s allowance, let alone those who are on ESA/incapacity etc. If the Sun would at least acknowledge that it would be welcome; until then I’ll go on shooting the messenger.

“It could make clear how much is lost each year through active tax evasion, amounts which could substantially reduce the deficit without having to inflict savage cuts which will put even more people on benefits, from both the public and private sectors. ”

Could I just point out that collecting more tax is fiscal contraction?

Whether the tax should legally be paid at present (ie, evasion) or not (avoidance), raising the amount of tax collected is fiscal contraction just as much as cutting government spending is.

And we all know that (c. R. Murphy) fiscal contraction in the midst of a recession will lead to a Depression.

Thus the ineluctable logic that cracking down on tax evasion will lead to a Depression.

@ Tim W

“Could I just point out that collecting more tax is fiscal contraction?

Whether the tax should legally be paid at present (ie, evasion) or not (avoidance), raising the amount of tax collected is fiscal contraction just as much as cutting government spending is.

And we all know that (c. R. Murphy) fiscal contraction in the midst of a recession will lead to a Depression.

Thus the ineluctable logic that cracking down on tax evasion will lead to a Depression.”

No, thus the possibility that cracking down on tax evasion could contribute to the ecomony entering a depression. In any case, you could compensate for the money taken from the rich by taking less from the poor.

raising the amount of tax collected is fiscal contraction just as much as cutting government spending is.

Not if that money is going to be spent overseas or transferred overseas. Also, if the money is re-distributed to lower income workers, who spend a higher percentage of their income, it would lead to higher consumption.

You know all this Tim – why are you chatting rubbish again?

‘Coz it ain’t rubbish. Your provisos apply just as much to spending as they do to taxes.

The £7 billion a year (net) that we send to the EU each year is fiscally contractionary for example….that part of the military budget that is spent on bases overseas is, that part of the FCO spending that is upon embassies is….

Your provisos apply just as much to spending as they do to taxes.

Sure – but I’m not denying it. You’re the one who’s pretending we live in a closed economy.

@gwenhwyfaer
“if the problem is stamping out fraud, there is no solution, other than stamping out benefits altogether”

I can’t disagree with that, within the mental confines that you’ve obviously set for yourself.

How about stepping outside of them?

We know that benefit fraud will occur — regardless of the enforcement regime — whilst some are entitled to monies and others not. The only solution to this problem is either (a) nobody receives financial aid or (b) everybody receives financial aid.

I suspect that you’d be against (a)? So what is so wrong with (b), or what is otherwise known as a Citizen’s Basic Income? Set such a scheme at a subsistence (low but liveable) level, and you could scrap all (?) other benefits. No ‘benefit fraud’ would be possible any longer, and the rest of the currently labyrinthine benefits system could be scrapped.

Or we could continue to argue the toss about the ‘deserving’ and the ‘undeserving’ poor, the ‘honest’ and the ‘fraudulent’ benefit claimants, and on and on. It really depends on if we really want a _solution_ to several problems, or simply want to carry on using the poor and how we support them as surrogate footballs in the great political game. Personally, I think the poor have been kicked by both sides enough already.

Morlock, I love the way you’re trying to present me as the evil benefit hawk here, but it won’t wash. Nor will your “civilised” presentation of the Citizen’s Income as the answer to all ills, for a very simple reason – if the Citizen’s Income is set at a level sufficient to keep people who can work alive, well and capable of working between jobs, it will effectively mean eternal poverty – maybe even below-subsistence-level poverty – for those who cannot work. And if it’s set at a level sufficient to keep those who cannot work, those who can will be comfortable enough to not need to, and the system will be obviously unaffordable. Therefore there will always be a need to differentiate between the two groups, and where there is differentiation there exists the potential for fraud and error. Moreover, any withdrawal rate above 0% raises the potential for non-declaration of income, so that avenue doesn’t go away either.

So whilst you’re busy patronising me about “mental avenues”, all your post has demonstrated is the overly simplistic nature of your own position. Put bluntly, you haven’t even thought your ideas through as far as I have, let alone my complaints.

And let’s not forget that even giving every adult of working age a basic £50 a week – the IFS’ “basic income” proposal – would, assuming there are 36m such adults, cost £94bn a year, which would have to be recouped somehow. For perspective, that’s more than the current benefit spend, yet it would leave almost every benefit claimant destitute.

Serco see big profits ahead carving up the welfare state with a few other poverty parasites and oing what they like with their victims http://yesministerltd.wordpress.com/2010/08/13/richard-johnson-on-structuring-the-work-programme-to-change-society/

The IFS one is not the only possible CBI proposal of course:

http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2005/04/the_case_for_ba.html

£100 a week per head would be possible.

This basic income lark, I always have one question really: what about Housing Benefit and Coucil Tax benefit that you are entitled to when claiming JSA and/or other benefits? Cos £100 p/w ain’t gonna cover that as well.

No, S.Pill, it isn’t. I’ve done some maths, and for my area – I live in Sheffield, and LHA for a single person (over 25) is £92 at the moment, which means a single person’s weekly income is a minimum of £157pw on JSA or £142pw on tax credits (eg. if self-employed) – so a citizen’s income of £150pw would be about midway between working tax credit and JSA. Also, in Yorkshire the mean wage is £20,250, which gives a take-home wage of £15,900pa, or £306pw.

So if we take as a starting point that employers are happy to pay a median wage of £20250, that a citizen’s income of £150pw is acceptable, and employees are happy to double their money by working, we find that we can fund the citizen’s income almost completely with a flat 60% income tax rate. Of course, that still screws people who are disabled or otherwise incapable of work through no fault of their own, so retaining (and possibly beefing up, and slightly repurposing) the DLA would be advisable – but this would simply replicate the disabled element of the tax credit system.

Notice the catch? Yep – in order to get a decent basic income onto the books, a government would somehow have to persuade the electorate to swallow a flat 60% tax rate – which in political terms is equivalent to persuading water to flow uphill; there’s something fundamentally repugnant to most people about giving over half their income away in tax, even if they aren’t actually going to see any difference in their bank accounts in the end. The choices are that; or exiling an increasing number of unemployed – and much more severely, blamelessly unemployable – people into destitution; or means testing, which is pretty much what we’ve got at the moment. And that’s why a citizen’s income is never going to happen.

Tim, £100pw is still too low. It’s too low for people on JSA; it’s punitive for people with conditions which make their life more expensive in the first place; and it’s ridiculously, cruelly low for people who couldn’t work even if they wanted to. People making such proposals really don’t have a clue about life at the bottom of the pile, and I would take it as a personal kindness if they could STFU until they’ve had a little experience of it.

“People making such proposals really don’t have a clue about life at the bottom of the pile, and I would take it as a personal kindness if they could STFU until they’ve had a little experience of it.”

Way to go to try to close down a debate.

You’ve thrown out some random figures, then made some sweeping generalisations about the cost of living for various folks.

Why don’t you even want to engage in a discussion about what Chris Dillow (see link from Worstall) rightly describes as an “egalitarian” measure? It /may/ be that such a system would be uneconomic, but you don’t even want to consider the evidence.

Why’s that? Because it actually is a potential solution? Because it would reduce state interference in peoples’ lives? Because it would be a genuinely progressive and redistributive measure?

When the Sun runs a hot line for tax avoidance, then I will take them seriously.

It always disgusts me when the rich ,right wing, which is who the Sun really support try to pretend they are doing it for the little guy.

The Sun speaks the language of the working class while promoting the politics of the millionaire.

The BBC are equally guilty in accepting the Government stance re benefits,particularly with regard to the disabled-with constant references to a non-existing disability benefit and non-mentioning of the fact that DLA is not an out of work benefit -they use different words but the message is the same.

Sally is bang on @21

Why’s that? Because it actually is a potential solution? Because it would reduce state interference in peoples’ lives? Because it would be a genuinely progressive and redistributive measure?

No. Because I was all for a citizen’s income until I sat down, did the maths, and realised just how expensive it was. I’m sorry, but I used to be where you are now until reality moved me on from that.

And as for “random figures” – go look them up. I did. And I can tell you from personal experience that I cannot reduce my own budget below £140pw (and that’ll go up if fuel costs do) – and thanks to agoraphobia and autism I live an exceptionally frugal, solitary life, which means I spend less than someone capable of work would in my situation. £100 a week would mean I couldn’t afford to eat or keep myself warm; God knows what it would do to someone whose disabilities actually increased their cost of living. You seem to regard this as an acceptable outcome. I don’t. The whole point of a benefits system is to keep people alive in the absence of all other income; if it can’t do that, it would probably be better for it to not be there at all.

Do I want to shut down debate? No. I want to keep it up to a sensible standard, and I want to see a range of workable options presented. And to the extent that you’re obstructing this – and you are obstructing this, having firmly made your mind up and being prepared to hear no opposition to it – I have no problem with shutting you up.

(Incidentally, of that £140pw, £80 is rent. That’s exceptionally cheap for where I live – and I chose it intentionally, just in case someone took a wrecking ball to housing benefit. The figure also excludes clothing and transport, because hey, if you never leave the house…)

If only Al Capone had hired Tim Worstall as a defence lawyer:

“Taxes smaxes We all know paying taxes is fiscal contraction that can lead to depression, I was evading them as a patriotic duty yer honour.”