Cutting the budget
Oct. 11th, 2012 12:20 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackLots of people I know think the budget doesn't have to be cut anywhere near as much as the government think, or not at all. That may or may not be true.
And regardless of who's right, I think it's criminal to cut a lot of different benefits not even across the board, but by bullying, tricking, and lying to people to get as many people as possible to fail to claim the benefit they're legally entitled to, based not on how much they need it or how much they're entitled to it, but according to how much effort they can spend to overcome the hurdles.
But I have to admit, if it is the case the budget definitely needs to be cut, it would be very easy to deny that because I didn't want to believe it and reject any individual suggestions for cuts/tax raises because they were individually unpleasant.
Which means the difficult question is, if something DID need to be cut, what would you cut? Yesterday andrew ducker linked to an essay about citizens income, which didn't necessarily get its figures right, but helpfully summarised the biggest items in the budget. If something had to go, and assuming that you couldn't rely on finding inefficiencies to cut, what would you choose?
And regardless of who's right, I think it's criminal to cut a lot of different benefits not even across the board, but by bullying, tricking, and lying to people to get as many people as possible to fail to claim the benefit they're legally entitled to, based not on how much they need it or how much they're entitled to it, but according to how much effort they can spend to overcome the hurdles.
But I have to admit, if it is the case the budget definitely needs to be cut, it would be very easy to deny that because I didn't want to believe it and reject any individual suggestions for cuts/tax raises because they were individually unpleasant.
Which means the difficult question is, if something DID need to be cut, what would you cut? Yesterday andrew ducker linked to an essay about citizens income, which didn't necessarily get its figures right, but helpfully summarised the biggest items in the budget. If something had to go, and assuming that you couldn't rely on finding inefficiencies to cut, what would you choose?
no subject
Date: 2012-10-12 05:52 am (UTC)What leads you to think that there is deliberate deception?
no subject
Date: 2012-10-12 08:43 am (UTC)I was referring to the mess we've had with disability, housing and job-seekers allowances, where it seems as many people as possible have been forced off. I get a fairly strong impression those reports are accurate, but it's still possible I'm completely wrong, in which case sorry.
no subject
Date: 2012-10-12 08:47 am (UTC)There is definitely no stated aim in the government to make it difficult for the poorer people to claim the benefit they need in order to get a start, or to live sufficiently. There is no deliberate attempt to deceive.
The outcome may be that people get confused, but there are job centres and third parties etc etc whose job it is to explain. If they can't explain then there's a problem with the system which UC hopes to solve.
no subject
Date: 2012-10-28 11:50 am (UTC)I'm sorry for dwelling on it, especially when I know that this is something that UC hopes to do well, and because I don't think I'm educated enough to support an extended discussion, but also, I feel like there has been a genuine problem, and I want to try to say "look, I'm not just being stupid, these are the specific things I've heard about".
It's basically unrelated to UC; UC seems like a really good idea, it's really necessary to have something which simplifies the system for the government and for the users, and anything which makes benefits taper off sensibly rather than put people in a trap where they're better off without a job is urgently needed. But it's somewhat conflated (by proponents and detractors) by whatever changes are being made by whichever government brings it in, some of which are positive and some negative.
I'm really sorry this isn't an exhaustive summary, but the sort of things people have complained about are:
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atos#Controversy_over_disability_benefit_assessments, a reasonable summary of many of the objections
* http://www.cas.org.uk/system/files/publications/CAS%20response%20to%20the%20Independent%20Review%20of%20the%20WCA.pdf A citizens advice bureau essay about what they've found wrong with the Work and Capability Assessment so far -- obviously some assessment process is necessary, and I hope we do get one that works, and quite possibly the current process was well designed, but at some point between design and implementation it seems like the aim has stopped being "assess people accurately" and lamentably become "pass as many people as possible", and almost everything I've heard about the current process as implemented by ATOS has been negative.
* I can't find the cite for this, but one of the talking points was the figures for "amount we want to reduce benefits by" exceeded the "estimated amount of fraud".
So I don't know how this situation came about, but it seems like the current system, especially WCA, isn't doing what it's supposed to be doing.
no subject
Date: 2012-10-28 11:51 am (UTC)