I am a single parent and work part time. Me ex fecked off a few years ago and left me “holding the baby”. Until recently I worked full time and found it virtually impossible to balance books with all the child care involved. Me being a bit thick and limited to type of work I can get didn’t help. At the moment my wages are topped up with housing benefit and tax credits. I haven’t lost a penny and if anything I am slightly better off. On the plus side I get shite loads of time with the nipper and a load of time to ride.

Every cloud eh…

Welfare universalism, to put it another way:

“It speaks to another important thing: are you for a residual welfare state that is just for the poor, which is the Tory position, or are you for a more inclusive welfare state? What the Tories are saying about child trust funds, child tax credits and Sure Start – they’re saying, ‘let’s residualise, let’s make the welfare state just for the poor’ but [this goes against] all the evidence in terms of maintaining public support [for the welfare state]. Why does Sure Start work as an institution? Because it brings people together.” The People’s bank would be aimed as much at the well off as the less well off.”

*

if you think that “maintaining public support [for the welfare state]” is really what’s important as opposed to making sure the welfare state is meeting the needs of those most needing it then universalism is all fine and dandy. Cant say I agree, but that probably makes me a “Tory boy” or some such labelled rubbish.

* http://www.nextleft.org/2010/03/milibands-manifesto-to-defend.html

ah yeah druidh, it’s the lack of housing costs – that must make a massive difference

Maybe that’s one of the fundamental flaws in the system then?

there’s flaws in any system

You can be right/left wing and support/not support/support to a certain degree a state welfare system. Or you can turn it into a left-right argument.

I’ve never understood why child benefit is paid regardless of need.

Yeah as Stoner suggests, we once had what was called “the universal welfare state”. Unlike Stoner, I totally support the concept – it’s the bedrock of social democracy. Welfare “for the needy” is a neo-liberal concept.

In a universal welfare state/social democracy those who can contribute more, do, there is therefore no need to stop their entitlement.

I don’t support safety nets for the needy, a universal social wage helps to maintain social cohesion and maintains higher standards. It is absolutely imperative imo.

ernie – I thought the original welfare “product” was specifically a safety net measure, pensions, nhs etc?

[hijack]
PS, Ernie while you’re in here, would you mind passing on the benefit of your experience over here pls
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/neighbours-have-fitted-power-shower-on-wall-adjoining-our-bedroom#post-3105036

ta 🙂

[/hijack]

Watching this on BBC2, it occurs to me that universal childcare and lots of social housing would be pretty handy..

In a universal welfare state/social democracy those who can contribute more, do, there is therefore no need to stop their entitlement.

If you do this properly with a progressive taxation system (or at least one which isn’t too regressive) you should get the same result as with means testing without the social stigma. Then again child tax credits is mean tested, and whilst a lot of criticism can be levelled at the system it does generally seem to work OK – extending it to a level where it’s not just the “poor” claiming it seems to have removed the stigma from claiming (just leaving the bureaucracy as the main disincentive).

It’s not often I agree with ernie and disagree with Stoner – I must be getting old.