Thursday 15 March 2007

Benefits and the NHS

The petition is entitled make people pay a proportion of their benefits to the NHS and the explanatory notes say
"all people who are hard working tax payers have to pay for the NHS out of their wages, what about people who have never worked? They should have a reduction in their benefits and it SHOWN that the reduction is to pay for the NHS. There are many 16 year old mums who have never paid anything into the system who get the services of midwife, hospital for the birth etc etc .WHO DO THEY THINK PAYS FOR THIS SERVICE.If you are to reduce the benefit it may make them think twice if they can see that someone has to pay."

The fundamental problem with this bit of lunacy (aside from the usual problem that the petitioner has clearly never discussed being on benefits with anyone who's actually on them) is that, of course, benefits are carefully calculated (in theory at least) to be a small but possible amount on which to live. If one took some of it away to "pay for the NHS", one would need, to be just, to increase the benefits by the same amount ... In other words, you'd increase admin complications (which would cost money) without getting any back - and what evidence do we have that this would "make [anyone] think twice"? None. Think twice about what, for that matter. It's a bit blooming late for these hypothetical teenage mums to think twice, isn't it?

1 comment:

cim said...

It also misses the point regarding state provision of services in general, and the whole reason taxation and state services exist.

Let's follow the implied argument further - presumably people on low incomes (whether benefits or employment-based), having as much - if not more - need for state services such as the NHS as people on high incomes, should pay the same absolute level of tax under this logic? Just take a flat £6,500 out of every resident's income each year, regardless of age, total income or other mitigating factors, and abolish all other taxes. The total tax take remains about the same, administration is vastly simplified, etc. Of course, it would vastly exacerbate all sorts of social problems, but it seems to be the eventual conclusion of the petitioner's reasoning.