HERE is another inescapable fact when it comes to the Welfare State (editorial, July 18), restated by the independent Commission on Social Justice: however we choose to deliver welfare, it still has to be paid for. There are no quick fixes for the Treasury to make welfare costs disappear. If taxes are cut, private insurance premiums will have to take the strain.
We should begin to distinguish between different types of welfare cost. It would be a brave insurance company prepared to offer comprehensive unemployment cover given the new level of uncertainty in the labour market. It is still true that only a state-sponsored insurance scheme can pool the risk efficiently and cheaply.
A more flexible labour market requires a more flexible benefits system. More of the part-time, low-paid work available should count towards insurance cover if the drift towards means-testing and the unemployment trap is to be reversed.
With pensions, we must devise a way to reduce both political risk (of Governments raiding the National Insurance Fund) and financial risk (of the capital markets).
Guaranteed top-ups to the basic state pension for the lower-income retired are essential in the short term, but for tomorrow's pensioners more money has to be invested in retirement.
A funded second tier of pensions (including low-cost industry pensions along the lines of the Australian model) should draw contributions from every working person and employer. Government credits will have to be paid for those who are seeking work or doing the unpaid work of long-term care, for example.
Labour's proposed Royal Commission on funding long-term care is a helpful suggestion. But it is a fair bet that if William Beveridge were alive today, he would see this as a classic social insurance candidate, where the costs and risks should be shared according to ability to pay.
James McCormick,
Research Fellow,
Institute for Public Policy Research,
30-32 Southampton Street,
London.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article