Letter: Poor should not finance public debt
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: The Secretary of State for Social Security, Peter Lilley MP, has finally laid out his strategy for reducing the social security budget through 'better targeting' and 'more self-provision' (report, 24 June).
These phrases may sound innocuous, but they pose genuine threats to the future of the welfare state. As the Secretary of State made clear, targeting can be achieved by means-testing or by narrowing the scope and tightening the eligibility conditions for benefits. The latter might be a more subtle approach than the means-test but the effect will be the same. Thousands will lose support from the state and others will have to jump through yet more hoops to get help from an increasingly stingy, discretionary and stigmatising social security system.
Mr Lilley's vision of continued universal contributions alongside private provision, through extending the principle of opting out, is a simplistic one. If the more affluent have to pay for a social security system from which they themselves derive little or no benefit, their willingness to pay diminishes. The welfare state, which currently embodies the principle of social solidarity - that all contribute and all gain - will become but a residual safety net of benefits for the poorest.
Above all, the debate about public spending has been drawn too narrowly. The scale of the social security budget is largely a response to failures outside the benefits system - such as the recession and rising costs. To focus on social security alone without taking account of the panoply of tax reliefs and allowances is to make the poorer sections of society pay for the government's debt. This burden should be borne in particular by the more affluent who have gained substantially from the tax cuts of recent years.
Yours sincerely,
CAREY OPPENHEIM
Child Poverty Action Group
London, EC1
24 June
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments