LETTER: Radical options for benefits
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.From Ms Patricia Hewitt
Sir: You are wrong to suggest that the Social Justice Commission proposed "more means testing and in-work benefits" ("Labour leaves the land of dreams", 23 May). We argued powerfully that the present government's policy of extending means tests will inevitably trap more families in poverty and unemployment and proposed instead - as Frank Field has also recently done - the replacement of means tests by a modernised social insurance system, offering individual benefits in return for individual contributions. We also proposed a universal second-tier pension built upon Serps or (as in Australia) upon a range of properly regulated occupational, industry and personal pension schemes.
As long as there are jobs which pay too little to support a family some in-work benefits will be required. But the present policy of extending in-work benefits while destroying the Wages Councils risks bankrupting the social security system as unscrupulous employers shift their wage costs on to the state. That is why we proposed a minimum wage, set after wide consultation at a level which will not risk job losses but which will safeguard employees and taxpayers alike.
The post-war welfare state was designed for a world in which most men were employed for 45 or 50 years and retirement lasted for perhaps 15 years. When employment, for both men and women, may last for only 30 or 35 years, and non-employment (for family responsibilities, further education and training, leisure or retirement) may take as many years, it is obvious that only radical measures will enable people to spread their earnings across increasingly varied life cycles. It is precisely such radical options that the Social Justice report offers.
Yours faithfully,
PATRICIA HEWITT
Deputy Chair
Commission on Social Justice
Institute for
Public Policy Research
London, WC2
23 May
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments