Greece Outside In: The benefits debate explained. Is it really skivers v strivers?

Tuesday, February 5, 2013

The benefits debate explained. Is it really skivers v strivers?

We wanted to explain how the benefit system works - and who will be hit hardest by the Government's reforms. You can watch the video animation here - this is the script and the data that lies behind it
• Download the data
• More data journalism and data visualisations from the Guardian

Is it really "skivers" v "strivers"? Everyone thinks they know what should happen about Benefits. But what is the problem anyway?

The government wants to crack down on the welfare state. The Chancellor, George Osborne, says he wants to look after the "person who leaves their home early in the morning, they pull the door behind them, they're going off to do their job, they're looking at their next-door neighbour, the blinds are down, and that family is living a life on benefits."

The government says it is Strivers(or people who work) v skivers (people who don't).

So, how did we get here? 70 years ago, in the middle of the Second World War, Sir William Beveridge helped create the modern welfare state. It would be a safety net to protect those at the bottom of the pile with support for people who were: Unemployed, Disabled, Bereaved.

It would banish what Beveridge called the five "giant evils" of: Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness

So, what happened?

In 1948, the British government spent £11bn in today's money on benefits.
Since then the benefit bill has soared. In 2012, it spent around £200bn on benefits. That's more than the gross domestic product of Greece, Ireland and New Zealand And equivalent to £3165 for every man, woman and child in the UK.

Income support for sick and disabled people is up from £520m in 1979 when Margaret Thatcher came to power. To £6bn in 2012. In 1979, the government spent £633m on income support for lone parents. In 2012 it was £1.8bn.

So, is Britain's benefits bill out of control? This is how it compares to other areas of public spending. In 2011-12, we spent six times as much on Disability Living allowance than we did on the Foreign & Commonwealth Office. We spent nearly as much on Winter Fuel Allowance as we do on hospital accident & emergency departments. And more on rent rebates than on academy schools.

But do you know what the biggest state benefit is in the UK? State pensions.
In 2011-12 they cost £74.2bn. That is more than we spend on schools and five times what goes on universities.

But how do we compare? Well, we do spend more of our national income on welfare than the United States, Canada, Australia. And Estonia. But we spend much less than other European countries like France, Denmark, Sweden and Germany.

Public opinion is turning against those on benefits. Support for increased spending has gone down. Even Labour supporters are less likely to think the government should support unemployed people.

The government says it is cutting benefits to help the strivers not the skivers, those that work rather than those who stay at home. And new changes would increase benefits by just 1% a year. Even though the cost of living measured is rising by 2.7%. This shows how benefits will slip behind average earnings

But are the cuts really targeting the "skivers"?

Many benefits go to people who are working but on low incomes. And the Children's Society says that the changes the government made recently have hit thousands of working people on low incomes: 300,000 nurses & midwives; 42,000 soldiers; 510,000 shop assistants; 150,000 teachers.

The government has already scrapped child benefit for families where one person earns more than £60,000 and cut it for those earning above £50,000
But two people with a combined income of £100,000 could still get it.

Are there other benefits which could be cut more fairly?

What comes next?

More changes: to benefits like Housing Benefit and the Disability Living Allowance. Which often go to people in employment.

Whatever happens, thousands of people will feel the pain.

Will they be the skivers?

Or the strivers?

Or all of us?