Has the welfare system distorted our economy?

[xoggoth]

The Grenfell tragedy has again highlighted the fact that many are being subsidised via social housing and welfare in areas that most of us could not afford to live in. Yet the subsidy clearly isn't enough to provide basic safety. An area like London needs many low skilled workers, it could not function without street cleaners, café workers etc. but is the social system the right answer?

A basic fact. If we are going to provide an adequate quality of life for them it is going to cost at least the same, however you do it.

A much better solution than social housing and welfare would be a return to market economics. Let employers offer whatever it takes to get people to work in their areas. You may say they couldn't afford that but they are paying for it anyway via colossal business rates. If councils were not paying huge costs for social housing and welfare those could be enormously reduced.

The saving could actually be greater because we would not have all the huge administration costs. Many of those unnecessary public sector workers could be got rid of and maybe end up doing something more useful that really helps the economy.

Another advantage would be that people would feel they had more worth if they were paid in accordance with market needs and were in control of their own lives rather than having to resort to the state.

[AtW]

A much better solution than social housing and welfare would be a return to market economics. Let employers offer whatever it takes to get people to work in their areas. You may say they couldn't afford that but they are paying for it anyway via colossal business rates. If councils were not paying huge costs for social housing and welfare those could be enormously reduced.

So you want to introduce even more taxes on businesses?

That's not market economics.

What market economics is knocking down unsafe buildings like that one, selling land to developers and using proceeds to build safer cheaper social housing elsewhere - it won't be in Kensington and Chelsea however.

[jamesbrown]

That's not market economics.

In the past, that would depend on whose market economics you preferred, but there's a new consensus in British politics. Taxes are going up. Muchly. Unless you're an "ordinary working person" for tax purposes (see: "striver", "hard working family", "alarm clock Britain" etc.).

[AtW]

In the past, that would depend on whose market economics you preferred, but there's a new consensus in British politics. Taxes are going up. Muchly. Unless you're an "ordinary working person" for tax purposes (see: "striver", "hard working family", "alarm clock Britain" etc.).

That's his view of consensus, I reckon the real new consensus will be that austerity goes out of the window, so they'll have to borrow more (perhaps for projects like HS2 to keep it off the normal spending), the tax burden already so high that adding more will not increase take by much.

They lack "strong and stable" majority to enact big tax increases anyway.

[jamesbrown]

That's his view of consensus, I reckon the real new consensus will be that austerity goes out of the window, so they'll have to borrow more (perhaps for projects like HS2 to keep it off the normal spending), the tax burden already so high that adding more will not increase take by much.

They lack "strong and stable" majority to enact big tax increases anyway.

Yeah, but only on the bottom end. If you're more than one standard deviation richer than a "hard working family", you're pretty much fecked. Say goodbye to those increases in the higher rate limit. Mathew Taylor will generate consensus too. There's adequate consensus on any of Labour's policies that the Tories might want to enact. You can already see the cogs ticking over as the "lessons" from the election are being "learned".

[scooterscot]

Seems to me the failure of government to collect taxes from global organisations has caused more to distort the economy. And in so doing has pushed small business out of existence. Yet they are now the very ones you expect to mend something they did not break. Incredible.

[vetran]

Tax credits (subsidising large business) and extending free housing to many has unfortunately overstretched the purse.

At the other end failing to collect tax is very limiting.

[AtW]

Yeah, but only on the bottom end. If you're more than one standard deviation richer than a "hard working family", you're pretty much fecked. Say goodbye to those increases in the higher rate limit. Mathew Taylor will generate consensus too. There's adequate consensus on any of Labour's policies that the Tories might want to enact. You can already see the cogs ticking over as the "lessons" from the election are being "learned".

I expect they will try to shaft me again...

Going to office now to double my efforts...

[BrilloPad]

I would like to see universal credits.

[Fronttoback]

The Grenfell tragedy has again highlighted the fact that many are being subsidised via social housing and welfare in areas that most of us could not afford to live in. Yet the subsidy clearly isn't enough to provide basic safety. An area like London needs many low skilled workers, it could not function without street cleaners, café workers etc. but is the social system the right answer?

A basic fact. If we are going to provide an adequate quality of life for them it is going to cost at least the same, however you do it.

A much better solution than social housing and welfare would be a return to market economics. Let employers offer whatever it takes to get people to work in their areas. You may say they couldn't afford that but they are paying for it anyway via colossal business rates. If councils were not paying huge costs for social housing and welfare those could be enormously reduced.

The saving could actually be greater because we would not have all the huge administration costs. Many of those unnecessary public sector workers could be got rid of and maybe end up doing something more useful that really helps the economy.

Another advantage would be that people would feel they had more worth if they were paid in accordance with market needs and were in control of their own lives rather than having to resort to the state.

You are mad if you think the traditional working classes live in blocks like this to be near workplaces that need low paid workers. I can tell you from recent personal experience that they are full of non-English speaking migrants that don't work (because they can't speak English), a few very old aged white British pensionsers who've been there since the blocks were considered posh, Eastern Europeans renting one flat between 10 people from "right to buy" landlords, illegal immigrants, students, a few young "city" workers slumming it to keep costs down and a very small minority of the traditional working class that left school low skilled and stayed in the area they grew up in.

None of these groups work as dustbin lorry drivers, cleaners, taxi drivers, etc. Those people don't live in Central London anymore. Very few anyway.

Big up DJ Isla. RIP the 100s of poor souls who have died here. These blocks should all be razed to the ground.