Making work pay

The prime minister has asserted, repeatedly, that the benefit changes are intended to "make work pay". He has made it clear that making work pay is a primary aim of his policies.

The problem is, he is lying.

If he wanted to make work pay, he would not have supported the illegal and abusive workfare schemes, which were work without pay.

If he wanted to make work pay, he would increase the minimum wage, making it worth more to work than to stay on benefits.

I struck me just today that I have heard the same form of lying - saying the right words, but expressing them such that it is clear you mean the opposite - in some clergy. I only mention it because I have heard this happen live, I have heard clergy lie to my face. I realise just how good some people are at it.

I also realise just how much you need to despise the person you are talking to do this.

Of course those at the other end of the social scale to those on benefits most definitely don't want to make work pay. They are quite happy with getting paid without working for it - taking their profits from investments without having to do a lot for them.

So maybe we should introduce a maximum "wage" - the most per hour that people are allowed to gain from salary and investments. Surely that would then encourage the richest - and so, according to the Cameron philosophy, the most significant members of our society who we must not lose under any circumstances - to work more hours, contribute more to the nation.

Maybe we should address the huge issue of tax evasion, because if the wealthiest actually have to contribute to the economy through taxation, then surely they will just work harder to make up this loss. And, as so many have pointed out, tax evasion is a far bigger drain on the economy than benefit cheats.

The problem is that, in our nation today, there are two groups of people who have an expectation of pay without working for it. At one end are those very few people who want to and enjoy living off benefits. There are many others who would happily work if they could, but cannot for whatever reason, and the benefits system does provide an important safety net for these people. We should not forget that, before the welfare state, these people would often end up in the workhouse (basically, workfare with more security), or dead. Sometimes both. The benefit system saves lives, and that is why it is so critical.

The other end is those people who feel that they should be rewarded vastly for the work they do, or the work that has been done by their parents, and so from their investments. These people are just as "lazy", just as expectant of "pay without working", but they are the privileged few who have the money to not work.

And quite a few of them are in the cabinet.

Making work pay is a good idea. Justifying the decimation of the benefits system while encouraging the wealthy to simply hoard their money and not invest in new jobs, is not making work pay. It is abusing your privilege and power for personal benefit and gain.