I met Sam* on a cold, stormy Welsh November night, almost two years ago now. A young, articulate and well-dressed lady in her early 30s, Sam was decidedly out of place in the dirty, piss and vomit-stained custody suite I was working at. Had I met her on the street, I would never have suspected that her fashionable light brown jumper hid arms stained by track marks, a pinpoint history of years of intravenous drug abuse.

Sam was an addict, and as my more experienced colleague told me, if you’ve never seen an addict, the first is going to be a tough one. And tough it indeed was. For the next twelve hours, until a pale sun rose over Cardiff Bay, I accompanied Sam through the depth of her addiction as she went from crying to pleading to throwing things at me and having to be restrained by custody staff. Sam could change tone at the drop of a hat. Pleading a second ago for drugs as she began detoxing and her eyes went from the empty miotic dots to the deep, pleading circles of opioid withdrawal mydriasis, she could in the next moment be threatening. “Do you know who I am? Do you know what I can do to you?”, she would scream. She would confabulate stories about her family connections one moment and talk about her street gang links in the next. And a moment later, she would be back tugging at our heartstrings.

Sam and the other two dozen or so addicts that I encountered during my work were some of my most memorable clients. The personality of an addict, the quick changes, the ferocity and the monomaniacal focus on the sole goal of obtaining the drug mixed with occasional displays of uncommon and unexpected wit and cleverness so strictly limited to getting more smack or coke was enigmatic and fascinating to me. The addict’s mindset is a unique one. Addicts are perfect utilitarians – they change character to suit the person they’re talking to, they shift from begging to threatening, and back to begging, and all throughout this, every word is a lie but those begging for their next dose.

And my colleague was right. The first one was tough. So was the one after and the one after that… and so on. Sam and the others, writhing in the pain of the withdrawal in the medical room, throwing up into the cold chromium toilet bowl, screaming and raging – these are images that have stayed with me for the years past.

And you can imagine how distressing it is when I see a whole nation starting to display the deceptive personality of an addict.

The financial crisis and the necessary downsizing of benefits has brought the issue of Britain’s state-dependent millions to the fore. Suddenly, as the state threatens to cut their lifelines, they speak up (usually in the Guardian). We hear reports of people threatening to commit suicide because they may lose their benefits. Of families starving because their benefits are cut. Of the government’s break with decency as it tries desperately to save where it can. Of twitter celebrity and cancer sufferer Alice Pyne and of Tory class hatred, the latter argument penned by the people’s hero from her Tuscan villa.

And the state has, indeed, done a horrible thing. A horrible, reprehensible thing.

Not in withdrawing benefits or implementing cuts. No – the real crime was sixty years of the so-called ‘welfare state’, a cloud-cuckoo delusion that always rode on buying votes and on grandious political statements, and never on a shred of reality. The real crime was letting millions languish in state dependence. The real crime was murder – killing ambition and hope for a better life with a monthly handout. The real crime was theft – stealing independence and initiative. The real crime was bribery – paying obedient serfs a generous annuity, the price of their dreams and of their futures. And, of course, their votes.

There are some people who contemplate the welfare state as some sort of giant conspiracy, aimed at a socialist-style takeover of the West. I never believed in those conspiracy theories, mainly because a very careful reading of the biographies of Bevan and his purported co-conspirators revealed a stunning paucity of intellect, in particular economic understanding, among the forefathers of welfarism. These principle-driven crusaders had no regard for what they were doing. And they might be absolved, for they have, really, acted upon one of humanity’s noblest impulses: that of lifting up the weak and helping the injured and sick.

It is the subsequent governments that I accuse of the crimes of the welfare state. For once it was visible that welfarism was creating dependence, they stood at the crossroads between being the people’s elected servants – or masters of serfs. And they chose. They chose as their pernicious greed demanded.

No longer was welfarism about helping the poor. It was about keeping the poor, poor – and, when Labour was in government, keeping the rich poor, too, if at all possible.

There have been few lights that shone in this darkness – such as Baroness Thatcher – and they were fiercely attacked. Every time a two-bit left-wing politician jokes about dancing on the grave of a lady who sacrificed her entire life in service to Britain for no discernible personal benefit, I hear Sam’s screams. Every time I hear the attacks on the government from the so-called advocates of ‘the disabled’ (because if you are disabled, you MUST be against the cuts!), I hear them in her voice. I see her face, distorted into a Munchian grimace, blaming me for killing her, then begging me in the next moment, then threatening me again.

The opiate of masses isn’t religion, it’s the welfare state. It has kept Britain’s population docile: docile enough to be governed by a Civil Service that lives in the days of the East India Company and successive governments that surpassed each other in only two things: greed and lack of leadership. It has kept Britain locked into a two-party system where eventually one cannot even tell the difference between who is governing – and eventually, one gives up giving a damn about it. Now Britain is sleepwalking into another delusion: behind the French bellwether, the nation of addicts will soon demand we burn the non-addicted to feed their addiction.

The problem is, ‘the rich’ – as in, ‘tax the rich!’, a placard that generously omits who the rich actually are – aren’t a renewable resource. Fine, you can tax the rich. It is quite fortuitous and reveals a great deal of insight by Francois Hollande to limit the French 75% rate to two years, because after two years, nobody will pay it: those who want to pay it won’t have anything to pay it out of, and those who don’t want to pay it will have long hidden it in a shell company registered in the British Virgin Islands owned by a Panamanian company owned by a Jersey trust – you get the idea.

The wild attempts to rob the rich (because a 75% tax rate is, let’s be fair, not taxation but robbery) reveal how fundamentally misunderstood they are. Robbing the rich makes sense – if, and only if, they are rich because of some magical accident. Except that is not the case – the overwhelming majority of wealthy people I have come across, both in work and private life, are hard-working and intelligent people. You can’t take 75% of their work ethic and redistribute it – nor would such an idea necessarily meet with the approval of the proposed recipients. In today’s information-driven world, the means of production are minds – and you can’t nationalise minds. You can rob the fruits, but you cannot touch the tree.

What Britain needs is not more of the soporific drug of welfare money. What it needs is a detox, and it only works quickly. And I’m not going to lie – I’ve seen people detox from drugs, and it’s not pretty. It will hurt. I remember the addicts’ screams as their body slowly broke down the drugs and opened the door perhaps to a new life. It was a painful birth of perhaps their new self. Some, of course, relapsed the moment they made bail or left prison. Others, like Sam, managed to sort their lives out. There is hope for addicts – even if the addict is an entire nation.

But it won’t be without pain.

*(name changed to protect the not quite innocent)

Louise October 4,
2012 at 20:00

Too many doctors, too many lawyers. That’s the REAL problem.

Louise October 4,
2012 at 19:59

and this makes no sense: ‘The addict’s mindset is a unique one.’

Louise October 4,
2012 at 19:55

we’ve had some form of welfare state since the implementation of the poor
laws.

the Victorians built publicly funded asylums and we razed them to the
ground.

to save money.

blaming everything on ‘teh welfare state’ is plain dumb. and it’s oh so
tedious.

macheath October
3, 2012 at 16:49

I know our esteemed hostess is wiping down the tables and tidying the
chairs on this one, but I hope she’ll permit me to refer to a previous post of
hers which makes reference to the whole circus of childcare, where vast
numbers of women go out to work looking after after other women’s babies and
young children; the whole wobbly, illogical edifice is propped up by bast
amounts of government money in the form of tax credits and subsidies (not
strictly the benefits to which Chris refers but definitely out of the same
box).

https://www.annaraccoon.com/politics/dont-mention-the-f-word/

Bulaman October 3, 2012 at 02:04

“You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out
of freedom.
What one person receives without working for, another person
must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody
anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
When
half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the
other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the
idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what
they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation.
You
cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.”

Adrian Rogers

Bill
Sticker October 2, 2012 at 04:07

An interesting and apposite piece of prose. The problem, as always, is that
sooner or later the definition of ‘rich’ inches down the scale. It must,
because no-one will dare deny the addicts their ‘fix’ lest they start throwing
dolly out of the pram, or rocks in the streets…..

Mark October 2, 2012 at 03:51

Sorry, what is so horrible about welfare dependence? Is your average office
worker independent? Is anyone?
The “work ethic” is a slave ethic – the only
sensible attitude to work is that it is a neccesary evil to achieve something
worthwhile. Unfortunately we live in a society which places more value on the
effort than the result – leading to an incredible amount of wasted life. Jobs
are not a panacea.
Each year, this attitude becomes less excusable as
technology makes our labour less neccesary.
What is it that you want the
unemployed to do for you?

Humble Observer
October 2, 2012 at 12:25

What is it that you want the unemployed to do for you? Die,
apparently…

Ted Treen
October 3, 2012 at 14:31

Sorry Mark – but that’s pure sophistry.

“Is your average office worker independent?” – not entirely, but he/she
isn’t sitting back making no effort and expecting to live entirely at the
expense of others.

“.. the only sensible attitude to work is that it is a neccesary evil
to achieve something worthwhile…” – so that means it’s OK to sit back and
let some other mug carry it out? – a sense of achievement/accomplishment
counts for nothing? – the morality of self-support counts for nowt?

“..we live in a society which places more value on the effort than the
result..” – quite the opposite applies in our celebrity/£5million pa for a
footballer shallow society:- in fact, effort is too frequently denigrated
by:-
a) those who simply cannot be arsed,
b) those who could be
arsed, but have seen that they can get by without,
c) those with a
massive but misplaced sense of entitlements,
and
d) apologists for
the preceding.

My pride and self-respect will not permit me to sit back and become a
drone who allows others to work on my behalf. I accept that if I were
unable to work – not just unwilling – I would accept help and/or
charity.

While I’m still capable of working (and I’m well over 60, and in
questionable health), I will do so.

binao October 3, 2012 at 18:41

Given the large numbers of people (in my community at least) that do
voluntary work, whether from pleasure or sense of duty, there obviously
is some reason not to rot on the sofa. I’ve also managed a few people
over the years and the majority, I think, had respect for themselves and
what they did. How could anyone spend a third of their day being paid to
do something they didn’t think of value?

Single Acts of
Tyranny October 2, 2012 at 01:43

“because a 75% tax rate is, let’s be fair, not taxation but robbery”

At what rate is coercive taxation not robbery?

Kippax October 2, 2012 at 00:10

Some thought-provoking thoughts from many sides of this argument. However,
the one thing about benefits that I struggle to understand is why people who
are able to work receive money for not doing any. The government are currently
on a crusade to get people to “work for benefits”. Surely this is the wrong
concept. If the government sends these people out to work, then they need to
be paid a wage. They become employed, albeit paid by the public purse (exactly
as public service employees are) so what’s the difference? Am I missing
something? It would still be the same money, but we wouldn’t call it
“benefits”, we’d call it “employment”. And the government could afford to pay
a proper wage too, knowing they would be clawing the extra back in income tax
and NI payments. No doubt there will be a flaw somewhere in my simplistic
thinking or it would already be being done – wouldn’t it??

macheath October
2, 2012 at 08:09

I seem to remember hearing that a certain Herbert Hoover once had the
same idea…

Humble Observer
October 1, 2012 at 21:14

Wow! Interesting points from all sides. Here’s my two pennies worth:

It isn’t all about having a good education. I had a decent education, left
school at 16 (with some ‘O’ levels) & went into an apprenticeship. With
all the will in the world (& expert tuition), I would have struggled to
gain some ‘A’ levels, let alone get a degree.

With regards to East European migrant workers; I worked as a courier for a
while and saw first hand how some major retail chains pretty much used
migrants EXCLUSIVELY at their distribution warehouses. As has been mentioned
before, there really are areas of the country where “the locals” are frozen
out (AND NOT BECAUSE THEY’RE FECKLESS!!!). In a similar vein, you try becoming
a cabbie or starting your own takeaway business, etc – see how the local
‘ethnics’ who now have such businesses stitched up react. Will they welcome
the competition – DREAM ON.

I have worked for most of my adult life. When I have been made redundant
from one job and been unable to get another in that profession, I have
retrained in a new profession. I haven’t done too badly. As hinted at above,
I’m not thick, but not that bright either. My limited abilities have enabled
me to get a couple of rungs up the relevant ladders. Truth betold, I am an
employee, not an employer.

I also used to be a pontificating ‘I’m alright Jack’ (you know who you
are…). These days I can idenify (to a limited extent!) with the character
played by Vic Morrow in ‘Twilight Zone -The Movie’. The bigot who gets his
cum-uppance. In a sad irony, the actor was actually killed on the set of the
film…

I now find myself suffering from a particularly nasty chronic condition. So
far, various drugs haven’t worked & as a last resort(?) I’ve had to have
surgery. So, for me, God Bless the NHS. Hopefully (YES) I will now get well
again and be fit enough to look for a non-existent job……

My ‘humble’ advice is – folks should be careful what they smugly sound off
about, one day they could end up as a real life ‘Twilight Zone’ character…

Chris October 1,
2012 at 23:12

Perhaps folks indeed should be ‘careful what they smugly sound off about’
– a little background about the author. My humble advice to
being painted as a pontificating I’m alright Jack tends to be in the
defendant’s words in Arkell v Pressdram (unreported).

Humble
Observer October 2, 2012 at 12:22

Oops! this was general advice to all & sundry. If I thought you,
Chris, were ‘”pontificating” I would have said so. If you re-read what I
wrote, you will see that sometimes things we (yes, me included, that was
the point) write/say have a habit of backfiring on us – LIKE THE CHARACTER
IN THE FILM (not being superstitous or anything…). I repeat, it was
general advice to ALL and not me being judgemental of you.

Devil’s
Kitchen October 1, 2012 at 21:04

An utterly brilliant post: biting, eloquent and *right*…

It harks on a number of themes that I have developed over my years of
blogging: that welfare is an evil thing that saps ambition and hope; that
people are in hock to the state having sold the freedom to achieve in return
for patronisation and lacklustre hand-outs.

But you said it better…

DK

Ancient + Tattered
Airman October 1, 2012 at 20:32

Human nature converted what should have been a safety net at times of need
into hammocks for the workshy and non-contributing members of society.
Are
we surprised that we have a large and growing underclass?

Damo October 1, 2012 at 19:42

Drug addiction is a myth. They were only having you on.

GildasTheMonk
October 1, 2012 at 18:14

On a slghtly political point with regartd to taxation, I wrote a piece some
while ago on the brilliant ex trader turned academic Nasseem Taleb.
His
approach to taxation was summed up in a rhetorical quation to an interviewer.
Look he said, I am a very succesful man, I earn an awful lot of money. So I
must be doing something right. So why is it logical to tax me more than people
who aren’t and must be doing something wrong? That he observed is
illogical.
Discuss.

Bunny October 1, 2012 at 19:09

I enjoy Mr Taleb’s work, any chance of a reference so I can look it up. I
quoted him in my dissertation presentation why I wasn’t using an empirical
study.

Noggin the Nog
October 1, 2012 at 20:04

It is not logical to assume that the purpose of a person’s existence is
to make more money than the next man, and in doing so becomes more ‘right’
by virtue of his bank balance.

Back to the original post – one point made which has gone unchallenged is
the totally false asertion that Thatch was a universal force for good and
that she has sacrificed herself in the service of the nation.

The vile woman was responsible for terrible divisions in society which
persist today. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the implementation of
some of her policies, the idea that she was at least partly acting out of
spite cannot be discounted. It never ceases to amaze me that she is veiwed
as some kind of saviour of the nation, when she was actively pursuing and
continuing the shameful, deceitful sale of the nation down the EU Swanee
that was commenced by her mate, the arch traitor Heath. She signed the
Single European Act in 86, knowing full well the consequences. She has not
suffered much deptivation as far as I can see, being a Baroness and a multi
millionaire, totally divorced and insulated from the world she helped to
create.

Just one more thing – I hate Labour too, so please, no comments about
political envy.

Ted Treen
October 3, 2012 at 12:37

“…the idea that she was at least partly acting out of spite cannot be
discounted…”

Yes it can.

Simon
Gibbs October 1, 2012 at 17:28

Good luck is not a justification for taxing the rich. Luck is morally
neutral becuase morality is a framework in support of choice. If no choice is
involved, and just luck, then it is not a moral issue by definition.

Woman on a
Raft October 1, 2012 at 17:21

I’d be very interested to read details of the detox plan. The last time
anything like this was remotely contemplated, it was derailed by the way the
pain was not related to behaviour and led to the dramatic rise of New Labour.
Excellent exposition. More please.

Carol42 October 1, 2012 at 16:54

Forgot the comments again!

Carol42 October 1, 2012 at 16:53

One thing that should be done is to severely discourage people having
children and expecting the rest of us to support them. Take away the incentive
and that would drop sharply and save another generation growing up to repeat
their parents lifestyle as we see everywhere today. It is unfair on taxpayers
and on the children too, payments should be limited to one or, at most two
children, when the parent(s) have no means of supporting them. As things stand
now only the very rich and those on benefits can afford more than two children
and that is not good for society. I don’t suppose anything will be done
though, not unless things get desperate.

JuliaM October
1, 2012 at 19:34

THIS!

binao October 1, 2012 at 23:26

I believe 10/15 years ago this country was already at the stage of
scarcely having a replacement birthrate, regardless of parenting
arrangements, and then….
I am still convinced that the massive
immigration of recent years was cynically seen by the politicians as an
opportunity to grow the economy with population growth. Easier than dealing
with reform of benefits. Failed and now we have an even bigger
problem.
Interesting that Mr Balls now has bright ideas to provide
100,000 homes for the millions of people his govts’ policies grew the
population by.
Just a view.

Ted Treen
October 3, 2012 at 12:35

“…Mr Balls now has bright ideas to provide 100,000 homes…”

and apparently these homes are going to cost around £25,000 each. That
suggests they might bear more resemblance to the average semi’s garage,
than to the house itself.

Unless of course, it’s all Balls…

alan October 1, 2012 at 14:09

The welfare state was setup because people where dying. Unemployment,
disabilities etc was a death sentence to many prior to the welfare state.

If the benefits system is removed what then? The jobs don’t exist &
wont magically appear if benefits are removed. So what then? Sudden jump in
crime rates? jails get full with people committing crimes just to feed
themselves?

The drug metaphor doesn’t work. Sudden withdrawal of specific classes of
drugs leads to a quick death. Some drugs are so pernicious that the addict has
to be slowly weaned off their drug of choice.

Innovation (jobs creation) has been destroyed in this country by excessive
employment law & over regulation.

Most unskilled jobs have been replaced by jobs requiring a good education.
Todays workforce needs access to high quality eduction, not just during the
school years, but throughout life.

Its easy to blame the welfare state on the entitlement complex. Poor
parenting is the root cause. If a kid spends the first 18yrs of their life
being spoilt rotten is it any wonder that feel “entitled” to everything for
nothing. And being spoilt is not just about material goods. Its about adults
not being patents, but being willing slaves to their children, tidying up
behind them, cooking for them, taking them everywhere they want, putting them
first before anything else.

Schools teach kids that everyone is a winner, in total contradiction to how
life actually works.

Socialism did bring about much needed reform, but it is well past its sell
by date. Modern socialists live in a fairy tail bubble that does not reflect
reality. Mindless rants against socialism only reinforce socialists view that
they are right; direct loss of benefits will cause more problems than it
solves.

And so here we are again. An article that only reinforces stereotypes and
adds nothing to a much needed debate. SOP for the MSM, but rather
disappointing for the Raccoon Arms.

Engineer October 1, 2012 at 15:33

I, too, keep hearing that unskilled jobs have been replaced by ones
requiring a good education (and in some fields, there’s truth in that); I
also hear employers saying that the only way they can fill their vacancies
is by employing economic migrants from the former Eastern Bloc. I’m now
confused; the two are mutually incompatable, but supported by many concrete
examples. I suspect that in some parts of the country, opportunities (albeit
not long-term career ones) do exist, and the jobless could get a start.

Chris makes a fair point, I think. That said, we have to look deeper for
answers, and they won’t be simple. There are too many complex and
interlinked factors. For example, does the practice of housing people in
similar situations together in isolated social housing estates compound the
problem by creating ghettos of lack of ambition? Has the race for
ever-increasing exam grades degraded and corrupted the real benefits of
education? Does the social tendency to despise certain ways of earning a
living alienate the people who may take such work? I’m sure there are many,
many other factors.

JuliaM October
1, 2012 at 19:38

“I’m now confused; the two are mutually incompatable…”

Not really. I expect the Eastern Bloc education at least turns out
pupils who can read, write and add up without a calculator, even if they
can’t tell you all about the benefits of diversity…

Engineer
October 1, 2012 at 20:41

There may be more than a grain of truth in that. There is also that
elusive thing known as ‘work ethic’, and the fact that many economic
migrants are motivated by a desire to save up and give themselves a
better life later back in their homelands – upping sticks and moving to
another country with that aim in mind does require a good dollop of ‘get
up and go’.

Ted Treen
October 3, 2012 at 12:31

“There is also that elusive thing known as ‘work ethic’”

Also known as “A lack of a misplaced sense of entitlement”.

alan October 2, 2012 at 00:33

The jobs haven’t been replaced yet. But the number of unskilled jobs is
reducing year on year. The education system should be having better
outcomes, year on year, to compensate. Sadly educational outcomes are
getting worse in the UK not better.

You hit the nail on the head. Its a classic multi-variate problem.
Simplistic single variate solutions are political fluff.

Andrew October 1, 2012 at 15:42

“The welfare state was setup because people where dying. Unemployment,
disabilities etc was a death sentence to many prior to the welfare state.
”

No it wasn’t, there were voluntary hospitals, charities, friendly
societies, etc. to look after those who couldn’t look after themselves.

The welfare state was created purely for control and propaganda. And it’s
done a world-class job at both.

Chris October 1,
2012 at 17:21

The welfare state hasn’t done a terrific job, then, seeing as people are
still dying… It has become fashionable in the Western world, where
charitable foundations have existed since the Middle Ages, to re-write the
social history of Victorian Britain as some sort of Dickensian Oliver
Twist-esque nightmare. At risk of belabouring the obvious, Dickens was a
genius of fiction who recognised that Victorian audiences had a fascination
with life on the edges of society, and gave them exactly that. To think
Victorian Britain’s streets were awash with the dying poor is simply
unsupported by history. So we have gotten by without the welfare state for
quite long. In fact, Bismarck’s Germany, which started to implement
quasi-state welfare, paid for it by developing a lot slower than Victorian
Britain, where charitable institutions have been mainly private (and a lot
of them, ecclesiastical). English law, for instance, reflects to this date
some unique features that have developed to facilitate private charitable
giving. And guess what, it worked. Unlike taxes, donors knew where their
money went. Perhaps when we rant about this self-obsessed society of ours,
we ought to consider that we have extinguished charity by outsourcing it to
the state. For instance, if you didn’t have to pay taxes but had the choice
between five charities, would you not be a more socially aware creature?
Would you not research whom to give? Would you not, perhaps, eventually
develop links with the client group served? There are beneficial features,
many best conceptualised in information theory terms, that the compulsory
caring morality of taxation just can’t replicate.

alan October 2, 2012 at 00:25

The unemployed are not dying because of benefits. I never said
Victorian Britain was awash with the dying poor. I never said the welfare
state was good. History does not support your statement that private
charity worked for everyone. Sure it worked for a minority, but not for a
majority of working class Britain.

I support the central concept that the welfare state is broken. It was
broken from inception. I dont see any workable solutions being discussed.

Today we live in a different world. Before the welfare state the
general public had the life skills to survive on literally nothing. (https://www.annaraccoon.com/politics/times-past-and-present/).
Todays kidults cant even cook and I suspect many would rather starve than
eat offal.

Do you seriously think if benefits were cut tomorrow that it would be
sweetness and roses? That a charity gene would spontaneously switch on in
the general population?

Hysteria
October 2, 2012 at 07:30

Workable solutions…? Well how about this for starters.

Massive reduction in State tax, (and reduction in support for various
charities) – Individuals can give part of their (now increased)
disposable to the charity of their choice, with a tax allowance for
doing this.

I think the RNLI is the poster child for a well run organisaiton that
survives with out the benefit of state funding. (I know , they need
roads and other stuff provided out of central taxation)

Louise October
7, 2012 at 10:02

‘seeing as people are still dying’

People are dying because that’s what people do. The founders of the
welfare state in its current form never promised immortality.

Louise October
7, 2012 at 10:03

Mental asylums were funded by the state.

Daniel October 1, 2012 at 18:43

Many unskilled jobs still exist, they just now require you to have a
qualification to perform them. A nurse now requires a degree rather than
some basic training and on the job experience. Try and get a job in a fast
food restaurant without GCSEs or increasingly A-Levels. These are pretty
much unskilled jobs, that 60 years ago would have been done by kids just out
of school with few or no qualifications.

A lot of poor people don’t have the time or the money to get in a
position to take the required training, they are left facing a lifetime of
low paid menial work, or doing the jobs of graduates but with a different
title and a fraction of the pay because they cannot get the right letters
after their name.

JuliaM October
1, 2012 at 19:36

“A nurse now requires a degree rather than some basic training and
on the job experience.”

And, as a result, is far too exalted to wipe bottoms and feed the
infirm elderly…

North of Watford
Gap October 1, 2012 at 14:06

“I like opposing views, they are a positive thing – it’s called debate!” –
Hmmmmmmmmm!

GildasTheMonk
October 1, 2012 at 20:58

Debate is always welcome here, NOWG! It is interesting how my views on
welfare have softened as I I have grown older and suffered a few “slings and
arrows”. But with welfare the Devil is always in the detail…

Socrates October
1, 2012 at 12:53

So, a few crips and nutters top themselves along the way? Well, if it gets
us where we need to be…

GildasTheMonk
October 1, 2012 at 12:15

A brilliant essay indeed. The problem always comes with translating the
concept into reality on a case by case basis. I know of someone, a kind,
decent, caring and hard working soul, who has recently fallen on hard times.
She was made redundant and has tried everything to get another job. She is in
debt and terribly afraid of being made homeless. She has been so worried she
even made a suicide bid. Without saying any more I and one or two other
special people have been supporting this kind soul as best we can.
She has
been rejected for another job (she made the shortlist) and now she tells me
somewhat obscurely (she is hard to talk to communicate with at the moment, I
suspect depression despite the meds) that her benefits have been withdrawn. I
suspect again that the spectre of homlessness looms.
The problem in modern
society seems to be that the feckless and the lazy “know their rights” and
work the system well, and the decent and the honest are left to fend for
themselves. I can think of countless more examples.
G the M

Hysteria October 1, 2012 at 12:34

a sad story – but it has the seeds of the answer – people doing the right
thing at a local level to help people in their community. I know it wont
solve the problem – but surely it has to be at the root of a better
approach..?

macheath October
1, 2012 at 12:42

Admirably put – the trouble is that, when there is a substantial
population that has comfortably established itself in the nation’s safety
net from cradle to grave – why bother to climb any higher? – those who fall
from the tightrope above are likely to find themselves crushed or bounced
out onto the floor below, despite being in the very situation the net was
designed to cope with in the first place.

Meanwhile, at the risk of opening the floodgates, an illustration of how
the system is played; a friend who recently moved into a council estate was
told by her new neighbour that her two eldest sons were ‘on the sick’ and
would be happy to do any odd jobs for cash. The third boy, explained the
mother, would only have to put on another half a stone before he, like his
brothers, was deemed too fat to work – “He’s away at the chippie now; I
reckon we’ll get him sorted out in a couple of weeks or so”.

alan October 1, 2012 at 14:38

I agree that too many people are very good at gaming the system, but this
does not operate in isolation. The system adapts to being gamed. The gamers
up their game. The system adapts again.

Todays systems are so obsessed with people gaming the system, that it has
become too complex. The only winners are people who can game the system;
because of the system.

Huge respect to you for helping your friend. By the sounds of it her
depression is due to chronic hypercortisolemia. You/she might find help
reading http://chriskresser.com/depression (worked for me…..)

GildasTheMonk
October 1, 2012 at 17:13

I will investigate the link, thanks

Paul
Howes October 1, 2012 at 11:54

Excllent piece. Thank you. One dynamic you have perhaps missed is the role
of the civil service in maintaining their client base. They are hopelessly
conflicted, because if the problems are fixed, their job goes away (in theory,
I know). So now you have the crazy situation in the US where food stamp
recipients are INCENTED by the Federales to find more food stamp recipients.
Yes, they get a bonus for new signups. Bonkers.

Chris October 1,
2012 at 17:22

Hooray for foodstamp parties

JuliaM October
1, 2012 at 19:30

Reading the US blogs about the ‘ObamaPhone’ made me chuckle. Until I
realised how easily we could have that over here!

North of Watford
Gap October 1, 2012 at 11:45

Oxbridge City lawyer with Thatcher Oedipus Complex slags off welfare state,
shock horror.
I thought at first with the tortured drug addict homily you
were going to turn out to be someone useful to society, perhaps a doctor,
nurse even a police officer but no you’re a lawyer in the City. Then your
melodrama turns in a critique of the welfare state and accuse Bevan of a
paucity of intellect.
Laughable little posh boy, grow up!

Michael October 1, 2012 at 21:32

I just looked up ad hominem in the dictionary, and there you were.

Don Cox October 1, 2012 at 11:30

Having paid “National Insurance” for 45 years, and worked and paid income
tax for 50, I feel I am entitled to my state pension.

I wanted to carry on working, but was sacked for being over the age limit.
(No criticism of performance.)

And you say I am addicted to welfare. How is one to eat if all the
employers say you are too old to work?

Hysteria October 1, 2012 at 12:32

yup – couldn’t agree more. I have no complaint whatsoever with the folks
in Greece, Spain etc who are on the streets. The promise may have been a
false one – uneconomic, unsustainable yada yada – but the politicians and
(so called) leaders need to take the heat for this.

Bunny October 1, 2012 at 19:02

‘National Insurance’ used to be paid by workers into mutual funds and
then the government made it just another tax. You’d have contributed 10% of
your income to something to be proud, such as something that contributed to
the community.

Engineer
October 1, 2012 at 19:14

“The great secret of the National Insurance Fund is that there ain’t no
fund.” – Aneurin Bevan.

macheath October
1, 2012 at 08:51

I think it was more than just a lack of economic understanding on the part
of Bevan & Co; they seem to have based the entire structure on a naively
idealistic view of human nature. If the standards of my older Welsh relatives
are anything to go by, an early Non-Conformist upbringing with a fierce
emphasis on personal honesty and integrity – God is always watching, see? – is
poor preparation for dealing with the venality of a large part of the
population.

Your perceptive analogy is frighteningly apt – though to make it complete,
‘Sam’ would also have children and claim that she needed the drug to enable
her to look after them properly. It is these small hostages to fortune – the
myriad children of benefit claimants – who are effectively tying the hands of
those who would reform the system, while ensuring that the numbers in receipt
of public money will continue to rise in the future.

JuliaM October
1, 2012 at 19:28

Indeed! And while they use their children as human shields, they are
untouchable.

Mudplugger October 1, 2012 at 08:47

Excellent analysis and analogy, Chris.

What’s disturbing is the spread of the ‘addiction’. In my own small circle
there are two families who are currently receiving significant State Benefits
and who, in all honesty (and will admit it privately), don’t need them. But
they fit the entitlement criteria, so they claim it and would be leading the
appeal charge if they were denied. Yet these are well-established,
‘middle-class’ people, owning substantial properties with significant incomes
and capital.

We have arrived at a benefits system which is more about entitlement than
need – no-one would question a system based on real need, we’re all socialists
at that level, but to have developed a system cynically designed to harvest
and maintain votes, while vilifying the wealth-creators at the same time, is a
recipe for discontent.

Cold turkey may be tough love but your recommendation is spot-on. Now just
name the politicians with the cojones (and voter-base) to do it !

Moggsy October 1, 2012 at 08:27

Anna, I think you hit the nail on the head with this post. They found they
could vote themselves money like Ben Franlin said.

Ed P. I think Anna is talking France on the 75% The “Liberals” only want a
top rate of 50%.in the UK I read the French 75% supertax is on incomes over
£800K UKP. Not sure if it is just the bit over £800K, or all of it. I guess it
will be good news for the uk on account of lots of them will be paying 45% UK
tax intead of 75% French before long.

bilbaoboy October 1, 2012 at 08:09

I enjoyed the comparison and I agree with your conclusions.

The question of all the emotive ‘what about poor Johnny? He’s blind,
autistic, hyperactive, one-legged, etcetc!’ is pure bullshit. Deserving cases
(and there aren’t that many, percentagewise) have always been with us and
there have always been injustices (and they aren’t so many either and we don’t
seem to have cut them despite massively increasing funds for social work over
the last 30 years). When I travel to the UK I always expect to see a society
on it’s last knees. So many people receiving some kind of benefit. But it
isn’t. The mentality has been achieved here in Spain, too. Of course taking
the medicine is for merely making foul richies even rich and bugger the poor.
The sanctimonious ‘I care’ of the lefties means anyone else is a bastard.
Maybe, just maybe, I care too, enough to analyse the results of the policies
and demand that the end result is what we require, not a feel-good factor in
the short-term which screws everything in the long-term.

In a recent argument with my woolly leftie friends, an intelligent woman
shouted ‘but people are dying of starvation in the South of Spain because of
the cuts’.

People don’t die of starvation in Spain (I’m sure we can find an old lady
who did. Her bastard kiddies could be bothered to keep in touch). We have
safety nets. But the lie is useful.

As in the UK, the 2 main parties are identical except for minor differences
in absolutely fundamental questions such as abortion (the criteria for
allowing not the right) and gay marriage. All are on the gravy train and
neither question the size or rôle of the state.

Hell in a hand cart?

Ed P October 1, 2012 at 07:38

I assume the 75% tax rate is to be applied only to earnings above one
million, not suddenly to the entire earnings.

So if earning, say, two million the total tax paid would be approx 400,000
(on the first million) + 750,000 = 1,150,000. This is actually 55.75%
overall.
3 million earnings makes it 63.3% overall, 4 million 66.25% &
5 million 68% (leaving 1,600,000 after tax).

Obviously expressing it like that makes it much less emotive.

bilbaoboy October 1, 2012 at 08:19

Don’t forget to add in SS charges. When you realise that you are paying
over 60% of what you earn in tax, how many people say ‘no problem, it’s for
a good cause’ (in Spain all those airports that don’t operate and other
boondoggles, the corruption, Spanish courts are handling over 200 cases per
major party, when the fiddles run into thousands of millions (that’s euros
not pesetas)…., parties give early retirement packages illegally to people
who didn’t even work in the firms involved, just ‘cos they are party members
and then claim they knew nothing?)

But this is not the question. What will happen? Will the state bring in
more cash? Will the tax be effective? Very little even by Hollande’s
admission. And what will be the unintended consequences? Ah, wait and see…
There is plenty of information available and there are many.

Sticking it to a vague group of people who you don’t know is great fun,
but intellectually lazy.

Chris October 1,
2012 at 14:09

No, it’s a marginal rate indeed. So you’re not robbed blind. They leave
you half an eye. Well, now THAT justifies it all.

Sackerson October
1, 2012 at 07:24

There are the rich who made money making our lives better ith useful
gadgets etc, and then there are the thieves. Don’t tax thieves – that implies
leaving them some of what they stole.

Dominic Allkins
October 1, 2012 at 07:21

Chris.

A brilliant thoughtful and incisive essay and one that I will recommend to
as many people as I can.

Thank you for posting.

Dominic