Report Universal Credit New Thread.complete Disaster. in House prices and the economy Posted July 14, 2014 I agree with the thrust of your points, except that the "free market" is a myth in some areas - most especially housing. Housing benefit has become a necessity to keep the pyramid from collapsing. The actual beneficiaries are hardly the tenants. I used to support the idea of the Citizens income, now I'm not so sure. I'd rather see the State slimmed back to the bare essentials, and so a flat tax of maybe ten pence in the pound. There would be an additional, voluntary tax - call that another penny in the pound - which is essentially a philanthropy fund from which all Welfare spending is taken. Anyone who chooses to can opt out of paying that tax. You can choose whether to be charitable, or not. Completely rework the model of "benefits" into temporary allowances, none of them having any ongoing aspect or automatic entitlement. If you want other peoples charity then you'd need to make a case, the local authority then looks at what money pot they have, and allocates it to the very most desperate with the focus on people who have never claimed before, those being placed automatically higher up the list and taking into account their own contributions - no contribution, no assistance. Any assistance is always a one-off, with successive claims being less likely to succeed. Welfare has become entrenched now - on that programme there was a single mother with a couple of kids, one of whom couldn't "do inglish or maffs", had her benefits "sanctioned" again - whatever that means - and was given a choice of a couple of avenues one of which was law. She couldn't comprehend the fuss or why she'd do that. Why work for a living? Mum has been living off the State supporting her, so the cycle can carry on to the next generation. She could of course learn to be better at English and maths, but that thought simply doesn't occur. Mum in the meantime didn't want this for her daughter, the lack of self-determination and success, and set about making an example to her daughter by getting a part time role delivering groceries for Iceland. Which she was struggling with having made some mistakes. Her self-confidence totally shot to pieces, she thought she couldn't "stick it". Given that she's brought up kids, I tend to think that more likely than her being as useless as she thought she was. For where this all leads, refer to the film "Idiocracy". We're into the second or third generation of welfare junkies now and this isn't going to be easy to turn around; the sense of entitlement is break-taking. "Why should I move? It's my house". No, it is not. I'd like to point out that when making a TV program like this, you don't go for the people who are consciously grateful for their benefits and looking for ways of get off of them. Also.. you may be unaware, but the whole non-pensions benefit system is at best 1/6th of the total tax take, so you are going to have to elaborate on your plan. (And to clarify, I am fed up to the back teeth with people making stupid, innumerate claims that the state can just be scaled back by some vast amount with no consequences. Do the maffs. ). The plan of using the stick of starvation and desperation to force people into doing anything for money, well, it might work. And giving council officers powers like that, that'll be just like the lovely 1930s means tests. Perhaps the workhouse for those who are really down on their luck? The interesting thing is that when we had full employment, we had far fewer problems with welfare dependency. Specifically, when a person could better themselves - buy a house, save a bit, etc - through hard if only moderately skilled work, we didn't have these problems to anything like the same extent. You may wish to consider that.