Pandemic Politics and Economics

[Smunder Woman]

[sally maclennane]

Its the eternal public funding debate, universal vs targeted. Make something universal and it reduces the stigma but you run the risk of it being taken up by those who don't need it, and in some cases, pushing out those who need it most. Target it and no matter the criteria, there will be people who need the support but don't qualify (postcode lottery kinda thing).

I err towards the universal approach because targeted service will miss some folk and there's always that implied judging that comes with criteria, and notions of the deserving poor. I think there should be some sort of quiet opt out though, like Michael Palin wanted for pensioners winter fuel allowance.

[Bat Macdui]

And if you target it, then it costs to make sure that only the people who are eligible get it. I'm not sure how accurate it is but I've heard lots about how it would cost more to thoroughly check targeted eligibility for winter fuel allowance than it does to just chuck it at everyone aged over 70 (or whatever the loose criteria actually is). Though a secondary argument might be you'd hit full employment quickly if you had to check everyone's banks statements and birth certificates before they got anything.

[sally maclennane]

And if you target it, then it costs to make sure that only the people who are eligible get it. I'm not sure how accurate it is but I've heard lots about how it would cost more to thoroughly check targeted eligibility for winter fuel allowance than it does to just chuck it at everyone aged over 70 (or whatever the loose criteria actually is). Though a secondary argument might be you'd hit full employment quickly if you had to check everyone's banks statements and birth certificates before they got anything.

Yeah, when I did benefits training (24 years ago!) they told us that child benefit was the cheapest to administer (obviously it was universal then) for that reason.

[Morganna]

There is also the inherent unfairness of ‘someone else’ deciding what others can afford. Income is not always a good indicator of disposable income for all sorts of reasons, and using savings as means to be tested against is a deterrent for those who are trying to change their lives in whatever way, and makes it difficult for poorer people to ever have a cushion against misfortune.

Taxation at source is the only fair way to share assets, IMO. Increase taxation for everyone above whatever are average earnings (the type of average that means the sum in the middle of what most people earn - modal?), tax windfalls such as inheritance in a way that adds them to the taxable income of the recipients, not the total estate of the deceased, tax all unearned income and rigorously enforce paying all taxes, in the way that benefit claimants are rigorously monitored, then let people spend the remainder as they wish.

[Chicky]

This Liz Truss advisor PPE thing is utterly insane and blatant corruption. £150m on PPE from a dodgy company that isn’t even suitable for the NHS. FFS.

https://twitter.com/pippacrerar/status/ ... 31206?s=21

[Bat Macdui]

In light of slightly renewed interest in stockpiling (or No Deal prep, whichever), this is a good and comprehensive update on where we are on trade deals. I am keeping half an eye, despite my best intentions of not engaging in politics because, you know, life sapping. Politico Europe link.

[Roma]

Thank you Bat, that’s an interesting article.

I’m really hoping a deal can still be done, but at the same time I don’t want the EU to give in too much either. Hopefully with other negotiations not going so well, the UK might start to be less demanding and more realistic in their negotiations.