David Cameron eschews a “culture of entitlement” (PM sets outside Tory plot to slash benefits, 25 June). However surely that is precisely what a liberal democracy is supposed to aspire to: a society in which we are entitled as citizens not only to ballot and to freedom under the code, however – in the words of the universal declaration of human rights – to “security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability … or other lack of livelihood”, and to “employment, to autonomous of charge choice of employment [and] to just and favourable conditions of employment”.The thought of social security has effectively been banished (across the political spectrum) in favour of a language in which “welfare”, far from being a celebrated ideal, has become a dirty term. Why should we not be able to expect a basic level of security over the direction of our lives and to have access to decent jobs? The revelations about the plight of the “cliff-edge” households (Report, 19 June) demonstrate that employment is no longer the best form of welfare. The difficulty is not a culture of entitlement, however a culture of exploitation and indifference to demand.Professor Hartley DeanCo-editor, Journal of Social Policy• Who are the 18/19-year-olds who get housing benefit without signing on unemployed? Housing benefit only covers rent, so it is no employ without another source of income for aliment, fuel, aqua, travel, etc. Is it the small collection of young human beings claiming while in complete-age further education? They also receive income support since they have no parents, or, of necessity, cannot live with parents, for example they have been thrown outside, or abused, or been in attention, or they are lone parents themselves.Is it young human beings who are working part-age or on very low wages? Is it young lone parents on income support who have regular employment-focused interviews to go them into employment? Is it young disabled human beings on employment and support allowance with no parent carers? As usual, the administration’s words on benefit changes hurt and mislead, ignoring the facts of the benefit rules and the absolute lives of young human beings needing social security, not punishment.Jean BetteridgeFailsworth, Manchester• At least no one can be in any doubt immediately where Cameron stands on inequality. He makes the claim that “a single parent living outside London [with] four children … renting a house on housing benefit … can claim nearly £25,000 a year. That is more than the average capture-house pay of a farm worker and nursery nurse place together.” The low wages cited draw no criticism from Cameron. The appalling wages of the working poor are a convenient stick with which to beat the non-working poor and nothing more. We immediately demand to know where the Lib Dems stand on all of this. Are there any outside there with some backbone left?Alistair RichardsonStirling• Cameron’s aim in comparing the maximum imaginable benefit payment to the wages of low-paid workers is clearly to suggest only those who do not employment receive these benefits. This is untrue: the farm worker and nursery nurse will also receive housing benefit if they are forced to live in high-rent private housing.Cameron hides the circumstance that most of a £25,000 benefit payment will go straight to the landlord as rent. This arrangement, when introduced, was intended to give small-term cover. It has become extended-term for many only since the running down of council housing under the 1980s Tory administration method there is not enough social housing available.My passage to independence was living away as a student, an option immediately made much harder due to cuts in student support. For an earlier generation, national supply was another passage. If one wishes to have a generation of feckless “kidults”, one could not do bigger than to energy human beings in their 20s to “live in their childhood bedrooms”. I assume someone from a wealthy background like Cameron just cannot know that high house prices mean that in many parts of the nation a lifetime of “saving up” will still not enable a person on average wages to acquire a property of their own.Matthew HuntbachLondon• So the prime minister wishes to promote a debate about the cost to housing benefit of housing under-25s with young families. Under the contemporary policy mix this cost will rise sharply, since: (1) at present this collection is the prime entrant into social housing since of the priority homeless rules; (2) the Localism Act empowers authorities to house them in the private sector where rents are double; (3) universal credit will give the rent to the claimant so landlords face a sharply increased arrears risk which they will have to factor into their pricing; and (4) private sector rented housing is small-term, so a claimant household will re-present as homeless every six months. Immediately let’s have the debate – which needs to be about risk transfer and housing procurement.Paul LuskAlbrighton, Wolverhampton• Cameron wants a debate on our “something for nothing” culture. Can we commence by defining terms? Does he mean the wealthy who employ the nation’s facilities while avoiding paying tax? Or maybe he’s thinking on another level: perhaps he method those who expect to play a complete part in the democratic action without buying themselves an expensive place at Tory party dinners?Dr Stephen RileyWinchester, Hampshire• David Cameron has argued for “reforms” on welfare payments on the basis that the contemporary system promotes a “something for nothing” culture of entitlement. Yet only three weeks ago he was inviting us to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the rule of the matriarch of a family who have always lived in expectation of “something for nothing”.Sasha SimicLondon• David Cameron seems to be confusing economics and morals. Whether he likes it or not, to boost the economy we demand to place money in the pockets of the lowest-paid, who will spend it, not into the pockets of wealthier human beings, who will send it abroad. If those on low incomes are sat at house not working and having children that is a different debate, and in our highly productive economy it may be necessary to keep those outside of employment consuming or austerity becomes self-reinforcing, leading to the cycle of economic decline we are presently experiencing.A simple solution would be to replace all benefits and tax allowances with a single universal amount (a citizens’ allowance as it is sometimes called), add in a minor benefit, and it could be locate so that nobody is in poverty, with no withdrawal of benefit on working however every pound earned taxed – then any job, much an hour a week, would pay as you would always keep an after-tax amount. It would have the added benefit of simplicity to implement – and instead of over complicating the tax system with attempts to alter behaviour you could subsidise directly those behaviours you desire to encourage, and impose a administer tax on those you desire to discourage.Jon FanningTeaching fellow in strategy, skills and employability, The York Management College, University of York• I was stunned by David Cameron’s latest attack on the poorest in our society however shouldn’t have been surprised. This can be traced back to when Labour became Fresh Labour. This shift to the fair got them elected however meant giving up on many of their core working-class support. This enabled a corresponding shift to the fair by both the Tories and the Lib Dems. Recently, I was so upset by my Lib Dem MP’s support for the housing benefit cap that I wrote in to the community press. A former Lib Dem councillor answered in agreement, before noting that it was the Lib Dems’ “sudden lack of appetite for fighting issues of social justice that made me leave the party”. The simple circumstance is that many within mainstream politics with a previous belief in social justice have remained silent, and this is allowing a small elite to energy through policies that will institutionalise inequality in our society.Mark MurtonWallington, Surrey• Our “dear leader” might learn something from the vestry minutes of the parish of Wimbledon in 1750. These record a determination to capture action “against all idle persons who, having nothing to maintain themselves, live idly and extravagantly without labour or employment”. Cameron might also notice that the remedy is that the idle be “sent to the House of Correction for a month of dense labour”.Ed MillerOakham, LeicestershireWelfareDavid CameronLiberal-Conservative coalitionConservativesLiberal DemocratsBenefitsPublic sector cutsPublic services policyPublic financeHousing benefitCommunitiesHousingguardian.co.uk © 2012 Twitter News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Employ of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
DOWNLOAD: Michael Jackson