Latest news with #benefitreform
Wall Street Journal
7 days ago
- Business
- Wall Street Journal
Musk's Playbook Won't Do for Social Security
Your editorial 'The Social Security Iceberg Gets Closer' (June 20) rightly warns that delaying reform will make eventual fixes more difficult and painful. Effective solutions don't require gutting benefits or indulging political theater about fraud. One idea is to modernize the benefit formula to target assistance better. Social Security must protect those with lower lifetime earnings, but the program can be made more progressive by slightly slowing benefit growth for higher-income retirees, many of whom live longer and collect more. Increasing the number of working years used to calculate benefits would also improve incentives to work at older ages and help reduce the program's shortfall.
The Guardian
25-06-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
PMQs: Rayner confirms welfare cuts vote will go ahead next week
Speaking at PMQs, the deputy prime minister, Angela Rayner, said the government would proceed with its benefit reform vote on Tuesday 1 July. The bill has been subject to a standoff between the government and more than 100 Labour backbenchers, with many MPs concerned about the impact of the cuts on their most vulnerable constituents
The Guardian
24-06-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on disability benefits: Labour's rebels are right – these reforms will lead to misery
The outcome of the standoff between the government and more than 100 of its own backbenchers regarding next week's benefit reform vote is uncertain. Either the prime minister's team will persuade enough MPs to pass the bill, or they won't. A third option is some kind of compromise. But whatever happens next, the campaign behind the 'reasoned amendment' that could scupper the cuts, if the rebels hold their nerve, has dealt a blow to the authority of Downing Street and the Treasury. The MPs, including a group of select committee chairs, are right to resist the predicted damage to their constituencies and condemn the lack of consultation. Liz Kendall, the work and pensions secretary, continues to promote her disability benefits bill with a barrage of statistics. Headline figures such as the £20bn rise in the disability benefit bill since the pandemic, and the fact that employment has not bounced back as in other countries, are undoubtedly concerning. Something has gone wrong with a system in which one in 10 working-age adults relies on sickness or disability payments. It is right to be troubled by the rise in young adults on benefits due to mental illnesses. But the government's critics do not deny any of this. There is broad acceptance that the system's rising costs are problematic – if far from the national emergency that is portrayed by those opposed to welfare spending on principle. After an extremely rocky start, universal credit is now bedded in. But other Conservative changes have been revealed as fundamentally flawed. One problem was the policy of holding down the standard rate of unemployment benefit, which fell so far below an adequate standard of living that people who might not have claimed the health top-up were incentivised to do so. Another issue is the removal of financial support from people preparing for work. This appears to have had the unintended consequence of disincentivising recovery. Raising the standard rate, as Labour intends, is an important step towards a more balanced system. Investment in employment support, and the 'right to try' a job, are constructive approaches to the rise in long-term sickness. But other measures in this over-hasty bill seem certain to bring immiseration to parts of the country that are least equipped to manage it. The government's own impact assessment says the bill will push 250,000 more people into poverty – a disgraceful statistic in a starkly unequal country. Higher thresholds for personal independence payments, which are expected to save £5bn and reduce claims by around 800,000 by 2030, are causing panic in vulnerable households. Among the latest warnings is one from charities that disabled women will lose out due to their higher personal care needs, including coping with menstruation, not being taken into account. Yet so far, the only concession from ministers has been an extension in the transition period for those losing benefits. No wonder that Labour MPs have had enough. Some of those who entered parliament less than a year ago must wonder what on earth they are doing. The 'reasoned amendment' may be an arcane piece of parliamentary terminology. But what could be more reasonable than raising the alarm about a policy that is predicted to cause rising poverty, before ministers or MPs have had sight of three separate reviews of the context and consequences?
