In these difficult days, the massive loss of financial wealth by the rich probably won’t be a worry to them. They have enough already.
To those who have little savings or assets to sell, the loss of an assured income through job redundancy, the depressing constant rejection of job applications, or a downturn in trade for a small business is a major setback to a comfortable or settled life. It brings upon depression, domestic insecurity and a loss of self esteem.
If you don’t think it is so, then try it some day.
What is it that those who are suffering need more than anything in times such as these days of recession? It is the assurance of an income.
The best they can hope for is some sympathetic bureaucrat with time to listen and understand. For the alternative to a loss of assured income is begging. Yes, begging and/ or an ability to fill in forms, be good at interviews, know the myriad of rules, and patience. All of this is not easy. And it does nothing to relieve the stress which a loss of an assured income brings.
All of this need never have happened. Had we had a control of our own financial system, we could have used it to bring stability and assurance of an income for all- if that is what we wanted.
The present social welfare system of relieving poverty and need no longer does so. It has become a patchwork of handouts and means for politicians to control and gain political favour. It is filled with rules and rules and rules, requires a large bureaucracy to administer, is prone to fraud leading to the need for more bureaucrats, inspectors and welfare police and is grossly inefficient financially to do the work it was supposed to do.
The answer, in my opinion, is the elimination of social welfare benefits across the board with only a residue of bureaucrats to help those with special needs caused through no fault of their own. The drastic step of scrapping social welfare is not intended to drop many people into the mire of extreme poverty, but to replace the system with a financially and practically more efficient way of providing an income for all.
In Britain, where I reside at present, to some extent such an efficient applies. To help the elderly over age 60 to pay for the extra winter heating they need to keep warm, the government gives a tax free grant of $650 each year. There are no means tests, no interviews, only one form to fill in, no queuing for cash. The rich receive the money even though they might not need it.
This way is deemed to be financially efficient and the most effective way of solving a problem, how to make sure those in need actually receive help. Unfortunately the government doesn’t apply this simple solution to the payment of old age pensions. To receive a reasonable amount, there are hurdles of forms, means tests, interviews and such like. The result is that many of those with need miss out and some become angry because their savings are, say, £1 too much to qualify.
To meet the United Nations declared human right of all having access to food, clothing and housing, we first need to change the present financial system so it can be used to help us all rather than those who at present claim ownership of it. Then we need to use -as a first step- the resources of that system to provide every person with a basic income of right. Then we must progress to eventually lowering the rate of payment and replacing it with individual ownership of assets thus taking from the politicians the temptation to play around with the basic income to attract votes for themselves.
Ownership of assets and the income from them will eventually give people the right to continue to work for as long as they wish or to retire as soon as they wish. The rich do.
A financial system owned by the people gives us all the opportunity to become individual owners of assets, and of businesses, whether our main occupation is working for a wage or not.
All this requires is the imagination for real change.
An opinion of Mortimer Russell, UK-based economic analyst and commentator.