Citizen's income could solve benefits problem

It came as no surprise to me that our States struggled so much with changes to the benefits system. When combined with housing strategy it is easy to fall into a poverty trap whereby a large part of any increase in a person's income results in higher housing costs and loss of services such as free dentist and doctor. Earning £200 more per week results in pocket change. Why would anyone bother to improve themselves?

This is a tough one. On the one hand we want to ensure that everyone has a safety net. For example social housing is there because we all agree that having a roof over our heads is, effectively, a right. We don't want people sleeping rough. It just isn't civilised. But we also want those who can look after themselves financially to do so. This is part of our culture. We want everyone to take as full a part in society as they are able.

The way our benefits system works at present, which is extremely complex, isn't ideal. It takes a huge amount of work to assess, assist and try to ensure that everyone is getting their fair share; no more, no less. Yet it doesn't seem to work.

If it did, we wouldn't be trying to fix it.

So maybe we need to do something really different. Throw away the system and start again. Take a deep breath because I think I've discovered the answer. At first you probably won't like it but bear with me. I'm suggesting that we simply pay adults a wage for, well, living. This isn't a new idea. It has been called basic income, citizen's income and all sorts of similar names. I think you get the gist, though. Everyone receives a flat base income, as long as they are 'citizens' and of a certain age. A bit like old age pensions if you like but all age pensions.

I know what you're thinking. Whoa. That means paying layabouts to do nothing. Yes. Yes, it does. But even they still have to pay rent and so on. And there really aren't very many who wouldn't want to earn a bit more by getting a job of some sort. Remember – every penny they earn is theirs to keep (less tax if they fall into the net). For everyone else that also applies. You have a minimum so poverty has been eliminated. How cool is that? If you earn more, you keep more. What about doctors' fees, dentists and so on? Like everyone else, you pay. Of course housing is too expensive in Guernsey for many. That would still need to be assessed. For the most part though benefits would be simplified hugely. The savings on administration would be substantial.

So could this actually work? Well, it has in the past. An experiment in Dauphin, Canada, in the 1970s found that hospital visits dropped 8.5%, with fewer incidences of work-related injuries, and there were fewer emergency room visits from car accidents and domestic abuse. Additionally, the period saw a reduction in rates of psychiatric hospitalisation, and in the number of mental illness-related consultations with health professionals. Did it cause an increase in unemployment? Hardly. The results showed a modest impact on labour markets, with working hours dropping 1% for men, 3% for wives, and 5% for unmarried women. These decreases in hours worked may be seen as offset by the benefit of more time for family and education. Mothers spent more time rearing newborns, and the educational impacts are regarded as a success. Students in these families showed higher test scores and lower dropout rates. There was also an increase in adults continuing education.

This is startling stuff. It takes a while to think it through. Before we try, once again, to fix our present system with some tinkering here and there I urge deputies to give real consideration to this radical plan. We are a small community. We say we care. Let's prove it.

MARTYN HENLEY-ROUSSEL.