Photo credit: J D Mack via photopin cc

Workers could be forced to pay at least £5 a week to private insurers to receive higher benefits, under new plans being considered by the Tories.

The proposal included in a report from the right-wing think tank Policy Exchange, who have close ties to the Tories, would see people who work more than 20 hours a week paying into a compulsory “collective insurance scheme”.

Policy Exchange argue that this would help restore the “contributory principle” in the benefits system. The more workers paid into the private insurance scheme, the more they would be able to draw out if they lose their job.

Contributory benefits accounted for 41% of all benefit payments in the 1970’s. This has now fallen to just 10%.

The scheme would be run by private insurers and fund managers, reports the Independent newspaper, but would be guaranteed by the Government.

According to the Policy Exchange the plan would save the Government around £2.6 billion a year and would replace the £72 a week contribution-based Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA).

Workers who have been in employment for at least two years can currently claim contributory JSA for up to six months if they become unemployed, funded through National Insurance contributions.

The introduction of a “welfare account” would see workers National Insurance contributions reduced.

Payments from workers would raise £8 billion a year, £2 billion of which would go into a collective unemployment insurance scheme. The remainder would go into each persons individual “welfare account”.

Individuals who pay £5 a week would be permitted to withdraw £20 a week from their personal account to top up their unemployment benefit. Higher earners would be able to pay as much as £100 a week into the insurance scheme, and could use the additional money to fund retraining or in the event of a personal emergency or ill-health. If they do did not use the money it would top-up their pension when they retire by £10,000.

The proposal is currently being considered by the Tories and could form part of their general election manifesto.

Author of the report Steve Hughes said: “The current system does not reflect the contributions that people make through their working lives. It does not reflect changes to the modern-day labour market such as the rise in self-employment. And it does not meet the variety of needs that individuals have.”

“Successive governments have tried and failed to improve the system from the top down. This has created a culture of something for nothing, with people becoming reliant on the state. Radical reform is needed to restore public trust in the welfare state.

“Personal responsibility must be at the heart of a change to the system. A new collective insurance scheme alongside personal welfare accounts will form the backbone of these reforms.”

The scheme could eventually be extended to include maternity leave, mortgage interest payments and social care. In the long-term it could mark the beginning of the end for the Welfare State and usher in a privately run, or corporate welfare system.

Tell us what you think – Please leave your comments below.

[divide color=”#cecece”]

Photo credit: J D Mack via photopin cc

[divide color=”#cecece”]

26 COMMENTS

  1. maybe if the upper earnings limit was scrapped so that those earning £42k and above didn’t only pay 2% NI, while the rest of us pay 12% ??

  2. I reckon that the employers, under superannuation legislation, should pay into each employee’s privately owned and portable ‘welfare fund’ throughout his/her working life. Doesn’t matter who the employee works for – either one or twenty employers – that fund should be made up of employer contributions and the employee’s contributions if and when he/she can afford to make such contributions. Access to funds on redundancy needs to follow the same construct as income protection insurance.

    These schemes aren’t hard to set up and legislate for in order to keep greedy fund managers’ and insurers’ management and entry fees to an absolute minimum. There will still be the potential for graft and corruption but it can be minimised.

    It can’t be got rid off even with tight-arsed legislation. We are talking about human beings after all – on both sides of the fence.

  3. So so wrong. It’s the thin end of the wedge that would destroy our welfare system. Very, very wrong.

  4. NO NO NO NO NO NO NO. It’s all about money, profit and control. As soon as the private sector moves in from the US with financial incentives backed by secret trade tribunals, they will become the gatekeepers and they will decide who gets what and when. Depending on what makes them the most profit, not on what’s most needed. Pretty soon they’ll be telling us that all contracts with US companies must include clauses banning birth control advice as well as medically-advised terminations for women who need this. And the costs will be borne by…? Not them and not the MPs who vote for this. Shame on them.

  5. What? Contributory benefits account for only 10% of benefits pay outs when 20% of workers income is paid in NI contributions? So they are not only paying in over the odds they are expected to pay in yet again? So what we have is contributory theft which seems to be OK to the Tories.

    • I’M SURE PRIVATE INSURERS WOULD BE DELIGHTED TO TAKE ON DISABLED WORKERS AS EVER THEY’LL PICK AND CHOOSE THE FINANCIALLY APPEALING RISKS SCREW THE REST

Leave a comment...

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.