THE opening paragraph of Hugh Bayley’s response regarding citizens’ payments and his spurious accusation that some physically able people would claim benefits, shows he fails to comprehend that benefits and pensions would be scrapped (Letters, June 12).

For a similar cost as welfare, citizens’ payments, together with capping housing rent, would contribute to local economies, generate new jobs and give people dignity. Employers would reduce their individual employee bill if they took on more young people.

Mr Bayley’s Government began the rise in the state pension age.

The political class employs carers and housewives on the cheap and pensioners often act as unpaid child minders. Citizen’s payments would remove this unfair anomaly.

The deficit and national debt would reduce, if through citizens’ payments one million new jobs were created. Everyone would have equal status and never be “pensioned off”.

New Labour attempted to introduce compulsory ID cards. Due to a backlash and expense, they later became “voluntary” to “control” immigration (firstly terrorism) which New Labour also increased.

The UK would have been richer by at least £40 billion without war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mr Bayley still doesn’t say whether he supports compulsory ID cards. Yes or no will suffice.

Tom Scaife, Manor Drive, York.
 

• CASH payments to people on the breadline “would encourage some people who are physically able to work to claim benefits” says Hugh Bayley MP (Letters, June 12). Of course they might, especially if set too high, so let’s not set them too high.

That problem pales in comparison next to the lack of employment and, therefore, lack of income for large numbers who cannot find a job.

Politicians on both sides of the Atlantic refuse to tackle this in a serious way. They should tackle it with lack of income as the dominant issue.

Mr Bayley could profitably read up on Milton Friedman’s negative income tax (Friedman is far to the right of Mr Bayley and me, but he still makes sense when he recommends a flat demographic grant and taxation of income from the first dollar/pound).

Under that proposal, there is every encouragement for an unemployed person to take a low-level job since he or she is always better off.

The classic “welfare trap” under which a person who takes a low-level job may well end up worse off working than on unemployment really does exist on a large scale now, both here and, I understand, there.

Under the Friedman proposal, it goes away.

Brian A Jones, Clinton Street, Brooklyn, New York.