
Benefits boost the economy. It's the rich who are the problem
Almost no benefits go to people on high incomes. The vast majority support those on very low incomes. And what should be obvious to anyone who thinks, for even a moment, is that people on low incomes spend almost every penny they receive just to meet their essential needs.
This matters. Listen to most right-wing politicians and you'd think every pound given to someone on benefits is wasted. Nothing could be further from the truth.
READ MORE: Labour's £46-billion problem: How to find the 'record-high' missing tax
Money spent on supporting people on low incomes enhances the wealth of a country, and, ironically, especially the wealth of the wealthiest.
That needs explanation, because it runs so counter to the economic myths we are told. Yet it is obviously true because when someone spends their benefits, it is not wasted. It becomes someone else's income.
That someone else might be a carer paid to support them. It might be a supermarket selling them food and basic needs. Or it might be an energy company, a landlord or anyone else whose bills they must pay to survive.
The essential point is the same in all cases. The benefit recipient's spending always becomes someone else's income. Cut benefits and you cut the incomes of all those who rely on that spending.
What is more, this cycle doesn't just happen once. It happens repeatedly. Economists call this the multiplier effect.
Imagine a benefit recipient spends all their payment at a supermarket. That is not the end of the story. The supermarket pays VAT and maybe Corporation Tax. So, the government immediately gets some money back.
The supermarket also pays its staff, who pay income tax and National Insurance. The government gets more of its spend back. The supermarket pays suppliers, which pay VAT, business rates, maybe Corporation Tax, and who also pay staff, generating still more tax.
Because the bottom 70% of households in the UK have very few savings, most of the wages that have been paid get spent again, restarting the cycle and sending yet more tax to the government with every round.
This process keeps going, paying the government back almost entirely over time the benefits spent, unless someone saves the money. Here's the irony. It is the savings of the wealthy that interrupt this cycle. Only when someone decides not to spend, and saves instead, does this chain of spending and tax stop.
UK Chancellor Rachel Reeves has looked to push through benefit cutsIt is only because the wealthy save so much that the government does not recover all it pays out in benefits through taxes. The wealthy keep the money instead.
So, it is not the poor on benefits who drain this cycle. It is the wealthy who hoard income and halt this cycle that benefits everyone else.
Compare this to the fairytale told by neoliberals. They believe in 'trickle-down economics', the idea that if the wealthy are allowed to grow ever-richer, their extra wealth will eventually trickle down so that everyone benefits.
But the reality is exactly the opposite. Paying benefits to those in need sets off a chain of spending that enriches everyone. It grows businesses, sustains jobs, funds public revenues and enhances wellbeing. When the wealthy save their money, it breaks the cycle and, wealth does not trickle down. It floods up.
READ MORE: Richard Walker: Good journalism has never had a more vital role
Money spent on benefits travels through the economy, enriching many along the way, until ultimately it accumulates with the wealthy. That's why we need more taxes on the wealthy which would reduce the sums they hoard.
This would then enable more funds to flow back into the economy, not least via higher benefit payments that get spent again and again.
This would lift incomes and wealth for everyone, including ironically the wealthy, if only they truly understood how the economy works.
The ignorance and greed baked into neoliberal thinking stops us from having the benefit system we so clearly need. In short, paying benefits is not an act of charity. It is a fundamental mechanism that keeps our entire economy running.
That is the truth no politician who parrots neoliberal dogma wants to admit.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Finextra
an hour ago
- Finextra
Is the UK 'overestimating the risk and underestimating the opportunity' of stablecoins?
0 This content is contributed or sourced from third parties but has been subject to Finextra editorial review. I remember writing about the introduction of the Financial Services and Markets Bill in July 2022 and reflecting how the (then) Chancellor's Mansion House speech had claimed 'it reinforces the UK's position as a leading centre for technology as we safely adopt crypto assets' stressing a 'vision to make the UK one of the most dynamic financial centres in the world.' Fast forward three years, the Financial Services and Markets Act has been in force for two years and Rachel Reeves has just made another Mansion House Speech in which she emphasised growth, international competitiveness and asserted she 'will drive forward developments in blockchain technology… including tokenised securities and stablecoins…' Is this another example of the enthusiastic language that is as much a part of the UK Chancellor's annual speech as the ornate setting, or does it accurately signal the UK's global leadership in digital finance? What's been happening in the rest of the world while we talk about our vision? Stablecoin legislation was introduced in Japan in 2022, in Singapore and the EU in 2023, and Abu Dhabi in 2024. Most recently, the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act is set to pave the way for US banks to issue stablecoins and has led to real excitement about what it will mean for US growth, the FS industry and consumers. The Act includes a formal definition of a (fiat-pegged) 'payment stablecoin' and addresses much of the ambiguity and confusion that has characterised the years in which regulation in the US has been led by SEC enforcement. Albeit with varying degrees of success, these examples demonstrate that regulatory reform connected to digital finance can offer clarity and certainty that protects consumers and encourages innovation. In many ways, it is extraordinary to hear a Labour government adopting the myth of regulation as a barrier to innovation and growth, something I have long argued against. The government and regulators are faced with the challenge of balancing innovation and stability while safeguarding consumers and the wider financial system, but that is an argument for effective regulation, not for less regulation. Further clarity is required on stablecoin assets One issue banks are asking the FCA for clarity on currently, is at what point a stablecoin becomes 'systemic' as that is when oversight shifts to the Bank of England. UK Finance's response to the FCA's crypto prudential rules consultation emphasises the need for more detail on how the two regulatory regimes interact and sufficient time to implement the BoE's yet-to-be-published framework. There are also calls for guidance on anti-money laundering (AML) responsibilities, especially for custodians of stablecoin backing assets. Criticism that UK regulation 'overestimates the risk and underestimates the opportunity' of stablecoins may have something to do with the Chancellor's push for regulators to consider growth and competitiveness rather than 'excessive caution'. In her speech the Chancellor referenced the 'remit letters' she had written to the FCA and the PRA last year and extended the call: 'Regulators in other sectors must take up the call I make this evening… …not to bend to the temptation of excessive caution… …but to boldly regulate for growth… …in the service of prosperity for our whole country'. Regulation that balances risk and encourages innovation is possible but it must be agile and principles-based. We have excellent examples here of good, pro-innovation regulation, not least regulatory sandboxes and the CMA9 order, now replicated in jurisdictions around the world. The Electronic Trade Documents Act is another sensible initiative I was closely involved with, legislation that does not mention blockchain technology but made key changes to the definition and capabilities of trade documents (such as bills of lading) that were possessive in nature. The legal change is based on a UN template and allows the digitalisation of trade documents using what is described in the Statute as a 'reliable system'. Blockchain is one of the technologies that makes it possible to meet the criteria required to be a reliable system in that it can be distinguished from any copies, protected against unauthorised alteration, allowing no more than one person to exercise control of the document at any one time. Getting this into statute at the pace we did was a significant UK achievement. That was just the start. Much more action is required to encourage adoption and the attendant economic, environmental and social benefits to be realised. What does the Mansion House speech mean for the future of stablecoin in the UK? Back to the action set out in the Chancellor's speech and her specific references to fintech and blockchain initiatives: 'And for fintech – where almost half of Europe's Fintech's are already based here in the UK…the PRA and FCA are launching a scale-up unit to support innovative firms to grow in the UK, including in our world-leading payments system. The scale-up unit is a new initiative to help high-growth fintech firms transition from early-stage (often supported by regulatory sandboxes) to full-scale operations. This is especially important for payments firms, which face complex regulatory hurdles as they grow. The goal is clearly to retain and grow fintechs in the UK. I find myself echoing the questions I asked 'in these pages' last year in response to the government's National Payments Vision, regarding the implications for growth and whether the measures set out will create competition that drives both innovation and security and benefits for us all? The Chancellor also, of course, mentioned blockchain, tokenised securities and stablecoins, '…and an ambitious design for a new digital gilt instrument…so that UK financial services can be at the forefront of digital asset innovation.' Can we assume the Chancellor is backing blockchain as a foundational technology for the future of finance? Will we get the regulatory clarity around tokenised securities (traditional financial assets such as bonds or shares represented digitally on a blockchain) and stablecoins (digital currencies pegged to stable assets like the pound or dollar) that will boost confidence in the same way GENIUS has in the US? The reference to digital gilts also signals a move to innovate and modernise government debt issuance and settlement but again we are, so far, lacking in the detail. I welcome the rhetoric and appreciate the importance of messaging but wonder how far it has really shifted perception, are we still a place that 'overestimates risk and underestimates opportunity'? Is there the understanding that right sized regulation plots the path we must take, to end forever the false and tediously recurring dichotomy that you can have innovation or regulation, never both.


Daily Mirror
2 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
Nationwide rule change warning for thousands of customers during August
Nationwide has issued a warning to customers over the changes to terms and conditions for the Reward Saver account - with a message set to appear in the coming weeks Nationwide, the UK's largest building society and the world's biggest mutual, has issued a warning about a pop-up that customers may encounter due to an impending policy change. The changes are related to the terms and conditions of the Reward Saver account. Currently, Nationwide sends out statements for these accounts via post, but this could soon change. Nationwide stated: "Whilst you can't currently opt for paperless statements for the Reward Saver account, if you use our banking app, in the coming weeks you should be able to change the paperless settings for this account. This comes after news that UK homes are taking steps not seen for two years amid Rachel Reeves tax rise fears. The bank added: "You'll see a pop-up when this is available to you". To hold an account, you must be at least 16 years old and cannot have more than £5 million in your account. This limit does not include any interest calculated on your account balance and added to your account. You can only be named on one Reward Saver account at any time. Your account can be in sole or joint names, with a maximum of two joint account holders, reports Birmingham Live. Eligible categories for account holders: NSA Police Fire Service Ambulance Service Teachers HM Armed Forces/Reserved Armed Forces Pharmacy Optometry Dental Practice MOD Police Home Office HM Prison and Probation Service Highway Traffic Officers Search and Rescue Red Cross RNLI Independent Lifeboats HM Coastguard Environment Agency Animal and Plant Health Service Blood Bikes According to Nationwide's TandCs: "We'll pay interest into your account on the anniversary of your account opening. If you opened your account on 29 February, we'll pay your interest on 28 February". "We'll also pay interest when you close your account. The interest rate we pay on your account is variable, meaning it can go up or down," they added, warning that "from time to time, your account may have tiered interest rates based on how much money you have in your account". "The interest rate we pay on each tier will be variable. When your balance changes and takes your account to a different tier, we'll automatically apply the interest rate for the new tier." Nationwide concluded, saying: "You can pay money into your account in any of the ways set out in 'Our Saving s Terms and Conditions'. If you try to pay in an amount that would take you over the maximum balance, the whole of the payment will be rejected. Any rejected electronic transfers will be returned to the account the payment was made from".


New Statesman
2 hours ago
- New Statesman
Do politicians understand the internet?
The team answers listener questions on the practicalities of the online safety act, a Labour-Lib Dem coalition, and the revival of the commonwealth. Submit a question for a future episode: You Ask Us Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Related