Digest opened free editor

Rola Khaleda, FT editor, chooses her favorite stories in this weekly newsletter.

Britain’s spending on well -being is unabated. Budget Responsibility Office estimated The country’s total spending on the benefits will increase by more than 25 percent to 378 billion pounds by 2030. This is driven by increasing pension payments and high spending on health -age health benefits, which are scheduled to increase from about 1.7 percent of the US gross domestic product to 2.2 percent by the end of the contract. Extended expenditures, in part, are an inevitable result of the aging of the population, as well as modern diseases associated with obesity and mental health. But the flawing welfare system in the country also adds to the tab.

Britain’s benefits were canceled by successive governments. It was difficult to retreat from the past without political damage, and attempts to make discounts and erosion of the effectiveness of the system have often ended. The remainder is an ineffective setting, rather than acting as a safety net, it can become a trap. This makes it unclean. As is the case, the government is already struggling to meet its financial bases and will face a more strict task given the commitment of Prime Minister Sir Kerr Starmer to raise defense spending.

The government is scheduled to determine plans to reform the health and deficit regimen system later This month. These include the regular payments granted to those who are unable to work and the personal payments of independence for those who suffer from health conditions or disabilities regardless of their work condition.

What are the improvements that can be done? First, the government needs to re -calibrate the displayed support. For example, an individual outside work due to severe health can get twice as much as just an unemployed person. This contrast creates a distorted incentive to be classified as sick and unable to work, and needs to be repaired.

As for the PIPS, the hasty changes to make it difficult to qualify, which is the government And according to what was mentionedThe risks are widely. It is better to ensure that the benefits are classified according to the additional costs that individuals already face due to their illness. Payments are often recorded on what people cannot do, instead of what they can, which makes them open to system games. This treatment also raises the possibility of simplification, by combining the benefits of PIPS deficit.

Second, the additional effort should be made to get people Back to work And stop health benefits. Less than 1 percent of those who receive the highest benefit of the deficit. Transfer to work every month, according to Decision Corporation. The percentage of people who remain on PIP payments has also increased for a longer period over time. In general, re -evaluation processes should be more frequent in capturing changes in circumstances, with a more focus on medical experience and supporting individuals to find employment opportunities. This will require the return of some money to the employee’s social welfare system. However, raising the number of people who leave the benefits system can save billions of dollars in the long run.

In addition to the advantages of health and disability, there are other ways of savings. The government must reform the generous “triple lock” in the UK on government retirement pensions, which ensure annual payments annually with the highest total wage growth, inflation or 2.5 percent. This is not sustainable or a fair deal for workers. Institute of Financial Studies He has estimated Up to 40 billion pounds until 2050 if the mechanism is linked, more rationally, only for profit growth.

The government should also realize that some solutions are outside the social welfare system. The demand for housing is due to the lack of affordable housing. High health payments stems from growth cases of mental illness and chronic diseases. This requires improvements in health and social care. Achieving savings from the welfare system is not easy. It requires political will, attention to details and a holistic approach. But the temptation of rapid discounts-by significantly reducing entitlements or raising eligibility standards-will not make the draft law long disappear.