Govt Wait and See attitude not good enough.
If understanding the umbrella and cascade of effects is possible then implementers of policy teams SHOULD be able to produce assessment reports, no matter how complex they state, its a hive, a set of complexities - with a combined framework. I do not believe an impact assessment based on Wowpetion request is unachievable.
My view of knock- ons rather than individual impacts included here:
The side people dont really think about with taking an existing welfare payments system away: The multiplier from welfare injection (payment) is beneficial- welfare is an investment return being re-invested (spent) by recipients into the circular flow of economic activity, and mostly prepaid by recipients anyway through contributions (which are syphoned, invested and used by the govt as a provision for that safety net). (Theory at least- the basic premise of National Insurance in the uK) Take that investment (payment/ income) away from high propensity to spend recipients, multiplier (circular flow benefit to economy) is gone and economy suffers exponentially.
The closed mind of fiscal only economics does not mitigate for this and can have catastrophic effect on localities, regions and indeed a nation.
So "within a tiny box" thinking... is NOT a socially valid concept.
ignoring circular flow modelling is one of the worst closed mind ideologies in economics in my own humble view.
I hope you dont mind the thought. I see it as real.
My view of knock- ons rather than individual impacts included here:
The side people dont really think about with taking an existing welfare payments system away: The multiplier from welfare injection (payment) is beneficial- welfare is an investment return being re-invested (spent) by recipients into the circular flow of economic activity, and mostly prepaid by recipients anyway through contributions (which are syphoned, invested and used by the govt as a provision for that safety net). (Theory at least- the basic premise of National Insurance in the uK) Take that investment (payment/ income) away from high propensity to spend recipients, multiplier (circular flow benefit to economy) is gone and economy suffers exponentially.
The closed mind of fiscal only economics does not mitigate for this and can have catastrophic effect on localities, regions and indeed a nation.
So "within a tiny box" thinking... is NOT a socially valid concept.
ignoring circular flow modelling is one of the worst closed mind ideologies in economics in my own humble view.
I hope you dont mind the thought. I see it as real.
The Govt Response here to WowPetition ...
As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response:
Cumulative impact analysis is not being withheld – it is very difficult to do accurately and external organisations have not produced this either. (Edit:*see note below)
The Government is limited in what cumulative analysis is possible because of the complexity of the modelling required and the amount of detailed information on individuals and families that is required to estimate the interactions of a number of different policy changes. In addition, the Government's programme of welfare reform will not be fully implemented until 2017/18 and many policy details are still to be worked through. Equality Impact Assessments are however carried out for individual policies where there is a requirement.
No other organisation produces this analysis in a robust way. The Treasury does publish some cumulative analysis with each Budget but this is a broad brush assessment of all tax, benefit and expenditure changes since 2010 across households. Because the Budget cumulative analysis is so complex, it is not robust enough to break down by family type – so impacts on disabled people cannot be shown separately.
The IFS also produces some cumulative analysis but also do not feel the results are reliable enough to disaggregate for the disabled.
This e-petition will remain open to signatures until the published closing date and will be considered for debate by the Backbench Business Committee should it pass the 100 000 signature threshold.
___________________
*Note : Scope/Demos HAVE done their view of a cumulative assessment.
We're told that many of the richest stash their savings overseas whereas the poorest have to spend every penny that they get. It appears obvious that a redistrubution taking more from the poor to benefit the richest will have a knock-on effect on local economies with deprived areas being hit the hardest.
ReplyDelete