Properly formulated welfare policy is an important issue for Western societies, especially in the context of budget austerity: welfare budgets represent a large and ever-increasing expenditure for cash-strapped governments. My country struggles with this issue because many lazy American Negros disadvantaged victims of capitalism are content to forced to suckle upon the government teat till death; my question, however, is about the UK situation.
I understand that the UK launched a 'universal credit' (UC) to replace previous welfare benefits in 2013. The UC, designed by Iain Duncan Smith, was supposed to: make the welfare system simpler by reducing an in-kind benefit and several cash benefits to a single cash transfer, control costs by paying the benefit directly to the sponger victim of capitalism and thus incentivize them to control their own costs (the previous housing benefit was payed to the land lord), and increase incentives to labor by tapering benefits more slowly -- thus allowing someone to work and still claim -- and increasing requirements to seek work in order to claim.
This sounds good on paper. How has it all worked out? Are spongers responding to the increased incentives to labor? Are they controlling their costs a bit more? Does the system have a chance?
