Rights Not Charity, The Myth of “Taxpayers’ Money”

I didn’t get my first job until I was part-way through my degree. My impaired mobility meant I couldn’t do the kinds of work young people traditionally do, like bar work or stacking supermarket shelves. So I claimed benefits until I was educated enough for people to be willing to give me a job within my physical limits. I started paying my own National Insurance contributions halfway through my final year at university, and continued to do so for several years.

I was in my mid-20s when my health started to deteriorate. Over the next few years, bit by bit, I reduced the amount of work I was doing until, when I was 28, I reached a point where working was something I’d become completely incapable of. I’ve now reached a point where I’ve claimed back from the National Insurance pot more than I ever paid in – but that’s how the insurance business works.

Some people buy annual multi-trip travel insurance every year and never make a claim. Other people take out a fortnight’s insurance for their first overseas holiday, and have to make a claim immediately for a suitcase that was lost on the outbound flight. Sometimes that’s just how the cookie crumbles.

When an article appeared in the Huffington Post about me, a group of commenters reacted in one of two ways: Some said, “it’s sad that people have these conditions, but why should they get taxpayers’ money?”, while others argued that “she says she can’t work but she also says she can do her own shopping. If she can leave the house to shop, she can get a job and doesn’t need taxpayers’ money.” The recurring point here is about taxpayer money. We seem to have developed a cultural notion that people who claim benefits are not taxpayers, and never have been. This isn’t true.

I am not scrounging taxes from others; I paid my taxes and my National Insurance contributions when I could. Now I can’t do that anymore, and I’m living under the protection that the insurance scheme offered.

Sometimes I debate these questions on the radio. During one debate, I was up against a guy who felt that it was absurd that a third of taxpayer money went to the welfare state. His suggestion? Rich people take out private income-protection insurance instead, and only us filthy poor people claim from the state.

Private insurance premiums would cost more than National Insurance contributions. Private insurance companies also try extremely hard not to pay out. If there’s an element of self-infliction to your condition – for example if you drunkenly dived into the shallow end of a pool and broke your neck – your insurer will probably not pay out. The welfare state traditionally has paid out to all who needed support, regardless of how the need for support arose. The person I was debating with would rather see people pay more for poorer quality cover, just for the satisfaction of saying “yeah, well, at least we’re not spending a third of our taxes on welfare!”

But this would further undermine what little will exists among the rich to keep the welfare state going. A rich person has a motivation to pay their National Insurance contributions if they know that they, too, get their £90-odd a week if they develop cancer; even though they’ve got the means to not need it. Combined with the introduction of strict means-testing for people claiming Employment and Support Allowance, this gives the rich further grounds to be hostile towards the poor for claiming what they see as “their taxes”.

Some disabled people have never been and will never be able to work. Some might argue that someone like me who only worked for a few years and has claimed back more than they paid in should at least be eligible because that’s the nature of insurance. But what about those who’ve never paid and will never pay even one week’s worth of National Insurance?

The answer to this question was brought up by a person I debated on the radio, and also several
times by commenters on the Huff Post article, who told me that I don’t deserve state benefits: It’s a family’s responsibility to look after a disabled child.

Of course, what they mean is that a parent should pay to meet the disabled child’s needs for life, and the state shouldn’t be forced to pay for a quirk of genetics, a traumatic birth, or an accident. But I see it differently. If I had never been able to work at all, the National Insurance premiums my parents paid would cover me. Radio rightwinger said that she’d made private insurance arrangements to protect her family. Both my parents worked in factories and paid their National Insurance, and the only difference between her insurance protection and mine is that hers was private, and mine public.

With people of means no longer able to claim Contributory Employment and Support Allowance for more than a year if they’re deemed capable of possibly being able to work at some point in the future, it not only undermines support for National Insurance but also constitutes a remarkable bait and switch. A comparable situation can be found in the case of public sector pensions. Public sector workers were sold a pension scheme, and now the government is trying to change the rules. You have to have paid a minimum amount of National Insurance contributions to get Contributory ESA – the clue is in the name – but we have not seen the same outrage over these changes to the rules. Two million people went on strike over pension changes, but because disabled people are seen to be “scrounging taxpayers money” rather than “people who paid into an insurance scheme”, I doubt we’ll ever see the same amount of support in fighting the changes.

Lisa Egan is a writer and disability activist. She Tweets as @lisybabe