Stef Benstead
@stefbenstead.bsky.social
Christian interested in socio-economic justice.
Chronically ill with hEDS, PoTS, fibro/Small Fibre Neuropathy.
Independent (unpaid) researcher in chronic illness and social policy.
Books: Second Class Citizens; Just Worship.
Chronically ill with hEDS, PoTS, fibro/Small Fibre Neuropathy.
Independent (unpaid) researcher in chronic illness and social policy.
Books: Second Class Citizens; Just Worship.
Can you share the intrinsic problems? I'm in the process of applying to the council for a Disabled Facilities Grant, and I imagine they'll want to push a wetroom on me. I do need a wheelchair accessible bathroom, but it needs to be usable.
November 24, 2025 at 12:40 PM
Can you share the intrinsic problems? I'm in the process of applying to the council for a Disabled Facilities Grant, and I imagine they'll want to push a wetroom on me. I do need a wheelchair accessible bathroom, but it needs to be usable.
It's good to see State Pension shown separately to working-age Social Security. So often, politicians and commentators combine the two to justify arguing against working-age SS, whilst ignoring that SP is much larger.
November 24, 2025 at 12:38 PM
It's good to see State Pension shown separately to working-age Social Security. So often, politicians and commentators combine the two to justify arguing against working-age SS, whilst ignoring that SP is much larger.
A Bureaucratic State may be a viable option to a Welfare State, though I rarely see anyone argue for it without also wanting a Welfare State to protect those who still fall through the cracks. More typically, people who don't want a Welfare State also hate a Bureaucratic State.
November 24, 2025 at 12:34 PM
A Bureaucratic State may be a viable option to a Welfare State, though I rarely see anyone argue for it without also wanting a Welfare State to protect those who still fall through the cracks. More typically, people who don't want a Welfare State also hate a Bureaucratic State.
But if you want pre-distribution to be so good that almost no-one is poor, and the few who are poor are there by vicissitudes of life that can be solved by the church, then you're going to need an awful lot of law and enforcement of that law. A very bureaucratic State.
November 24, 2025 at 12:33 PM
But if you want pre-distribution to be so good that almost no-one is poor, and the few who are poor are there by vicissitudes of life that can be solved by the church, then you're going to need an awful lot of law and enforcement of that law. A very bureaucratic State.
One might argue that the ideal is 'pre-distribution'. This would mean business regulations that stop people from accruing large amounts of wealth to themselves, e.g. via minimum wage and limits on how much the top earner in a company can earn relative to the bottom earner.
November 24, 2025 at 12:29 PM
One might argue that the ideal is 'pre-distribution'. This would mean business regulations that stop people from accruing large amounts of wealth to themselves, e.g. via minimum wage and limits on how much the top earner in a company can earn relative to the bottom earner.
But then you say, "Yet although the idea that the poor should be provided for is a biblical one, the belief that this must be done through state-enforced redistribution is not."
And that's where I have to disagree. As stated above, God gave clear state-enforced redistribution.
And that's where I have to disagree. As stated above, God gave clear state-enforced redistribution.
November 24, 2025 at 12:28 PM
But then you say, "Yet although the idea that the poor should be provided for is a biblical one, the belief that this must be done through state-enforced redistribution is not."
And that's where I have to disagree. As stated above, God gave clear state-enforced redistribution.
And that's where I have to disagree. As stated above, God gave clear state-enforced redistribution.
You seem to recognise the State's role to some extent, when you say, "Of course, rulers should seek to prevent the vulnerable from being exploited - this was a requirement for Old Testament kings."
Naturally, this requires law.
(It was also a requirement for pagan rulers)
Naturally, this requires law.
(It was also a requirement for pagan rulers)
November 24, 2025 at 12:27 PM
You seem to recognise the State's role to some extent, when you say, "Of course, rulers should seek to prevent the vulnerable from being exploited - this was a requirement for Old Testament kings."
Naturally, this requires law.
(It was also a requirement for pagan rulers)
Naturally, this requires law.
(It was also a requirement for pagan rulers)
If a government wants to run a country based on NAIRU, then it owes something to the people whom it has deliberately put out of work.
It is not the church's responsibility to bail out people whom the State has made unemployed. It is the church's prophetic role to call that out.
It is not the church's responsibility to bail out people whom the State has made unemployed. It is the church's prophetic role to call that out.
November 24, 2025 at 12:26 PM
If a government wants to run a country based on NAIRU, then it owes something to the people whom it has deliberately put out of work.
It is not the church's responsibility to bail out people whom the State has made unemployed. It is the church's prophetic role to call that out.
It is not the church's responsibility to bail out people whom the State has made unemployed. It is the church's prophetic role to call that out.
For example, economists like to talk about the 'Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment'. Nairu tells us that we need a certain level of unemployment in order to control inflation. Those unemployed people are sacrificed by the State to some sense of a 'greater good'.
November 24, 2025 at 12:23 PM
For example, economists like to talk about the 'Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment'. Nairu tells us that we need a certain level of unemployment in order to control inflation. Those unemployed people are sacrificed by the State to some sense of a 'greater good'.
So we are left with the Church, ending poverty on its own.
How is it to do that?
The experience of multitudes of poverty-relief workers over centuries of work will tell you that charity has its limits when the issue is a society set up to impoverish some for the gain of others.
How is it to do that?
The experience of multitudes of poverty-relief workers over centuries of work will tell you that charity has its limits when the issue is a society set up to impoverish some for the gain of others.
November 24, 2025 at 12:21 PM
So we are left with the Church, ending poverty on its own.
How is it to do that?
The experience of multitudes of poverty-relief workers over centuries of work will tell you that charity has its limits when the issue is a society set up to impoverish some for the gain of others.
How is it to do that?
The experience of multitudes of poverty-relief workers over centuries of work will tell you that charity has its limits when the issue is a society set up to impoverish some for the gain of others.
So we are left with the church becoming the sole fixer of poverty in the UK.
How is the church to do that? There are three options:
1) Charity, i.e. responding to individual need by donating;
2) Education, i.e. teaching the poor how not to be poor;
3) Working for systemic change
How is the church to do that? There are three options:
1) Charity, i.e. responding to individual need by donating;
2) Education, i.e. teaching the poor how not to be poor;
3) Working for systemic change
November 24, 2025 at 12:16 PM
So we are left with the church becoming the sole fixer of poverty in the UK.
How is the church to do that? There are three options:
1) Charity, i.e. responding to individual need by donating;
2) Education, i.e. teaching the poor how not to be poor;
3) Working for systemic change
How is the church to do that? There are three options:
1) Charity, i.e. responding to individual need by donating;
2) Education, i.e. teaching the poor how not to be poor;
3) Working for systemic change
This segregation of the poor into poor families and poor communities has another issue: in your recommendation, the rich cease to have any responsibility for the poor, because the poor aren't in *their* family, and nor do the poor live in *their* community.
November 24, 2025 at 12:11 PM
This segregation of the poor into poor families and poor communities has another issue: in your recommendation, the rich cease to have any responsibility for the poor, because the poor aren't in *their* family, and nor do the poor live in *their* community.
Poverty is a rarely a case of a poor individual with an otherwise wealthy family, in an otherwise wealthy area. It's usually a poor person, whose family is poor, living in a poor and deprived area. Family & community have too many demands to solve any given individual's poverty.
November 24, 2025 at 12:10 PM
Poverty is a rarely a case of a poor individual with an otherwise wealthy family, in an otherwise wealthy area. It's usually a poor person, whose family is poor, living in a poor and deprived area. Family & community have too many demands to solve any given individual's poverty.
When you say that 'community' should take responsibility for the poor, what is that 'community'? People in a geographic area? How big an area? Council ward, local authority, combined authorities, nation?
People of the same ethnic heritage?
People of the same religion?
Same age?
People of the same ethnic heritage?
People of the same religion?
Same age?
November 24, 2025 at 12:09 PM
When you say that 'community' should take responsibility for the poor, what is that 'community'? People in a geographic area? How big an area? Council ward, local authority, combined authorities, nation?
People of the same ethnic heritage?
People of the same religion?
Same age?
People of the same ethnic heritage?
People of the same religion?
Same age?
I also wonder, when you say that 'family, community and Church' should take responsibility for the poor, exactly how you see that happening?
How extended is that family? My second or third cousin? My great-niece or nephew? Where does 'family' stop?
What if the family is too poor?
How extended is that family? My second or third cousin? My great-niece or nephew? Where does 'family' stop?
What if the family is too poor?
November 24, 2025 at 12:07 PM
I also wonder, when you say that 'family, community and Church' should take responsibility for the poor, exactly how you see that happening?
How extended is that family? My second or third cousin? My great-niece or nephew? Where does 'family' stop?
What if the family is too poor?
How extended is that family? My second or third cousin? My great-niece or nephew? Where does 'family' stop?
What if the family is too poor?
No-one in Israelite times could lose their home and land in perpetuity. This stands in stark contrast to Joseph's behaviour during the famine, which Joseph used to amass the people's land to the Pharaoh, thus impoverishing the people.
This is a State-level law, not charity.
This is a State-level law, not charity.
November 24, 2025 at 12:05 PM
No-one in Israelite times could lose their home and land in perpetuity. This stands in stark contrast to Joseph's behaviour during the famine, which Joseph used to amass the people's land to the Pharaoh, thus impoverishing the people.
This is a State-level law, not charity.
This is a State-level law, not charity.
Sellers were banned from price gouging (Lev 27:35-38). "So that they can continue to live among you" suggests a standard of living that is respectable.
There were strict restrictions on lending, so that all lending was for the good of the debtor and not the profit of the lender.
There were strict restrictions on lending, so that all lending was for the good of the debtor and not the profit of the lender.
November 24, 2025 at 12:04 PM
Sellers were banned from price gouging (Lev 27:35-38). "So that they can continue to live among you" suggests a standard of living that is respectable.
There were strict restrictions on lending, so that all lending was for the good of the debtor and not the profit of the lender.
There were strict restrictions on lending, so that all lending was for the good of the debtor and not the profit of the lender.
There are other laws in the Bible which, if given today, would be called 'business regulation'.
E.g., crop growers had to dedicate a portion of their turnover to the poor. This was to occur regardless of whether a profit was made on the rest of the crop.
E.g., crop growers had to dedicate a portion of their turnover to the poor. This was to occur regardless of whether a profit was made on the rest of the crop.
November 24, 2025 at 12:01 PM
There are other laws in the Bible which, if given today, would be called 'business regulation'.
E.g., crop growers had to dedicate a portion of their turnover to the poor. This was to occur regardless of whether a profit was made on the rest of the crop.
E.g., crop growers had to dedicate a portion of their turnover to the poor. This was to occur regardless of whether a profit was made on the rest of the crop.
The Israelites paid tax/tithe to support the poor. Unlike charity, this wasn't discretionary. The giver had no choice over what to give, how much to give, when to give, and to whom to give. It was a tax, and it was redistributed by the civil servants of the day - the Levites.
November 24, 2025 at 12:00 PM
The Israelites paid tax/tithe to support the poor. Unlike charity, this wasn't discretionary. The giver had no choice over what to give, how much to give, when to give, and to whom to give. It was a tax, and it was redistributed by the civil servants of the day - the Levites.
There are commands in the OT which, if given today, would be called 'tax and redistribution'.
The Israelites paid tax/tithe to support the priests. As well as religious duties, the priests taught the law and acted as judges. They also managed matters of public health.
The Israelites paid tax/tithe to support the priests. As well as religious duties, the priests taught the law and acted as judges. They also managed matters of public health.
November 24, 2025 at 11:58 AM
There are commands in the OT which, if given today, would be called 'tax and redistribution'.
The Israelites paid tax/tithe to support the priests. As well as religious duties, the priests taught the law and acted as judges. They also managed matters of public health.
The Israelites paid tax/tithe to support the priests. As well as religious duties, the priests taught the law and acted as judges. They also managed matters of public health.
If family, community, and a religious body is all that is needed to end poverty, then why didn't God simply tell the Israelites 'be charitable'? Why did he go beyond the principle - give to the poor - to give specific commands about how to do it?
November 24, 2025 at 11:55 AM
If family, community, and a religious body is all that is needed to end poverty, then why didn't God simply tell the Israelites 'be charitable'? Why did he go beyond the principle - give to the poor - to give specific commands about how to do it?
That's an interesting statement that merits justification.
The law given by God to his people - people who, of all peoples, should not need any form of State intervention to end poverty if it is the case that the State has no such duty - does seem to involve State intervention.
The law given by God to his people - people who, of all peoples, should not need any form of State intervention to end poverty if it is the case that the State has no such duty - does seem to involve State intervention.
November 24, 2025 at 11:54 AM
That's an interesting statement that merits justification.
The law given by God to his people - people who, of all peoples, should not need any form of State intervention to end poverty if it is the case that the State has no such duty - does seem to involve State intervention.
The law given by God to his people - people who, of all peoples, should not need any form of State intervention to end poverty if it is the case that the State has no such duty - does seem to involve State intervention.
@resfoundation previously looked at labour force elasticities to comment on employment rates after cutting support to sick & disabled people.
Barr et al's paper indicates that the UK, with its already-harsh system, is unlikely to see even the very small gains of other countries.
Barr et al's paper indicates that the UK, with its already-harsh system, is unlikely to see even the very small gains of other countries.
November 21, 2025 at 11:34 AM
@resfoundation previously looked at labour force elasticities to comment on employment rates after cutting support to sick & disabled people.
Barr et al's paper indicates that the UK, with its already-harsh system, is unlikely to see even the very small gains of other countries.
Barr et al's paper indicates that the UK, with its already-harsh system, is unlikely to see even the very small gains of other countries.
Cutting the income of people who are too sick to work but deemed capable of work-related activity:
- increases poverty;
- increases the incidence of mental illness;
- does not increase entry to work.
Labour want to repeat this, for people who are more sick.
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
- increases poverty;
- increases the incidence of mental illness;
- does not increase entry to work.
Labour want to repeat this, for people who are more sick.
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
Page Cannot be Found
papers.ssrn.com
November 21, 2025 at 11:24 AM
Cutting the income of people who are too sick to work but deemed capable of work-related activity:
- increases poverty;
- increases the incidence of mental illness;
- does not increase entry to work.
Labour want to repeat this, for people who are more sick.
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
- increases poverty;
- increases the incidence of mental illness;
- does not increase entry to work.
Labour want to repeat this, for people who are more sick.
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
@UKLabour have *not* long-grassed the key welfare change that they proposed - to completely eradicate the concept of long-term sickness, or being too sick to work, from Social Security.
They plan to do this by scrapping the Work Capability Assessment.
They plan to do this by scrapping the Work Capability Assessment.
November 12, 2025 at 2:52 PM
@UKLabour have *not* long-grassed the key welfare change that they proposed - to completely eradicate the concept of long-term sickness, or being too sick to work, from Social Security.
They plan to do this by scrapping the Work Capability Assessment.
They plan to do this by scrapping the Work Capability Assessment.