If you’re going to take it uncritically, the proposal is just trying to get a fuller picture of the situation of people who are receiving benefits and don’t work full time, so that the benefits can be shared equitably based on a fuller knowledge of the individual circumstances. Those who are unjustifiably working too little can be helped to find more work and the problem of underemployment can be ameliorated. Unemployment has damaging effects on people’s mental health and on communities, so this will improve both areas, as well as saving the government money and reducing dependence on the welfare system. Underemployed people will be categorized based on the reasons for not working full time, so in theory people aren’t going to go into hardship if they are sick or have commitments like children or other dependents that prevent them from working a full week. If all goes well, it could be a positive move towards getting people out of government dependence and into full time employment.
In practice, it really depends on how the system is implemented. There’s the question of how many people are actually abusing the system, and how much this costs the government. The savings that the government makes could easily be eaten up by the costs of implementation, and many families could experience real hardship at a time when it’s hard enough for them to get by, while any money saved goes to the salaries of a few government employees. The desire to save money could mean that people are generally worse off, and more attention is given to getting people off welfare than giving them a real alternative. It can also be difficult for some people to obtain proof that they are one of the ‘deserving poor’, so some people may well be taken off welfare when they should really have more support from the state.
