In addition, if partaking in the scheme, there would be no need for Jobseekers’ Allowance( JSA) to be claimed. According to research by the New Policy Institute, for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, whilst 57 % of our poorest families have either one or both parents in employment, there are 43 % in which neither parent is employed. Consequently, the bare minimum saving from withdrawn JSA would be £ 3.6 billion, further bringing the cost down to £ 4.5 billion.
As this would be a full time job, income tax at the basic rate of 20 % would also be applicable on earnings over £ 10,000, bringing the government revenue of £ 960 million, which would bring down the cost of the scheme to £ 3.54 billion. Considering that total government spending, in 2011-2012, was £ 710 billion, using the Treasury’ s own figures, this is not unachievable.
Moreover, the government employing parents would not just benefit children; it would also have‘ spill-over’ affects, benefiting society as a whole. These include freeing up hundreds of thousands of jobs that the unemployed could benefit from, further reducing the welfare bill and increasing tax revenue. In addition, if the scheme worked, it would also make a significant dent in the £ 3.4 billion the National Audit Office estimates it costs the Home Office to tackle anti-social behaviour in England and Wales each year.
' It would also make a significant dent in the £ 3.4 billion it costs the Home Office to tackle anti-social behaviour '
Lastly, and most importantly, if this scheme meant children from deprived backgrounds were brought up with a parent at their side, instilling confidence, ambition and a respect for their local community, it will have been a success, no matter what other benefits it produces.
As President Johnson said in Ohio, in 1964,“ And with your courage and with your compassion and your desire, we will build the Great Society”. Let us build that society. Let us built it in Great Britain and let us build it now! revolutionise. it 19