Maybe... the rich should receive government handouts

We are on the brink of an unprecedented form of civil unrest. So far, it has been common to see young, radical members of society taking to the streets to oppose tuition fee rises and government cuts. But soon we could be seeing the rise of the protesting pensioner as the government starts coming after their bus passes, TV licenses, and winter fuel payments. An avenue once filled with hooded tops could soon be replaced by a sea of purple rinse hair.

Taking benefits from wealthy pensioners is becoming an increasingly popular policy among the electorate, with many seeing the transfer of much needed government funds to the rich as a ludicrous and illogical policy. This week the Labour party has jumped aboard this accelerating bandwagon and appear to have turned their back on the concept of universalism.

The savings do appear impressive to a lot of people and the reforms to the former universal welfare policy of child benefits will save the government £1.5 billion in 2013-14. However, it is estimated that were the winter fuel allowance to be abolished for those pensioners who would belong to the top bracket of tax payers, it would save a mere £100 million and the reality is that even savings of £2 billion are little more than loose change stuck down the back of the sofa when compared to the scale of the savings that need to made if the deficit is to be reduced.

The idea of turning universal benefits into selective ones is common, especially when savings need to be made, and they are not just taking place in the UK. In the traditional stronghold of the welfare state, Scandinavia, selectivisation and means testing have become the norm where once help was available for all. Whether related or not, in Sweden, where the switch to selectivisation has been most extreme, they have experienced the fastest growing gap between the rich and the poor of any advanced OECD economy, a possible cause of the riots there in recent weeks. Whilst initially these reforms appear as simple budget cuts, they do have profound consequences.

One of the main concerns in scrapping universal benefits is the creation of a two tiered society, those who require government assistance and those who do not. With the loss of child benefit payments, the middle class are already beginning to lose their stake in the welfare system and with further abolition of other benefits, they may begin to lose faith in the system all together. With divisive rhetoric such as "scrounger class" being tossed around by the press and the government, it is not hard to foresee a future where those who have nothing immediately apparent to gain from the welfare state would cease to support it. But these arguments are well publicised and I am very much preaching to the converted. Those who don't support the idea of welfare would be unlikely to change their minds based on this line of argument.

There are plenty of realities to consider for those who don't support universal welfare policies, though. The most significant of these is the reality of what will replace universalism. If benefits are not available for all, then they are only available for a few and a line has to be drawn in order to determine who those few will be. In other words, a system of means testing would have to be introduced, and some of the problems associated with this are worthy of everybody's concern.

First, from a cost benefit perspective, means testing is incredibly expensive to implement. It requires paperwork, paid advisors, and the systematic renewal of information to ensure that the right people are enrolled in the right programmes. The saving of £100 million we can expect to see from excluding rich pensioners from winter fuel payments would be negated by the introduction of constant re-evaluation and review processes.

In addition to this, means testing creates the opportunity for deceit in order for individuals to receive payments they are not entitled too. This would not only increase the number of claimants, and thereby increasing costs, but also the resources that would be required to prevent or punish those who break the law. We have seen this happening with disability benefits, and the response from the government in addressing this abuse has been to the detriment of the genuinely disabled, who are without doubt among the most deserving welfare beneficiaries in the country.

Finally, drawing lines between those who are deserving and those who are not is often an arbitrary process. The barrier has to be placed somewhere and frequently it is determined by financial considerations rather than any criteria based on the reality of people's lives and individual situations. These cut off points can see people in very similar situations falling on different sides of the dictated line and causing resentment and further disillusion towards the welfare system. Furthermore, This separation between recipients and non-recipients would only act as further encouragement for people to be deceptive about their financial situations.

Means testing appears initially to be a logical policy for those who want to make budget cutbacks, or those who are more interested in some warped notion of justice rather than the reality of creating a more positive society (the current government are seemingly motivated by a combination of both). In addition to these arguments, there is some evidence from Sweden to suggest that the introduction of means testing lowers general levels of trust in society and is partially responsible for the breakdown in community spirit.

There are serious logistical and social consequences in abolishing universalism. The slippery slope argument is one that should be used carefully and sparingly, but once the largest and most electorally active group in society lose their stake in a system, what is to stop it being shrunk even further. Ultimately, this could lead to a rethink about education and healthcare funding and an American style vouchers system is not an unforeseeable possibility. Our society could be split in two, and it would be the most disastrous for those who are already in dire need of assistance in a seemingly unending time of economic hardship.