The Debate: Should cultural landmarks have equal pricing for benefits claimants?
As discounted tickets for those on benefits kicks off a Twitter storm over ‘fairness’, we hear both sides of the argument in this week’s Debate
YES: Millions of people go to work and don’t ask for handouts. Why should they be penalised?
How would you like to pay three times over to visit the zoo? Or to see the Crown Jewels at the Tower of London? I imagine most people wouldn’t really fancy paying three times to do any of these or anything else for that matter. But that is exactly what people are forced to do when concessions are offered by public attractions that receive funding from taxpayers to those on Universal Credit. You pay once through your taxes, again to fund the concession, and then full price for yourself (and don’t forget the benefits in the first place). With more than £100 knocked off a family ticket to the Tower of London, if one parent claims universal credit, the disparity isn’t small change.
Britain’s welfare bill is ballooning and set to hit £407bn by 2030-31. At the same time, hardworking taxpayers are being squeezed dry by a record tax burden. It cannot be right to tell families who are just about managing that they must fork out even more so others can enjoy cut price days out. This isn’t about denying access, it’s about fairness. Millions of people do the right thing: they get up early, go to work, pay their taxes and save to treat their families. They don’t ask for handouts. Why should they be penalised for it?
Private businesses can do what they like. The OAP meal in your local chippy is nothing new. But asking taxpayers to subsidise an attraction, then subsidise the entry of others (as well as pay their benefits), and finally pay full whack for their own admission is utterly unacceptable. Equal pricing is fair pricing.
Benjamin Elks is grassroots development manager at the Taxpayers’ Alliance
NO: The more cultural capital kids gain, the less likely they are to end up on benefits themselves
No, we absolutely shouldn’t be charging everyone the same price. Have you heard of ‘cultural capital’? Cultural capital is, essentially, the non-financial ‘assets’ that have the power to enable people to improve their outlook in life, from income through to health. It includes knowledge, skills, behaviours and education. Pierre Bourdieu argued in the 1970s that cultural capital helps maintain social class inequality.
And you know where children experience the most opportunity to develop their cultural capital? At museums, attractions, theatres and cinema. Essentially, by offering discounted tickets to families who are claiming Universal Credit (UC), we are democratising access to some of the most important opportunities young people and adults can have. It isn’t a free day out on someone else’s dime; it is the opening of a door to knowledge.
And if you want to take an economic view; the more cultural capital a child has access to when they are GCSE-age and below, the higher the impact. By giving the kids of people claiming UC access to the same opportunities as those from higher tax bracket families, you’re making it way less likely those children will have to rely on the state when they themselves are working age.
Discounts based on life circumstances aren’t a new concept either. Student discount has existed since pints have, while blue light discounts, discounted tickets or even free tickets for carers are all also commonplace. All this before even mentioning that one of the arguments against reduced pricing for people claiming benefits is that “it hurts working families”. 40 per cent of people claiming Universal Credit are working. Working people make up nearly 3m of those who are eligible for discounted attraction tickets.
Remember that nearly half of Brits are now financially vulnerable – just one unexpected expense away from serious debt. The number is going up. We’ll all be wishing we had some cultural attractions to take our minds off it soon enough.
Chloe Coleman is CEO of Vouchsafe, a company that helps credit unions and community finance lend to more people
THE VERDICT
Last week, as so often is the case, the British political corner of X was lit up in anger over a Spectator article, on this occasion entitled ‘Benefits treats: how Britain became a freeloader’s paradise’. The article, which detailed the various discounts given to those claiming Universal Credit at popular London attractions, from London Zoo to St Paul’s Cathedral, suggested it wasn’t fair that taxpayers, in essence, are subsidising cheap fares for those on benefits, especially at attractions already funded by the taxpayer.
But that’s the thing, many of these attractions are not funded by the taxpayer, but rather are independent charities or businesses who should be allowed to structure their pricing as they see fit, whether as an ethical decision or a business one. After all, at many of these attractions, it is getting people through the door (where they might then go on to spend on food or in shops) that matters. Plus, as Ms Coleman outlines, the benefits of making culture accessible are long-term and economical. The verdict: equal does not always mean fair.