Non-means tested benefits

James Higham left a comment on this post The fun never stops ...:

Mark, not wishing to be stupid but is 6% a huge amount for administering something? On-means tested benefits - what would be the criterion for eligibility?

Yes, 6% is a colossal amount. The total administration costs, plus fraud and error, minus underclaims of flat-rate, non-means tested, universal benefits like Child Benefit is actually slightly negative. The same costs for the Basic State Pension are in the region of 1% of the amount paid out. And to that 6% we have to add another 5% for means-tested non-universal benefits overpaid due to fraud and error.

As to eligibility, there is a huge range of nigh universal non-means tested benefits, such as the right to NHS treatment or a state education place; the right to ring the fire brigade or the police; the right to vote elections; the right to drive a vehicle on a public highway etc etc. Why should modest weekly cash payments to legally resident British citizens be seen any differently?

So if you replaced the entire Welfare State with flat-rate universal benefits, you could cut the cost to the taxpayer by ten per cent; or you could increase the total amount paid out by ten per cent (according to taste), but either way you'd get rid of all the social engineering and distortions, while still alleviating poverty.