A still image from a video that went viral on social media in the wake of Rachel Reeve’s November budget depicts a brick layer stood defiantly in the middle of a building site, scarf wrapped around his face against the wind, flecks of snow on his clothing, with the caption: ‘I can’t give up working, too many people on benefits depend on me’. Needless to say, it attracted many comments and numerous likes.

It has been claimed that Rachel Reeves increased taxes in her budget, not to reduce any deficit in the public finances, but to allow for increased benefit payments. She made much in her budget speech of the moral imperative of removing the two-child benefit cap (a measure which limits the amount of universal credit paid to the first two children in a family), in order to “lift thousands of children out of poverty”.

In a situation where the economy is barely growing, such increases in public spending must be paid for either by increased government borrowing or increased taxation. Since borrowing is already close to the governments self-imposed limit, tax increases were the only realistic option available.

As a Christian, I might well applaud the government’s commitment to improve the financial circumstances of the least well off in society. Yet, I might equally have some sympathy with the builder depicted in the video, who feels that he is working hard to earn his living whilst some are enjoying near comparable living standards without working at all, thanks to an increasingly generous benefits system.

Indeed, I imagine some Christians, especially those in work and struggling with the ever-rising cost of living, might feel quite conflicted when thinking about this situation. Should they applaud a government committed to increasing the living standards of those claiming benefits or are they right to feel disquiet about policies that ultimately seem to incentivise people not to work?

In this article I will consider some of the differing political and economic arguments in respect of this issue, as well as explore what the bible has to say about our attitude to work, living as recipients of benefits and also the extent of our responsibility as believers to others in society.

Any consideration of the scriptures on this issue might well begin in the book of Genesis, where we find Cain responding to God’s inquiry about the whereabouts of his brother Abel, whom he had killed in a fit of jealousy. “Am I my brother’s keeper?” is his rhetorical retort (Genesis 4:9). Surely, the individual depicted in the video is posing much the same question.

Of interest, we do not get God’s definitive response to this question until much later on in the New Testament, when Jesus declares that the greatest commandment in the law is, “to love God with all your heart”, and the second, “to love your neighbour as yourself” (Matthew 22:37-40). And just in case we try to get picky about who our neighbour might be, Jesus tells the parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37), which makes clear it is anyone who might need our help.

There is, however, a distinction worth noting here, in so far as in Jesus’ parable the Samaritan’s acts were voluntary (i.e. acts of charity), since it is apparent that no-one compelled him to use his own money to provide for the needs of a stranger. In contrast, some might point out, taxes that individuals pay, which contribute towards benefit payments, are involuntary.

The UK tax system is, for the most part, a progressive one, which means that it has a redistributive function – that is, taking from the wealthy and effectively redistributing money to the less wealthy. This is why those on the highest incomes pay proportionately more income tax than those on low incomes (in the UK we currently have 20%, 40% and 45% income tax rates, according to the level of earnings).

This principle of redistribution is found in the Old Testament Jewish law – in particular the concept of a jubilee year (Leviticus 25:8-38), when debts were cancelled and land returned to its original owners. This requirement placed on the people, was designed to counter the amassing of land and wealth by a few to the detriment of everybody else. In the same way, progressive taxation as applied by governments today, aims to restore some balance in the distribution of wealth across society.

Thus far, my discussion has focussed on one side of this question, which arguably supports a more generous approach to benefits. That is because, as Jesus makes plain, we should have regard for anyone who might be in need, and not simply pass by on the other side, ignoring their plight.

However, scripture also presents an alternative perspective. Paul puts this bluntly with his contention that, “if a man won’t work, then neither shall he eat” (2 Thessalonians 3:10). In saying this, Paul makes clear that he (and by implication, God), has little time for individuals who would much rather take handouts than work to earn their income.

The fact that Paul seems unperturbed that someone should go without food if this is the consequence of their own inaction, flies in the face of the contemporary approach to welfare, which largely sets aside any consideration of personal responsibility, by reducing everything to a basic calculation of needs and income.

The sentiment Paul expresses in his statement, echoes the many exhortations found in the book of Proverbs in the Old Testament, which simultaneously encourage thrift and industry whilst pouring scorn on those whose sloth and indolence brings them to inevitable ruin.

A more considered view of this perspective is presented by Jesus in the parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14-30). Here we witness the bold and industrious individuals commended and rewarded whilst the one who simply buried his talent in the ground is condemned. Jesus’ parable implicitly recognises that as individuals we have differing capabilities and life opportunities. Not everyone is abundantly gifted with those attributes that enable them to succeed with relative ease. But the clear message is that God expects us to put to good use whatever capabilities and resources we have. Whilst some believers might choose to understand this parable in purely spiritual terms, as concerning a Christian’s spiritual endowment, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Jesus was also referencing life more generally.

This parable is particular helpful when we consider this question of the merit of welfare benefits to both individuals and society. We may reason that where benefits act to enable (e.g. I can hang onto my job because I get some help paying my childcare), then that, surely, is a positive impact, consistent with Jesus’ favourable view of the proactive individual. However, if benefits serve only to entrench dependency (e.g. there’s no point in me getting a job because I will just be worse off financially), then arguably this risks reinforcing the ‘bury my talent in the ground’ mind-set, which Jesus condemned.

Thus, ideally, a benefits system should operate in such a way that it achieves the difficult balancing act of supporting and enabling those in need whilst not creating an unhealthy dependency (accepting that some, because of their particular circumstances, will have no choice but to depend upon the government for ongoing support).

Those politicians, and indeed the wider public, who argue against the lifting of the two-child benefit cap, painted by Rachel Reeves as being indifferent to the needs of disadvantaged children, are perhaps, motivated by a concern that the present government is losing sight of the need to strike this balance.

At the heart of evangelicalism is the belief that making a personal commitment to Christ is the greatest imperative facing every person. Implicit in this belief, is the understanding that one’s personal responsibility before God is an inescapable reality of human existence. Where society seeks to sidestep or diminish this in any way, it should come as no surprise that some will develop an attitude of entitlement, whereby they feel that someone else is responsible and question why they should help themselves. It is no coincidence that individuals who commit their lives to Christ, will quite often see a dramatic turnaround in their personal circumstances, as they are led to make better life choices and so more fully realise the God given potential within them.

Chris Follett – Dec 2025