As the paper states: ‘benefits in kind (such as health, education, transport and housing) more than double the average post-tax income of the bottom 20 percent of households’.
Income inequality (or perhaps consumption inequality is better) is thus vastly overstated.
They also need to be phased out- because they get withdrawn at some threshold point of rising income and therefor create effectively high marginal tax rates for those about the threshold.
They also force the poor to spend a portion of their income on that which the bureaucrats dictate,rather than to their own best advantage. Give them cash benefits instead- then the poor man can opt, for example to live in digs rather than a flat and use the change for other things- as it is he either accepts a subsidised flat or does without any assistance. It also makes it unclear exactly what benefits the poor are getting- unclear to the average voter, who therefor cannot judge whether the rate is reasonable, and unclear to the poor as well- to judge by a post on “Benefit Scrounging Scum” you need a three year course of study to understand the system.
Whether you regard the reduction in demand for bureaucrats to administer the system a benefit is of course another question.
There are all sorts of benefits in kind that are difficult to dispense with though. Catering staff usually get their meals free, because it makes sense. Reps get their company car because that makes sense. Transport staff get their free travel on the same basis, it makes economic sense for their employers. Then there are the staff discounts offered by manufacturing companies, so you can buy products at cost price.
Timmy probably has a houseful of scandium junk.
And not forgetting elderly care, a.k.a. the Grim Redistributor.
The next point down is “• Inequality in wealth has grown markedly partly as a by-product of income inequality but also because of house price inflation. ”
Does the report account for mortgage value increases as well as house value increases?