10p tax rate: seeing sense
Didn’t take too long in the end:
In a written statement to the Commons, the chancellor makes clear that the Treasury will assess the average loss of pensioners aged between 60 and 64 and childless working people before announcing what he will do in his pre-Budget report this autumn. He also makes clear that whatever measures are taken will be backdated to the beginning of the tax year.
And maybe a little extra on top? For loan and overdraft interest and bank charges the low waged might have to pay between now and the autumn due to being worse off. That’s what a Prime Minister with a ‘sense of what is equitable and fair‘ would do.
It’ll be interestng to see the details. No doubt it’ll be done via the massively efficient tax credit system - you know the one that pays one lot of civil servants to collect people’s taxes and another lot of civil servants to give them back - but then you can’t have everything.
Posted on April 23rd, 2008 at 12:39 pm
What about those childless people on taxable benefits who are unable to work through ill health; unable to claim Working Tax Credit, Child Tax Credit or Winter fuel type benefits, yet are still liable for increased tax?
As the privatization of the Welfare State continues apace, I guess the government policy continues to be to restrict these benefits by payment by results for ATOS , (ie reduce numbers on IB), by starving those on IB into submission.
And to think Labour used to represent the most vulnerable in society.
Ha.
I’m sure the government will make the new distinction between the deserving and undeserving poor in the fullness of time.
Anyway, as Nick Robinson has just said on Radio 4, it’s the politics of this which are ‘fascinating’ - forget everything else. The poor caught in the middle are pretty much secondary to the sweaty gladiatorial contests that get the commentariat all excited. They couldn’t give a shit about how the lower orders put food on the table.
Are Atos paid by # rejections? I’d appreciate a source, last time someone brought this one up I spent a couple of hours researching the contract and couldn’t find any evidence that this was the case (rather than an urban myth spread by cock-up victims and try-it-on merchants…)
john bs last blog post..A lie has a good ending
Justin if you read Darling’s letter to the Chair of the Treasury Select Committee, the first four points are a load of boilerplate ‘Aren’t We Nice to the Poor’ guff; the fifth point is filler; the sixth somehow thinks it can replace a tax hike with the use of the Winter Fuel Allowance (’Hey, grandma - food or heating?’, ‘Fuck knows - it’s July’ - yes, it’s backdated but it’s a weird way to solve the problem); and the last two points are just more filler.
The seventh point is the key: As I understand it, the only way Darling could change the Tax Credit system to compensate losers is to extend it to all single people on low pay (cost?), while asking his mate at Business to do something about the minimum wage for younger workers - like paying them the same rate as older workers or making the actual wage liveable - is going to really hack off the CBI.
The subtext is: ‘look, okay, you win, now don’t vote against us’ - and lo, the rebellion disappeared.
PS: Tom Clark explains it better than I do.
‘I’m sure the government will make the new distinction between the deserving and undeserving poor in the fullness of time. ‘
It has already. The ‘deserving poor’ are usualy refered to by the oft repeated government soundbite: ‘…hard working families’. The undeserving poor are generaly not worthy of mention but are clearly non ‘hard working’ and non family. ie. : the unemployed & single parents.
Of course it will be tax credits. Brown claimed when he announced the abolition of the 10p rate the first time, that tax credits would be more efficient.
Although he has said he is backing down, he isn’t. This is more of the same.
Joe Otten’s latest blog post… Reinventing the State Chapter 21: A Rational Defence Policy