Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

Politics

George Osborne's every blow falls on those with less not more

87 replies

ttosca · 30/11/2011 22:17

With his autumn statement, the chancellor has declared class war: a Tory assault on the public sector and the poor

Class war, generation war, war against women, war between the regions: George Osborne's autumn statement blatantly declares itself for the few against the many. Gloves are off and gauntlets down, and the nasty party bares its teeth. Here is the re-toxified Tory party, the final curtain on David Cameron's electoral charade. No more crocodile tears for the poor, no more cant about social mobility or "the most family-friendly government" or "we're all in this together". Forget "vote blue go green", with this mockery of husky-hugging. Let the planet fry.

Exposed was the extent of pain for no gain, exactly as Keynesian economists predicted, a textbook case. Things are "proving harder than anyone envisaged", says Cameron. But precisely this was envisaged by Nobel-winning economists. Extreme austerity is causing £100bn extra borrowing, not less, while everything else shrinks ? most incomes (the poorest most of all), employment, order books and exports. Pre-Christmas shopping ? already discounted ? heralds more imminent company collapses, and the only high street growth is in pawnbrokers, charity shops and Poundlands filling up the black gaps. For all the flurry of small announcements to kickstart business, infrastructure doesn't create jobs fast enough to replace the 710,000 more public jobs to go. The iron envelope of public spending is unchanged. Osborne learns nothing from experience.

What was missing from his list? Not one penny more was taken from the top 10% of earners. Every hit fell upon those with less not more. Fat plums ripe for the plucking stayed on the tree as the poorest bore 16% of the brunt of new cuts and the richest only 3%, according to the Resolution Foundation. Over £7bn could be harvested with 40% tax relief on higher pensions, while most earners only get 20% tax relief; £2bn should be nipped from taxing bankers' bonuses, but the bank levy announced was nothing extra. There was no mansion tax on high-value properties, though owners don't even pay their fair share of council tax, and property is greatly undertaxed compared with other countries.

Worse still, two-thirds of properties worth over £1m now change hands while avoiding all their 5% stamp duty, by using offshore company accounts. But not a word passed Osborne's lips on tax avoidance and evasion. Another 12,000 tax collectors are losing their jobs while some £25bn is evaded and £70bn avoided. In a time of national emergency, Osborne had no breath of rebuke about the responsibility of the rich not to dodge taxes, no threat to curb the culture of avoidance. Despite the High Pay Commission report on out-of-control boardroom pay ? which even the Institute of Directors has called "unsustainable" ? the chancellor said nothing. How adamantly he ruled out the Tobin tax on financial transactions, called for by those dangerous lefties Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel.

Instead came the great attack on public sector employees on the eve of the biggest strike in memory. This was a declaration of open class war ? and war on the pay of women, 73% of the public workforce. After a three-year freeze, public pay rises are pegged at 1% for two years, whatever the inflation rate. That means this government will take at least 16% from their incomes overall. But the plan to abolish Tupe ? the rule that ensures public workers are not paid less if their service is privatised ? is outrageously unjust, and will lead to mighty resistance to all privatisation from senior as well as junior staff.

As bad is the plan for reduced public pay rates in poorer regions. What draws good teachers and doctors to work in hard places is the same pay with a lower cost of living. Cut public pay in the north-east or the most impoverished places and their economies will plummet, making them poorer still. This will drive a yet deeper divide between north and south.

But the direct assault on the poor is almost beyond belief. Watch how the big, powerful charities on Tuesday expressed uncharacteristic outrage. Along with the Children's Society, Save the Children is fiercer than I can ever recall, calling this "dire news for the poorest families ? both in and out of work"; "A major blow", says 4Children; while Barnardo's calls it "a desperate state of affairs when the government's own analysis shows that a further 100,000 children will be pushed into poverty as a result of tax and benefits changes announced today".

That 100,000 is added to the 300,000 that the Institute for Fiscal Studies already expected to join the numbers of poor children from Osborne's previous cuts. The increase in the number of two-year-olds getting nursery schooling is excellent, but why pay for it by taking from the tax credits of those families supposed to benefit? Households that gain are commuters, higher up the scale: few in the bottom 25% have cars or use trains. Meanwhile, the young are hit, the cut in the education maintenance allowance causing fewer to attend college at 16, and there are signs of a serious fall in university applications.

Politically, how will this feel? The outrage of respected charities is telling: worms are turning. The government has deliberately and unjustly provoked the whole public sector ? from headteachers to hospital cleaners. Cameron and Osborne's record for serious miscalculation is formidable ? from the economic effect of their austerity to their unravelling NHS debacle and the precarious work programme.

The gap between what they say and do is now exposed. The injustice of how the pain has been shared is breath-taking. A windfall taking just one year's bank bonuses would pay for all the cuts in youth services and the EMA for the next 23 years. That's just one example. Osborne is fatally wrong on the economy, as his deficit target slips by two years in just the past eight months. But even if his straitjacket were necessary, the pain would be politically acceptable only if justly shared. The Bullingdon budget tears the last veil of deceit, leaving the nasty party naked for all to see. But every school will get its King James Bible with Michael Gove's presumptuous foreword: is prayer all that's left?

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/29/osborne-class-war-autumn-statement

OP posts:
Peachy · 30/12/2011 12:20

'As to the equal distribution of 'pain' - sadly service cuts impact those who use public services the most - so not the richest 10% of the population. I don't think in-equality of pain is a sensible reason for not cutting public services, which we can't afford.

Which ones do you consider disposable Jack? And if I have the few services I use cut AND am forced into employment or workfare by changes to the system, how do I cope? Now, I hope I can find work and that DH manages to keep working from home and we sort oursel;ves out but it's a situation affecting a great many so ideas appreciated...

Peachy · 30/12/2011 12:17

Where we live there are 30 thousand people on the waiting list for a council home, we have been told a 4 bed would take 5 years. And frankly LMAo at the 'I would love them to have separate bedrooms but...'

Do you not think I would love mine to be able to share? DS2 and ds4 will. DS3 sleeps downstaoirs as he is so vulnerable, ds1 has to be separated becuase of his violence. We've been really poor, we used to be home owners in fact and had to sell up, and none of it compares to having to know that two of your children at least can't even share a room without being put at risk or putting another sibling at significant risk.

bemybebe · 30/12/2011 12:01

Hogmanay super rich aka Abramovich etc choose to stay in the UK because their worldwide wealth is taxed to the max of 30K or thereabouts as non-doms. Moderately rich UK or EU citizens are slowly but surely persuaded to move abroad (outside of the EU). I personally know a number of people. Something that people do reluctantly because they are used to the UK (family, schools, etc) but the flow will increase as living standards and expat communities bloom in places like China and the middle East...

niceguy2 · 30/12/2011 11:44

Hogmanay. Some do choose to live in the UK...many do not. To say a punitive tax regime doesn't put the rich off is simply stupid and lacks common sense. Of course it does. The top 1% already pay 25% of all income tax receipts. The next 9% pay the next 25%. Just how much more do you want to tax the rich and how many rich people do you think there are? Not many I can tell you.

Those ultra rich are unaffected anyway as they have most of their 'riches' in assets which are not subject to income tax. I bet many of them have their assets in Monaco then just come to live in the UK, paying very little in the way of income tax.

So it's those who are well off but not quite rich enough to afford an army of tax accountants who end up suffering the most. Those very people with the skills to emigrate. The very people who we want to keep to develop a high tech/high skilled economy.

A punitive tax regime puts people off, plain & simple. My first direct experience of this was quite a few years ago when I earned enough just to tip me over into HRT. My company later wanted me to do some overtime which would have been worth around £100. Unfortunately after tax it was < £60 (HRT & NI). I concluded that whilst it would have been nice, that I'd rather spend the time with my family than lose my weekend.

Of course it was nice of me to have a choice but economically speaking the higher rate of tax put me off working harder.

We see the same all the time at the other end of the spectrum where there's clearly a benefits trap whereby it's not worth people going to work. There's a similar disincentive at the other end of the scale.

Yes there are a few people who earn vast sums of money. But they are VERY VERY few in numbers. Most of us have to work and work hard for our money. We have to take on responsibilities, sacrifice family time and take risks. To have a punitive tax rate simply puts people off doing that.

Hogmanayhoneyblossom · 30/12/2011 10:58

Madhatter- that theory doesn't pan out in practice. There are plenty of rich people who CHOOSE to live in the UK even if they would be financially better off elsewhere like Monaco. It is precisely because they are so rich that they can afford to make these lifestyle choices.

Even if some people did leave, they do not have unique qualities and could be replaced by other people.

Low tax for the rich is ideological not pragmatic.

madhatter80 · 30/12/2011 10:51

The problem with punitive taxes on the rich is that they can all move abroad and you get a cutting off your nose to spite your face situation (a politically motivated gesture that may not be economically worthwhile). This results in a loss of income for the taxman, so less can be spent on things like the welfare state. Yes, tax on unearned wealth is another matter, but if you tax hard work, motivation and entrepreneurship you get a situation where nobody bothers to better themselves because they will be penalised. This is the classic socialist way (to use other peoples money to fund pet projects) and then complain when the situation needs to be rectified and the debt needs to be repaid.

jackstarb · 29/12/2011 21:34

Anyone interested in a historical perspective on the economic mess we are in and how we got here should watch the excellent BBC2 Peston programme The Party's Over - How the West went Bust

I don't think any political party 'caused' the problems - rather they failed to manage them adequately. Papering over cracks, if you will, and not tackling underlying issues.

As to the equal distribution of 'pain' - sadly service cuts impact those who use public services the most - so not the richest 10% of the population. I don't think in-equality of pain is a sensible reason for not cutting public services, which we can't afford. The 50% tax rate is there to 'penalise' those on the highest incomes.

niceguy2 · 29/12/2011 20:52

The jury's well out on whether or not the previous government got us into this

Erm.....obviously you are not using the same jury the rest of us are!

As Madhatter says. The Tories handed over a balanced budget and an economy just about to boom. For the first few years whilst Labour stuck to their pledge of sticking to Tory spending plans our budget was healthy.

Then they decided to rip open the nations chequebook and throw money in all directions. Tax credits, EMA. All funded not by economic growth or taxes but by borrowing.

Now sensible governments put money aside in boom times to spend during the recessions. But not Labour...GB had abolished boom & bust....He'd singlehandedly changed the laws of free market economics so he could keep spending!

Banking crashes aside, we'd still be in a massive amount of debt. The structural deficit, that's on Labour alone. The debt caused by the banking crisis. That's the fault of the banks ofc. The problems with the Euro? That's a problem caused by political vanity.

madhatter80 · 29/12/2011 19:20

LePruneDeMaTante - What are you talking about??? When the Tories left power in 1997, they handed nuLabour a healthy economy which was actually in surplus. The deficit and debt has built up under nuLabour's disastrous run of spend spend spend. Brown as Chancellor was a disaster for the UK, selling off our gold at rock bottom prices and encouraging cheap credit and debt to mount up.

If you want to believe the Tories have created all the problems in just 18 months but nuLabour, in power for 13 years were all angels and not responsible for the wreck they left the Tories to clean up then you are deluded. Remember it was Brown the nuLabour Prime Minister who, in 2008, frittered away billions by bailing out the banks not the Tories.

Besides, if Labour had been re-elected in 2010, they would have been making the same or bigger cuts to bring down the defecit as the coalition have. But it makes a much nicer sound bite to pin it all on the nasty, evil, child-eating Tories (rolls eyes).

LePruneDeMaTante · 29/12/2011 15:10

The jury's well out on whether or not the previous government got us into this, so while the country's professional economists can't agree, it's ridiculous to be blaming them wholesale for what this bunch of bastards are doing Confused

SardineQueen · 29/12/2011 14:44

"3k extra for childcare support is a pretty bloody good deal, especially for those on very low incomes with families"

Implying it is still useful for those without families?

That's made me snigger Grin

madhatter80 · 29/12/2011 14:25

Peachy - I assume you are on the list for social housing. In most boroughs, if you are severely disabled or have disabled children you would be at the top of the list for social housing, so I imagine you would be rehoused at some point. The problem is there are very few social homes that have 4 beds (are you in London) and the waiting lists are huge, hence why the government has been paying private landlords housing benefit. As I said earlier, if only Labour had bothered to build some council houses over their 13 year governance.

My 2 dc share a room and we are in the private rented sector. Would love to have rooms for each of them but we just can't afford it.

Peachy · 29/12/2011 13:33

No, same rules for social housizng apply whatever as we are not yet officially homeless.

Income halving as Dh graduates and student loan / grant menas that obviously ends; DH works but only PT so needs to rebuild. He retrained post redundancy.

LA doesn;t cover private rents these days, and will for far less again shortly as amunts being reduced steadily. Were we on full HB we'd be £150 short per calendar month but no LL is likely to lease to us with our boys and it would mean moving away from catchment of the SNU we fought for 3 years to get ds3 into.

madhatter80 · 29/12/2011 13:01

Peachy - exactly my point. It is not the workless who are losing their benefits, it is going to be low and middle income earners.

Of course not everyone has access to social housing but those who don't live in council accommodation get local housing allowance, meaning they get their accommodation paid for by other taxpayers who have to use their own after tax salary to fund their accommodation (like myself and my husband).

I don't know what you mean by social services decree. Surely if you need more rooms due to severe disability of your children then you should be in the highest priority for social housing? Also, if you become homeless you will become priority to be rehoused in social housing. If only Labour had built some council houses during their 13 years in power, we wouldn't have to pay private landlords crazy amounts to rent their houses.

May I ask why your income is halving?

Peachy · 29/12/2011 12:16

You are assuming people ahve access to council accom Mad; many like us are working poor who have to stay in rental becuase of a shortage of LA Accom. Our income will halve this year and it is likely we will spend a period as homeless not becuase of unwillingness to work- at no time in our marriage have we been without an earner- but becuase of my carer status limiting what I can do and a lack of childcare.

We need a 4 bedroom house by social services decree due to risk factors from our children's disability: there is no enhanced payment under HB now for those using a four bedroom house whatever the reason so likely we will end up with the boys being in foster care for a period too. Cheers!

madhatter80 · 23/12/2011 13:33

Actually, it is more the middle income earners who are really on the receiving end of the cuts. A family of 4 (2 adults and 2 kids) with one earner on £43k per year will lose their child tax credits and child benefit in 2012-2013. They are not entitled to free school meals, housing benefit, income support, free prescriptions or subsidised childcare for 2 year olds. They will receive a total of £31,500 pa after tax and NI has been taken off and have to pay all their bills, housing etc from that.

In contrast a family of exactly the same composition, with both parents unemployed and 2 children would be entitled to housing benefit, jobseekers allowance or income support, child tax credits, child benefit, free school meals, free prescriptions, free childcare for 2 year olds, plus loads of other perks. They will also be getting a 5% rise in their benefits from next year, so they would actually be better off than the family with one higher rate taxpayer without having to commute to work every day.

The definition of poverty is also flawed because it is relative poverty so if someone is only getting 60% or less of the median income in the UK, they are classed as being in poverty. This means that if everyone is earning £100, but you are earning £59k, then you would be classed as poor.

Also, it doesn't take into account that you can be better off without earning as much. For example, a family in a 3 bed council flat with rent of £100 per week but only earning £20k might be financially better off than a family in a 2 bed private rental paying £300 per week earning £30k (before tax).

Also, I have to agree with some of the other posts - it is very easy to blame the coalition but if it wasn't for nuLabour's reckless spending from the tree of never ending money, then none of these cuts would be necessary in the first place.

Taghain · 14/12/2011 17:27

Extra childcare support is only useful if the carer can find a job. If they can't, where's the benefit?

youngermother1 · 04/12/2011 00:38

Apologies for an error - it was something I read somewhere. Having looked at the governemnt data here www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_year2005_0.html#ukgs302F0 which enables you to look at each year, shows that for the first 3 years from 1997, when the Labour party followed Tory spending plans, growth was 2%-3% per year, in line with inflation. From 2001 to 2010, the growth was over 5% each year, averaging 7%, well above inflation.
Average 5 year growth is in excess of 30% and total spending growth from 1997-2010 was 110%.
Net debt in 1997 was £348bn and in 2010 was £760bn, an increase of 118%, ie all the increased spending was debt funded.
Basically everything the Labour party did was mortgaged on the future and none was based on what we can afford.
The current government is trying to stop spending money we don't have which means making difficult choices. These are either spending cuts or additional taxation. Raising tax rates does not raise additional income as was shown in the late 70's and early 80's. (in 1979, the top rate of tax on earned income was 83% -with a basic rate of 33%.) The government from then to 1997 reduced rates and earned more tax income, mainly due to lower avoidance and being attractive to tax payers. The labour government realised the truth of this and did not change rates between 1997-2010.
In reality, the only way to reduce our borrowing is to cut spending. Unfortunately spending is on the lower earners, so this is cut.

I do not see any other route and wish one existed - if I have missed something please tell me.

breadandbutterfly · 03/12/2011 18:49

youngermother - you claimed earlier that Labour "increased public sector spending by 50% in 5 years " - how does that tally with your post above that states that "public spending went from 39.9% of GDP in 1997 to 48.1% in 2010" - more like a 25% increase over 13 years, by my rough calculation?

youngermother1 · 03/12/2011 14:13

Look also here www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn92.pdf. This shows that public spending went from 39.9% of GDP in 1997 to 48.1% in 2010. Also UK had the world's 2nd largest increase in govt spending between 1997-2007, so excludes any money spend because of the financial crisis. Ie the Labour party were spending massively in the boom years.
Also, if productivity had remained constant, rather than fallen, the govt would have saved £42.5bn a year in spending.
Vast increase in spending, no reforms, all driven by borrowing. This was the the Labour legacy that is now being dealt with - hence the note left in the Chancellors office for the incoming conservatives - 'there is no money left'. www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/17/liam-byrne-note-successor

Disputandum · 03/12/2011 13:00

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism say that their data came from H M Treasury's Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2009 (available on HM Treasury's website) and 2400 FOI requests to local councils.

Disputandum · 03/12/2011 12:53

B&B, the article says 'in real terms' which suggests that inflation has been taken out of the equation.

Sevenfold · 03/12/2011 12:27

seeing as a lot of the hardets hit are disabled, the assumption that the poor are in charge of their own destiny is rubbish

breadandbutterfly · 03/12/2011 12:26

AnnieLobeseder - hear, hear.

breadandbutterfly · 03/12/2011 12:25

Disputandem - source for those figures? Is inflation included or not - if not, the figures are somewhat meaningless.

Swipe left for the next trending thread