TOP STORIES
CARTOONS
MAGIC MONEY TREE
POSH GRAMMAR
OSBORNE KERCHING!!
PROMISES PROMISES
SOUTHERN FAIL
DUMB POLLSTERS
DON'T BLAME TRUMP!
£13bn APPLE TAX DODGE
SAFE SEATS = BREXIT?
UKIP v LABOUR
ALL OUT OF IT TOGETHER
EU IMMIGRATION
TORY v TORY
PRISON SUICIDES
LONDON LEAVES UK!
EU v TORY MANDATE
HMRC IS A TAX HAVEN
PANAMA TAX LEAK
IDS v IDS
RICH v POOR
POSH BOYS
HELP2BUY PROFITEERS
LLOYDS, RBS CEO PAY
HSBC DRUG MONEY
PM'S MUM FIGHTS CUTS
PEAK "STUFF" IS HERE
HMRC GOOGLY
PENSION TAX RAID
Showing posts with label benefits. Show all posts
Showing posts with label benefits. Show all posts

Saturday, 13 May 2017

Saturday, May 13, 2017 Posted by Hari No comments Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,
A pound’s worth of product is not worth a pound when you’ve made it. It’s worth a pound when someone has bought it. That’s why Britain needs a pay rise.

There’s no rise in UK sales without a rise in UK incomes. That’s why we’ve not had a recovery. Only a recovery in credit card debt!

Whichever party understands that, vote for them.

Wages have flatlined since July 2005, says the Office for National Statistics. But it’s worse than that. Notoriously, the Average Weekly Earnings (AWE) data never include the earnings of the self employed, which have been getting worse, so that means there has been an overall decline.


If you’ve been one of the lucky ones who have seen his/her earnings increase, you have a counterpart who saw the opposite. As the graph tells us, the more you earned the more someone else didn’t. So if you’re trying to sell them something, you’re in trouble too.

Those people earning less: are they all lazy and stupid? Nigh on half the workforce?!

A balance must be struck between earnings rising too fast (businesses and their customers can’t afford it. So the business goes bust) and too slow or not at all (businesses can fill their shelves, but nobody can afford to buy the damn stuff. So the business goes bust). That balance has been lost since the 1970s. For too long wages, as a percentage of the nation’s GDP, have been falling.

 

That 10% drop in the UK’s wages bill, compared to 50 years ago, equates to around £100bn a year in spending being taken off our high streets.

Now take a look at the list of sectors where wages are falling. If your business depends on selling to people working in those sectors, you’d better pray they get a pay rise.




Yes, I said pray. Because businesses, in competition, find it genuinely difficult to coordinate a pay rise lest someone breaks ranks and win-wins by keeping pay down while selling to those who got the rise. That’s why unions do us all a favour, by coordinating that pay rise. Government too, by legislating that rise.

The Resolution Foundation, digging into Office for National Statistics data on wages, says around 40 per cent of the workforce are in sectors where pay is falling in real terms.

This is despite another “good performance” on jobs, with fast growth in hours worked, employment remaining at a record high and unemployment falling by 45,000. Although, notoriously again, the official employment data says anyone who has worked a measly one hour a week is “employed”. One hour! What a job that must be!

We’re wasting our time if jobs are being created, but incomes aren’t rising. We’re driving with the hand brake on.

“But having a job matters more than having a pay rise!” says the tub thumping right, who see low pay as a way of creating jobs. These are the same people who say “Those Commies, they think full employment matters more than growing the economy.” They’re asking for the same thing as the Commies now. Beautiful! Someone should tell them that if wages don’t rise, economies simply don’t grow *.

 


* ...except, of course, through immigration. More people, more GDP. Simples. No wonder neither New Labour nor the Tories cut immigration. Immigration is not the cause of our problems **, it’s the only thing that’s making our economy look as though it has a future.

** Do you seriously think if the population had risen through more British babies instead of immigrants, those past governments would have built the 250,000 houses a year we need, increased spending on the NHS and schools to shorten those queues, and raised those wages?

Sunday, 26 March 2017

Sunday, March 26, 2017 Posted by Hari 1 comment Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Almost four decades of widening inequality caused Brexit. Who seriously thinks we’d have voted Brexit if low-end wages had risen in line with growing national wealth? If low income workers had been saving, rather than borrowing or going without? Instead, since 1979, the Tories increased inequality. Worse, Labour failed to reverse it. In fact, it crept up further. Immigration and the EU is getting the blame for that poverty. But neither caused it.

Source: Institute for Fiscal Studies http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/4637
NOTE: The “Gini coefficient” is an internationally used measure of inequality, where zero corresponds with perfect equality (where everyone has the same income) and 1 corresponds with perfect inequality (where one person has all the income, and everyone else has zero income).

Inequality so what? It means we’ve become a nation of borrowers. Since the 1980s the bottom 50% have actually had to borrow money to cover their living costs. As the graph shows, the poorer you are, the more you had to borrow. And before you shout “If you can’t afford it, don’t buy it!” where do you think that huge chunk of the nation’s high street spending is going to come from, that’s paying your wages?! The "Savings Ratio" in the graph shows what percentage of income different groups (the poorest to the richest) save. A negative Savings Ratio means they are borrowing. 





SOURCE: Resolution Foundation report "Gaining from growth: The final report of the Commission on Living Standards"

So, anyone hoping that Brexit voters will change their mind before the EU plug is pulled must therefore pray that inequality gets better. But Chancellor Philip Hammond’s budget is about to make it worse.

Here’s a graph of how incomes changed in the first four years of the “cataclysmically awful” bank bust (2007/8 to 2011/12), overlaid with how incomes will change thanks to Hammond’s budget (2016/17 to 2021/22).

SOURCE: Resolution Foundation report: “Are we nearly there yet? Spring Budget 2017 and the 15 year squeeze on family and public finances”

The lines show household net income growth (i.e. after including tax and benefits, and housing costs) for all working-age households. The poorest are on the left, the richest on the right. The bank-bust brown line shows everyone’s growth was negative, but the poorest suffered least and the super-rich most. Hammond’s blue line shows the poorest will suffer more than anyone has since 2007/8, while incomes will actually grow for the top 50%, the richer the better.

The graph comes from a report by the Resolution Foundation, who said: “the final four years of the current parliament look like being worse for poorer households than the financial crisis period itself.”

And before you accuse the Resolution Foundation of being too lefty, its boss is David Willetts, the Tory peer and former cabinet minister.

Someone needs to tell Hammond that a recovery needs people to spend money. But Hammond’s plan is to give more money to people who will save it, and less to people who would spend it. It’s not going to work. Duh!


What of UK average earnings as a whole? Overall, has the UK got a pay rise yet, since the bank bust? Paul Johnson is the boss of the Institute for Fiscal Studies. The IFS is one of the few research bodies that politicians don’t argue with, such is the robustness of their work. He said: “On current forecasts average earnings will be no higher in 2022 than they were in 2007. Fifteen years without a pay rise. I’m rather lost for superlatives. This is completely unprecedented.”


Unprecedented. The never-ending stagnation has forced commentators to dive deeper and deeper into their tattered history books as every year passes. Yup, this has been the worst recovery for wages since... Napoleonic times!



SOURCE: Resolution Foundation report: “Are we nearly there yet? Spring Budget 2017 and the 15 year squeeze on family and public finances”

The Resolution Foundation report confirms it: “we are on course for average pay across the decade to 2020 to be lower than the average for the decade before. That would represent the worst decade for real earnings growth in 210 years.”

“But Brexit is not simply about inequality and wages. Get real! Plenty of Brexiters just don’t like immigration and the EU.” Sure, but there aren’t nearly enough of them to win a referendum on their own.

Both Theresa May and Philip Hammond voted Remain. Now they are the PM and Chancellor of Brexit Britain. What are they doing to prove their Brexit credentials? By deepening inequality, they ensure the fervour for Brexit never goes away. I guess that’s kind of pro-Brexit.

Saturday, 11 March 2017

Saturday, March 11, 2017 Posted by Hari No comments Labels: , , , , , , , ,
Fee and Chris wonder whether a female PM's chancellor will do better...

SOURCE GUARDIAN: Women bearing 86% of austerity burden, Commons figures reveal
Labour has urged the Conservatives to carry out a gender audit of its tax and spending policies, as the shadow equalities minister, Sarah Champion, published analysis showing that 86% of the burden of austerity since 2010 has fallen on women. Champion said research carried out by the House of Commons library revealed that women were paying a “disproportionate” price for balancing the government’s books. The analysis is based on tax and benefit changes since 2010, with the losses apportioned to whichever individual within a household receives the payments. In total, the analysis estimates that the cuts will have cost women a total of £79bn since 2010, against £13bn for men. It shows that, by 2020, men will have borne just 14% of the total burden of welfare cuts, compared with 86% for women. Many of the cuts announced in earlier years by former chancellor George Osborne, including a four-year freeze on many in-work benefits and reductions in the universal credit, are yet to bite. Hammond has loosened Osborne’s fiscal rules, but he will press ahead with most of the pre-planned austerity measures – though the tax credits rebellion forced the government to promise not to look for fresh savings from the welfare bill in future years. Mary-Ann Stephenson, co-director of the Women’s Budget Group lobby group, condemned the Tories in light of the new research. She said: “The chancellor’s decision to continue with the decisions of his predecessor to cut social security for these low income families, at the same time as cutting taxes, is effectively a transfer from the purses of poorer women into the wallets of richer men.” The government publishes an analysis of the differential impact of its policies at different points on the income scale, but does not carry out a gender analysis.


OUR RELATED STORIES:

Why does everyone say inequality is falling, when it's rising? Because they're only counting incomes, not all wealth (property, pensions, etc.)

The NHS is not a “cost”. It creates nationwide jobs, technology, growth and wealth. Oh, and health

FTSE bosses take 2.5 days to earn what you earn all year. Data shows they don't deserve it

All governments agree to fix the housing crisis. Latest figures show we're still not even trying

Recovery? What recovery?! Bank of England director explains why broke Britain is still broken

Brexit was about inequality in Britain, not immigration. Have our politicians realised this?

See the Stats: Osborne's 2016 budget protected the wealthiest while the most vulnerable suffer

Inequality: the UK has 9 of the 10 poorest regions in Northern Europe. But Inner London is the richest

Graphs at a glance: With highest pay and highest job growth is London sucking the life out of Britain?

Londoners earn 15% more 'cos London is damn expensive! But the poorest 5th in London are paid only 4% more

Graphs at a glance: Britain is already a low-pay economy with falling average wages

Is your Cost of Living crisis over?! Average wages are still back where they were 10 years ago


Saturday, 25 February 2017

Saturday, February 25, 2017 Posted by Hari 1 comment Labels: , , , , , , ,
Inequality has reduced!

No it hasn’t.

Yes it has! I heard Dimbleby say it on Question Time. And the Lefties all nodded solemnly.

“...the statistics show the gap is narrowing” David Dimbleby 2nd February 2017

That’s because they‘re all clueless.

Never!

They don’t realise they’re only talking about income inequality, not wealth inequality.

What’s that?

Wealth inequality measures all your assets – property, shares, pension pot, that sort of thing.

You mean the really big numbers.

Right. Income is just what’s going into your bank account – pay, dividends, pension payouts, and the rest. Net Income – what they’re referring to when they talk about income inequality - is all that after benefits and taxes have been added and subtracted.

Let me guess. Wealth inequality has risen?

You win a free Question Time T-shirt and nodding duck pencil sharpener. Generally, asset prices have continued to recover since the bank crash, but the poor hardly have any assets!

So the gap between rich and poor continues to rise.

Yup.

And what of the gap between Dimbleby’s ears, and the ears of every card carrying leftie who hasn’t bothered to use this shocking fact that would make every working hour of their lives so much easier?

Hmm. No official data on that one. Looks like the Office for National Statistics needs to tear itself a whole new index.




The background data


Wealth inequality is almost twice that of income inequality. The overall Gini coefficient (the official measure of inequality, where 0=minimum and 1=maximum) for net income is 0.34, while that for total wealth is 0.64.
HRP = age of household reference person


Wealth in Great Britain is even more unequally divided than income. The richest 10% of households hold 45% of all wealth. The poorest 50%, by contrast, own just 8.7%.
 


Wealth inequality is rising. The ONS report says: “In July 2012 to June 2014, the wealthiest 20% of households had 117 times more aggregate total wealth than the least wealthy 20% of households. In comparison, the wealthiest 20% of households had 97 times more aggregate total wealth than the least wealthy 20% of households in July 2010 to June 2012.”

It goes on the explain: “Figure 2.10 shows the median household total wealth by the levels of household net equivalised income. Households in the lowest band of income had the lowest median household total wealth, while those households in the highest income band had the highest. During July 2012 to June 2014, households in the lowest income band had a median household total wealth of £34,000 while for the highest income group that was over 26 times as big, £225,100. Between the 2 survey periods shown, the median value for those in the lowest 3 income bands fell, whilst the median value of household total wealth increased across all other income bands. The median value of household total wealth fell the most in the lowest income decile, with a 38% fall seen between July 2010 to June 2012 and July 2012 to June 2014, and the largest increase was seen in the top 2 income deciles, with a 19% increase in the median value seen over the same period.”


The South East’s median household total wealth (£342,400) is over twice that of the North East (£150,000). It's another sign of the growing divide between the south and the rest.
Office for National Statistics: Total wealth, Wealth in Great Britain, 2012 to 2014 (Chapter 2)


The poorer regions have got poorer. Yorkshire and The Humber saw a fall in median household total wealth of 8% between July 2010 to June 2012 and July 2012 to June 2014. Smaller falls were also seen in the West Midlands (2%) and East Midlands (1%).


Even income inequality is on an upward trend, when you include housing costs: essential costs like rent or mortgage interest, water charges, insurance premiums, and service charges. This is important as such costs can hardly be avoided. The Resolution Foundation report says “Looking at the 90/10 ratio, income inequality before housing costs peaked in 1991 and has been largely flat or falling since then. But after housing costs, this ratio was higher in 2014-15 than at any point in the 1980s or 1990s.”

Resolution Foundation: Living Standards 2017

Tuesday, 10 January 2017

Tuesday, January 10, 2017 Posted by Hari No comments Labels: , , , , , , , , ,
KJ and Fee celebrate Theresa May's Tory u-turn, for the moment...
For we know what happens when mainstream, centre-ground politics fails. People embrace the fringe – the politics of division and despair. They turn to those who offer easy answers – who claim to understand people’s problems and always know what – and who – to blame. We see those fringe voices gaining prominence in some countries across Europe today – voices from the hard-left and the far-right stepping forward and sensing that this is their time. But they stand on the shoulders of mainstream politicians who have allowed unfairness and division to grow by ignoring the legitimate concerns of ordinary people for too long. Politicians who embraced the twin pillars of liberalism and globalisation as the great forces for good that they are, but failed to understand that for too many people – particularly those on modest to low incomes living in rich countries like our own – those forces are something to be concerned, not thrilled, about. Politicians who supported and promoted an economic system that works well for a privileged few, but failed to ensure that the prosperity generated by free markets and free trade is shared by everyone, in every corner and community of their land.

The plans aim to make mental health an everyday concern for every bit of the system, helping ensure that no one affected by mental ill-health goes unattended. It includes... new ways to right the injustices people with mental health problems face. Despite known links between debt and mental health, currently hundreds of mental health patients are charged up to £300 by their GP for a form to prove they have mental health issues.


OUR RELATED STORIES:

FTSE bosses take 2.5 days to earn what you earn all year. Data shows they don't deserve it

All governments agree to fix the housing crisis. Latest figures show we're still not even trying

Recovery? What recovery?! Bank of England director explains why broke Britain is still broken

Brexit was about inequality in Britain, not immigration. Have our politicians realised this?

See the Stats: Osborne's 2016 budget protected the wealthiest while the most vulnerable suffer

Inequality: the UK has 9 of the 10 poorest regions in Northern Europe. But Inner London is the richest

Graphs at a glance: With highest pay and highest job growth is London sucking the life out of Britain?

Londoners earn 15% more 'cos London is damn expensive! But the poorest 5th in London are paid only 4% more

Graphs at a glance: Britain is already a low-pay economy with falling average wages

Is your Cost of Living crisis over?! Average wages are still back where they were 10 years ago


Wednesday, 8 June 2016

Wednesday, June 08, 2016 Posted by Hari 1 comment Labels: , , , ,


WELFARE FOR THE WEALTHY
By tax specialist Jolyon Maugham QC at www.waitingfortax.com
Twitter @JolyonMaugham


This year we’ll collect a little less than £170bn of income tax, roughly a third of all tax receipts. We’ll also forego through reliefs about £30bn of income tax.

Spread evenly amongst the population that £30bn would deliver to every man, woman and child almost £500 a year.

But it isn’t. It goes overwhelmingly to those who need it least. And that’s not mere happenstance. It’s the inevitable consequence of two deliberate policy choices: to distribute that £30bn through the tax system. And to fail to monitor what good it does.

Let me give some specifics.

Last year we spent £480m per annum rewarding those who earn more than £54,000 per annum and make gifts to charities. We spent nothing rewarding those who earn less.

This year we’ll spend £2.6bn per annum encouraging saving in ISAs. But the average ISA holder with annual earnings of more than £150,000 will get – through higher savings relieved from income tax at higher rates – well over 6 times as much tax relief as her equivalent earning between £20,000 and £30,000 per annum.

In 2013/14 the highest earning 1% of taxpayers made almost 13% of all contributions to pension schemes. Pension scheme relief costs £21bn in income tax foregone. But that 1% of taxpayers – roughly 0.5% of adults – will get even more than 13% of that £21bn because we give them a larger tax bonus than those who earn less.

HMRC doesn’t publish much data on how the benefit of these reliefs is distributed between rich and poor. By and large you have to stitch the statistics together.

But HMRC does track one particular sub-set of reliefs: “Allowances given as tax reductions”. It comprises, in particular, Venture Capital Tax Relief, Enterprise Investment Scheme Relief and Seed Enterprise Investment Scheme Relief. Remarkably Additional Rate Payers – those earning over £150,000 – receive 69% by value of those reliefs. That figure has risen every year since 2010/11.

More striking still, the highest earning 15,000 taxpayers – an almost homeopathic 0.05% of all taxpayers – netted 5.5% of total deductions and reliefs. Most will have seen six figure reductions to their income tax bills.

Why is this? Should we be concerned?

It’s hard to find sense in it.

Take pension tax relief as an example.

The more you earn, the more likely you are to have surplus income. Because you have surplus income you’re less in need of incentives to save for your retirement. But the tax system gives you more.

That’s not sensible policy. It’s a wasteful bung.

We can make the same argument for ISAs. If a couple can afford to save what the median household earns (after direct taxes and benefits) – and that’s what the annual ISA limit for a couple represents – why do we spend money giving them incentives to save? If there’s money to be spent, surely we bolster the position of those who struggle to save rather than those compelled to by surplus income.

We don’t need to reward the wealthy for making donations to charity. The impulse to donate is a civic responsibility. It doesn’t need to be greased. Only the wealthy win, and the causes they prioritise. Good for Opera Houses; Youth Clubs, not so much.

These – I can put it no politer than ‘anomalies’ – have two related causes.

First, we deliver these reliefs through the tax system. It must be this that has led us unthinkingly to give most generously to those who have the highest earnings and so pay the most tax. But to achieve the public ends these tax reliefs serve does not require that we forego the most from those who pay the most.

That brings us to the second. We have no mechanism for assessing what public good we achieve with this £30bn. The absence means our political class need not confront the question. And what they can pretend they don’t know they can pretend they needn’t remedy. This state of affairs is convenient to them. Because the noise made by the losers from tax decisions tends to drown out the applause from those who’ve won.

But there is an answer. And a precedent.

Interest rates decisions were once heavily politicised. Were they still, now, in the hands of the Government the UK would be a more dangerous place. After seven years of near zero interest rates could any Government hold the line between depositor pensioners and the borrower working age population? But, devolved to the Bank of England, the political heat has simply evaporated.

As it was with interest rate decisions, so it could be with tax reliefs. Value for money assessments, decisions around functioning, decisions around shape; all these could be devolved to an independent body such as the Office for Budget Responsibility. Over time, and insulated from political heat, it could reshape tax reliefs to operate in the public interest.

Tuesday, 29 March 2016

Tuesday, March 29, 2016 Posted by Hari No comments Labels: , , , , , ,

SOURCE TELEGRAPH: Iain Duncan Smith resigns as Work and Pensions Secretary in protest at cuts to disability benefits
Iain Duncan Smith has dramatically resigned from the Government in protest at George Osborne's proposed cuts to benefits for the disabled. The former Conservative leader said that plans to cut the benefits paid to the disabled by more than £1 billion were a "compromise too far." He added that they are "not defensible" when announced alongside a budget that benefits higher earning taxpayers. Mr Duncan Smith also accused the Chancellor of forcing through cuts to welfare for "political" rather than national economic reasons. George Osborne had offered to delay planned changes to disability benefits with sources saying they would be "kicked into the long grass". However, the offer was not enough to prevent Mr Duncan Smith, a former Conservative leader, from walking out of the Government. He added: "I am unable to watch passively whilst certain policies are enacted in order to meet the fiscal self imposed restraints that I believe are more and more perceived as distinctly political rather than in the national economic interest. "Too often my team and I have been pressured in the immediate run up to a budget or fiscal event to deliver yet more reductions to the working age benefit bill. There has been too much emphasis on money saving exercises and not enough awareness from the Treasury, in particular, that the government's vision of a new welfare-to-work system could not be repeatedly salami-sliced." He made it clear in his letter than he believes the Government should instead be focussing on reducing benefits for pensioners which have largely been protected during the austerity drive.


OUR RELATED STORIES:

Tory promises of "Low Tax, High Pay" has given us higher taxes & lower pay. See the stats

Is your Cost of Living crisis over?! Average wages are still back where they were 10 years ago

Graphs at a glance: Budget 2014 document shows we’re growing through borrowing. Again. That's why Britain needs a pay rise



Friday, 25 March 2016

Friday, March 25, 2016 Posted by Hari No comments Labels: , , , , , , , ,
Fee and KJ do the sums...

SOURCE GUARDIAN: Latest budget preserves income of wealthier households, while poorest could lose 12% of their income by 2019
Iain Duncan Smith resigned as the Tory work and pensions secretary on Friday, accusing chancellor George Osborne of delivering a “deeply unfair” budget that inflicted substantial reductions in disability benefits while offering tax cuts for the most affluent. Sustained benefit cuts will result in many households in the bottom 20% of earners losing up to 12% of their income by 2019, according to a report published on Monday by the influential Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS). Meanwhile, households in the top half of income brackets will be no worse off and even the poorest pensioners will be 2% in the red at most. Paul Johnson, the director of the IFS, said: “Raising the threshold for paying higher-rate tax is clearly helping people in the middle- and upper-income brackets, while the cuts to benefits reduce the incomes of families on lower incomes.” He highlighted the switch from tax credits to universal credit as a major blow to working households at the bottom of the income scale. “Once universal credit is in place, the benefit system is much less generous,” he said. A chart in the report illustrating the impact of tax and benefit changes until the end of the current parliament shows the lowest 10% of households with children losing almost 10% of their income, while the next band lose more than 12%. The poorest 10% of pensioners lose 2% of their income; pensioners in the top 20% of earners gain or avoid losing any income at all.



OUR RELATED STORIES:

Tory promises of "Low Tax, High Pay" has given us higher taxes & lower pay. See the stats

Is your Cost of Living crisis over?! Average wages are still back where they were 10 years ago

Graphs at a glance: Budget 2014 document shows we’re growing through borrowing. Again. That's why Britain needs a pay rise

Share This

Follow Us

  • Subscribe via Email

Search Us