Inequality in Britain

[????]

I think the squeeze on welfare will largely be means tested benefits and so will effect the middle class far more than the poorest. The cuts in public spending will largely effect the white collar middle class public sector too (who is largely who Labour represent and draws most of its membership and MPs from too). I don't think it will be increase inequality just makes all tax payers poorer (infact very socialist).

Sadly as I get older I do feel that Labour governments are more likely to bugger up the public finances the tories then have the discipline and lack of reliance on Public Sector voters to get them on keel again by being tough, they then get called 'nasty cutters' get voted out and back in with free money comes Labour....and so it goes on.

The boom beneffited the majority of us (bankers and the Treasury the most granted) with lovely house price increases for homeowners, massive investment in shiny new everything in the Public Sector, tax credits, Sure Start, etc etc but sadly the bust (that was never going to happen HA HA HA) has hung us all out to dry but especially the 1 million new jobs created in the Public Sector in 13 years of Labour government.

[Odyssey]

And?:))

[Ladymuck]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think the squeeze on welfare will largely be

> means tested benefits and so will effect the

> middle class far more than the poorest.

Quids, did you mistakenly type "means tested" instead of "non-means tested" benefits? Or, put another way, did you mean to type "non-means tested"? It's just that you suggest that, as the cuts are to impact on mainly "means tested" benefits, that it is - as a consequence - the middle class that are going to take the hit? Surely it is the poorest who are going to lose out as it is they who succeed with such claims (on the grounds of lack of means). Currently, the better off usually fail the tests for means tested benefits and are therefore not eligible anyway. Just clarifying before I post a response. (Apologies if I have completely got the wrong end of the stick here:-S).

[????]

I meant that they are likely to introduce means testing to some currently Universal Benefits Lady M.

[Ladymuck]

Ah! Just as well I asked - I did have the completely wrong end of the stick! Thank you for clarifying Quids.

Well in that case, I may as well wait for the Emergency Budget on Tuesday - no point in trying to second guess at this stage. I suspect that those of us who can still afford to do so, are going to be needing a couple of stiff drinks in order to escape from the horror of it though. We shall see.

[Ladymuck]

Well, haven't really commented on the measures within the Budget as Mick Mac has started a "Budget" thread which is going strong.

However, I would just repeat here that I believe that, contrary to what George Osbourne said, the effect of this budget is that it is regressive.

From the Independent: Mr Osborne has added to the burden on the rich, but only by about 1 per cent of their average income, bringing the total loss in their income as a result of current tax and benefit measures to about 7.5 per cent. Thus the Chancellor has placed about two-and-a-half times the burden on the poorest as he has on the richest ? a loss of 2.5 per cent against one of 1 per cent. Full article here.

Sure, few of us will escape it's effect, but it will be those with the least who will be the hardest hit. Bad news for the poorest I think (and for fairness/equality generally).

[????]

...and, as I said before if we, the country, go bust they'll be far worse off than 2.5% down but lets keep it all 'equal' for the sake of 'fairness'... it is the most efficient way of raising tax take, it's now in line with most EU countries and it is actually a tax on spending on non-neccessities....but, the mantra of horrible cutters will bleat on and on and on no doubt, if the airwaves and Usual supects in the media today are anything to go by.

[????]

Where would you get the extra ?15bn a year without a hike to 20% LadyM? Not easy making tough decisions in tough times, that's what the LDs are now finding out as they are actually in government and are facing up to their responsibilities well. Those in financial LALA land or seeking to make political capital out of it are beating them with the obvious stick....Labour would have done it in my opinion and are now just doing 'yah booh'.

Sarah Lucas has a plan involving massive income tax rises but the Greens ideologically don't want economic growth and their polocies sure as hell would see to that.

[Ladymuck]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ...and, as I said before if we, the country, go

> bust they'll be far worse off than 2.5% down but

> lets keep it all 'equal' for the sake of

> 'fairness'...

Yes...yes...Quids...I am not disputing the fact that, should the country "go bust" we will all be worse off...yada yada yada. (I am trying my darndest not to think of that potentiality, to be honest).

My point is simply that, when George Osbourne made his recent budget speech, whilst he conceded that overall we would all have to pay something towards reducing this deficit (quite rightly in my opinion), he also said that the lowest paid would pay proportionally less than the highest paid. Furthermore, he actually stated: "it is a progressive budget". That, to my mind anyway, is (and I am being generous here) a misrepresentation of the facts. As shown above, the budget contains several measures which are nothing short of regressive. This is bad news for the poorest/most vulnerable members of our society. Moreover, it has the potential to increase the income equality gap even further - and that cannot be right. It is manifestly unfair.

But hey, let's get our coshes out and beat the poor further into the ground...keep them in their place!

[Ladymuck]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Where would you get the extra ?15bn a year without

> a hike to 20% LadyM? Not easy making tough

> decisions in tough times...

> Sarah Lucas...

I agree that it cannot be easy for any politician at present...I certainly wouldn't wish to be in their shoes.

However, I cannot help but feel that the coalition could have re-introduced Labour's tax on bank bonuses and made it a little more permanent - say for a further term of 2 years.

Regarding the new VAT rate of 20%, I would have been much happier had specific provision been put in place to compensate the very poorest for the additional hardship this will undoubtedly cause them - an increase in certain means-tested benefits perhaps?. Has such a measure even been considered?

Another way the coalition could have collected extra cash would have been to amend the current law on non-domiciled individuals to ensure that such individuals pay a fairer (i.e. larger) share of tax in the UK.

Just a couple of examples which spring to mind - though, my maths being rubbish, I couldn't tell you whether these measures, if implemented, would raise the ?15 billion a year required. Any accountants/tax lawyers out there?

And...erm...who the heck is Sarah Lucas? (Presumably you meant Caroline?)

[DJKillaQueen]

The coalition doesn't really care about the poor, esp the unemployed. They have no intention of increasing benefits in real terms and the language of the attack on welfare recipients has horrified me. Someone on JSA gets just ?65 a week and currently their rent and coucil tax paid. After a couple of months it is impossible to live on that - so this idea that the coalition have that there is no incentive to find work is nonsense.

Those on Incap or ESA get at most ?91 a week and have to pay part of their rent and council tax (only the severely physically or mentally disabled get extra money such as DLA and Carer's Allowance). In reality they are only ?12 a week better off than those on JSA. The government wants to force as many of those as poss onto the cheaper JSA and then wants to cap Housing Benefit at ?440 per month which will effectively make homeless around two million (private sector tenant) families, according to SHELTER, many of whom are low waged and currently see their rent part paid by HB because they don't earn enough to pay it in full.

Add to that, that the poor pay proportionally more for many things, fuel being the most obvious where those with prepayment meters are paying anything up to 20% more than other customers for their gas and electric and if they have a fuel debt are not allowed to switch to a cheaper supplier, effectively locking them out from market competition. Increasingly, many unemployed people are turning to food charities because they can not pay their basic day to day bills and buy food.

It is estimated that around one third of the adult working population is unemployed or in receipt of some kind of top up benefit. Unemployment amongst 16-25 year olds is almost 25%.

We need around 8 million new jobs - this isn't going to happen of course, but having said that the government might do better to focus on regeneration of business in areas of high unemployment instead of further beating already demoralised and marginalised people and telling those with council tenancies to give them up and move (presumably to the already overcrowded south).

The simplest and fairest way to collect tax is through income tax. It has mystified me this aversion to raising income tax by recent governments.

[Ladymuck]

Yep, the coalition appears to be showing very little concern for the unemployed or for unemployment in the future. Very shortsighted in my opinion.

[DJKillaQueen]

They've shot themselves in the foot really....with policies that will increase unemployment on the one hand, and a desire to cut the welfare bill on the other.....while at the same time acting as though they have the answers for the long term unemployed (and not really wanting to invest anything into them).

Economic measures aside (as any government coming into power would have had hard chices to make), so much of what the coalition has decided upon is a reflection of conservative prejudice against the unemployed rather than any sound policy to make the country a better fairer place. It's exactly the same rhetoric as spouted in the 80s. Even the middle-classes have been hit (although only by taking away some of what the previous Labour governemnt gave them) whilst the rich will still continue to pay proportionally less for everything.

The other issue of course is that 33% of working people earn less than ?7 per hour and most of them need Housing Benefit (by far the most expensive benefit expense to the country) to subsidise their rents. They could cut the welfare bill easily by capping what Landlords can charge, but of course no-one has the guts to really tackle the banks and their lucrative housing market. So meanwhile tax payers subsidise landlords mortgages and effectively buy their houses for them, and politicians will carry on as though nothing is wrong in that and try and con us into believing that unemployed spongers are the reason the welfare bill is so high.

Poverty isn't just about the unemployed - it's about the millions of low waged workers too. That gap is a serious problem.

[Ladymuck]

Well, let's just thank our lucky stars that we don't all live in the London Borough of Barnet.

Helping those in the greatest of need? Hmmmmm....I think not...

[Ladymuck]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Poverty isn't just about the unemployed - it's

> about the millions of low waged workers too. That

> gap is a serious problem.

The latest figures on income inequality.

[DJKillaQueen]

Yes Barnet think it's ok to deny affordable housing to the unemployed...worse still they seem to be allowed to act on that view.

[Ladymuck]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ...worse still they seem

> to be allowed to act on that view.

I've been thinking about this. I am wondering if Barnet's proposals could in fact be in breach of the Equality Act 2010 where socio-economic disadvantage is an issue.

This Statute specifically provides that specified public bodies, when making strategic decisions such as deciding priorities and setting objectives, to consider how their decisions might help to reduce the inequalities associated with socio-economic disadvantage. Such inequalities could include inequalities in education, health, housing, crime rates, or other matters associated with socio-economic disadvantage.

The duty applies to the listed public bodies, which have strategic functions ? these include Government departments, local authorities and NHS bodies.

Might imposing onerous requirements such as "getting a job" or "doing voluntary work", not be seen as discriminatory against the unemployed and therefore contrary to the duty to to consider how [The London Borough of Barnet's] decisions might help to reduce inequalities associated with socio-economic disadvantage?

The first bit of case law involving this Act?

[DJKillaQueen]

Now that's very interesting. Barnet's plan is at this stage to abolish the Housing register only without giving a huge amount of detail on how they would allocate council housing although they point to rewarding those that are of most benefit to the 'community' - such as those in training or voluntary work etc.

As to whether this is all legal, the document for the Council?s Cabinet says (7.1): ?Advice has been received from counsel which confirms that Barnet is not legally required to maintain a housing register and that it is permissible for Barnet to have a system where applicants not within a defined category for preference are advised that they will not be considered for allocation.'

The issue here is what constitutes 'defined catagory'. That is where it could fall foul of the Equalities Act 2010.

The document also says that (7.2): ?Counsel has been advised that Barnet is allowed to give some preference to those outside the statutory preference groups .? Could be used to cover their backs by housing the odd homeless person.

The document goes on to say thatBarnet doesn?t believe that housing should be focused ?solely on those households with the highest need?. It wants instead to create a policy where: ?Social rented housing should, wherever possible, provide a stepping stone to more independent housing choices, but will struggle to achieve that role if all homes are let on a highest need basis.'

But then conceeds (7.4): ?Counsel advises that a more wide-ranging consultation on the proposals to change the allocations policy would help to reduce the chances of successful challenges to it.?

It's actually a ploy I think to keep undesirables out of the borough.

[Ladymuck]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> It's actually a ploy I think to keep undesirables

> out of the borough.

But that's subjective surely?

LOL!!!

[Ladymuck]

Well, in the fight for next leader of the Labour Party, for me one contender stands out from the rest: Ed Miliband. He states that he would support measures to deal with wealth inequality and that he would make it a central aim of [his] leadership to narrow that gap. Unlike many of those who have spoken before him he actually gives specifics - which I find encouraging.

I don't know about anybody else, but I am truly weary of all those politicians (across all parties) who ranted on about fairness/equality prior to the election only to now talk of implementing measures which will do buggar all for the very poorest. I am also growing immensely irritated with those who continue to bleat on about fairness yada yada like a record with its needle stuck as though (somehow) merely talking about it will redress the position. What do they all take us for?

If Ed Miliband sticks by only half of his words, then he will make a refreshing change (if elected) IMO. But of course, we need another General Election first. (*long weary sigh*)

[Loz]

Odyssey Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't think so somehow. I think the liberals

> will be damaged for a generation through their

> coalition with the conservative party. I think

> Nick Clegg is leading the Liberal Party quite

> swiftly to the right and once these cuts which

> they are making (in my opinion too soon) start to

> take effect, the ordinary liberal voter will not

> fogive them for it. So I think that what will

> happen in 5 years' time, or maybe even sooner, is

> the election of another labour government.

I saw some of the latest polling the other day (which I can't find now, grrr) which suggests that the LibDems have lost support - but it seems to be mainly going to the Tories.

What's going on there? I thought it would be the I'll'-vote-libdem-this-time-cos-Labour-are-crap voter that would be off.

[Ladymuck]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I saw some of the latest polling the other day

> (which I can't find now, grrr) which suggests that

> the LibDems have lost support - but it seems to be

> mainly going to the Tories.

Heaven forbid!

[Loz]

I've just found a poll released today:

The Conservatives on 42 per cent - up six points since polling day on May 6 and their highest rating this year. Labour is also up six points at 35 per cent now that ex-leader Gordon Brown has stood down. Lib Dems are down eight points to just 15 per cent.

So if a poll was held tomorrow the country would probably have a Tory-only government.

[Ladymuck]

Thanks Loz - illuminating (albeit daunting). Not sure what is going on there at all.

The increase for the Tories is certainly a surprise to me. It doesn't make sense. As far as I can tell, many who voted Lib-Dem are fuming over their party's willingness to subscribe to Tory measures so readily. Can it be that members of the electorate haven't actually woken up to the fact that, by concentrating mainly on cutting this deficit with scant regard for the kind of society (or indeed what type of economy) we end up with, that we will all end up worse off? To focus primarily on deficit reduction in a way that will hit many of the poorest/vulnerable in our society and (I believe) slow down growth and cause a rise in unemployment is bonkers IMO.

[Loz]

As far as I can tell, many who voted Lib-Dem are fuming over their party's willingness to subscribe to Tory measures so readily.

Now I find this amusing. Those "LibDems" would have almost certainly been refugees from Labour, seeing the LibDems as a cuddly, friendly, accessible version of Labour, which isn't what it is at all.

But that's also why I expected the ship-jumping rats to swim to Labour, as they woke up to find what they had projected onto the party was not the reality. Mind you, they'll be back when they realise that New Labour is nowhere near dead as an party-leading ideology.

If I was a socialist in the UK, I would be in despair. There is really nowhere to go any more.