Tony Blair claimed today that Britain had been transformed beyond recognition by the Labour government as he prepares to mark his 10th anniversary in power next week.
In a letter to his party's MPs - which was accompanied by a 25-page dossier on the Blair legacy - the Prime Minister insisted Labour had overseen remarkable changes in our hospitals and schools, in law and order and in the economy.
Mr Blair, who is poised to announce he will stand down after completing a decade in Number 10 on Tuesday, brushed aside criticism of his tenure to declare “the initial insight that brought us to power has stood the test of time, with the results to prove it.”
While he conceded many people still had “strong views” about his decision to back the invasion of Iraq, he argued that “history will make its own judgement on our policy.”
Claim and reality: an audit of Tony Blair's legacy
Tony Blair's letter to MPs was accompanied by a dossier outlining Labour's achievements over the last 10 years. Here we contrast the claims he makes with the reality people across Britain face every day.
Health
The claim: Care in the NHS has been “improved across the board [by] putting patients and their needs in the driving seats.” Waiting lists have been cut, waiting times are down and thousands more doctors and nurses have been employed.
The reality: There have been improvements but few believe taxpayers have got value for money out of the billions of pounds poured into the health service. There are also a host of new problems. Scores of trusts are mired in financial crisis, with 17,000 jobs in the NHS lost last year alone. MRSA and other superbugs are rife on many wards, while thousands of junior doctors are struggling to find a job.
Education
The claim: Britain's education system has been transformed and the days when “communities accepted that their local schools were destined to fail is over.” Standards are up in primary and secondary schools, as well as universities. There has been a wave of new school buildings and a “motivated, highly-qualified teaching profession.”
The reality: Literacy and numeracy standards have improved in primary schools but the progress has stalled in recent years. The standard of secondary schools remains a problem, particularly in many of Britain's big cities. Confidence in the education system has also been hit by claims that GCSEs and A-Levels have been “dumbed down” while university students are running up large debts to pay for tuition fees and living costs.
Families
The claim: New rights to work more flexibly are helping families juggle their work-life balance, alongside increases in maternity pay, new payments for fathers and help with childcare. Same sex couples have also been given new rights to adopt and enter into civil partnerships.
The reality: Many families are struggling to make ends meet as the try to cope with a rising tax burden, increases in council tax and hefty utility bills. Family breakdown - particularly in Britain's most deprived areas and sink estates - is widely accepted now as a pivotal cause of spiralling anti-social behaviour.
Law and order
The claim: Crime has fallen over the last 10 years as a result of Labour's “investment in law enforcement, the introduction of a new suite of powers and targeting the offender not the offence.” The introduction of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (Asbos) and new on-the-spot fines has helped communities fight back against the yobs who terrorise many estates.
The reality: Violent crime and gun crime have doubled and there is growing concern that only one in four crimes is now cleared up by the police. Despite introducing a host of new powers, anti-social behaviour remains a massive problem in many areas with the authorities apparently powerless to deal with the hardcore of persistent offenders.
Economy
The claim: Britain is “better prepared for the challenge and opportunities of globalisation than any other in the Western world.” Labour has presided over a “record and sustained period of growth with low inflation, rising living standards and high employment.”
The reality: The economy has been relatively stable over the last decade but experts question how much Labour can claim the credit. On the downside, Britain's pensions are in crisis, public spending has rocketed, families are paying out more and more in tax and Britons have run-up eye-watering levels of personal debt. Brace yourself for rocky times ahead.
Climate change
The claim: We have “given the lead at home and internationally on tackling this threat” by helping to broker the Kyoto Treaty. “The debate has moved on from questioning the science to agreeing how to react to what it is warning.” More recently, the Stern Report - commissioned by the British Government - has made the case that it is “economically sensible to act” to tackle global warming.
The reality: Carbon dioxide emissions have risen since 1997 and many green groups complain that Mr Blair's commendable rhetoric has not been matched by action. Despite warnings about the impact of aviation on global warming in the coming decades, for example, ministers are still pressing ahead with plans to expand Britain's airports.
Iraq and foreign policy
The claim: Britain has led the way in tackling a range of key issues, including the removal of “brutal regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan” and “interventions to defend human rights in Bosnia, Kosovo, East Timor and Sierra Leone.” Britain is now “punching above weight on the world stage and setting the agenda” on issues from terrorism to climate change.
The reality: Britain's international reputation has been left battered by our role in the Iraq war and our unflinching support for George Bush. High profile attempts to use Britain's presidency of the G8 to “make poverty history” in Africa have failed to deliver, while our influence in Europe is on the wane.
The wheel has gone turned full circle. The people of Britain are sick of Blair and his cronies. But is there a credible alternative? I hope so.
My epitaph to Tony Blair can be summed up in one word-Tosser.
Chris Sabian, Peak District View - 2007-04-28 06:48:38
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Milliband praises Kinder tresspass
Environment secretary David Miliband paid tribute to the 400 ramblers who exercised their right to roam on Kinder Scout 75 years ago this week at a celebration in New Mills Town Hall.
The Kinder Mass Trespass on April 24, 1932, paved the way for winning the nation's right to roam on moorlands and mountains, a privilege once reserved for wealthy landowners.
At Saturday's event Mr Miliband said without the ramblers' invasion of the Duke of Devonshire's land that day, people would not have access to the Peak District countryside now enjoyed by 22 million visitors each year, nor would the UK's National Parks have been created.
He told more than 300 people at the event: "We sometimes like to think that the thinking of politics is ahead of that of the people.
"There can be no doubt that in the 1930s, the politics were way behind the people, and the trespassers showed the way forward on access to moorland which is now enshrined in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act."
He went on to confirm the government's commitment to opening up England's coastline.
Mr Miliband made the keynote speech at the anniversary celebrations which included music, drama and guided walks retracing the steps of the ramblers 75 years ago.
Other speakers included Sir Martin Doughty, chairman of Natural England; Lord Roy Hattersley, president of Friends of the Peak District; Kate Ashbrook, chair of the Ramblers' Association; Tony Hams, chair of the Peak District National Park authority and Jim Perrin, writer, access activist and friend of the late Benny Rothman, who led the trespass 75 years ago.
Unfortunately nothing has changed. The people are still way ahead of politics and government ministers, who quite frankly have no idea of what is best for the British people.
Chris Sabian, Peak District View - 2007-04-28 06:26:18
The Kinder Mass Trespass on April 24, 1932, paved the way for winning the nation's right to roam on moorlands and mountains, a privilege once reserved for wealthy landowners.
At Saturday's event Mr Miliband said without the ramblers' invasion of the Duke of Devonshire's land that day, people would not have access to the Peak District countryside now enjoyed by 22 million visitors each year, nor would the UK's National Parks have been created.
He told more than 300 people at the event: "We sometimes like to think that the thinking of politics is ahead of that of the people.
"There can be no doubt that in the 1930s, the politics were way behind the people, and the trespassers showed the way forward on access to moorland which is now enshrined in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act."
He went on to confirm the government's commitment to opening up England's coastline.
Mr Miliband made the keynote speech at the anniversary celebrations which included music, drama and guided walks retracing the steps of the ramblers 75 years ago.
Other speakers included Sir Martin Doughty, chairman of Natural England; Lord Roy Hattersley, president of Friends of the Peak District; Kate Ashbrook, chair of the Ramblers' Association; Tony Hams, chair of the Peak District National Park authority and Jim Perrin, writer, access activist and friend of the late Benny Rothman, who led the trespass 75 years ago.
Unfortunately nothing has changed. The people are still way ahead of politics and government ministers, who quite frankly have no idea of what is best for the British people.
Chris Sabian, Peak District View - 2007-04-28 06:26:18
Labour fighting to retain Derby
The battle for Derby is shaping up as a tussle between Labour and a strong Liberal Democrat opposition.
Labour leader Chris Williamson has been very cautious in describing the current deal that allows him to run the city with active Conservative support.
But one Labour politician has described it as an "unholy alliance".
Labour has seen its main challenge coming from the Lib Dems, who took over the city three years ago in coalition with the minority Conservative group.
But a clash of personalities and political cultures made it an unhappy marriage.
Close race
After last May's elections, Labour leader Chris Williamson offered the Tories four cabinet posts in a deal to elbow the Lib Dems into the political cold and put Labour back in power.
In nearby Amber Valley, controlled by the Conservatives, the Labour leader almost lost his seat to the BNP in the last election.
The Labour-controlled South Derbyshire council is located in a suburban area where there is an outside chance of a Tory revival.
In Bolsover, Labour has a strong hold on the council with 31 seats whereas the Tories and Lib Dems are struggling with no seats at all.
It is a different story in Derbyshire Dales and Amber Valley where the Conservatives have a healthy lead with Labour trailing.
Erewash is a close race where only four seats separating Labour and the Tories - with the Conservatives currently in the ascendancy.
In Chesterfield, the Lib Dems control the council with 36 seats to Labour's 12 seats - making it one of the only Lib Dem-run councils in the region.
My advice is simple-do not vote for anyone who is standing for re-election. You will only get more of the same if you do.
Chris Sabian, Peak District View - 2007-04-28 06:20:59
Labour leader Chris Williamson has been very cautious in describing the current deal that allows him to run the city with active Conservative support.
But one Labour politician has described it as an "unholy alliance".
Labour has seen its main challenge coming from the Lib Dems, who took over the city three years ago in coalition with the minority Conservative group.
But a clash of personalities and political cultures made it an unhappy marriage.
Close race
After last May's elections, Labour leader Chris Williamson offered the Tories four cabinet posts in a deal to elbow the Lib Dems into the political cold and put Labour back in power.
In nearby Amber Valley, controlled by the Conservatives, the Labour leader almost lost his seat to the BNP in the last election.
The Labour-controlled South Derbyshire council is located in a suburban area where there is an outside chance of a Tory revival.
In Bolsover, Labour has a strong hold on the council with 31 seats whereas the Tories and Lib Dems are struggling with no seats at all.
It is a different story in Derbyshire Dales and Amber Valley where the Conservatives have a healthy lead with Labour trailing.
Erewash is a close race where only four seats separating Labour and the Tories - with the Conservatives currently in the ascendancy.
In Chesterfield, the Lib Dems control the council with 36 seats to Labour's 12 seats - making it one of the only Lib Dem-run councils in the region.
My advice is simple-do not vote for anyone who is standing for re-election. You will only get more of the same if you do.
Chris Sabian, Peak District View - 2007-04-28 06:20:59
Sunday, April 01, 2007
Tory Plans for Local Elections
Derby's controlling Labour group is currently considering whether or not to bid for Government cash for reducing congestion, but it is likely that any grant would come with the condition that road charging is introduced.
The city's Conservative group is totally opposed to the introduction of congestion charges
Richard Smalley, Conservative group deputy leader, said: "Congestion charging, or road pricing as it has been called, does nothing to reduce congestion.
"It is a blunt tax, and people who drive are taxed to the hilt. They are already taxed on fuel, on road fund licence - congestion charging is not the way forward.
"It will cost people around £1,200 pounds a year or more to access the city centre for work. If they have just left school or university and are on a low income, it could deter people from working in the city."
The Tory group said it instead wanted to continue supporting a feasibility study into tram and electric bus schemes in the city and explore the possibility of a direct rail link to East Midlands Airport.
The Conservatives also outlined plans for an extended pedestrianised area in the city centre.
Mr Smalley said he personally wanted to extend the restriction on traffic to Wardwick and Friar Gate to create a more cafe-style environment. The group said it would also push for more demanding recycling targets and a separate Green Commission at the council to scrutinise council actions and decisions.
On education, Conservative group leader Philip Hickson promised people living in the city would get to send their children to city schools.
"At the moment places are being taken by people who live outside the city.
"People who live in the city will get a city school under us," he said. "This ties in with our green agenda because, at the moment, we have parents travelling the length and breadth of the city to get to schools."
Arts and culture were also high on the list of priorities in the manifesto, with plans to establish a summer music festival in the city as well as a venue to host big name acts.
Mr Hickson said: "We want that festival established in the next year to bring talent and entertainment to the city over the summer period.
"We also need a new venue developed for attracting big name entertainment to the city as well as supporting amateur dramatic groups."
There are promises to increase funding to the youth service and improve and rebuild Derby Library.
The Tories would also increase pressure on getting development under way at the Friar Gate Goods Yard before buildings fall into disrepair.
Mr Smalley also said it was essential to improve gateways into the city through using innovative signage and public art.
Perhaps David Cameron should listen to these boys. At least they seem to have some new ideas albeit expensive ones.
Chris Sabian, Peak District View - 2007-04-01 03:32:14
The city's Conservative group is totally opposed to the introduction of congestion charges
Richard Smalley, Conservative group deputy leader, said: "Congestion charging, or road pricing as it has been called, does nothing to reduce congestion.
"It is a blunt tax, and people who drive are taxed to the hilt. They are already taxed on fuel, on road fund licence - congestion charging is not the way forward.
"It will cost people around £1,200 pounds a year or more to access the city centre for work. If they have just left school or university and are on a low income, it could deter people from working in the city."
The Tory group said it instead wanted to continue supporting a feasibility study into tram and electric bus schemes in the city and explore the possibility of a direct rail link to East Midlands Airport.
The Conservatives also outlined plans for an extended pedestrianised area in the city centre.
Mr Smalley said he personally wanted to extend the restriction on traffic to Wardwick and Friar Gate to create a more cafe-style environment. The group said it would also push for more demanding recycling targets and a separate Green Commission at the council to scrutinise council actions and decisions.
On education, Conservative group leader Philip Hickson promised people living in the city would get to send their children to city schools.
"At the moment places are being taken by people who live outside the city.
"People who live in the city will get a city school under us," he said. "This ties in with our green agenda because, at the moment, we have parents travelling the length and breadth of the city to get to schools."
Arts and culture were also high on the list of priorities in the manifesto, with plans to establish a summer music festival in the city as well as a venue to host big name acts.
Mr Hickson said: "We want that festival established in the next year to bring talent and entertainment to the city over the summer period.
"We also need a new venue developed for attracting big name entertainment to the city as well as supporting amateur dramatic groups."
There are promises to increase funding to the youth service and improve and rebuild Derby Library.
The Tories would also increase pressure on getting development under way at the Friar Gate Goods Yard before buildings fall into disrepair.
Mr Smalley also said it was essential to improve gateways into the city through using innovative signage and public art.
Perhaps David Cameron should listen to these boys. At least they seem to have some new ideas albeit expensive ones.
Chris Sabian, Peak District View - 2007-04-01 03:32:14
Why Gordon Brown has failed the poor
In our last look at Gordon Brown's final budget let us see how he has failed the less well off. Gordon Brown tried to use the final few words of his final Budget to give himself a much needed image makeover.
Uncle Gord is hoping that the Great British Public will be taken in by his sleight-of-hand and forget how taxes have shot up in the last decade. During the last four years of sustained economic growth, disposable income in the average household has risen by just £9 a week.
The primary reason hard-working people have seen their disposable income rise by a pittance is that the state is taking a hugely bigger slice of the national economic cake than ever before. According to the OECD, the state now takes 42.7% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), as compared with just 39.5% in 1997.
The difference between a paycheque and a handout
So how is it that Gordon Brown can announce that people are better off after eleven Budgets and ten years of Labour and yet average households are taking home no more than they were four years ago in real terms? How can both these statements be true?
The answer lies in the way Brown sees income. He sees no difference between income from a pay cheque and income from a handout. It doesn't matter to Gordon that one type of income is earned through personal effort and the other is welfare received regardless of personal effort.
This psychological flaw is why Brown regards it as efficient to reduce your income savagely through tax and then return some of it to you through the welfare state. All that matters to Gordon is that income rises in certain sections of society so that he can claim to have reduced poverty, he doesn't care where that income comes from. You might think this sounds laudable, but there are big problems with this approach.
Welfare dependency destroys the poor
The main problem with most of Gordon's handouts is that they harm the people they are intended to benefit. Welfare payments do increase incomes among the poor but they also take away the incentive for the poor to improve their own lives.
The only true way out of poverty is to increase income from paid employment. For the low paid this means working longer hours and/or getting some training to increase their chances of getting a higher paid job. For the unemployed getting out of poverty means actually getting a job.
The rewards for getting a job, or taking on more hours, or increasing your earning power through training should far outweigh the rewards for not doing those things. But that is not what happens in Britain today.
Paying people not to work
Because Brown can see no difference between standing on your own two feet and being a client of his welfare state, he pays tax credits to those not in work. The Child Tax Credit (CTC) could be worth as much as £5,500 a year to an unemployed parent of three children. You don't need to work to claim CTC, and you get more if you have three kids rather than one. Can you see what type of behaviour is rewarded by the CTC?
Add CTC to Child Benefit, Housing Benefit, Council Tax Benefit and Job Seekers' Allowance or Incapacity Benefit and you have a fully funded 100% work-free lifestyle. This is why 'social protection' cost the taxpayer £80 billion in 2005/6.
Of course, Brown also developed the Working Tax Credit (WTC). This is only payable to people in work and on low incomes. Making work pay for the low paid should be sound strategy. But you can't get the WTC until you are 25 years old and working 30 hours a week - unless you have a child, in which case you can get it at sixteen if you work 16 hours a week. Can you see what type of behaviour is rewarded by the WTC?
The big money for teenagers is in benefits… not work
All this means that for someone who leaves school with few qualifications, the big money is in benefits - not in work. That's why all the tosh in the Budget about tax cuts to reward work is just a scam. And why Gordon Brown will never achieve a lasting and genuine reduction in poverty.
The system he has created starts the young on benefits from sixteen years old (and soon will pay parents benefits for their unborn children). The system punishes the low paid for working by imposing marginal tax rates of as much as 70% as earnings increase, benefits are withdrawn and income tax and NI start to bite. Now Brown has removed the 10% band for income tax in this year's Budget the low paid will suffer even more for working.
So, the next time you hear Gordon Brown boast that he has lifted hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty, remember this: in 2005, 1.4 million people who were not working claimed tax credits. These are the people that Gordon claims to have helped.
But these people have not been lifted out of poverty. They are not working. They have been given a handout. A handout that makes it far less likely that they will ever work their way out of poverty themselves. A handout that actually entrenches poverty for generation after generation as their children learn how the system punishes work and rewards unemployment and the concept of work being better than welfare recedes into family history.
So what do we think of the next Prime Minister?- A complete and utter tosser!
Chris Sabian, Peak District View - 2007-04-01 03:01:54
Uncle Gord is hoping that the Great British Public will be taken in by his sleight-of-hand and forget how taxes have shot up in the last decade. During the last four years of sustained economic growth, disposable income in the average household has risen by just £9 a week.
The primary reason hard-working people have seen their disposable income rise by a pittance is that the state is taking a hugely bigger slice of the national economic cake than ever before. According to the OECD, the state now takes 42.7% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), as compared with just 39.5% in 1997.
The difference between a paycheque and a handout
So how is it that Gordon Brown can announce that people are better off after eleven Budgets and ten years of Labour and yet average households are taking home no more than they were four years ago in real terms? How can both these statements be true?
The answer lies in the way Brown sees income. He sees no difference between income from a pay cheque and income from a handout. It doesn't matter to Gordon that one type of income is earned through personal effort and the other is welfare received regardless of personal effort.
This psychological flaw is why Brown regards it as efficient to reduce your income savagely through tax and then return some of it to you through the welfare state. All that matters to Gordon is that income rises in certain sections of society so that he can claim to have reduced poverty, he doesn't care where that income comes from. You might think this sounds laudable, but there are big problems with this approach.
Welfare dependency destroys the poor
The main problem with most of Gordon's handouts is that they harm the people they are intended to benefit. Welfare payments do increase incomes among the poor but they also take away the incentive for the poor to improve their own lives.
The only true way out of poverty is to increase income from paid employment. For the low paid this means working longer hours and/or getting some training to increase their chances of getting a higher paid job. For the unemployed getting out of poverty means actually getting a job.
The rewards for getting a job, or taking on more hours, or increasing your earning power through training should far outweigh the rewards for not doing those things. But that is not what happens in Britain today.
Paying people not to work
Because Brown can see no difference between standing on your own two feet and being a client of his welfare state, he pays tax credits to those not in work. The Child Tax Credit (CTC) could be worth as much as £5,500 a year to an unemployed parent of three children. You don't need to work to claim CTC, and you get more if you have three kids rather than one. Can you see what type of behaviour is rewarded by the CTC?
Add CTC to Child Benefit, Housing Benefit, Council Tax Benefit and Job Seekers' Allowance or Incapacity Benefit and you have a fully funded 100% work-free lifestyle. This is why 'social protection' cost the taxpayer £80 billion in 2005/6.
Of course, Brown also developed the Working Tax Credit (WTC). This is only payable to people in work and on low incomes. Making work pay for the low paid should be sound strategy. But you can't get the WTC until you are 25 years old and working 30 hours a week - unless you have a child, in which case you can get it at sixteen if you work 16 hours a week. Can you see what type of behaviour is rewarded by the WTC?
The big money for teenagers is in benefits… not work
All this means that for someone who leaves school with few qualifications, the big money is in benefits - not in work. That's why all the tosh in the Budget about tax cuts to reward work is just a scam. And why Gordon Brown will never achieve a lasting and genuine reduction in poverty.
The system he has created starts the young on benefits from sixteen years old (and soon will pay parents benefits for their unborn children). The system punishes the low paid for working by imposing marginal tax rates of as much as 70% as earnings increase, benefits are withdrawn and income tax and NI start to bite. Now Brown has removed the 10% band for income tax in this year's Budget the low paid will suffer even more for working.
So, the next time you hear Gordon Brown boast that he has lifted hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty, remember this: in 2005, 1.4 million people who were not working claimed tax credits. These are the people that Gordon claims to have helped.
But these people have not been lifted out of poverty. They are not working. They have been given a handout. A handout that makes it far less likely that they will ever work their way out of poverty themselves. A handout that actually entrenches poverty for generation after generation as their children learn how the system punishes work and rewards unemployment and the concept of work being better than welfare recedes into family history.
So what do we think of the next Prime Minister?- A complete and utter tosser!
Chris Sabian, Peak District View - 2007-04-01 03:01:54
Saturday, March 31, 2007
The real facts about Brown's '2p off' Budget
In another look at Gordon Brown's budget there are some winners and losers.
Let's start with the facts. The only major change Brown announced that happens this year is higher road tax on gas guzzlers. Apparently the high levels of fuel duty these motorists pay on every gallon of petrol are not enough.
Duty on cars in band G (which includes not just the Range Rover but also the Ford Galaxy and Renault Espace) goes up from £210 to £300 in October, and up again to £400 in 2008.
That was the easy bit. Now for a complicated set of tax and National Insurance changes.
-The 'starting rate' of income tax of 10% is abolished from April 2008.
-The Upper Earnings Threshold for employees' 11% National Insurance contributions rises from £34,840 to £38,790 in 2008 and then to £43,000 in 2009.
-The starting point for higher rate tax at 40% is £34,600 for 2007-08 (up from £33,300) and will also rise to £43,000 in 2009.
-Those aged over 65 get a big rise in their personal allowance from £7,550 (2007-08) to £9,000 in 2008.
-The inheritance tax threshold rises from £300,000 (2007-08) to £312,000 and then £325,000 in 2009-10.
The winners and losers
So who are the winners and losers from this?
The biggest category of losers is single people earning under £18,500 who will pay more income tax because of the abolition of the 10% starting rate. Gordon's clunking fist hits the working poor hardest.
The biggest gainers are 65+ people with income from savings, thanks to the higher personal allowance and the fact that the 10% starting rate of tax will still apply to saving income.
The higher paid go through a win, lose, lose, win cycle. This year the Income Tax (IT) higher rate threshold rises more than the rate of inflation to £34,600 (win). But next year (08/09) the Upper Earnings Limit for NI rises by £3,900 which means you pay 10% of that, or £390 more, in NI (lose).
Then the following year (09/10) the UEL rises again to £43,000 so you pay even more in NI - in fact in that year you'll pay £900 more than you did in 2006-07 (lose). But if you earn over £43,000 you'll also be paying 20% tax instead of 40% tax on £8,160 of your income, saving you £1,680 in tax (win), off which you have to take the extra tax you pay because your first £2,250 of taxable income is now taxed at 20% instead of 10% (lose). Overall in 2008-09 it looks as if you'll be about £500 a year better off.
Cutting the pay of the working poor to increase benefits
The number-crunchers at the Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS) reckon that overall, about one-fifth of households lose (mostly poor), two-fifths are barely affected and one-fifth gain (mostly rich).
By 2009-10, the effect is to cut taxes by £13.2 billion and raise them by £10.7 billion, producing a net tax reduction of £2.4 billion - chickenfeed in the context of a total government tax take of over £550 billion.
Many of the people in the 'unaffected' category in the middle will only be unaffected if they claim their tax credits, since both Working Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit have been raised to compensate for the abolition of the 10% tax band.
Winner and losers from the Brown decade
Up to this Budget, Brown's tax and benefit measures (again according to the IFS) have reduced the incomes of the wealthiest 10% of the population by 6% and raised the incomes of the poorest tenth by 12%.
Someone earning £70,000 a year pays about £4,000 more tax; someone on £40,000 pays £1,800 more tax, while someone earning under £28,000 is about £1,400 a year better off. As a socialist, Gordon will probably consider that a satisfactory record, not to mention his obvious delight in using dozens of stealth taxes to prevent people working out how the money made its way from their wallets to the Treasury.
But the real Brown legacy is in the thousands of pages of tax legislation that have made our tax system the most complicated in Europe. In his final Budget, Brown removed the 10% tax band he himself created in 1998 and tried to portray himself as a tax reformer, which is barefaced hypocrisy on an epic scale.
Brown's system is destined for the scrap yard
When he became Chancellor, the seriously rich might have needed advisers to help them dodge tax, but middle Englanders and the poor could work out what they had to pay. But Brown has tinkered so much with his tax credits over the years that virtually nobody understands them.
Last year teams of advisers had to be sent out to explain tax allowances to poverty-threshold old age pensioners because they were incapable of working out what they were entitled to. His final Budget represents just one more piece of tinkering with an appallingly inefficient machine whose obvious destination is the scrapyard.
God help us when he is Prime Minister.
Chris Sabian, Peak District View - 2007-03-31 04:18:50
Let's start with the facts. The only major change Brown announced that happens this year is higher road tax on gas guzzlers. Apparently the high levels of fuel duty these motorists pay on every gallon of petrol are not enough.
Duty on cars in band G (which includes not just the Range Rover but also the Ford Galaxy and Renault Espace) goes up from £210 to £300 in October, and up again to £400 in 2008.
That was the easy bit. Now for a complicated set of tax and National Insurance changes.
-The 'starting rate' of income tax of 10% is abolished from April 2008.
-The Upper Earnings Threshold for employees' 11% National Insurance contributions rises from £34,840 to £38,790 in 2008 and then to £43,000 in 2009.
-The starting point for higher rate tax at 40% is £34,600 for 2007-08 (up from £33,300) and will also rise to £43,000 in 2009.
-Those aged over 65 get a big rise in their personal allowance from £7,550 (2007-08) to £9,000 in 2008.
-The inheritance tax threshold rises from £300,000 (2007-08) to £312,000 and then £325,000 in 2009-10.
The winners and losers
So who are the winners and losers from this?
The biggest category of losers is single people earning under £18,500 who will pay more income tax because of the abolition of the 10% starting rate. Gordon's clunking fist hits the working poor hardest.
The biggest gainers are 65+ people with income from savings, thanks to the higher personal allowance and the fact that the 10% starting rate of tax will still apply to saving income.
The higher paid go through a win, lose, lose, win cycle. This year the Income Tax (IT) higher rate threshold rises more than the rate of inflation to £34,600 (win). But next year (08/09) the Upper Earnings Limit for NI rises by £3,900 which means you pay 10% of that, or £390 more, in NI (lose).
Then the following year (09/10) the UEL rises again to £43,000 so you pay even more in NI - in fact in that year you'll pay £900 more than you did in 2006-07 (lose). But if you earn over £43,000 you'll also be paying 20% tax instead of 40% tax on £8,160 of your income, saving you £1,680 in tax (win), off which you have to take the extra tax you pay because your first £2,250 of taxable income is now taxed at 20% instead of 10% (lose). Overall in 2008-09 it looks as if you'll be about £500 a year better off.
Cutting the pay of the working poor to increase benefits
The number-crunchers at the Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS) reckon that overall, about one-fifth of households lose (mostly poor), two-fifths are barely affected and one-fifth gain (mostly rich).
By 2009-10, the effect is to cut taxes by £13.2 billion and raise them by £10.7 billion, producing a net tax reduction of £2.4 billion - chickenfeed in the context of a total government tax take of over £550 billion.
Many of the people in the 'unaffected' category in the middle will only be unaffected if they claim their tax credits, since both Working Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit have been raised to compensate for the abolition of the 10% tax band.
Winner and losers from the Brown decade
Up to this Budget, Brown's tax and benefit measures (again according to the IFS) have reduced the incomes of the wealthiest 10% of the population by 6% and raised the incomes of the poorest tenth by 12%.
Someone earning £70,000 a year pays about £4,000 more tax; someone on £40,000 pays £1,800 more tax, while someone earning under £28,000 is about £1,400 a year better off. As a socialist, Gordon will probably consider that a satisfactory record, not to mention his obvious delight in using dozens of stealth taxes to prevent people working out how the money made its way from their wallets to the Treasury.
But the real Brown legacy is in the thousands of pages of tax legislation that have made our tax system the most complicated in Europe. In his final Budget, Brown removed the 10% tax band he himself created in 1998 and tried to portray himself as a tax reformer, which is barefaced hypocrisy on an epic scale.
Brown's system is destined for the scrap yard
When he became Chancellor, the seriously rich might have needed advisers to help them dodge tax, but middle Englanders and the poor could work out what they had to pay. But Brown has tinkered so much with his tax credits over the years that virtually nobody understands them.
Last year teams of advisers had to be sent out to explain tax allowances to poverty-threshold old age pensioners because they were incapable of working out what they were entitled to. His final Budget represents just one more piece of tinkering with an appallingly inefficient machine whose obvious destination is the scrapyard.
God help us when he is Prime Minister.
Chris Sabian, Peak District View - 2007-03-31 04:18:50
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)