George Osborne's hypocrisy knows no limits. As the Guardian reports:
George Osborne has defended his plans to offer tax-free childcarevouchers worth up to £1,200 a year to British households with annual incomes as high as £300,000, saying he wants the scheme to be simple to administer and available to those on the 40p tax rate.
So simplicity dictates a near universal benefit.
Unlike child credit.
And unlike capped benefits for those who'd otherwise claim more than £26,000.
And it has to be simple, unlike bedroom tax.
I could go on, and on.
But the point is obvious. He's nakedly gerrymandering the system to secure votes. And it's sickening when those in need will lose out as a result.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I agree that making some benefits simpler and universal whilst not doing so for all benefits is unfair .
There are cases where both parents are working full time earning a hefty whack and putting their “careers” before their kids because they could afford for one of them to stay at home .
Makes you wonder why they bothered having them in the first place .
Isn’t there a danger that once the principle of vouchers has been established for child care that it will be extended to education and healthcare ?
This leads us to ‘personal accounts’
And then the money runs out and …oh dear….you’ll have to fend for yourself
It is, I am sure, the direction of travel
It wouldn’t be difficult to see the state getting involved in an housing equity release scheme in order to cover the gaping hole in provision which has not been made for an aging population .
That might even attract public support . People might think they are making a sacrifice for the greater good .
Personal accounts would seem to be a prerequisite for doing something like that and it would be all too easy to extend them to health care and only a small set to financially incentivising people to agree to be euthanased .
More economic nonsense. How strange, (not) that Gideon Osborne can play Mary Poppins for well off families and provide “a spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go down” yet play “Bumble the Beadle” together with Limbkins “Cameron” in the UK workhouse for poorer families!
Written a year ago:
“So my final verdict on George Osborne? He is a political tactician, who time and again has put party political gain ahead of the economic interests of the economy. We see this in many ‘small’ things, like the contents of his last budget and Autumn statement, to more important things, like his support for policy on immigration or Europe. It is defined by both what he has not done (total inaction on monetary policy, when – unlike the US and Europe – he has considerable power), as well as what he has done (accelerated austerity). The politics may still come good for him, but the damage to the UK economy his action and inaction has caused is final”
http://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/the-final-verdict-on-george-osborne-as_23.html
OK, so six months ago….I really need to do “sums” !
The good old british Public are swallowing this without discernable ire! Yet the systemic bashing of the poor goes on and on – this can only be explained by a model of societal pathology.
Reading the original Guardian article again this childcare proposal seems to fail the test of simplicity .
First of all it makes reference to qualifying by virtue of the “individual income threshold” . Fair enough given that the taxation system now assesses people as individuals .
Then further down it complicates matters by introducing a distinction on the basis of whether one of the parents is staying at home .
How is this going to work in cases where the biological or adoptive parents are no longer together and perhaps have entered into new relationships with other people , maybe even overseas , or have children from multiple relationships ?
What about when one of the parents is self-employed or part-time ?
There might be a £1,500 incentive for stay at home Mothers to falsely claim they were self employed . There might even be a black market in childcare vouchers for those parents who qualify but don’t use them .
However it’s going to work , it is definitely not going to be simply unless it truly is made 100% universal like child-benefit .
Where it definitely gets political is when it starts talking about “married couples tax break will be worth around £120 a year” . Whilst I support the institution of marriage I can’t see why the tax system should make any distinction based on it especially these days since half of children’s parents are not married .
Some of these measures will cost more to implement , support and scrap than they will pay out before they are replaced with the next “initiative” .
Whilst the tax system would benefit from simplification , this does not look to be it .
This is simply not going to work on any level
It is an absurd proposal
The only good news is that it is another serious U turn in the making
This proposal is far too expansive. Even directors for charities would qualify!
Child Benefit is not really universal as those with a household member earning over £60K would have to pay it all back if they claimed, generally through their self-assessment tax return or tax code. Hardly simple!
I know
That was my point
The Working Dead ,
Thanks for enlightening me .
It is difficult to keep up with all the gimmicky changes to the tax system especially now election fever is taking hold .
Nobody seems to want to implement real solutions to the big problems .
Running out of road to kick the can down , what happens then ?
As long as we have “experts” making policy decisions based on what’s most likely to get their party re-elected, we are stuffed.
What we need is Government that is more concerned about the people that elect them, all the people, not just the red, yellow or blue variety that place an x on the polling ticket.