Earlier this week, the Tories made it clear that they intend to force up to a million people who are considered unfit to work at present, either as a consequence of a disability or because of mental ill health conditions, to find employment, irrespective of the ongoing nature of their conditions.
The plan is that these people will now be required to work from home. The problem is that to find work the people impacted will be required to undertake tasks that many will find difficult or impossible.
The aim of this proposal is, ostensibly, to reduce public spending in the UK.
It is also to supposedly empower these people by providing them with work, which gives some insight into the Tory mindset.
The reality is that this move will simply cut the benefits of very large numbers of the most vulnerable people in this country. That, I suggest, is the real motive of ministers endowed with attitudes informed by Ayn Rand.
Those ministers hate government spending.
They see no reason to support those in need.
And they would rather penalise those with need for support than raise tax on those with the means to pay.
The whole point of the Taxing Wealth Report 2024 is to show that ministers have ample choices available to them as to how to raise funds to enable support to those who need it to continue.
What that report also shows, in that case, is that ministers who decide not to tax but to penalise the vulnerable instead are doing so because they think supporting the wealthiest and highest-earning members of our society is more important than supporting those with real needs who require help in this country.
The claim that we cannot afford to support people is shattered by the Taxing Wealth Report 2024. I have already shown how to raise more than £35 billion in tax this week. There are many more reforms to come.
In that case, ministers making vicious cuts should no longer be able to hide behind the excuse 'there is no money left'. There is ample money available. So, what is really on view is their bias towards the rich that is displayed in the cruelty of their decision-making with regard to those in need.
If the Taxing Wealth Report 2024 reveals the ugliness of UK political decision making, it will have served its purpose.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Interesting.
What we are seeing is the privatisation of wealth – all the wealth in this country belongs to private individuals and the state has no wealth of its own and is entirely dependent on the whims or not of the wealthy apparently whose cash flows out of the country not trickling down.
Again, I say that it really is time the thatcherite thinking like this was excised from our politics.
It’s not only ugly, it’s barren.
“it really is time the thatcherite thinking like this was excised from our politics.”
It is a cancer & it has metastised & infested not just the body politi-sick but also the meeja (‘ow yer gonna pay for it” – or “markets markets markets – rah rah rah” style of)
In theory, the electorate/UK serfs (I include myself in that category) would wield the knife – at an election – but the thatcherite cancer has made it such that Uk serfs lack the data to see reality (they can sense it – viscerally) & as has been outlined by Richard, you & oh so many others on this blog, the entirety of the body polit-sick (vile-tory, vile-liebore and lying Lib-dems) needs to be excised (followed at the same time by a root & branch reform of the meeja and the elite education system).
The problem is, there is no obvious way of doing that.
When significant societal ills are immune to remedy by political processes – other processes will take over. The events in West Germany (1960s through to the late 1970s) should serve as a warning.
There is an obvious way Mike and it can only come from politics.
From an effective point of opposition.
Chantel Mouffet of my alma mater The University of Westminster has given me the framework of what ails effective opposition.
It is because of political agonism – where seemingly all ideas – even radical ones – are tolerated yet some are more tolerated under this guise of ‘accommodation and empathy’ than others. It’s pure Third Way disingenuousness. It actually helps nullify more radical ideas from the Left – look at the way the Democrats work in the U.S.
This effectively means that politicians have an implied agreement between each other on certain issues and that antagonism (a more deeper and robust from of disagreement and even dislike of ideas) is reserved for how things are done and not what is to be done (because Labour and the Tories already agree that nothing fundamental can be done – the muck we are in was inevitable apparently).
So, it looks like and maybe feels like Labour and the Tories are at each other’s throats when in fact they are not. It’s a show.
What we need is another Social Justice Commission a la John Smith. And we need to get away from identity politics right quick which is the new frontier for good old fashioned antagonism.
We need to raise our feelings of injustice – instead of tolerating having the rich raise injustice in their name moaning about taxation, regulation, unions, state intervention and green policy. and the like.
It can be done.
“The plan is that these people will now be required to work from home.” One assumes that they won’t be required to spin or weave? Which leaves telework:
“telesales” (need computer & telephone)
programming (need computer and requisite skills)
administrative work (need computer and requisite skills)
And so on and so forth. The vile-tory assumption is that those out of work have some or all of the above.
The vile-tory assumption is that people have the means to fund their own defense in court,
the vile-tory assumption is that all people all the time that use trains are mobile (& thuse stations need no staff).
The vile-tory assumption is that ..etc. The latter two have been comprehensively shown to be false. But, were/are proposed because all vile-tories have no empathy, they cannot imagine others being in a wholly different situation than themselves – fit, mobile, well educated and rich.
Vile-tory delenda est.
“The plan is that these people will now be required to work from home.”
Minor point, but many of these people might be tenants who are renting. Depending on what the work is they might not be able to work from home. If the landlord is the property owner what is the legal position of the tenant who might be using the property for commercial/employment reasons? Probably depends on what the work involves.
Do your tenants work from home?
https://www.alanboswell.com/news/tenants-working-from-home/
“While most landlords are comfortable with tenants who do office-based work, other activities can be more problematic. For example, some activities can increase the wear and tear on your property…”
Very good point.
A fascistic policy based on scapegoating 1 million of the most vulnerable people in Britain. And presumably Starmer’s Labour – now fully controlled by the far right of the Labour party – will go along with it. Desperate times!
Indeed…
The Guardian informed us that three-quarters of RAAC-affested schools are in Tory areas.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/06/raac-crisis-pupils-at-24-schools-in-england-forced-to-study-remotely
There’s a gold star available for the first person to spot a Tory MP explaining to concerned parents that they shouldn’t worry, the “market” is far more efficient than the State in allocating spending to provide necessities… “the market will provide”.
There are so many open goals, and yet Streeting pimps himself around the news stations explaining that Labour doesn’t know the state of the country’s finances and won’t promise anything, not even hope. Can someone bawl in his shell-like, “Short money! Get those assistants justifying your claim on the Short money.”
If our host can find 30-ish reforms through publicly-available figures, what in heavens’ name are Labour doing to get a grasp on the economy they want to govern?
P.S. Thank you for the Taxing Wealth series, a measure of your belief in public service. I for one am grateful.
Is there nothing else left to asset strip that they now have to strip the compassion away from ‘society’…
George Monbiot’s article in the Guardian today is chilling!
It seems increasingly obvious the country especially England has a political system for selecting sociopaths. The sooner voters wake up to this hidden cancer in our society the better life will become. In fact underlying this negative development has to be the invention of the double-edged sword money since the political funding system and control of much of the media does have a high level of dependency on those who control large sums of capital.
Yup, we really shouldn’t keep confusing people who can make lots of money with people who ought to be in charge. I think Galileo had the same complaint; plus ca change.
As far as I can make out and there may be others better placed to provide an overview, there seem to be a lot of people with potentially treatable issues but dont meet the threshold for treatment, or effective treatment.
A sort of variation on ‘bed blocking’
So I suggest that as a starter why are they not getting treatment? Not just to make them fit for work but because its the right thing to do.
Secondly what about following Germanys lead and providing retraining for people who can no longer work in their current employment? As a ‘for example’ I spoke to someone who when she lived in Germany her then partner was provided with retraining when due to back problems he could no longer work as a mechanic.
Reducing the subsidy on public sector DB pensions would raise much more than the £35bn that you have highlighted in your report (and be fairer), as the ONS highlights, these pensions are now leading to excessive remuneration compared to similar roles in the private sector.
As a beneficiary of these schemes, Richard will no doubt rule out any tax increases that might actually affect him…
Similarly, the proposed changes to pensions tax relief, if applied fairly would result in significant increases in the contribution rates for public sector workers. No doubt, Richard will be justifying why the impact of these changes should only apply to private sector workers, and not public sector workers.
Of course the fact that his work is often funded by public sector unions has no influence on his suggestions…
😀
Another idiot arrive to talk nonsense…this report is certainly pulling you out of the woodwork.
First, this is not distorting public / private sector salaries. There are few people with the skills involved in the private sector, and if they are they were trained gy the public sector. So your claim is wrong.
Second, I have been a full time member of such a scheme for three years and it is not of the type you refer to: it is a funded scheme. Your ignorance knows no limits.
Third, this proposal would not change contribution rates: it changes tax relief. The amount paid in does not change. Again, your staggering ignorance is on display.
So of course I have not taken this issue into account, because I did not need to do so.
Try acquainting yourself with facts sometime….it might help you in life.
Richard,
You appear not to understand the issues being raised:
1) while some jobs are not comparable between public and private sector, a huge amount are, not least a lot of administration and managerial roles. If you’ve not seen it, the comparisons are readily available from the ONS and their conclusions are also clear.
Unless you have some other data to contradict the Office for National Statistics?
2) whether a scheme is funded or unfounded makes little difference, the fact is that the employer (taxpayer) is picking up an increasing burden – how do you think those inflation increases are being funded?
3) you appear to have entirely misunderstood how DB pensions work – the benefit is fixed, the constrictions have to vary in order to fund the benefits.
So if the amount going into the pension is going to be lower (because the tax relief is being claimed is at a lower rate) then contributions need to be increased to compensate.
If you are suggesting that employee contributions will be unchanged, then that is posing a significant additional burden on the taxpayer.
In contrast, private sector employees with their DC schemes will just see lower amounts being invested, as tax relief is at a lower rate.
So what you are trying to justify is worse pensions for private sector individuals whilst at the same time, they have to pay higher taxes to fund the higher contributions for public sector employees.
Not quite sure how you can’t see the unfairness of the issue, but as I said you won’t be one of the people -suing the price for your idea.
1) If you are going to quote the ONS provide the link
2) The taxpayer is not picking up any more burden – the sole benefit of the higher rate contribnution goes to the taxpayer and the fund is never even remotely involved, so you are simply wrong.
3) The contributions are utterly unrelated to higher rate tax relief so you are wrong again. They are related to basic rate relief, I agree – but I am not changing that for anyone.
4) I am saving the taxpayer vast sums of money. You make that a cost.
Politely, this is utter nonsense and I will not be letting you on again as you are wasting my time, but I suspect tat as your aim.
The offshore wind ‘auction’ has blown up in the government’s face. Not a single bid. Markets, eh? They can’t compete. The price of steel has gone up. They want everyone to focus on the up-front investment, and not the long term easy revenues. Their spokesmen keep talking about how much consumers can save with offshore wind. Of course they will save; they are being ripped-off by the botched UK energy ‘market’, and the lack of energy planning in the British system. It would be outrageous if they didn’t save anything. But the idea that the producers should continue taking the bulk of the saving is unacceptable. Consumers are already overpaying.
What they want is to ‘sit down’ with government and negotiate a viable price. The consumer will not be part of these discussions. You may be confident that, as a consumer you will be ripped-off; in another cosy Government-Corporate deal.
Was the auction a Government blunder? Well, this is an incompetent Conservative Government, and Grant Shapps was the Minister for a few days at least – long term service in neoliberal terms; you work it out.
Markets of this kind don’t produce competition. What energy producers want is a monopoly they can exploit by making big, easy profits. They have become used to easy windfall profits. What we should have is either a public sector monopoly, or a highly regulated private sector investment, with a maximum fixed cap on the rate of return.
This was staggering ineptitude.
It may also have been deliberate.
The markets said the price was no9t good enough. They may all have tacitly agreed not to bid to prove the point.
There will be no document trail, but….
But still, a staggering failure by the government.
Good points by both. Not sure that Orsted would collaborate with Vattenfall (both watched closely by DG Comp – yes I know – UK not in Eu etc – but still).
My guess is vile-tory tin-ears & possibly they did not believe company warnings (which would have been given – to assorted civil servants/message carriers).
One can hear it now in BEIS “nah they’re just bluffing”. Well gov has had its arse handed to it on a plate by the UK’s off-shore industry – another vile-tory show of competance.
All that said, things are not peachy in Germany – latest on-shore wind auction was undersubscribed (1.4GW tendered vs 1.7GW offered & the original offer was to be for 3.2GW. Prices offered were interesting £51 through to £63/MWh. This compares to circa £43/MWh before prices & interest rates cranked. Off-shore wind is somewhat more expensive than on-shore thus given the above facts – the idea that UK off-shore could be built for £44/MWh is daft. Based on German on-shore results – a UK off-shore price of perhaps £65 maybe £70 would have had takers. Of course imbeciles-r-us aka the UK vile-tory-gov could have done for the Uk off-shore industry what they did for Uk and foriegn banks – provided money at negative interest rates (= I give you a massive box of money & then pay you interest on it), arguably this would benefit UK serfs directly via lower cost elec; cue puzzled look on face of vile-tories.
Was the increase in interest rate taken in to account?
Was it relevant?