We're sorry, but this discussion has just been closed to further replies.
In the last 90 years the proportion of national income spent by the UK government has increased from around 10 per cent to nearly 50 per cent. Britain has a particularly badly designed tax system, with government spending borne by only part of the population because so many people are in receipt of benefits or ‘tax credits’. The number of households in which nobody works for a living rose to more than three million this summer, official figures revealed last week (31/08/07).
Gordon Brown's flagship benefits, tax credits, cost £16billion a year. Further billions have been pumped into subsidised childcare to try to help single parents looking for work. Children's Minister Beverley Hughes disclosed this week that £21billion has been spent since 1997 on schemes such as Sure Start and early years education programmes.
Therefore, it comes as no surprise that marginal tax rates are therefore very high for most working people on moderate incomes or above. After income tax, national insurance contributions and VAT a basic-rate taxpayer will surrender to the state over half of each additional pound that is earned – this is before allowing for excise duties, council tax and travel-to-work costs.
Additionally, there are large differences in the levels of taxation and government spending in different regions of the UK. The north-east of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have levels of government spending akin to those found in former communist countries. The east and southeast of England have the lowest levels of public spending, just above 30 per cent. After allowing for regional differences in the cost of living, public spending is over 50 per cent higher in Scotland and Northern Ireland than it is in South-East England.
Now it appears, that Pensioners living in inner cities and parts of Scotland could get better annuity rates than those living in more prosperous areas (read that as the South east), if insurers adopt a policy being trialled by Legal & General (L&G). The company hopes to shake up the pensions market when it becomes the first insurer to take into account postcodes as well as age, gender and health when calculating an annuity. Lower rates are paid to those with longer life expectancy, as those from better-off areas tend to live longer they can expect to receive worse rates than those in deprived neighbourhoods.
So now its official, working and living in the South East, is bad for your wallet, not only in terms of taxation, but also potentially in a reduced annuity for your pension.
Although you are completely right about different regions of Britain being treated differently by Gordon Brown over the last decade, and the much-hated (by the Labour Ministers) south-east of England being gerrymandered into bearing the vast majority of the costs of subsidising their heartlands (as is now much easier to see, thanks to the on-line information revolution!), it goes finer than that.
The extra costs borne by the people of Medway (as a very clear example) go far beyond even regional differences. We here have been an acute embarrassment to the Labour government as we are so much better at doing things -- even implementing their policies! -- than Labour-run councils. Whatever criteria are set by the government, we still beat all-comers time after time, and have a track record of delivery.
Well, they can't have this, can they?
Therefore they devise all manner of ways to penalise us, resulting in funding depreivation of what is now tens of millions of pounds every year. That's not trivial! Their hope remains that nowhere near enough ordinary voters will be interested enough to seek out the root cause of funding difficulties in the area in question (Medway, in this case) and will simply and naively blame the local (Conservative-run) Council.
Although this seems to work to some extent even today, when people are supposedly more savvy and aware, the local elections in recent years -- and even the general elections in 2005 -- show that people have woken up to what is really going on.
As they say: you can't fool all of the people all of the time...
Absolutely and some of the worst affected are pensioners. I am afraid that until we have an English Parliament, this will continue to happen.
I have been running a pensioners campaign, along with Adam Holloway, MP for Gravesham. We recently organised a pensioners action day in Gravesham based on the following:
As we all become more mobile and lead busier lives, one growing sector of the population, the elderly, have become a forgotten and uncared for burden on society. I’d like to use this platform, to highlight some of the policies put forward by the Conservatives and ask you to support two campaigns that campaign for the elderly.
The Conservatives are prepared to put our money where our mouth is, and are recommending that we nearly DOUBLE Carers Allowances. In addition we aim to allow carers to keep more of their income without losing their entitlement to the Carers Allowance.
Carers UK, the organisation that represents carers across the country warmly welcomed the recommendations made by the Conservative Party's Social Justice Policy Group on valuing the role of carers and raising the level of financial support carers receive.
Key Facts on Carers under Labour
· If carers earn over £87 per week the benefit is completely withdrawn.
· Those caring for under 35 hours a week are not entitled to Carers Allowance.
· Carers are very understandably angry about the current derisory amount of Carers Allowance.
· It does not reflect either the contribution they make or the hidden costs associated with disability.
· The rules make it very difficult for carers to build up a decent pension to support themselves and their loved-ones in retirement.
Unfortunately in the world’s fifth largest economy there are still a million pensioners living in poverty, they have suffered above inflation council tax rises and some face an inflation rate of 9 per cent, more than three times the official rate. Added to this the cost of fuel has rocketed with gas bills rising by 71 per cent and electricity by 45 per cent, despite falling wholesale prices. These costs are unbearable for many who are on fixed incomes.
I urge you to support the following:
· Support Age Concern’s Hungry to be Heard campaign to highlight the scandal of malnourishment amongst older people in hospital.
· Support for the British Geriatrics Society campaign – Behind Closed Doors – on the right to use the toilet in privacy.
· The system for claiming should be simplified starting with automatic payment of Council Tax Benefit - only claimed by 60% of those entitled. Lobby your MPs and councillors to change this ridiculous bureaucracy.
· 2.1m do not claim pensions credit – this should be an automatic payment. Lobby your MPs, the vulnerable should not have to jump through hoops to get what is rightfully theirs.
Pensioners should be treated with respect, have easy access to transport and information on local amenities together with feeling safe and secure. We’re all going to get there one day.
It is time for a change in how we look after those, who are looking after others.
Well done, Janice, for identifying not just one but two significant categories, both of whom seem to have been left by the wayside in recent years.
Pensioners have NOT done very well under successive governments, and this really does need to be dealt with in a proper way. I fully realise that -- with lifespans increasing and healthcare growing ever more sophisticated -- there is a real "crunch" issue about how it is going to be possible to deal with the "third age" population's needs.
There is clearly no simple solution; but only very limited efforts appear to have been made to at least attempt to address those needs. This should now be done properly, before a crisis comes that can by then no longer be averted or managed.
Carers are the other category that you so rightly pointed up. This is an area that I can only begin to imagine what it must be like to be involved in. I'm not sure that I would be able to cope, if placed in such a situation myself, and certainly not alone or with the feeling of having been simply left to it.
It is so very easy for us on the outside of these two categories of people to simply concentrate on the immediuate issues (of which there seem to be ever more appearing day by day!) but what can we realistically do that would be of benefit?
Frankjly, I don't think that councillors can nowadays get too deeply involved in these sectors. Ever since our numbers were reduced (in 2003, here in Medway) we have become so thinly stretched that if we are to be of benefit we have to target ourselves more than we ever did before. I do not consider this to be a good thing!
This country now has by far the poorest representation standards of any country in an equivalent situation, so I think we are going to become ever more heavily dependent upon the voluntary sector. They are good at these sorts of things anyway, as I know from my own experiences as a volunteer in particular areas of work and from others' reports. Therefore it is probably a good move -- provided it is handled properly and not merely an excuse to "dump" problems on someone else.
I for one shall be pleased to support the agencies and campaigns you highlight; but for my benefit and for others who will no doubt be reading this thread, it would be useful to have direct links to these provided. Can you do that for all of us who would be happy to support what you propose?
Facebook
Yahoo MyWeb
Google Bookmark