Brits aim assistance to the low income

Written By: - Date published: 8:23 am, March 30th, 2009 - 22 comments
Categories: articles, tax, uk politics - Tags:

The irony of this article struck me when this week the well-off get the biggest boost to their wallet. From the Guardian

:

The chancellor is preparing to channel cash to poorer families in his budget as part of a mini-fiscal stimulus to kick-start the economy and protect the vulnerable. Senior cabinet figures are backing a campaign by more than 110 Labour MPs, including some ministerial aides, to top up benefits or the tax credits paid to low-income parents. The move comes as it emerged that Gordon Brown is trying to broker a £100bn deal at this week’s G20 summit to stop the world’s poorest falling victim to the banking crisis by extending loans and aid to developing countries that are at risk of poverty, disease and conflict. In an open letter published by the Observer today, the MPs argue that giving tax cuts to the middle classes may simply see money tucked away in savings accounts, but giving cash to those who really need it ensures they will spend it.

Remind me again why we are spending the most money on those higher up the food chain? And if you feel a little unsure out the wisdom of this approach does this article (from the SSTimes) make you want to reassess?

Record numbers violently abused South Auckland babies have been hospitalised with severe injuries in recent weeks, shocking police and child welfare agencies and leading to speculation that the economic recession is contributing.

Let’s hope the upcoming budget takes some bold steps to help those most in need – our country’s children (and can be the ones who are hardest to reach).

22 comments on “Brits aim assistance to the low income ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. BLiP 1
    30 March 2009 at 8:42 am

    The reason National is spending the most money on those higher up the food chain (I assume you really mean thouse further up the income bracket) is that the rich have captured the National party and have sent down the instructions for the implementation of the hidden agenda to accelerate the transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich using “whatever it takes”.

    Geddit?

    • r0b 1.1
      30 March 2009 at 9:29 am

      the rich have captured the National party

      They didn’t need to “capture” it, they founded it.

      Great post Dance, interesting contrast with England. I haven’t much time for their “New Labour”, but they seem to have got this right.

      • BLiP 1.1.1
        30 March 2009 at 10:14 am

        They didn’t need to “capture’ it, they founded it.

        Puts paid to the suggestion National has some how transmogrified or that John Key had even a skerrick of concern for his beloved under class. More fool the voters.

    • Bill 1.2
      30 March 2009 at 9:39 am

      But that’s not just National, Blip, not just NZ and not just money that is being transferred. Here’s the opener from a lengthy, but well worth reading article from Matt Taibbi from rollingstone (link below)

      “The global economic crisis isn’t about money – it’s about power. How Wall Street insiders are using the bailout to stage a revolution.”

      According to Taibbi, the Fed has been ‘captured’ by the bankers. Meanwhile, we have a banker as PM. And Gordon Brown as a friend of the poor? Highly bloody unlikely!

      http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/26793903/the_big_takeover

      • BLiP 1.2.1
        30 March 2009 at 10:10 am

        Top link, thanks Bill. Confirms my fears that New Zealand voters were hoodwinked by National. Fingers crossed its just three years.

        • Bill 1.2.1.1
          30 March 2009 at 11:02 am

          Wish I could be so optimistic!

          I really don’t think it matters too much which party is running government. Labour were right of centre and, to give them the benefit of the doubt, probably thought they couldn’t move left given the larger environment they had to operate in.

          If Taibbi is correct, then by my reading we are on the cusp of an era of Corporatism writ large. National governments will then be more or less a side show of ever diminishing relevance. ( A process that has arguably been unfolding for some time now.)

          At the moment, financiers and their company’s are squabbling over who should assume ascendancy from the current bail out/ take over dynamic.

          Meanwhile, we are nowhere to be seen.

          Okay. There is the G20 demo’s and there is, depending on your views, Venezuela offering another way.

          Venezuela tends to be ignored when not being vilified ( so, no readily available info for people to act on) and G20 protests will count as nought if they do not act as a catalyst for a broader and deeper momentum coming from the streets. In the face of msm gearing up to give mainly negative coverage of the G20 protests….just read the British newspaper reports so far…. and the predilection for such protests to not translate into anything beyond their own immediacy anyway….

          Hope I’m being unduly pessimistic.

          • Joseph 1.2.1.1.1
            30 March 2009 at 3:21 pm

            Just on the subject of G protests – I have never actually been informed of what they were about by news media. It has always been about riot squads and people throwing molotov cocktails.

          • BLiP 1.2.1.1.2
            30 March 2009 at 3:39 pm

            I’m with you – I don’t hold out much hope for the long term prospects of the working class and can see corporate gulags springing up already – the rich have certainly decided they don’t want to be part of the community with their own gated enclaves.

            I also have a growing affinity for what Rave says – perhaps there is hope if the workers rise up and seize the means of production . . .

          • Bill 1.2.1.1.3
            30 March 2009 at 4:57 pm

            The reply option has dropped from the bottom two comments, so I’m not sure where this is going to insert itself in.

            Anyway. In response to Blip’s growing sympathy to Rave’s revolutionary rhetoric.

            I agree there is no future in Social Democracy. Been thinking that for (wow, how time passes) 25 years now. All I really disagree with Rave about is the concept of Democratic Centralism. Lots of signals going up or towards the centre, possibly getting vetted along the way, and the informed centre sending commands back down to the (relatively) uninformed peripheries isn’t democratic.

            Taking over production and distribution is the easy bit. Organising production and distribution so that it is democratic, effective and avoids capture is the hard part.

          • Bill 1.2.1.1.4
            31 March 2009 at 5:31 pm

            It has always been about riot squads and people throwing molotov cocktails

            You need to read these two so called news pieces Joseph, from the same newspaper, about the same incident…it’s just bloody classic.

            http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/terror-probe-five-could-have-targeted-g20-1657600.html
            and

            http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/activists-arrested-under-terrorism-law-1658031.html

  2. Santi 2
    30 March 2009 at 9:41 am

    Gordon Brown, really? he’s on his way out so this can only see as a desperate attempt to stay in power (sounds familiar, doesn’t it?).

    The Labour Party is toast.

  3. Daveski 3
    30 March 2009 at 10:13 am

    Another great headline but I wonder what the reality is.

    The so-called “rich” in NZ still pay a much higher rate of marginal tax and average tax in 2009 than they did 9 years ago. For obvious reasons, the post ignores the fact that in the same time WFF has also been introduced.

    I’d be interested to note what tax cuts have been introduced in the UK over the same period.

    It’s funny that the demands here to do what the US and UK do only seem to happen when you agree with their policies 🙂

  4. gomango 4
    30 March 2009 at 10:47 am

    So i have just read the kiwiblog story (and table) showing the effect changes, and compare it to this story. Can anyone actually explain the comment thats bandied around “most people are worse off” (not in this post, but more generally). I genuinely don’t understand – assuming farrar’s table is correct, earners on 20k or below see no change, everybody else is better off. Is it as simple as that?

    I don’t want to argue the merits of who gets what – just want to be clear on what the frame of reference is.

  5. gomango 5
    30 March 2009 at 3:36 pm

    Thanks for the links but not really what i was asking for .

    How about this question – is that table correct? If it is incorrect, does anyone have one that is correct?

    I think you are arguing National versus Labour – I am just arguing April versus March.

    Is the unqualified statement “worse off than what would have been the case had Labours tax cuts been implemented” rather than just “worse off”. (Of course that is on the assumption Michael Cullen would have delivered those – we have seen that delivery not happen over previous elections.) But thats not the issue I’m trying to discuss. Just trying to verify that the KB table is correct ie people (on incomes > 20k, not in receipt of WFF) are better off in April versus March?

    • Pascal's bookie 5.1
      30 March 2009 at 5:33 pm

      Labour didn’t win the election, so theorising about what MC might’ve done doesn’t matter. There was legislation passed bringing Labour’s tax cuts into effect. That was the law. If KB’s table doesn’t compare National’s new regime with that legislated labour regime, but rather with current rates (ie not counting Labour’s changes), then he is not really describing what National actually did.

      The honest thing to compare Nationals new regime with, is what things would have looked like if National had done nothing. (hint: Labour’s legislation would have come in to effect irrespective of speculations about Cullen, because Labour could not in realty change things, they lost the election)

      So the question might be asked which people are/will be better off next April, based on what National did.

      • Daveski 5.1.1
        30 March 2009 at 7:35 pm

        PB 10 points for at least trying to defend the indefensible.

        The simple point as GMG points out is that people appear to be better off if they earn more than 20K.

        As you point out, what Labour would have/could have done is irrelevant given they were voted out.

        • r0b 5.1.1.1
          30 March 2009 at 8:18 pm

          It is by no means “irrelevant” to the huge number of low income earners who are worse off under National than they would have been under Labour.

      • Pascal's bookie 5.1.2
        30 March 2009 at 8:31 pm

        Daveski. What is it that you think I am defending?

        I’m glad you agree that what Cullen might’ve done is irrelevant. It’s been something that others on the right have been bringing up quite often and like you I think it’s silly. My comment explained why.

        In order to get this appearance that you speak of, does the KB table compare National’s package to Labour’s (which was the law they changed) or does he use the other method, which you agree is silly and dishonest?

        Kiwiblog crashes my dodgy old browser at the moment, so I don’t know….

  6. RedLogix 6
    30 March 2009 at 9:30 pm

    I think you are arguing National versus Labour – I am just arguing April versus March.

    Well that would be nice if thought you were being sincere, but existing tax cuts were passed into law last year that would have come into effect this April. (Speculation to the contrary is just that…. idle speculation.)

    However new legislation has been passed recently that changes that law… the effect of which is that if you are on less than the median income (ie the lower 50% of wage and salary earners)… you will be worse off from April 1.

    See it can be managed without mentioning any red or blue elephants… just don’t look at the butter.