When you look at the newspaper headlines (by the way, that is still allowed, under the Royal Charter!), you may wonder what kind of a country the United Kingdom has become.
The Labour party and their left-wing media allies, led by the Guardian and the BBC, are railing against what they see as swingeing 'cuts' in welfare payments and so called tax cuts for the rich. Let's consider these.
Labour has christened the removal of taxpayer housing subsidy for spare rooms in social housing as a 'bedroom tax'. How, even in their twisted 'Orwellian' use of the English language, a removal of a subsidy somehow gets converted to a tax on something, is beyond most people's understanding. But let's examine further. The change will see those people that are in receipt of housing benefit, have a deduction made if that benefit covers a property that is in excess of what the family actually need. So if you have a couple in a three bedroom apartment or house, there will be a reduction in the amount of money, paid by the state because this couple have either one or two spare rooms, depending on other circumstances. What is wrong with that? Why should welfare recipients enjoy benefits that are not available to the ordinary taxpayer? Why should Johnny or Jane Taxpayer subsidize a playroom for someone on welfare, while their own child (ren) must use the living room as their playroom?
Benefits are now capped (albeit at a very generous level) and will only be increased by 1% instead of CPI - No sane person can reasonably support paying housing benefit of £1,000+ a week - welfare recipients living in housing that they would otherwise have no reasonable expectation of residing in. No sane person can support welfare payments that are greater than the average national wage. How could such a system ever hope to wean people off of welfare dependency and make work pay?
Labour and its socialist allies are juxtaposing these 'cuts' alongside the reduction in the top rate of tax from 50% to 45% as in 'millions suffer while millionaires get a tax cut' type of headlines. Remember it was Labour that introduced the special 50% rate as a 'temporary' measure. Their words not mine. Now the Conservative-led coalition has timidly reduced the rate to 45%, Labour complain. They don't complain that the temporary measure hasn't been abolished - no, they complain that the temporary measure, that they introduced, isn't being made permanent!
Labour's biggest problem with the welfare 'cuts' though, isn't about the size of the reductions. Truth is that these are barely scratching the surface. No the Labour Party's problem is that these 'cuts' are actually popular! The average working person looks at these and sees that finally, someone is thinking of them and making them appear less like fools, for working for a living. Couple that with the accelerated introduction which raises the tax-free threshold and takes more and more people out of tax altogether and you can see that Labour is in danger of losing its client state constituency. That is the big problem for Labour. How do you get people worked-up about a reduction in the top rate of tax when their own tax bill is falling? How do you get them angry about people on welfare being faced with the realities of life that the average worker faces every single day?
The Labour party and their left-wing media allies, led by the Guardian and the BBC, are railing against what they see as swingeing 'cuts' in welfare payments and so called tax cuts for the rich. Let's consider these.
Labour has christened the removal of taxpayer housing subsidy for spare rooms in social housing as a 'bedroom tax'. How, even in their twisted 'Orwellian' use of the English language, a removal of a subsidy somehow gets converted to a tax on something, is beyond most people's understanding. But let's examine further. The change will see those people that are in receipt of housing benefit, have a deduction made if that benefit covers a property that is in excess of what the family actually need. So if you have a couple in a three bedroom apartment or house, there will be a reduction in the amount of money, paid by the state because this couple have either one or two spare rooms, depending on other circumstances. What is wrong with that? Why should welfare recipients enjoy benefits that are not available to the ordinary taxpayer? Why should Johnny or Jane Taxpayer subsidize a playroom for someone on welfare, while their own child (ren) must use the living room as their playroom?
Benefits are now capped (albeit at a very generous level) and will only be increased by 1% instead of CPI - No sane person can reasonably support paying housing benefit of £1,000+ a week - welfare recipients living in housing that they would otherwise have no reasonable expectation of residing in. No sane person can support welfare payments that are greater than the average national wage. How could such a system ever hope to wean people off of welfare dependency and make work pay?
Labour and its socialist allies are juxtaposing these 'cuts' alongside the reduction in the top rate of tax from 50% to 45% as in 'millions suffer while millionaires get a tax cut' type of headlines. Remember it was Labour that introduced the special 50% rate as a 'temporary' measure. Their words not mine. Now the Conservative-led coalition has timidly reduced the rate to 45%, Labour complain. They don't complain that the temporary measure hasn't been abolished - no, they complain that the temporary measure, that they introduced, isn't being made permanent!
Labour's biggest problem with the welfare 'cuts' though, isn't about the size of the reductions. Truth is that these are barely scratching the surface. No the Labour Party's problem is that these 'cuts' are actually popular! The average working person looks at these and sees that finally, someone is thinking of them and making them appear less like fools, for working for a living. Couple that with the accelerated introduction which raises the tax-free threshold and takes more and more people out of tax altogether and you can see that Labour is in danger of losing its client state constituency. That is the big problem for Labour. How do you get people worked-up about a reduction in the top rate of tax when their own tax bill is falling? How do you get them angry about people on welfare being faced with the realities of life that the average worker faces every single day?
No comments:
Post a Comment