DEM not gonna CON dis NATION: Rolling UK politics in the short-lived Cleggeron era

I'm dismissing the "the markets will grind us into dust if we don't cut public spending" for the dishonest hubris it is.

wish we had that luxury, tbh

the problem with the election campaign was that alistair darling didn't really propose any concrete cuts, did he? kind of passed me by. he just said there would be cuts on a thatcherite scale, so cutting child benefits for the rich would have been a likely measure.

He didn't, but neither did Osborne. Alistair Darling's cuts would still have been severe and painful and would have led to widespread civil disobedience and even more unpopularity.

There are other issues as well, the longer you maintain public spending at the level it is, the more you have to borrow, and the bigger the interest payments get. That's not a trifling issue, they must be enormous.

are there any developed economies that operate without a systemic deficit that is not several (tens of) % of gdp?

There are other issues as well, the longer you maintain public spending at the level it is, the more you have to borrow, and the bigger the interest payments get. That's not a trifling issue, they must be enormous.

― Matt DC, Tuesday, October 5, 2010 10:10 AM (29 seconds ago) Bookmark

it's almost as if the markets would grind us into dust [via interest raises]...

are there any developed economies that operate without a systemic deficit that is not several (tens of) % of gdp?

― caek, Tuesday, October 5, 2010 10:11 AM (7 seconds ago) Bookmark

dunno if china counts but they run a surplus iirc

god knows where they got the number from.

Some commie generals or something?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7103196.ece
Actually they only out it at £80billion.

Greenpeace (yeah, them) put it at £97billion.
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/media/reports/firing-line-hidden-costs-supercarrier-project-and-replacing-trident

I'm not sure about your 40 years either. More like 25-30.

yeah, 40 was a guess. my point is it's not a panacea even at that level, and it's not free money (jobs, non-like-for-like replacement costs).

No-one's saying it's a panacea but, say, £3b a year is 3x as much as this CB cut will raise.
If I really thought this was some kind of "all in it together" thing I would be in favour if it. But it's clearly not. A £1300 cut for us will make a big difference. It will make fuck all difference to fucking George Osbourne.

apparently the reason they're implementing it in this stupid way is because it's logistically simple (quick, cheap) and it avoids having the change be called "means-testing", the principle of which is apparently enough of a vote-loser to worry about. i certainly haven't heard anyone try to make the moral case that a two-income family with an income of £80k deserves cb, but a one-income family with an income of £45k does not.

i don't really understand why the conservatives think the principle of means-testing is toxic enough to avoid though, especially when doing so results in such a trivially idiotic implementation. don't know many people (outside this thread) who feels that strongly about the principle of universal benefits, and none of them are voting conservative or lib dem.

means-testing involves bureaucracy, is part of it, they say, and in this complicated world of unmarried couples, who knows what tangles they could get themselves into. of course it's ridiculous that couples earning £80k shd get child benefit.

FFS

Conservative sources admitted the aim was to push poor, workless families out of inner London and force down rents in the private rented sector – the key driver of the ballooning housing benefit bill.

Tory officials said: "The ultimate effect is that some people will have to move to less expensive areas, but that is fair since if their working peers cannot afford to live in central London, why should a workless family be allowed to remain?"

Cunts.

Not defending the process of funnelling taxpayers money to buy-to-let landlords, but how exactly is any of this likely to force down rents in the private rented sector? People on housing benefit can't afford to live in inner London > people with more money move in > rents stay high.

i don't completely understand the economics, but a lot of the people in that article are treating rents as inelastic; but the price is partly determined by the money available through housing benefit-paying tenants. government ought to be building social housing; this kind of thing --

In many boroughs in inner London in three or four years there will be no poor people living in the private rented sector … it is like something from the 19th century."

is... odd? he is defending the transfer of public wealth into private hands so far as i can tell. there are lots of other issues at stake, including ghettoization, however.

(of course, it's exactly *unlike* the nineteenth century insofar as the rich now want to live in whitechapel etc)

the child benefit thing is pretty amazing. saving £1bn which is fuck all, but getting awesome publicity at the same time as dismantling welfare.

the same, saving could have been done by raising the higher tax rate to i dunno 45% (i have not done any calculation)? probably more fair, less admin and not hitting some folks with a 100% marginal tax rate and certainly way more "we're in this together" than just hitting folks with kids. but would have been too simple i guess? and does not provide as much Schadenfreude joy for folks on lower income. maybe.

I'm fairly ambivalent about the child benefit cuts. Would be nice if they didn't do it, but £44k seems like a ridiculous amount of money to be earning to me. If you earn that, you are Richie McRichington from the planet Rich.

I heard a woman on the radio last night complaining that no longer getting child benefit was (not just akin to but) exactly the same as having an extra tax imposed on her. NO. If when I was a kid my mum stopped my pocket money, I would not think that that money was actually mine and she was now taxing me a pound every time I didn't get it. That sort of thinking is ridiculous.

On the other hand, it does seem stupid and overly ideological that, seeing as they won't budge on the cuts, they are more bothered about 'not increasing bureaucracy' than they are about ensuring the system they put in place is fair. I'm pretty certain that they would still make a saving even if they implented (ooh, the evil) means-testing.

im sure they'd get really good publicity if they raised taxes for people on more than £37k

kind of a choice between hitting the 'aspirational' vs 'stay-at-home mums'

xpost

'all aspirationals equally' vs 'only stay at home mums who is married to an aspirational'

Who needs more than two kids, anyway?

I know I don't!

(j/k kids if you're reading this)

One to wash, one to dry.

44k seems like a ridiculous amount of money to be earning to me. If you earn that, you are Richie McRichington from the planet Rich.

It really isn't if you've got one earner and 2 kids. Does £22k sound like planet rich? Because that's what it feels like I'm on. I could probably get more on benefits. Which is exactly what they me to think, damn...it's enough to make you want to vote tory, oh hang on...

they want me to think, obv.

I could give you my outgoings if you like. I am really not living on Planet Rich. Wish I was, then I would let a pissy £1700 a year affect me so much (yes, it's gone up since I last worked it out upthread).

wouldn't let - goddammnit, I've just been cleaning the bathroom, I think the bleach fumes are getting to me.

The tax credits system already exists to means-test families. ok it is appallingly complicated but why not abolish CB altogether, put the money into improving the tax credit system and increase the amount of TCs on a sliding scale.

Current CB changes smack of social engineering. We stay-at-home parents not taking part in the economy (only doing the trivial work of raising our kids). Let's force all parents into the workplace and have kids in nurseries for 12 hours a day instead.

Ned, you could use that argument against paying higher rate tax as well. In fact, it doesn't seem "fair" that one household earning £60k between two parents pays 20% less tax than a £37k househould with one working parent. But income tax is an individual allowance whereas child benefit is a household allowance, which is why the Tories hitching benefits to tax rates seems totally wrong (if quick and easy to implement).

It really isn't if you've got one earner and 2 kids. Does £22k sound like planet rich?

No, but it sounds like planet A Reasonable Amount to Live On.

As I say, though, if they do bloody well have to do this, they could at least invest in making it fairer. But nope, they have to avoid certain buzzwords and push others.

The tax credits system already exists to means-test families. ok it is appallingly complicated but why not abolish CB altogether, put the money into improving the tax credit system and increase the amount of TCs on a sliding scale.

Current CB changes smack of social engineering. We stay-at-home parents not taking part in the economy (only doing the trivial work of raising our kids). Let's force all parents into the workplace and have kids in nurseries for 12 hours a day instead.

― Meg (Meg Busset), Tuesday, October 5, 2010 11:42 AM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark

i've never understood tax credits, even before the terrible implementation -- why not just cut taxes for lower-income earners? at any rate, people on upwards of £40k can hardly claim to be eligible for tax credits.

child benefit keeps paying up to age 19, yeah? i don't want to sound harsh, but ummm

xpost

i don't think £22k is a reasonable amount to live on past the age o 2_.

'social engineering' is usually a slogan of the right aimed at redistributive policies. i dunno how you're using it here.

I don't know if it's reasonable or not. I'm just saying would anyone anyone on £22k (and one child?) be happy with a 3% income drop. If not, please don't expect me to be a cheerful chappie and join in the "we're all in this together" celebrations, because it does not feel like it right now. Matt may be right (he has confused me somewhat) and I'm getting some benefit from taxes elsewhere. I shall ask Mrs.Trifle for a rise immediately.

OK, I'm not going to go on about this anymore. I do actually (generally) feel like I have enough money, I just want to see Osbourne, et al taking a 3% cut too before telling me "it's tough but fair". Is that too much to ask?

'anyone anyone'? OK, i really need to chill and get a cuppa (Co-op economy brand).

Not defending the process of funnelling taxpayers money to buy-to-let landlords, but how exactly is any of this likely to force down rents in the private rented sector? People on housing benefit can't afford to live in inner London > people with more money move in > rents stay high.

― Matt DC, Tuesday, October 5, 2010 9:45 AM (1 hour ago)

I know this isn't what they're saying the point is, but it does mean less rent being paid for social housing tenants. Theoretically, yeah sure a smaller pool of available tenants means property prices might drop (not really tho, as long as that pool is at least +1 the no of properties available etc) but that's not really the exercise here- moving social housing costs to cheaper locations is the point.

once a benefit is only for the poor, powerful interests will no longer defend it, and it can be whittled to nothing.

once a benefit is only for the poor, right-wingers can say "look, they stay poor just so they can receive this benefit".

and once a benefit is only for the poor, we're no longer "all in it together".

means-testing is a bureaucratic maze, and guarantees that those least capable of filling out and understanding the proper paperwork get the benefit, when it's exactly those people who need to be receiving it.

i do like the idea of a single consolidated benefit payment (though it does smack A BIT of those late-nite ads that promise to "reduce all your bills down to one, easy monthly payment!" where you're trading ease for the privilege of being jacked)

also ken c otm that £1bn is fuck all compared to the slippery slope this opens, and compared to the real pinch felt by those on the cusp of eligibility

once a benefit is only for the poor, powerful interests will no longer defend it, and it can be whittled to nothing.

this isn't true of housing benefit/tax credits, but are you really saying that people on less than £44k count as 'the poor' here? people earning up to that, i.e. the vast majority of the working population, will still be eligible.

i didn't know that being 'all in it together' meant that the rich got benefits as well as the poor.

well in an ideal world everyone should be benefited.

an ideal world
e.g. one where everybody is actually in it together.

I'm pretty sure it shouldn't mean that a single parent earning 45k and paying full childcare costs should get nothing while a couple earning 80k between them get CB

well in an ideal world everyone should be benefited.

― HOOS' THE BOSS (ken c), Tuesday, October 5, 2010 12:32 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark

what? kind of think the idea is redistribution. if we were actually in it together we wouldn't have extreme wealth disparity.

I'm pretty sure it shouldn't mean that a single parent earning 45k and paying full childcare costs should get nothing while a couple earning 80k between them get CB

― Meg (Meg Busset), Tuesday, October 5, 2010 12:36 PM (56 seconds ago) Bookmark

of course; the £80k couple should have it cut. the single parent issue -- idk, idk how child support payments figure in that calculation, etc.

how would you feel about the NHS being only available for sub-45K earners? or be generous, say sub-60K.

or heck, public schooling should only be available for sub-60K, everyone else can pay for private school surely!

what? kind of think the idea is redistribution. if we were actually in it together we wouldn't have extreme wealth disparity.

yeah exactly. scale income tax.

kids get £20 a week until they earn their own income.

sorted.

i mean, how fucking difficult does it have to be?

tracer, on this point of principle in re: universal benefits, would you support the elimination of means testing for income support, job seeker's allowance, pension credit, housing benefit, council tax benefit, etc.

the concept of universal income support or jobseeker's allowance is nonsensical.

we could dispense with child benefit completely if we just once and for all dealt with the massive, head-doing expense of child care between the ages of 9m - 4yo. the UK is dead last in the European league table for this IIRC and i guarantee this is where 90% of child benefit goes.

just to give you a taste, in London the average creche cost is probably around £30 a day. if you've got 22 work days in a month that's an expense of £660 a month. EVERY MONTH. FOR YEARS. so of course many women (and men) prefer to simply quit their jobs and spend more time with their kids rather than stump up this massive bill. and now the tories want to punish them! fabulous.

They're only punishing them if they have a partner earning in the top 10% in the country.

finding it really hard to be all ;_; for people earning £40k+

we could dispense with child benefit completely if we just once and for all dealt with the massive, head-doing expense of child care between the ages of 9m - 4yo.

not sure about dispensing completely with, but in agreement with the sentiment, definitely.

JSA was not means tested against income (from investments etc.) until relatively recently iirc. that may be crazy (certainly seems so to me), but it's not nonsensical or a meaningless question.

unless i'm missing something, the benefits in that list are not qualitatively different from universal child support.

so i want to know where you draw the line. what about housing benefit? why shouldn't that be universal?

mortgage/rent relief substitutes for that over here

how would you feel about the NHS being only available for sub-45K earners? or be generous, say sub-60K.

or heck, public schooling should only be available for sub-60K, everyone else can pay for private school surely!

― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, October 5, 2010 12:45 PM (34 seconds ago) Bookmark

well, in the latter case, they already do, though i can see how this powerful constituency might suddenly turn on the welfare state if we didn't appease them

i paid university tuition fees and did not get a student grant because my parents earned however much; having never earned more than the median income, i owe getting on for ten grand

so yeah, i think the nhs shd be for all. but not cash benefits.

just to give you a taste, in London the average creche cost is probably around £30 a day. if you've got 22 work days in a month that's an expense of £660 a month. EVERY MONTH. FOR YEARS. so of course many women (and men) prefer to simply quit their jobs and spend more time with their kids rather than stump up this massive bill. and now the tories want to punish them! fabulous.

― progressive cuts (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, October 5, 2010 1:11 PM (11 minutes ago) Bookmark

ok, fair play. this sucks. they shd concentrate money on the pre-schoolers. child benefit goes up to 19yo, however, and that's pretty weird for people in the top income tax bracket. not sure what being a stay-at-home-mother of a 17yo entails.