Skip to main content

Dealing with Labour's Legacy

The public finances will be a challenge over the next 5 years. Apart from the tax and benefit changes in the budget yesterday there are also the cuts in public spending.

All of these arise from the mismanagement of the economy by the previous government. We should have been in the situation of Germany (who went into the recession in surplus) rather than Greece.

The situation is straightforward. It compares to a household that has fallen on hard times and needs to bring its income and expenditure into line.

You can do this without external intervention. You can do this when you get the court orders and end up paying court fees. Alternatively you can wait until you go bankrupt and the bailiffs are at the door.

The bailiff bankruptcy option is like Greece.
The court orders and court fees option is like Spain.
The DIY approach is what we are doing.

The key to all of this is that by controlling public finances in a proper manner there will be less cuts than was otherwise necessary.

In terms of the details of the budget people who are on lower incomes have been protected. Those people on higher incomes will pay higher CGT rates than Labour had proposed.

There is an argument about VAT which is what the chart below is about. The chart looks at households by the size of the household budget. There are households with a low income, but high expenditure (many times the income) who are living off capital. These should not be compared to households on a tight budget. Hence the decile analysis (grouping households into 10% cohorts) by expenditure is the proper analysis.

The chart below is from the budget and demonstrates that the indirect tax changes (mainly a vat increase) are in fact progressive and not regressive - notwithstanding the claims of various lobby groups. That is because there is no VAT on food and basic costs (such as residential rents etc).


At the same time we really should not be shelling out £104,000 per year on housing benefit for one family. These excesses must be brought under control. Further it is good that the civil list will be subject to scrutiny in the same way as other public spending.

All we have to do now is to ensure that MPs are also subject to a public sector wages freeze. That, however, is left to IPSA.


Jerry said…
"That is because there is no VAT on food and basic costs (such as residential rents etc)."

John, there will be a significant rise in the cost of food and basic costs, due to VAT rises. I am confused to see why you say there won't be.

The costs of delivering the food along with costs of producing the food will increase the price of fuel will rise in January for one example, the producer will relay the increase to the consumer, so the cost of food will rise.

Watch the price of a loaf of bread, its average price today is £1.17 a loaf, heaven only knows what price it will be next January.

What frustrates me with this budget and like the many more previous to it, is the poorest 10% of the population will be even worse off, the Ministers who set this budget have no idea what its like to live on the bread line, These 10% don't just watch the pounds but the pennies too.

I also cannot understand the thinking behind the point by Osborne that child poverty will not increase.

Child benefit is frozen, but the VAT increase will make the poorest households worse, yes we have the Child Tax Credit increase by a little over £3 a week, this will not even shadow the overall weekly increase in costs of the poorest families.

Why don't they get a Job is always spouted, like myself I would walk into a Job tomorrow if I could, for ever job advertised there's 80+ applicants for the advertised job, people who are poor don't stand a chance, been there and seen it for my own eyes. I know a lot of famlies who are not able to get a job through no fault of their own.

Its nice putting graphs and charts explaining things which while I agree, does absolutly nothing to help the poorest folks in society, its looking like we are heading back to the 80's.

The poorest are going to be forced to borrow way beyond their means if only to just survive.

Why should the poorest suffer time and time again for what the richest of the country did to the balance sheets.
john said…
The VAT on fuel for food producers is reclaimed.

Those people on benefits will get more benefits as the child benefit is frozen.

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.

I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…