Monday, October 04, 2010

Gideon: arsehole

George Osborne: could we have a real clown as Chancellor, rather than this total fucking clown?

The Brazilians may have sent a clown to congress, but we've gone one better: we've got a total fucking arsehole as Chancellor.

Now, listen up, George: we all know that certain benefits need to be cut—indeed, those of us who have spent our entire working life paying for other people to enjoy the fruits of our labour are very eager to see it happen.

And yes, cutting benefits to the highest earners does, indeed, make total sense: benefits are supposed to be a safety net, not a bloody bonus for those who are considerably better off than I. So, given that, yes, cutting Child Benefit to those people is a good idea.
Child benefit is to be axed for higher rate taxpayers from 2013, Chancellor George Osborne has announced.

Ahead of his appearance at the Conservative Party conference he told the BBC the move would save about £1bn.

But what kind of utter fucking arsehole does it this way...?
Under the proposed changes, a family where both parents are earning just under £44,000 will continue to receive child benefit while a family where only one person is working and whose income is just above £44,000 will lose the payment.

Just to emphasise how adroitly Gideon has snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, I will let Dizzy spell out just how incredibly stupid this proposal is...
Look, the idea and principle of saying higher rate tax earners shouldn't really be getting a £20-or-so a week handout in child benefit is a good thing, but please, if you're going to do it at least execute the change with some sort of skill.

What you don't do is go on the telly and say that a couple earning £43,000 each, making their household earning £86,000 will still get the benefit, whilst a couple with only one working on £44,001 won't.

Quite. And I can only join Dizzy in emphasising that George Osborne is a fucking twat.

I mean, seriously, George—this isn't rocket science, you know. Your advisers might be utter morons, or they might be playing a practical joke on you, or they might be simply massively anti-government... I don't care.

You should have looked at this proposal and gone, "this cannot be right. It is going to make me, and the government, look like a bunch of twats."

For fuck's sake...

34 comments:

Anonymous said...

A bit harsh. Its probable that the only reason why it is to be done like this is because the tax computers doesn't know who is married to who. As much as I agree with your comments that this is daft, it probably has very little to do with 'Gideon' at all. And I thought you worked in IT....

Anonymous said...

Face it, they are all tw**s. So what is new?

Lord Blagger said...

Look at the spin. Those earning over 44K. The 40% tax threshold is 37.4K.

Lies and more lies.

Then there are unmarried couples. What happens there? Mother not working, full child benefit.

Separate couples? Father is a higher earner. Mother carries on claiming.

It is an attack on marriage.

Korenwolf said...

The numbers are all weaselling anyway, the £44k figure works if you factor in the personal allowance so is justifiable. However the example which no one has tried yet is asking why a couple earning 25k each get the benefit whereas a couple with one earner at 50k doesn't (the former being ~2.5k better off according to my rough numbers excluding NI).

Obsidian said...

I can see why it's been done this way, even if it is annoying, counter intuitive and seemingly idiotic.

The alternative would've been based on household income, which can be tweaked as needed if you use your smarts, which would of course lead to further state interference and no doubt more adverts about benefit fraud, only this time featuring more BMW's in an effort to combat people lying about where they live.

It's a thorny issue, and one where the simplest is the 'all or nothing' version. Start layering it to certain income bands, and well, this happens.

I'd rather have seen them take up with the likes of ASDA and offer universal vouchers for things such as stationary and school uniforms.

Those who can afford to send their kids to private school are unlikely to dispatch them there with George from ASDA, and hence those vouchers never get redeemed.

It would also have the added bonus of Mummy and Daddy having to spend it on little Colleen as opposed to spending it at Bargain Booze.

Lord Blagger said...

It may be a softening up process.

Look, we've screwed the middle class and the rich, now for the chavs.

However, 50K a year, 3 kids, stay at home wife.

Congratulations, you've just had a 6 grand pay cut.

Nice kick in the nuts George

Anonymous said...

Honestly what a monkey spacker - at the end of the day where's the justice in hammering the people who actually pay all the tax, you know the middle classes, and leaving all the dossing chavvy cunts to continue enjoying their frankly excessive benefits. Christ they're determined to lose the next election aren't they?

Dioclese said...

To be fair, this could be just a little premature as he hasn't announced the details yet.

And I listened to him when he said "higher rate taxpayers" but didn't define exactly what he meant by that. The BBC forced the definition on him and put words in his mouth. Their financial geezer couldn't even work out that the the £44k was calculated by adding in the basic personal allowance!

I suspect at the end of the day it will apply to combined household earnings but we will have to wait and see the detail. If he does what you suggest, then yes he is a twat!

Bulldog said...

Yeah it looks bad. But it makes sense and I think that if you're opposed to Government waste you should support it.

http://libertarianbulldog.blogspot.com/2010/10/why-dizzy-and-devil-might-be-wrong.html

The Hobbs End Martian said...

HaHaHaHa!

Doesn't matter which donkey you hitch your cart to, the destination is the same

Bartertown!

Led said...

Is it supposed to encourage both parents to work? (economists always try to push more people into the market)

It could also be based on the idea that a couple earning £86k would likely be paying twice the tax.

Either way it's a bit odd.

Anonymous said...

From the other Anonymous' post (stop using my name by the way!). The Child Tax Credit computer can work out what it's giving you based on both incomes so I put the blame back on Gideon!

chris said...

So by bringing your children up as a couple in a stable relationship you have the chance of getting more out of the government than if you are single. That is rather different from the normal way of things, and it is good. Bringing up kids properly is hard and more parents sharing the burden is better. Quite frankly any cut to the welfare state is good, and welfare for the wealthy is indefensible anyway. This is a good cut. The first of many hopefully.

Dioclese said...

Seems I owe you an apology. You would appear to be correct.

I might post on this soon when I have looked at the detail but it sounds like one of those proposals that is easy to implement in theory but impossible in practice.

It is a payment made directly to the mother, so presumably they would have to look at the mother's income in isolation. This would mean that it would have to be assessed a year in arrears looking at P60s or tax returns. So if the father earns a million quid a year but the mother doesn't work, she gets child benefit.

Worse, if the mother gets 50k a year and the father is the stay at home child carer, then there is no child benefit.

Plus how you assess the family income if you go down that road? The Revenue don't know who is living with who.

And what about cases where the father has moved on and the mother is living with someone else?

It sounds simple in theory as a conference soundbite, but I cannot see any way to actually do it in practice without means testing every year which Dave ruled out on the BBC this morning.

I suspect this will quietly disappear or be announced as a U-turn by this caring government who, of course, are listening to the people and responding...

Ian E said...

One should bear in mind that the stay-at-home parent, whilst not formally adding to the income of a family, does have very significant economic (and social) value - such as saving on child care, providing more parenting hours, doing the school run/housekeeping/shopping etc. A couple with one parent earning the same as a couple with both parents working is actually clearly much better off in many ways and needs less expenditure on many family related items.

Rob said...

Please...please stop talking about the "social good" of stay at home mums. No doubt they should all get full salaries for all the socials goods they are producing - morons.

My wife is a stay at home Mum and we will lose benefits with these cuts. Great! We didn't deserve it so we shouldn't get it.

Earning 38K is plenty to look after myself and my family. If I buy house or a TV I can't afford THAT IS MY CHOICE and no one else should have to pay for it. All this whining just shows how desperately pathetic the middle class have become and how totally addicted to benefits they are already. Have some dignity and don't ask for any help from the state if you don't need it. Then and only then can we justifiably campaign for lower taxes.

FlipC said...

Now look at how he's tried to defend it
"The reason that is the case is because you would have to introduce a very complicated means test and we would assess the household of every income in the country and change child benefit entirely as we know it,"

Yep that's every income in the country and not, say, just the ones trying to claim the benefit.

And my it's going to be such a complicated procedure - Please provide details of those within the household along with their NI numbers and annual income. Completely different to their proposal whereby they simply ask how much everyone in the household earns.

What a load of bollocks.

Maturecheese said...

I would imagine that when this policy is implemented, it will be based on the household income/ joint income of the parents. I have long been against well off people receiving child benefit and in the eighties when I was working for 3 pound odd an hour it was galling to know that 30 to 40 grand a year incomes were receiving state benefits.

Also slightly off topic, I do not believe that HB should cover ridiculous rents in London, especially where it is a private landlord that owns the property.

Rob said...

I love it when libertarians rail against cuts.

What was it Friedman said:

"A tax cut is always and everywhere a good thing".

Ditto a spending cut!

FlipC said...

@Rob - Even a tax cut aimed at everyone whose name doesn't start with an "R"?

Rob said...

Steady on old chap!

What about FAIRNESS!!!

Snotrocket said...

OK....let's see if I can get this suggestion through without arousing the ire of DK...

If you take as the premise that families living in Council Tax band F/G/H properties are, ergo, high income households, then stop the CB for that household - subject to appeal.

Or is that just too simple.

Ian E said...

'Rob said...
Please...please stop talking about the "social good" of stay at home mums. No doubt they should all get full salaries for all the socials goods they are producing - morons.

My wife is a stay at home Mum and we will lose benefits with these cuts. Great! We didn't deserve it so we shouldn't get it. ... '


If you were referring to my comment, I think I may not have expressed my point very clearly!

What I meant was that actually a family with only one parent working has very significantly LESS need for child benefits than a family with two working parents because the latter family would have to pay to get someone to perform the family-related work done by the stay-at-home parent. I was not arguing that the stay-at-home parent deserves something extra from society.

Lord Blagger said...

43K for a family with a stay at home mum.

86K for a couple working.

I make that a lot more money. Why not tax all the income from the working couple's second income?

Get real. It's screwing families over to pay for the mistakes of parliament.

Ian Simcox said...

Korenwolf makes a great point. This imbalance already exists. Because the tax computers don't know who's married to who, a couple who each earn £25k a year are £50 per week better off after tax than stay-at-home mum with a husband who earns £50k. All this does is add another £20 a week to that imbalance.

Plus this is a good thing, because once you get the rich out of welfare they'll start questioning why the hell they're paying for it - and we might get lower taxes.

Anonymous said...

maybe it's a smokescreen for the important announcemnet that no household will recieve benefits in excess of the average wage...

fewqwer said...

How long before they start explaining how much easier it would be to administer CB if all salaries were paid directly to the Inland Revenue?

Anonymous: According to some leftist fucktard on the BBC, the poorest families will be hit hardest by the benefits cap, because they're the ones who get over £500 a week in benefits ...

Blue Eyes said...

Fewqwer - that was a serious proposal when the Tax Credit system was being thought about. Even Gordon Brown realised that was a bit authoritarian.

DK - it's lovely to be ideologically pure on this (as is your prerogative, of course) but did you actually consider what your preferred solution would entail in practical terms?

Anonymous said...

What a complete cunt of an article. I suppose you'd prefer we still had Gordon Brown pissing our money up the wall you knob

Devil's Kitchen said...

Anon,

"I suppose you'd prefer we still had Gordon Brown pissing our money up the wall you knob"

No. But that's a bit like wandering into Poland in 1954 and saying "I suppose you'd prefer you still had Hitler ruling you, ya moaning knobs."

Blue Eyes (and chris),

I am all for removing the Welfare State—as far as I am concerned, Child Benefit shouldn't exist—but why do it in such an obviously unfair and cack-handed way?

DK

GKGGK said...

devil I hardly ever disagree with you but you've got this very wrong indeed. we already have different tax takes for two people earning whose combined earnings are the same as one person's. let me explain

two people earning £40k get to keep more money than one person earning £80k, because the 40k couple get twice the tax-free allowance of the 80k one [up to 7k is it now?] and the 80k person gets into the 40% bracket from 37k whereas the other two hardly do at all.

so do not find it surprising that we tie these kind of benefits to individuals, like the government is now doing with child tax credits. we do not do joint tax returns in this country. and it would become extremely expensive to co-ordinate it like that. get a grip :D

Richard said...

"but why do it in such an obviously unfair and cack-handed way?"

Because it's much easier to administer.

Also, as others have pointed out, there are already much bigger differences (in income tax) between a single earner on £80k and two earners on £40k each. Yes, we should arguably get worked up by that, but it's silly to ignore the bigger differences whilst jumping up and down about the smaller ones.

Of course it would have been even easier to scrap child benefit and add it onto child tax credit.

And it would have been even easier to scrap all child-related benefits altogether. But that wasn't going to happen.

Richard said...

Rough calculations:

Someone on £40k pays 20% income tax from £6.5k to £40k. That's 20% x £33.5k = £6.7k.

Two adults earning that in a household, total income tax approx. £13.5k.

One adult earning £80k, pays:
20% income tax from roughly £6.5k to £44k, plus 40% from £44k to £80k.

That's (20% x £37.5k) + (40% x £36k)
= £7.5k + £14.4k
= almost £22k

That's a lot more than the £13.5k paid between them by the couple with the same overall income.

Yes, we can argue about whether that's fair. But I can't see why that huge tax difference doesn't matter but a much smaller child benefit difference does.

Lord Blagger said...

Lets do the tax accurately.

http://listentotaxman.com/index.php

40K is taxed at 10,475.80 + 4,387.84 or 14,863.64 in tax.

For two people that is 29,727.28

80K is £26,489.60 + 9,507.84 or 35,997.44 in taxation

The richer person is 6,270.16 pounds worse off. Add on top the removal of 2,500 odd pounds of child benefit on top.

Yep, if you work hard, the government will screw you over. That's the message.