The 10p tax rate
Posted by David Kidney, MP for Stafford, at 14:51, Wed 23 April 2008:
I've been working on the problems created by the abolition of the 10p tax rate a great deal over the past few weeks. Labour's plans have gone seriously awry in adversely affecting so many low-income tax-payers, which has not been our intention.
The 10p was introduced by us at a time when there were no tax credits to help low-income households. Today, we have child tax credit, working tax credit and pension credit. And let's recall that all tax-payers get the benefit of a 10p rate, including the richest people.
An independent analysis of who benefits most from the combination of the 2007 and 2008 Budgets shows that the biggest gains are in the lowest one-third of income households. Add to this our efforts to reduce poverty amongst pensioners and children, the New Deal to help young people and lone parents get jobs and the national minimum wage to guarantee everyone a decent wage and you see Labour's true colours.
The Government has been under intense pressure to put right the harm caused to many low-income households this April and has now made announcements about measures to help low-income families affected by the changes made in the 2007 Budget.
The latest details from Alistair Darling have been very helpful. He has confirmed that he is designing a set of compensatory measures and that all the changes he makes will be backdated to the start of the financial year.
It now remains for me to continue to collect evidence of all those in Stafford constituency who have been adversely affected and to produce the details to the Chancellor so that he takes them into account in his design of the compensatory measures that he will now produce. I very much regret the harm that we have caused many vulnerable people, I am glad that we intend to put it right and I will carry on doing all that I have to in order to help all my constituents affected.
Regards, David
Comments
Commenting on this message is now disabled.
Posted by stuart vyner, 15:38, Wed 23 April 2008: (Is this post abusive?) #
This has obviously been loomimg since it was announced a year ago. why was it not seen then? were the repercussions ignored? short sighted government is not a way forward. This is another tax we low paid have to pay
Posted by damonhoppe, 17:33, Wed 23 April 2008: (Is this post abusive?) #
The 10p Tax Rate was a great step forward and could of been built on, year on year, taking the poorest families, for whom every penny counts, out of the tax system altogether. i.e. reducing it to nil.
The removal of this positive measure was done to balance out new tax breaks for the already wealthy...
When will it ever be recognised that real wealth of any economy is created by ordinary hardworking people???
Ordinary people should be given better deal by the system not just because it’s a moral disgrace but because it’s an economic waste to keep the poor poor.
As for Working Tax Credit it keeps the poorest poor because its only payable to those who are able to obtain f/t permanent jobs...Whilst the majority of the low paid have to live on part time jobs. That’s right a couple both working 15hrs each (total of 30hrs) would get no WTC whereas a single person working over 30hrs would.
I think its fair to say that the Government knew the implications for the poor when it announced it. It just was not expecting any serious opposition.
After all ever declining numbers turning out to vote is no real threat to the 'fat cat' funded poltical parties. We can expect the same from ANY other party, funded by the rich and therefore for the rich. So there is no point voting. We simply dont matter.
Posted by Mike Dennison, 18:17, Wed 23 April 2008: (Is this post abusive?) #
I think you will now find with the high taxes we already pay in the UK that you have gone too far. I now strongly believe that you as MP's are NOT in touch with the people who pay you to do their bidding.
Posted by Phil Lane, 22:48, Wed 23 April 2008: (Is this post abusive?) #
Absolute rubbish and spin - all we can expect from a corrupt and inept Labour government.
1) Bring our troops home from the two illegal wars you are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan with MY money - there's a few bob saved
2) Do not bail out private companies that have been mismanaged with MY money - Northern Rock - there's some more money saved.
3) Stop Gordon Brown's hiring of a new 'advisor' every week with MY money - there's some more money saved
Before you know it with no thought you have no need to abolish the 10% tax rate and lo and behold the poor become better off - what a good use of MY money that it.
Roll on the next election so Mr. Kidney and all other useless Labour MP's will be out of work - then they'll find out why we need low taxes for those on a low income.
Posted by diana smith, 14:01, Fri 25 April 2008: (Is this post abusive?) #
Whilst the row over the 10p tax rate is clearly regrettable, and it is wrong that people who struggle to make ends meet should have had this extra worry, I can’t help thinking that it may all turn out to be rather a good thing.
We can be pretty certain that no one is now going to lose out over this, as the MPs now know that they do not have to tolerate it. That means we can stand back and look at the whole thing as an exercise in democracy.
There has been an awful lot of fuss over this. Why is that? Is it because we really expect our politicians to know everything and to be able to get everything right all the time? If we do think that, it is clearly not a particularly reasonable expectation.
Anyone who has found access to this screen will know that they have access, through Hansard, BBC Parliament, and other sources, to vast amounts of information about all the decisions that are being taken in our name. That means that we are in a position to take an informed view on changes that are in the pipeline. We may often be in a position, over particular issues that interest us, to have more detailed knowledge than our MPs.
The other thing about this screen is the use we can make of it. Obviously some individuals will choose to use it as a means of letting off steam, and publically expressing some anger that they may be feeling. I would hope that more people will see it as an opportunity to develop a dialogue.
As individuals acting alone there is very little we can do to bring about changes. Individual MPs acting alone can’t do much more, but once you start to combine a few individuals and a few MPs things can start happening!
Posted by Phil Lane, 09:00, Sat 26 April 2008: (Is this post abusive?) #
Diana makes a reasonable point however within it you miss the main point.
Decisions are being made retrospectively "in our name" - this is not democratic government. The party system we have does not enable our feelings to be represented in parliament, in fact what happens is that the first past the post invariably is the candidate whose party has spent most money or influenced the media most locally in promoting them.
At that point, individual views etc. are no longer represented - the party whip system comes into play.
As a result we go to war, bail out limitd companies, abolish tax rates etc. flying in the face of popular opinion which is NOT what democracy should be all about. Your local MP should be representing your views, unfettered by a party machine - yes take a look at Hansard etc. and see how many times David Kidney has voted against the views of the Labour Party and how many times that view has varied from the predominant local view.
The 10% tax row is not in itself that important and yes in the end it will be 'sorted out' however this isuue has been the culmination of a sea change in this country where we th populace are sick to the teeth of 'our' representatives not representing us and instead taking a party view.
As an aside and a demonstration of 'democracy' in action, there is currently a media groundswell of opinion against Gordon Brown as Prime Minister. At the same time, we condmen Robert Mugabe's actions in Zimbabwe in ignoring the wishes of his populace who want him out. In this country, we didn't even get the chance to vote a new leader in, the party machine hid behind "its rules" and shoed in a new leader without recourse to the voting public. Laughable as those rules thoretically could have given us a Nick Griffin or similar and we wouldn't have had a say. At least the people of Zimbabwe had a chance at electing a new leader.
Posted by damonhoppe, 19:38, Sun 27 April 2008: (Is this post abusive?) #
I am some what perplexed by the statement: "We can be pretty certain that no one is now going to lose out over this.". On the contrary we can be certain that the poorest in our society will lose out yet again!
Of course their will be spin, similar to what David Kidney says above, claiming how much we are better off to keep the middle classes from feeling guilty about their affluence.
Apart from that we can expect a deeping program of marginalisation and persecution of the poor.
How is that they are able to get away with this in a democracy is precisely because we don't live in one anymore.
Carl Schmitt, author of Nazi Germany's constitution , and latter a big influence on the 'New-Right'(so we are not talking about some left wing thinker at all) felt that the 'democratic political system' hid the political reality that and I quote "a plurality of total parties all demand a total state." i.e. totalitarianism is inevitable.
In the post-war period it was thus recognised that extra-parliamentary opposition is fundemental to a healthy democracy. . i.e. 'liberal' political systems (Checks and balances of power)are the best protection against Fascism.
Making 'extra-parliamentary opposition' illegal, a process started under Thatcher and her contempt for liberal values, has meant the effective end of liberal democracy in the UK.
So what kind of Democracy do we have now ? I think Lord Hailsham described it best "an elected dictatorship
As Carl Schimmt correctly stated a 'liberal democracy' can not pursue an imperialist policy. Therefore the war in Iraq could not happen under a liberal system. Further the longer we operate as an 'imperialist' power the more the Government will need to curtail the basic freedoms of liberal democracy.
Therefore 'Imperialist War abroad' ultimately leads to Imperialist Government at home! Which at best means bad Government and inevitablly marginalisation and then oppression of 'undesirable' elements within society.
This 10p Tax thing is thus just another symptom of an arrogant Government that is unaccountable to the people.
Posted by diana smith, 11:11, Tue 29 April 2008: (Is this post abusive?) #
I would like to pick up on two points made by Phil and Damon.
Phil deals with the frustrations ordinary people feel about not being able to effectively make their voice heard. That is a frustration which I share, and I also believe that it has been a problem for many of our elected representatives. They need our help to be heard.
I think that the reason why people’s voices are so easily ignored is that there is so little in the way of real grass roots debate. This has been deeply unfashionable for a long time. Whilst plenty of people are prepared to complain quite loudly about the way things are or seem, there are not so many who have the inclination to try and work out what needs to be done on a practical level. How should we stimulate this process?
Creating effective means of sharing ideas, and involving people in the practical initiatives that are to some extent within our control would seem to be a step in the right direction. Forums like this may have a role to play if we take a constructive view of how they should operate. They would obviously need to involve rather more people! If you know how this should be done please share your ideas.
Damon takes me to task on the matter of the poor always losing out. Absolutely! I think that everyone who has responded to David’s email feels that that is the case. The reason why the 10p issue did hurt is that there are a lot of people undergoing very real economic stress. I wonder if anyone else heard some of the coverage of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Economic Inequality Debate, on 25th April. If not it is worth scanning it on Hansard. There are some strong pointers there on things which might actually be done to alleviate some of the problems.
One of the most obvious practical things that we could be doing here in Stafford is to build up the strength of the Credit Union, so that people are not being forced into the hands of loan sharks. Have we got the will to take this kind of action?
Posted by damonhoppe, 17:04, Wed 30 April 2008: (Is this post abusive?) #
I think Diana has raised some positive points.
1) Diana alludes to the possibility that their are some mainstream politicians that care about the poor...
I agree that it would be harmful to expose them openly (staying in the closet is the safest thing at the moment).
In the long term how can such assets be developed, supported and then deployed at the right moment? If we use such assets too early they can be to easily replaced by a party apparatchik. On the hand if they are not seen to act people may seek their replacement by standing other candidates.
Overall infiltrating an 'alien' party with friendly forces is a dangerous affair. I feel it is better to be more honest and work through political organisations which do offer a voice to the poor.
2) Diana further suggests grass roots organising. I once again agree 100%.
Such organising takes time and money not to mention certain skills and abilities. We are very fortunate to have people who give up their lives to try and take on issues despite government efforts to stop them. All the things we have today are down to the work of such people...
I think should all give thanks to them...Better still get involved or support them financially...Their is always a need for new members and supporters.
3) Credit Union. Wow did not know there was one in Stafford. Heard a rumour that the SDVS might be doing something... This is just the sort of thing we need.
4) The 'Archbishop of Canterbury' does indeed appear to be a voice in the wilderness. All the worlds’ religions, including humanism, place a spiritual 'demand' on people to help the poor and oppressed...
Moreover as most philosophers would tell you that it is also the demand of 'ethics'. Ethics is the condition of possibility of community. Which highlights the fact there is a lack of ethics in our 'Thatcherite' culture which is leading to a break down of society due to greed, etc.
Therefore it all comes down to the fact the 'ethical life is the good life' an idea which we need to promote in opposition to the Governments message that 'making money is the good life'.
Posted by diana smith, 20:29, Mon 5 May 2008: (Is this post abusive?) #
Damon. I thought I should check up on the current situation regarding the Credit Union. There has been a small branch running for a number of years based in Silkmore. It is currently very small, very underpublicised and underused, but the structure exists.
David noted your comments and has let me know that there are, quite coincidentally, moves underway which should make the organisation stronger, by a merger with some other branches.
I think this is a very positive development.
I think if you have an interest in looking at how the credit union could be given a higher profile it may be helpful for you to leave your contact details with the constituency office, so that they can pass them on to me.