Click graph for larger version.
.PNG)
Wednesday 4 December 2013
Thursday 4 April 2013
Daily Mail article - £1 a day to live - But not according to the photo
A Daily Mail article claims that a 'cash-strapped' teacher managed to live on £1 a day.
But the food on the table in front of the teacher, in the photo, looked like one day's worth of food to me.
I wondered how much the items would cost, so I added up the price of the groceries on the table, using Sainsbury's price list:
Sainsbury's Basics Curry Sauce 26p
Sainsbury's Basics Tomato Ketchup 28p
Sainsbury's Basics Toilet Rolls £1.96
Sainsbury's Basics Toothpaste 25p
Sainsbury's Basics Scouring sponges 19p
Sainsbury's Basics instant chicken noodles 13p
Sainsbury's Basics baked beans 28p
Sainsbury's Basics tomato soup 24p
Sainsbury's Basics tortilla chips 50p
Sainsbury's Paracetamol 24p
Brocoli 50p
1 Apple 28p
1 carrot 20p
1 tomato 20p
Total = £5.51 for one small shop, with one day's worth of food.
But that's only for one days' worth of food, and it doesn't include all the items needed for a week's living, such as shower gel, toilet bleach, laundry detergent, washing up liquid, cling film, etc etc etc.
I estimate it would cost at least £40 for a week's worth of groceries, including all necessary basic household items, for one person, using similar budget items for a week's worth of very basic groceries.
And that doesn't include occasional one-off items that it is always necessary to purchase in order to run a household.
But the food on the table in front of the teacher, in the photo, looked like one day's worth of food to me.
I wondered how much the items would cost, so I added up the price of the groceries on the table, using Sainsbury's price list:
Sainsbury's Basics Curry Sauce 26p
Sainsbury's Basics Tomato Ketchup 28p
Sainsbury's Basics Toilet Rolls £1.96
Sainsbury's Basics Toothpaste 25p
Sainsbury's Basics Scouring sponges 19p
Sainsbury's Basics instant chicken noodles 13p
Sainsbury's Basics baked beans 28p
Sainsbury's Basics tomato soup 24p
Sainsbury's Basics tortilla chips 50p
Sainsbury's Paracetamol 24p
Brocoli 50p
1 Apple 28p
1 carrot 20p
1 tomato 20p
Total = £5.51 for one small shop, with one day's worth of food.
But that's only for one days' worth of food, and it doesn't include all the items needed for a week's living, such as shower gel, toilet bleach, laundry detergent, washing up liquid, cling film, etc etc etc.
I estimate it would cost at least £40 for a week's worth of groceries, including all necessary basic household items, for one person, using similar budget items for a week's worth of very basic groceries.
And that doesn't include occasional one-off items that it is always necessary to purchase in order to run a household.
The BBC. An old establishment bias. A new right-wing bias?
Who knows what goes on inside the BBC? It's not very transparent or accountable to its license fee payers.
It seems to me that the BBC has had pressure put on it by the right-wing political elite to change its approach to representing right wing politics.
It is possible that Chris Patten was put in place by the current government to implement changes that would, in their eyes, correct the perceived inherent left-wing prejudices in the BBC.
I do not accept that the BBC has a left-wing prejudice, but I believe that the BBC has an unconscious bias in favour of the elite establishment classes, including: the Westminster elite.
Society is shaped and moulded by a multitude of forces, including those at the top of society, who have the advantage of money, influence and platforms from which spread their ideology.
I believe that the BBC should be a platform which provides a counter-balance to the establishment elites, and should provide a platform for the vast range of opinions held by the millions of UK citizens.
I do understand that it is difficult for the BBC. Good journalism attempts to unpick government policies and ideology. Then it is up to the government to defend and promote their own policies. But governments are defensive, and it is easy for a government to accuse the BBC of bias when invited guests trash the government's policies or ideology.
The current government claims to represent a large proportion of the populate, but most of the electorate did not vote for the Tories, and the current government policies do not tend to reflect the LibDems's ideology or manifesto. For any government, even popular ones, its individual policies are not necessarily supported by the majority of the electorate, or even the majority of those who voted for that particular political party. For example, who voted for a top-down reorganisation of the NHS? No one.
The UK's articulate and dynamic right-wing press (owned by unaccountable overseas media-barons) shapes public opinion, and moves the political centre-ground (and political arguments) to the right.
The BBC is a helpful counter-balance, and provides a refreshing balance the press, the majority of which is right-wing. The BBC provides a counter-balance, not because it has a left-wing bias, but simply because it attempts to represent a balance of political, economic and cultural views, rather than a right-wing polemic.
In comparison to the right-wing press (in relative terms) perhaps the BBC is indeed left-wing, as it attempts to provide a balanced discussion, and incorporates a range of political views. But that's only in relative terms, and it's not difficult to be further to the left, politically, than the Murdoch press, or the Daily Telegraph, for example. In comparison to the Socialist Worker, or Marxism Today, the BBC is right-wing, in relative terms.
In reality, the BBC attempts to represent what it considers to be the current political centre-ground. However, I'm not convinced that it does this successfully. I consider the BBC to be pro-establishment, and not representative of its license fee payers. BBC news and current affairs programs give far more representation to the political elite, than to independent voices, or to other cultural or political representatives, so inevitably, the BBC is not representative.
For example, BBC Question Time usually invites three Westminster politicians, often two who represent the two current coalition parties. And then two other commentators are invited. Members of the public are not given an equal platform, and a range of non-government organisations and citizen representatives are rarely represented.
I also believe that the BBC has increasingly had political pressures being placed upon it, from the right-wing political establishment. Chris Patten is perhaps one example of this. The selection process of BBC trustees is hardly a process that is independent of government.
The BBC provides an ongoing high-profile media platform to a handful of ministers but the BBC does not, and cannot, give equal representation to all 60 million UK citizens. This imbalance will always present, even if a particular government policy were to affect every single license fee payer adversely.
Although a government claims to represent the nation that it governs, a government's policies can affect very many citizens adversely.
If a specific government policy were to affect the vast majority of citizens adversely, then how can the BBC put out a balanced discussion of topical issues, whilst giving the government a platform upon which to promote its policies?
Let us take one policy area, energy, as a hypothetical example.
Let's imagine that the government implemented an energy policy which resulted in an immediate short-term increase in energy bills.
Let's imagine, for illustration, that the new energy policy was a fiasco, both short-term and long-term, and that many customers lost their energy supplies for long periods of time.
The government would defend their policies and claim that they were sound policies, and give various reasons.
In this case, would it be balanced for the BBC to give the same amount of air-time to the politicians who were in favour of the new energy policy, as they gave to citizens who were against the new policy? Or would it be fairer to give one second of air time to the politicians who implemented the policy and 60 minutes of air time to the public who are mostly opposed to the policy? (There are roughly 60 million citizens in the UK who would be affected adversely by the government policies and only a fraction of the UK population are the politicians and business leaders, or shareholders, who would be in favour of the policies.)
The same is the case for all government policy. The government is given an exaggerated amount of air time to promote its policies. And the government complains vehemently when it is under the perception, that the BBC has not represented its policies fairly, or it has not been given enough air time. Thus the BBC becomes a mouth piece for government, whether consciously or unconsciously.
So the BBC is between a rock and a hard place. It is difficult for it to avoid upsetting the loud and persuasive establishment voices. The pressure put on the BBC by the government is probably sometimes irresistible. But the BBC also has to fairly represent the other 59.9 million non-political voices in Britain. How should the BBC represent those voices? Should it look towards political leaders, or unions, or non-government organisation, or towards whatever the tabloid press happens to be banging on about on a particular day? Or should it involve the license fee payers directly, by giving them a platform with equal air time to the politicians who claim to be acting in their interests?
If the BBC represents the people fairly, should it represent what people think they want, or what they think would be good for them, or should it represent what would be objectively good for them? And who is to decide what is objectively good for a population? These are perhaps impossible questions to answer, and perhaps impossible ideas for the BBC to manage. But an evidence-based approach is perhaps one way of dealing with some issues.
The BBC cannot represent all views, but it should attempt to provide a forum in which a wide range of public views can be represented, with radical and alternative thinkers included in the public discussions. There should be an attempt to objectively look at a range of political/economic theories. And a range of theories should be given an airing, rather than just the lazy journalism of representing the loudest voices, and what is perceived to be the current centre-ground of politics, which is inevitably shaped by the political, economic and media elites.
Currently, the BBC often seems to be a mouth-piece for the elites (Westminster/Fleet Street/big business/economic classes), and is increasingly looking as if it has had pressure placed on it to represent the right-wing political elites in a more favourable light.
For example, I notice that the BBC will not currently use the term "bedroom tax" without counter-balancing it with the term "spare room subsidy". From what I've heard on Radio 4, this seems to be a result of pressure, or complaints, from the political classes.
Worryingly, I have seen a new development at the BBC since Chris Pattern has been head of the BBC Trust.
This was displayed perfectly on Question Time and on This Week, on the night after the 2013 budget statement by the Chancellor.
For both of these BBC flagship programs, one would expect a balance of opinions to be invited: For example, one right wing economist, and one left wing economist.
However, Question Time, an important post-budget BBC flagship program, included a right-wing economist (demanding further and deeper austerity), and no left-wing economist (or left-wing economic commentator), at all. There were three right-wing guests, and two left-wing guests.
This Week included two additional right-wing commentators, and no left-wing commentator, beyond the regular sofa guest.
Soon after the beginning of April 2013, when a heated welfare debate hit the airwaves, Radio 4's Any Questions invited one right-wing commentator (Peter Hitchens) and no left-wing commentator. It also included two coalition representatives. Only one left-wing non-government politician was included.
This is all speculation on my part, but it seems to me that BBC executive have been pressured into a new understanding as to what constitutes 'balance'.
This is a worrying development, for an organisation that is supposed to be (notionally, at least) independent of government. The BBC isn't independent, because the government recommends the BBC's trustees, and the Queen appoints them. It's time for this to change.
Balance at the BBC, in its flagship programs, now seems to be a case of including commentators with views that support the government, alongside a commentator who is more right-wing than the current government.
Perhaps it is impossible for the BBC to lead political opinion, as newspapers do, because of its charter. It can only attempt to represent political opinion. But it is doing a bad job of representing the public at the moment, because it is biased towards representing establishment voices. The BBC needs to find a new way to represent its license fee payers, and politics, with new voices, and a variety of commentators who can better challenge established wisdom, ideology or orthodoxy. The government views can be represented, whilst a range of other voices are introduced to represent all walks of life in the UK, a range of demographics, and a range of interesting, novel and even radical opinion formers.
At the moment, the BBC is depressingly walking into a trap set by the government. Perhaps this is due to weak leadership, or perhaps it is due to design, and pressure brought by the possible political leadership of Chris Patten.
I believe the BBC needs a radical shift away from establishment politics. Will we see this? Not likely in the short term. But at least the BBC can attempt to fairly represent license fee payers, by implementing a radical new way of representing an interesting variety of political voices in the UK. It should not be cowered by, or kowtow to, threats or complaints by the UK government. The BBC appears to be unhealthily close to the UK government at the moment.
I think it is time for the left-wing to fight back before the BBC becomes a mouth-piece for this government, and for right-wing ideologies, and right-wing media barons.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It seems to me that the BBC has had pressure put on it by the right-wing political elite to change its approach to representing right wing politics.
It is possible that Chris Patten was put in place by the current government to implement changes that would, in their eyes, correct the perceived inherent left-wing prejudices in the BBC.
I do not accept that the BBC has a left-wing prejudice, but I believe that the BBC has an unconscious bias in favour of the elite establishment classes, including: the Westminster elite.
Society is shaped and moulded by a multitude of forces, including those at the top of society, who have the advantage of money, influence and platforms from which spread their ideology.
I believe that the BBC should be a platform which provides a counter-balance to the establishment elites, and should provide a platform for the vast range of opinions held by the millions of UK citizens.
I do understand that it is difficult for the BBC. Good journalism attempts to unpick government policies and ideology. Then it is up to the government to defend and promote their own policies. But governments are defensive, and it is easy for a government to accuse the BBC of bias when invited guests trash the government's policies or ideology.
The current government claims to represent a large proportion of the populate, but most of the electorate did not vote for the Tories, and the current government policies do not tend to reflect the LibDems's ideology or manifesto. For any government, even popular ones, its individual policies are not necessarily supported by the majority of the electorate, or even the majority of those who voted for that particular political party. For example, who voted for a top-down reorganisation of the NHS? No one.
The UK's articulate and dynamic right-wing press (owned by unaccountable overseas media-barons) shapes public opinion, and moves the political centre-ground (and political arguments) to the right.
The BBC is a helpful counter-balance, and provides a refreshing balance the press, the majority of which is right-wing. The BBC provides a counter-balance, not because it has a left-wing bias, but simply because it attempts to represent a balance of political, economic and cultural views, rather than a right-wing polemic.
In comparison to the right-wing press (in relative terms) perhaps the BBC is indeed left-wing, as it attempts to provide a balanced discussion, and incorporates a range of political views. But that's only in relative terms, and it's not difficult to be further to the left, politically, than the Murdoch press, or the Daily Telegraph, for example. In comparison to the Socialist Worker, or Marxism Today, the BBC is right-wing, in relative terms.
In reality, the BBC attempts to represent what it considers to be the current political centre-ground. However, I'm not convinced that it does this successfully. I consider the BBC to be pro-establishment, and not representative of its license fee payers. BBC news and current affairs programs give far more representation to the political elite, than to independent voices, or to other cultural or political representatives, so inevitably, the BBC is not representative.
For example, BBC Question Time usually invites three Westminster politicians, often two who represent the two current coalition parties. And then two other commentators are invited. Members of the public are not given an equal platform, and a range of non-government organisations and citizen representatives are rarely represented.
I also believe that the BBC has increasingly had political pressures being placed upon it, from the right-wing political establishment. Chris Patten is perhaps one example of this. The selection process of BBC trustees is hardly a process that is independent of government.
The BBC provides an ongoing high-profile media platform to a handful of ministers but the BBC does not, and cannot, give equal representation to all 60 million UK citizens. This imbalance will always present, even if a particular government policy were to affect every single license fee payer adversely.
Although a government claims to represent the nation that it governs, a government's policies can affect very many citizens adversely.
If a specific government policy were to affect the vast majority of citizens adversely, then how can the BBC put out a balanced discussion of topical issues, whilst giving the government a platform upon which to promote its policies?
Let us take one policy area, energy, as a hypothetical example.
Let's imagine that the government implemented an energy policy which resulted in an immediate short-term increase in energy bills.
Let's imagine, for illustration, that the new energy policy was a fiasco, both short-term and long-term, and that many customers lost their energy supplies for long periods of time.
The government would defend their policies and claim that they were sound policies, and give various reasons.
In this case, would it be balanced for the BBC to give the same amount of air-time to the politicians who were in favour of the new energy policy, as they gave to citizens who were against the new policy? Or would it be fairer to give one second of air time to the politicians who implemented the policy and 60 minutes of air time to the public who are mostly opposed to the policy? (There are roughly 60 million citizens in the UK who would be affected adversely by the government policies and only a fraction of the UK population are the politicians and business leaders, or shareholders, who would be in favour of the policies.)
The same is the case for all government policy. The government is given an exaggerated amount of air time to promote its policies. And the government complains vehemently when it is under the perception, that the BBC has not represented its policies fairly, or it has not been given enough air time. Thus the BBC becomes a mouth piece for government, whether consciously or unconsciously.
So the BBC is between a rock and a hard place. It is difficult for it to avoid upsetting the loud and persuasive establishment voices. The pressure put on the BBC by the government is probably sometimes irresistible. But the BBC also has to fairly represent the other 59.9 million non-political voices in Britain. How should the BBC represent those voices? Should it look towards political leaders, or unions, or non-government organisation, or towards whatever the tabloid press happens to be banging on about on a particular day? Or should it involve the license fee payers directly, by giving them a platform with equal air time to the politicians who claim to be acting in their interests?
If the BBC represents the people fairly, should it represent what people think they want, or what they think would be good for them, or should it represent what would be objectively good for them? And who is to decide what is objectively good for a population? These are perhaps impossible questions to answer, and perhaps impossible ideas for the BBC to manage. But an evidence-based approach is perhaps one way of dealing with some issues.
The BBC cannot represent all views, but it should attempt to provide a forum in which a wide range of public views can be represented, with radical and alternative thinkers included in the public discussions. There should be an attempt to objectively look at a range of political/economic theories. And a range of theories should be given an airing, rather than just the lazy journalism of representing the loudest voices, and what is perceived to be the current centre-ground of politics, which is inevitably shaped by the political, economic and media elites.
Currently, the BBC often seems to be a mouth-piece for the elites (Westminster/Fleet Street/big business/economic classes), and is increasingly looking as if it has had pressure placed on it to represent the right-wing political elites in a more favourable light.
For example, I notice that the BBC will not currently use the term "bedroom tax" without counter-balancing it with the term "spare room subsidy". From what I've heard on Radio 4, this seems to be a result of pressure, or complaints, from the political classes.
Worryingly, I have seen a new development at the BBC since Chris Pattern has been head of the BBC Trust.
This was displayed perfectly on Question Time and on This Week, on the night after the 2013 budget statement by the Chancellor.
For both of these BBC flagship programs, one would expect a balance of opinions to be invited: For example, one right wing economist, and one left wing economist.
However, Question Time, an important post-budget BBC flagship program, included a right-wing economist (demanding further and deeper austerity), and no left-wing economist (or left-wing economic commentator), at all. There were three right-wing guests, and two left-wing guests.
This Week included two additional right-wing commentators, and no left-wing commentator, beyond the regular sofa guest.
Soon after the beginning of April 2013, when a heated welfare debate hit the airwaves, Radio 4's Any Questions invited one right-wing commentator (Peter Hitchens) and no left-wing commentator. It also included two coalition representatives. Only one left-wing non-government politician was included.
This is all speculation on my part, but it seems to me that BBC executive have been pressured into a new understanding as to what constitutes 'balance'.
This is a worrying development, for an organisation that is supposed to be (notionally, at least) independent of government. The BBC isn't independent, because the government recommends the BBC's trustees, and the Queen appoints them. It's time for this to change.
Balance at the BBC, in its flagship programs, now seems to be a case of including commentators with views that support the government, alongside a commentator who is more right-wing than the current government.
Perhaps it is impossible for the BBC to lead political opinion, as newspapers do, because of its charter. It can only attempt to represent political opinion. But it is doing a bad job of representing the public at the moment, because it is biased towards representing establishment voices. The BBC needs to find a new way to represent its license fee payers, and politics, with new voices, and a variety of commentators who can better challenge established wisdom, ideology or orthodoxy. The government views can be represented, whilst a range of other voices are introduced to represent all walks of life in the UK, a range of demographics, and a range of interesting, novel and even radical opinion formers.
At the moment, the BBC is depressingly walking into a trap set by the government. Perhaps this is due to weak leadership, or perhaps it is due to design, and pressure brought by the possible political leadership of Chris Patten.
I believe the BBC needs a radical shift away from establishment politics. Will we see this? Not likely in the short term. But at least the BBC can attempt to fairly represent license fee payers, by implementing a radical new way of representing an interesting variety of political voices in the UK. It should not be cowered by, or kowtow to, threats or complaints by the UK government. The BBC appears to be unhealthily close to the UK government at the moment.
I think it is time for the left-wing to fight back before the BBC becomes a mouth-piece for this government, and for right-wing ideologies, and right-wing media barons.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunday 31 March 2013
Welfare costs as a proportion of total government spending
This blog looks at how much UK basic-rate tax payers contribute towards the cost of welfare benefits, excluding pensions and pension-related payments.
Looking at all welfare benefits, excluding pensions, in 2010/11, a basic-rate tax payer would have paid a 2.6% income tax rate towards all welfare benefits, including job-seekers' benefit, income support, welfare benefits, disability-related benefits and housing benefit. This rate is paid only after the tax-free allowance has been earned.
In 2010/11 welfare and disability benefits (excluding pensions and housing benefit) were roughly 5.4% of national expenditure. And housing benefit was roughly an additional 3.1%, making the total for welfare benefits and housing benefit 8.5% of national expenditure.
For the sake of illustration, if we make an assumption that the government's budget is balanced, and that government spending equates to the total tax intake, then a basic-rate tax payer, in 2010-2011, would have paid a 2.6% income tax rate (including NI payments) towards all welfare benefits and housing benefit, after the tax free allowance was earned.
(To calculate the 2.6% figure, I have used a tax rate of 20% plus a NI rate of 11% for 2010-11, making a total of 31% tax. I have made an allowance for the tax free-allowance, so the 2.6% tax rate would only be paid after a tax-free allowance. The 2.6% tax rate equates to 8.5% of total tax and NI payments paid by a basic-rate tax payer. 8.5% being the total percentage of national expenditure that is paid towards benefits.)
So, a 2.6% income tax payment is the cost of keeping all of our nation housed and fed, and keeping us all out of poverty, including protecting all citizens who are ill or have disabilities. Of course, this cost (2.6% income tax) includes insuring ourselves for any possible future illnesses, or disability. (Remember that many benefit claimants paid national insurance contributions prior to their need to claim benefits. And many benefit recipients also work and pay various taxes.)
If we disregard the tax free allowance to calculate the percentage of income paid, then an average earner, in 2010-11 (median income = £19600), would have paid 1.8% of their total income (or £7 out of £377 per week) towards all welfare benefits.
Here is a helpful Guardian interactive graphic that outlines government expenditure for each government department in the years 2010/2011:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/oct/26/government-spending-department-2010-11
Below, I have listed welfare benefit spending, not including pensions or pension-related payments. (The percentages given are the percentage of total government spending.)
Figures are for 2010-2011.
Figures are for 2010-2011.
Total government spending, 2010-2011 = £691.67bn
Jobseekers allowance £4.5bn (0.7%)
Income Support £7.8bn (1.1%)
Total Jobseekers Allowance + Income Support:
£12.3bn = 1.8% of government expenditure
Now to add housing benefit:
Jobseekers allowance £4.5bn (0.7%)
Income Support £7.8bn (1.1%)
Housing Benefit £21.6bn (3.1%)
Total Jobseekers Allowance + Income Support + Housing Benefit:
= £33.9bn = 4.9% of government expenditure
Now to add Incapacity Benefit / ESA:
Jobseekers allowance £4.5bn (0.7%)
Income Support £7.8bn (1.1%)
Housing Benefit £21.6bn (3.1%)
Incapacity benefit + ESA £7.8bn (1.1%)
Total welfare + housing benefit spending:
= £41.7bn (6% of government expenditure)
So, spending on all welfare benefits, including housing benefit (but not including DLA), is roughly 6% of total government expenditure.
Now to add Disability Living Allowance (DLA) / Disability Attendance Allowance (DAA):
Jobseekers allowance £4.5bn (0.7%)
Income Support £7.8bn (1.1%)
Housing Benefit £21.6bn (3.1%)
Incapacity benefit + ESA £7.8bn (1.1%)
DLA / DAA £17.2bn (2.5%)
Total welfare + housing benefit + DLA/DAA spending:
= £58.9bn (8.5% of government expenditure)
So, spending on all welfare benefits, even including housing benefit, and all disability-related payments, is roughly 8.5% of total government expenditure.
(Note that I have only included spending by the DWP, so HMRC expenditure on tax credits, child benefit, tax rebates and tax allowances, is excluded. I haven't included council tax benefit, as it's not a benefit payment, but it's a lower tax payment. I also haven't added statutory maternity pay, as it's a one-off payment in specific circumstances, and not an ongoing benefit. I've also not taken into account the various taxes that benefit recipients pay while receiving benefits, such as NI, income tax, VAT and council tax. If tax credits (£28.1bn) were added to the above figures, then the total expenditure would be (£58.9bn + £28.1bn) = £87bn. This was 12.6% of total government expenditure in 2010/2011, which was equivalent to a 3.9% tax rate for a basic rate tax payer.)
And here is some other government expenditure, for comparison:
State pensions £70bn (10.1%)
Health £105bn (15.2%)
Defence £40bn (5.8%)
Education £58bn (8.4%)
Total government spending is £692bn
____________________________________________________________________
Friday 22 March 2013
Welfare costs as a proportion of total government spending
This blog looks at how much UK basic-rate tax payers contribute towards the cost of welfare benefits, excluding pensions and pension-related payments.
We hear all sorts of rhetoric about how much the nation spends on welfare benefits.
Some commentators have recently been saying that a third of government expenditure goes towards welfare payments. So I decided to have a look at how much is actually spent on working-age benefits.
Looking at all welfare spending by the DWP, excluding pensions, in 2010/11, a basic-rate tax payer would have paid a 2.6% income tax rate towards all welfare benefits, including job-seekers' benefit, income support, welfare benefits, disability-related benefits and housing benefit. This rate is paid only after the tax-free allowance has been earned.
In 2010/11 welfare and disability benefits (excluding pensions and housing benefit) were roughly 5.4% of national expenditure.
And housing benefit was roughly an additional 3.1%.
So together, all welfare benefits and housing benefit amount to 8.5% of national expenditure.
For the sake of illustration, if we make an assumption that the government's budget is balanced, and that government spending equates to the total tax intake, then a basic-rate tax payer, in 2010-2011, would have paid a 2.6% income tax rate (including NI payments) towards all welfare benefits and housing benefit.
(To calculate the 2.6% figure, I have used a tax rate of 20% plus a NI rate of 11% for 2010-11, making a total of 31% tax. I have made an allowance for the tax free-allowance, so the 2.6% tax rate would only be paid after a tax-free allowance. The 2.6% tax rate equates to 8.5% of total tax and NI payments paid by a basic-rate tax payer. 8.5% being the total percentage of national expenditure that is paid towards benefits.)
So, 2.6% income tax is the cost of keeping all of our nation housed and fed, and keeping us all out of poverty, including protecting all citizens who are ill or have disabilities. Of course, this cost (2.6% income tax) includes insuring ourselves for any possible future illnesses, or disability. (Remember that many benefit claimants paid national insurance contributions prior to their need to claim benefits. And many benefit recipients also work and pay various taxes.)
If we disregard the tax free allowance to calculate the percentage of income paid, then an average earner, in 2010-11 (median income = £19600), would have paid 1.8% of their total income (i.e. £7 out of £377 per week) towards all welfare benefits.
Here is a helpful Guardian interactive graphic that outlines government expenditure for each government department in the years 2010/2011:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/oct/26/government-spending-department-2010-11
Below, I have listed welfare benefit spending by the DWP, not including pensions or pension-related payments. (The percentages given are the percentage of total government spending.)
Figures are for 2010-2011.
Figures are for 2010-2011.
Total government spending, 2010-2011 = £691.67bn
Jobseekers allowance £4.5bn (0.7%)
Income Support £7.8bn (1.1%)
Total Jobseekers Allowance + Income Support:
£12.3bn = 1.8% of government expenditure
Now to add housing benefit:
Jobseekers allowance £4.5bn (0.7%)
Income Support £7.8bn (1.1%)
Housing Benefit £21.6bn (3.1%)
Total Jobseekers Allowance + Income Support + Housing Benefit:
= £33.9bn = 4.9% of government expenditure
Now to add Incapacity Benefit / ESA:
Jobseekers allowance £4.5bn (0.7%)
Income Support £7.8bn (1.1%)
Housing Benefit £21.6bn (3.1%)
Incapacity benefit + ESA £7.8bn (1.1%)
Total welfare + housing benefit spending:
= £41.7bn (6% of government expenditure)
So, spending on all welfare benefits, including housing benefit (but not including DLA), is roughly 6% of total government expenditure.
Now to add Disability Living Allowance (DLA) / Disability Attendance Allowance (DAA):
Jobseekers allowance £4.5bn (0.7%)
Income Support £7.8bn (1.1%)
Housing Benefit £21.6bn (3.1%)
Incapacity benefit + ESA £7.8bn (1.1%)
DLA / DAA £17.2bn (2.5%)
Total welfare + housing benefit + DLA/DAA spending:
= £58.9bn (8.5% of government expenditure)
So, spending on all welfare benefits, even including housing benefit, and all disability-related payments, is roughly 8.5% of total government expenditure.
(Note that I have only included spending by the DWP, so HMRC expenditure on tax credits, child benefit, tax rebates and tax allowances, is excluded. Tax rebates and tax credits are a complex issue to unpick. For example, big business minimises its tax payments, but such deductions are not considered to be welfare payments. Tax credits would be reduced if a decent living wage was implemented. I haven't included council tax benefit, as it's not a benefit payment, but it's a lower tax payment. I also haven't added statutory maternity pay, as it's a one-off payment in specific circumstances, and not an ongoing benefit. I've also not taken into account the various taxes that benefit recipients pay while in receipt of benefits, such as NI, income tax, VAT and council tax. If tax credits (£28.1bn) were added to the above figures, then the total expenditure would be (£58.9bn + £28.1bn) = £87bn. This was 12.6% of total government expenditure in 2010/2011, which was equivalent to a 3.9% tax rate for a basic rate tax payer.)
And here is some other government expenditure, for comparison:
State pensions £70bn (10.1%)
Health £105bn (15.2%)
Defence £40bn (5.8%)
Education £58bn (8.4%)
Total government spending is £692bn
____________________________________________________________________
For me personally, if 2.6% income tax is the total cost of keeping all of our nation housed and fed, and keeping us all out of poverty, including protecting all people who are ill or have disabilities, then I believe that this is money well spent. Of course, this cost (2.6% income tax) includes insuring ourselves for any possible future illnesses, or disability. Remember that many benefits claimants paid national insurance contributions prior to their need to claim benefits.
____________________________________________________________________
Friday 23 November 2012
Votes for Prisoners
In response to a question on the YouGov website:
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2012/11/23/votes-prisoners/
The law is a complex beast, and people lose their freedom for all sorts of reasons, sometimes unexpectedly, sometimes unfairly, sometimes disproportionately, sometimes for crimes that cause no harm to others, and sometimes in the course of making a political protest.
- If a Twitter user Tweets something that is considered (by the law) to be grossly offensive, there is the possibility of a criminal offense.
- If someone is making a political protest, and they are considered (by the law) to be creating public disorder, then there is the possibility of a criminal offense.
- There is the crime of possession of small amounts of illegal drugs for personal use.
- People have decided not to pay their council tax, as a political protest, and have ended up in prison.
- A train driver, bus driver, prison officer, or police officer might end up in prison on a manslaughter charge, as a result of a neglection of duty, or a momentary bad decision, in the course of their work.
So, people end up in prison for a huge variety of reasons.
There are many examples whereby a crime could be considered to be not-extreme, but a person is given a prison sentence.
MPs are the people who create the laws which have the potential to take our freedoms away, if we purposely, or accidentally, or unknowingly, break those laws.
What if a particular law is inappropriate, unfair or disproportionate?
What if most people do not agree with a particular law?
What if a prisoner, and others, feel that a deep injustice has been done?
There is only one way to get a law changed, and that is for parliament to change it.
So, shouldn't everybody have an equal say in who represents us in parliament, whatever our status in society?
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2012/11/23/votes-prisoners/
The law is a complex beast, and people lose their freedom for all sorts of reasons, sometimes unexpectedly, sometimes unfairly, sometimes disproportionately, sometimes for crimes that cause no harm to others, and sometimes in the course of making a political protest.
- If a Twitter user Tweets something that is considered (by the law) to be grossly offensive, there is the possibility of a criminal offense.
- If someone is making a political protest, and they are considered (by the law) to be creating public disorder, then there is the possibility of a criminal offense.
- There is the crime of possession of small amounts of illegal drugs for personal use.
- People have decided not to pay their council tax, as a political protest, and have ended up in prison.
- A train driver, bus driver, prison officer, or police officer might end up in prison on a manslaughter charge, as a result of a neglection of duty, or a momentary bad decision, in the course of their work.
So, people end up in prison for a huge variety of reasons.
There are many examples whereby a crime could be considered to be not-extreme, but a person is given a prison sentence.
MPs are the people who create the laws which have the potential to take our freedoms away, if we purposely, or accidentally, or unknowingly, break those laws.
What if a particular law is inappropriate, unfair or disproportionate?
What if most people do not agree with a particular law?
What if a prisoner, and others, feel that a deep injustice has been done?
There is only one way to get a law changed, and that is for parliament to change it.
So, shouldn't everybody have an equal say in who represents us in parliament, whatever our status in society?
Monday 22 December 2008
Assisted Living
I suffer from an illness called M.E.
There is a lot of talk about 'assisted suicide' in the press and media at the moment. There is a high suicide rate amongst members of the ME community, but it is not 'assisted suicide' that we, as a community, are actively seeking, it is 'assisted living'. We just want to be able to lead a decent life. Until the government allows us to receive proper assistance with our living so that we can lead lives without fear, isolation, torment or despair, then how can we possibly encourage assisted suicide? It's not that I'm against an individual's right to take control of their own lives or deaths. But if we are not allowed control over our own lives in the first place because it is impossible to get the assistance that we need to live, then death seems like the only way out when there should be alternative options that involve living a decent quality of life.
There is a lot of talk about 'assisted suicide' in the press and media at the moment. There is a high suicide rate amongst members of the ME community, but it is not 'assisted suicide' that we, as a community, are actively seeking, it is 'assisted living'. We just want to be able to lead a decent life. Until the government allows us to receive proper assistance with our living so that we can lead lives without fear, isolation, torment or despair, then how can we possibly encourage assisted suicide? It's not that I'm against an individual's right to take control of their own lives or deaths. But if we are not allowed control over our own lives in the first place because it is impossible to get the assistance that we need to live, then death seems like the only way out when there should be alternative options that involve living a decent quality of life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)