Rantings via Weblog (Click here to go to the Home Page!)

I've been meaning to get my teeth into this for months now. Finally I'm done.

Here's the link to the transcript of his Rivers of Benefit Blood speech at the recent Conservative Conference , taken from the New Statesman.

George Osborne said:-




Where is the fairness, I ask, for the sole earner, leaving home at 0800hrs, knowing he won't be back home until after 1900hrs, who looks at the open or closed blinds (it doesn't matter) of his next door neighbours, who are a married couple with one or two children, each earning a little less than him and thus enjoying a combined family income greater than his, but each benefitting from a personal tax allowance (married couple's tax allowance long gone) and in addition to that the continuation of their Child Benefit?

Do you speak for that worker, George Osborne?

Now, the sole earner's wife is a full-time mother to their four children, or perhaps she has re-entered the workforce on a part-time basis, as family duties have allowed, and is contributing a little to the family income. She has previously sacrificed the opportunity of employment and a career, and the income that goes with it, to raise her family. This family-rearing role is, we are led to believe, valued by the Tories; yet she is now to be penalised for it. Concomitantly, to complement the mother's commitment to the role of nurturing her family, her husband has worked extra hard to earn more and has taken on extra part-time work to make up the difference. He has missed out on some of his family life because he has been taking care of his family's financial needs. Again, this work ethic is apparently valued by the Tories; yet now he will be penalised for it.

The new ruling on Child Benefit discourages fathers and mothers from striving and it amplifies the existing discouragement from a traditional family life. It encourages them to mind what they are each earning, to earn less if necessary, or at least not strive for increased income; it encourages them instead to both go out to work - but just up to the limit where they will still receive Child Benefit. It encourages us all to become schemers. Isn't this schemer ethic part of the shirker persona which is decried by the Tories?

Work out how much gross income the Child Benefit is worth for a higher rate tax-payer and you will appreciate the maths behind the sentiments above. You don't have to be wealthy to be a higher-rate tax-payer any more, specially if you're raising a family in the South-East . One pay rise and you're screwed. Your income actually goes down... until you get another, and significant, pay rise, maybe in a year's time. Maybe.

George Osborne said:-




I suggest that in exactly *the same way*, it is wrong for someone who is raising a large family on a single income to be worse off than a couple who are raising a smaller family on dual incomes that exceed his - if that "better-offness" is due to the benefit cut made purely because it's an easy win.

It should be understood that the approach taken by the Government is signally not ideological. It is shoutingly not moral. It is, perhaps, rational: It is driven by expediency. Why? Because it is easier, by a long mile, for HMRC to do some simple database queries and figure out which households have a top earner in the 40% tax bracket than it is to means test a family's income. Much, much easier. And thus cheaper. Simples.

The Tories do not admit this. Of course they know it. Thus they are duplicitous. That's another word for "liar".

The Liberal Democrats ("Liberal"? "Democratic"? Excuse me?? - for another rant), who are - allegedly - part of the coalition Government, know it also. And I don't think they have raised the obvious objections either. But they are hardly worth mentioning, because they have sold their soul to the Devil for selling out on what few principles they actually had. They deserve shameful defeat in every way possible. In this world and the next. If there is one.