Concentrating on the "squeezed middle"
Labour's "squeezed middle" rhetoric on the Government's deficit reduction programme means that they are ignoring a group that has been suffering for a lot longer. The people who are really, truly, properly in poverty.
Average wages in this country are around the £26,000 per year mark. That means that if you earn more than that you are better off than most people. If you earn more than £40,000 per year you earn more than 90% of the people in this country.
That will come as a surprise when Labour seem to put higher rate taxpayers ahead of people earning less than £10,000 per year. The Government is currently increasing the personal allowance so that no-one earning under £10,000 will pay income tax at all. A key Lib Dem policy that never would have happened under a government containing Tories alone.
One of the reasons people feel like they are struggling despite earning more than 90% of us is because the previous Labour government found some money from somewhere to give tax breaks and benefits for the better off. They didn't do this by redistributing wealth from the rich, they did this by borrowing. £400 million per day of borrowing. That doesn't even take into account the fact that with debt making up such a huge part of the profits of the financial services sector that they let run out of control the taxes they did get were largely borrowed too.
The coalition is (rightly) bringing this borrowing under control and reducing the defecit but people are often surprised when they discover how much of the underlying debt we will pay back. The answer is none. Zero. Nada. Zilch. In 2015 the government will still be borrowing a small amount of money and will be adding to the debt. Billions will be spent on interest payments and the longer we leave it the bigger the bill will be. Everyone that has to balance a household budget knows that you can't spend your way out of debt.
That's why I am glad that the government is changing our tax system. People who earn £10,000 per year need more help. People earning more than £40,000 per year are going to have to pay for that. If you earn that much you are not the squeezed middle, you are in the top 10%.
It is probably going to hurt as people's wages don't keep up with inflation and bills for gas and electricity shoot up. It doesn't matter how much money you earn, you will notice a squeeze on your income but there is no pain free way of removing the countries addiction to debt. If you are on £40,000 per year you can take that pain better than someone on the minimum wage.
So why are Labour defending their "squeezed middle" so hard? It's simple. They assume the very worst off will vote for them anyway so they are telling the well off that they are hard done to. Maybe I am cynical. Or maybe things have got so distorted in our political debate we have forgotten what poverty really looks like
3 Comments
Leave a comment
Dale Street Associates
David Bartlett
City editor of the Post and Echo covering politics, regeneration, and urban affairs.
Read My Posts »
Saying that it is ‘probably’ going to hurt is a bit like saying that tomorrow will ‘probably’ have 24 hours in it.
Could be wrong but wouldn't anybody poor enough to be earning less than 10,000 pounds a year be obtaining benefits in the form of income support and if someone's after tax money increases doesn't their benefits drop. Giving with one hand and then taking it back with the other doesn't actually make you any better off and does not put the government on a par with Robin Hood.
The governments actions as regards poverty is more a poverty creation program rather than a poverty removal one.
Forget the people on over £40,000 pounds and forget the people on £26,000 look at the people on a lot less than that. Look at the governments slash and burn of the public sector .
Some will have been introduced to poverty because they are no longer in employment.
Some are still in employment but may also be introduced to poverty by Richard’s coalition government.
Take our local government workers for example with pay rises of 1 % followed by 3 years of zero % with inflation running at 5 %, add in increased pension contributions of 3 % and you end up with a 25 % drop in spending.
On £40,000 pounds you don’t have a problem. On a wage that is far less than that ,forget any non essentials, look at mortgage/rent payment, cost of food and power, clothes and travel to work costs and see what money is left. If this is less than 25 % then coalition policy will be introducing you to mr poverty very soon.
I don’t think Richard can claim the high moral ground in relation to poverty as his membership was revoked when the lib dems opted to throw in their lot with the conservatives which was confirmed by an electoral show of hands last May.
Saying that it is ‘probably’ going to hurt is a bit like saying that tomorrow will ‘probably’ have 24 hours in it.
Could be wrong but wouldn't anybody poor enough to be earning less than 10,000 pounds a year be obtaining benefits in the form of income support and if someone's after tax money increases doesn't their benefits drop. Giving with one hand and then taking it back with the other doesn't actually make you any better off and does not put the government on a par with Robin Hood.
The governments actions as regards poverty is more a poverty creation program rather than a poverty removal one.
Forget the people on over £40,000 pounds and forget the people on £26,000 look at the people on a lot less than that. Look at the governments slash and burn of the public sector .
Some will have been introduced to poverty because they are no longer in employment.
Some are still in employment but may also be introduced to poverty by Richard’s coalition government.
Take our local government workers for example with pay rises of 1 % followed by 3 years of zero % with inflation running at 5 %, add in increased pension contributions of 3 % and you end up with a 25 % drop in spending.
On £40,000 pounds you don’t have a problem. On a wage that is far less than that ,forget any non essentials, look at mortgage/rent payment, cost of food and power, clothes and travel to work costs and see what money is left. If this is less than 25 % then coalition policy will be introducing you to mr poverty very soon.
I don’t think Richard can claim the high moral ground in relation to poverty as his membership was revoked when the lib dems opted to throw in their lot with the conservatives which was confirmed by an electoral show of hands last May.
If anyone understands a squeezed middle it is Richard.