Skip to main content

The poor subsidise the rich

'It's the same the whole world over...its the poor what gets the blame.' So the song goes. How true it is. Welfare 'cheats' are pursued mercilessly, the wealty tax dodgers hardly at all.  You would think that welfare cheats were costing us the earth. But they are not.

The State of the Nation report published in 2010 estimated the total benefit fraud in the United Kingdom in 2009/10 was approximately £1 billion.  Figures from the Department for Work and Pensions show that benefit fraud is thought to have cost taxpayers £1.2 billion during 2012–13,  Yet, a poll conducted by the Trades Union Congress in 2012 found that perceptions among the British public were that benefit fraud was high – on average people thought that 27% of the British welfare budget is claimed fraudulently.

Official UK Government figures put the level of fraud stands at 0.7% of the total welfare budget.  In contrast, it is estimated that tax fraud and tax evasion costs almost £69.9 bn per year. That lost through welfare fraud is a tiny fraction of that.

Chasing welfare 'cheats' is political. The failure to prosecute tax cheats is also political. It has suited this government drive to cut welfare to  allow the impression that somehow most recipients don't deserve it. They are bucking the system.  That has been the mood music - 'welfare scroungers'. We have had the stories of 'shirkers', people who don't work but claim benefits,  hiding behind closed curtains.  What a despicable falsehood it has been - a lie perpetrated by politicians with not a little help from the media.

All this has been a cover for 'austerity' along with the myth that 'we must cut the deficit'. Few challenge this story. Most buy into it. but it has been a prospectus of economic madness. It has delayed recovery so that we had the longest recession and greater suffering as a result. The bitter pill, we were told, had to be taken.  The medicine would be good for us. The 'scroungers' were pursued.

We had the bedroom tax in an attempt to drive hard working families from their homes. We had flawed disability assessments driving the disabled to despair and, in some cases, suicide. The coalition has been a shocking government — a government without a moral compass.  It is time it stopped.  They have chased the poorest and allowed the wealthiest to get away with it.  The wealthy have become the 'untouchables'.  The poorest 10% in the UK  pay proportionately more tax than the wealthiest. That is something the tax dodging rich should be ashamed of.  Taxpayer's money subsidises the lifestyle of the wealthy.

It is our money that pays for the training of the doctors and nurses that work in the private hospitals, not just the NHS. We train the doctors and the teachers - the teachers that teach their children. We pay for the roads on which they drive their limousines. We maintain the infrastructure that helps their businesses to grow so that they get richer. We, the taxpayer, and it is the poorest who shoulder the biggest burden of that tax.

The poor subsidise the rich. That is shameful.

 

Read Ray'a Novel: It wasn't always late summer 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Prioritising people in nursing care.

There has been in recent years concern that care in the NHS has not been sufficiently 'patient centred', or responsive to the needs of the patient on a case basis. It has been felt in care that it as been the patient who has had to adapt to the regime of care, rather than the other way around. Putting patients at the centre of care means being responsive to their needs and supporting them through the process of health care delivery.  Patients should not become identikit sausages in a production line. The nurses body, the Nursing and Midwifery Council has responded to this challenge with a revised code of practice reflection get changes in health and social care since the previous code was published in 2008. The Code describes the professional standards of practice and behaviour for nurses and midwives. Four themes describe what nurses and midwives are expected to do: prioritise people practise effectively preserve safety, and promote professionalism and trust. The

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha