Skip to main content

The financial crash was triggered by middle class dependency not welfare dependency.

The biggest beneficiaries of public spending over time has been the middle class not the poor. Yet it is spending on the poorest that is cut through  Tory austerity.   The middle class has been largely protected. Votes count.  The Tories have targeted the poorest.

First they created the myth that the poor are work-shy. They used the language of 'welfare dependency', as if welfare was a drug on which the poor were hooked and a dose of cold-turkey was in order.  The work and pensions secretary, Iain Duncan Smith said that cuts would be 'good for them'.  It was as if the single mother with a disabled child living on £14,500 a year had brought this on herself - if only she could be weaned off welfare, the narrative goes, she would then be able to miraculously 'stand on her own feet'.  Not only was this narrative a distortion, but the greatest beneficiaries of public funding support are not the poor but the middle classes.  But we don't call the middle class feckless. We don't set up a discriminative stereotype of dependency - and yet the middle class are dependent on pubic spending and dependent on being protected from austerity.



The Institute for Fiscal Studies (see figure) calculate that changes to tax credits will hit three million families, which are likely to lose an average of £1,000.  The worst affected will lose an average of £1,300 per year.  The working mum highlighted by Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn in his question to the prime minister will lose a staggering £1,800 per year.  The IFS graph demonstrates how those on middle incomes have been protected. 

When pressed on the government talks about 'changes in the round'. What they don't say is that most of these changes 'in the round' benefit the middle income groups the most.  The poor lose on the swings whilst the rich benefit on the roundabout.  Most real incentives are targeted on middle income voters.  Their 'dependency' has been protected. 

Over a ten year period to 2013, the relief on income tax and National Insurance Contributions totalled a staggering £358.6 billion. The middle classes benefited from tax exemption through personal equity plans and ISAs in which they were able to accumulate savings with tax free interest. The huge expansion of higher education from the 1960s onwards created educational opportunities for their children on an unprecedented scale, whilst the opportunities for the poorest were restricted. University education remains to this day largely a middle class preserve.

The middle classes benefited from child allowances and expansion of nursery school provision. Until it was abolished by Gordon Brown in 2000, the middle classes benefited from mortgage tax relief. Gordon Brown referred to it as the 'middle class perk'. The largesse and opportunities distributed to the middle classes have been substantial.

Middle income groups are the biggest beneficiaries of the NHS, they have also benefited over time from scheme after scheme to help them buy their own home or incentives to save such as tax-free ISAs. They have benefited through schemes that helped them develop pension pots.  Above all they benefited from spending on education and universities.  If they had to bear the full cost of education they would realise why they are so dependent on state funding.  Even private education is on the whole supported by charitable status which cuts tax payable and reduces fees. 

I put this perspective not to suggest that this public spending or incentive has not been beneficial, or that it should be removed. But we do need a more balanced perspective on the deficit. The poorest are being made to pay for the largesse to the middle class.  The least able are being made to pay for the financial crisis created by overzealous and irresponsible lending by the banks.  Since the 1980s governments transferred public debt to private debt in staggering amounts and with tax incentives for that transfer.  Borrowing went up and up and became unsustainable.  This was not the fault of the poor. It was in large part triggered by an unfettered housing market and public funded incentives to buy.  It was triggered by middle class dependency not welfare dependency. 







Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Palm Oil production killing the planet

Bad trade and bad products are killing our planet. We have said this before on The Thin End. There is no better example than that of palm oil. It is used ubiquitously in so many products, and its production is a major factor destroying rainforests and threatening precious species.

Demand for palm oil is 'skyrocketing worldwide'. It is used in packaging and in so much of our snack foods, cookies, crackers, chocolate products, instant noodles, cereals, and doughnuts, and the list goes on.
Bad for the planet So, why is this so bad for the planet?

The oil is extracted from the fruit of the oil palms native to Africa. It is now grown primarily in Indonesia and Malaysia, but is also expanding across Central and West Africa and Latin America.

Palm oil production is now one of the world's leading causes of rainforest destruction, and this is impacting adversely some of the world's most culturally and biologically diverse ecosystems. Irreplaceable wildlife species like t…

Time to ban organophosphate pesticides?

How would you react if your neighbour told you he was going to spray his garden with a neurotoxin used in WW2? "Oh don't worry!" he assures you, "it's only a low dose!"
"A neurotoxin?" you ask incredulously "Are you crazy?"
"It's very effective!" he asserts.
"How does it work?" you ask.
"It stops the pests' brains working" he asserts with a smile.  "Everyone uses it."
"But..."

Campaigners in the USA hope that with Scott Pruitt’s resignation, and with a new administrator Andrew Wheeler at the helm of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), this presents another chance to apply pressure and achieve a national ban in the United States on the organophosphate pesticide chlorpyrifos once and for all.



Organophosphate insecticides, such as diazinon, chlorpyrifos, disulfoton, azinphos-methyl, and fonofos, have been used widely in agriculture and in household applications as pesticides si…

Hummingbird exposure to pesticides

Many have responded to the campaigns to stop the use of pesticides killing bees.  Bees are not the only animals affected.

Hummingbirds are noted as a species of conservation concern by Partners in Flight, and their populations are estimated to have declined by 60% between 1970 and 2014.



New research reveals that hummingbirds and bumble bees are being exposed to neonicotinoid and other pesticides through routes that are widespread and complex. The findings are published in Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry.

To measure exposure to pesticides in these avian pollinators, investigators made novel use of cloacal fluid and fecal pellets from hummingbirds living near blueberry fields in British Columbia. They also collected bumble bees native to Canada, and their pollen, and blueberry leaves and flowers from within conventionally sprayed and organic blueberry farms.

The researchers detected pesticides and related compounds in cloacal fluid and fecal pellets of hummingbirds revealing…