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

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

Half measures on heat pumps

Through the "Heat and Buildings Strategy", the UK government has set out its plan to incentivise people to install low-carbon heating systems in what it calls a simple, fair, and cheap way as they come to replace their old boilers over the coming decade.  New grants of £5,000 will be available from April next year to encourage homeowners to install more efficient, low carbon heating systems – like heat pumps that do not emit carbon when used – through a new £450 million 3-year Boiler Upgrade Scheme. However, it has been widely criticised as inadequate and a strategy without a strategy.  Essentially, it will benefit those who can afford more readily to replace their boiler.   Undoubtedly, the grants will be welcome to those who plan to replace their boilers in the next three years, and it might encourage others to do so, but for too many households, it leaves them between a rock and a hard place.  There are no plans to phase out gas boilers in existing homes.  Yet, that is wha

No real commitment on climate

Actions, they say, speak louder than words.  So, when we look at the UK government's actions, we can only conclude they don't mean what they say about the environment and climate change.  Despite their claims to be leading the charge on reducing emissions, the UK government is still looking to approve new oil fields.  The Prime Minister, Boris Johnson,  has announced his support for developing the Cambo oil field and 16 other climate-destroying oil projects. Cambo is an oil field in the North Sea, west of Shetland. A company called Siccar Point has applied for a permit to drill at least 170 million barrels of oil there. If it's allowed to go ahead, it will result in the emissions equivalent of 18 coal plants running for a year.  What? Yes, 18 coal plants a year!  Today, as I write, Greenpeace is demonstrating in Downing Street against this project.  I suppose it will get the usual government dismissal and complaints about inconveniencing others.  Well, we know it won't