Please, won't anybody think of the rich heterosexual men!
Recently I've had a lot of experiences of of having my illusions about the world being just rudely taken from me. I find it easier to write angry blog posts rather than curl up in a corner waiting for Moshiach to come and make it all better.
One of the things which really bothers me about the spending revue, is less the details of it, which I'm not going to go into, but the way that the media is reporting on it. Basically, poorer people are going to suffer more as a proportional of their income than richer people, and poorer people have more need for the money. However, the only benefit cuts which are getting much media coverage are the ones which affect higher rate taxpayers. These people aren't even on middle incomes. The BBC's top story today is "Surely the government should spend £1 billion so that higher rate taxpayers can claim benefits without having to speak to their partners". Basically, the removal of child benefit from families with at least one higher rate taxpayer means that the higher rate taxpayer has to tick a box if someone in the household has claimed child benefit so that it can be taken back by HMRC. People are complaining that this is Intrusive and people shouldn't have to speak to their partner. People who don't speak to their partners might accidentally tick the box even though their partner isn't claiming child benefit or even worse not tick the box when their partner is claiming and be fined almost as if they were a benefit cheat.
Hang on, I thought, don't most people who claim benefits have to have to give details of their partner's income. Well yes, but that isn't intrusive or worthy of the BBC's reporting time. Long complicated forms and intrusive questions are fine for poor and disabled people. Tough talk about cracking down on benefit cheats is great, even if it's likely to cost more money than it raises, but Heaven forbid a higher rate taxpayer be asked about one detail of their partner's finances or be fined if they lie on their tax form.
One of the things which really bothers me about the spending revue, is less the details of it, which I'm not going to go into, but the way that the media is reporting on it. Basically, poorer people are going to suffer more as a proportional of their income than richer people, and poorer people have more need for the money. However, the only benefit cuts which are getting much media coverage are the ones which affect higher rate taxpayers. These people aren't even on middle incomes. The BBC's top story today is "Surely the government should spend £1 billion so that higher rate taxpayers can claim benefits without having to speak to their partners". Basically, the removal of child benefit from families with at least one higher rate taxpayer means that the higher rate taxpayer has to tick a box if someone in the household has claimed child benefit so that it can be taken back by HMRC. People are complaining that this is Intrusive and people shouldn't have to speak to their partner. People who don't speak to their partners might accidentally tick the box even though their partner isn't claiming child benefit or even worse not tick the box when their partner is claiming and be fined almost as if they were a benefit cheat.
Hang on, I thought, don't most people who claim benefits have to have to give details of their partner's income. Well yes, but that isn't intrusive or worthy of the BBC's reporting time. Long complicated forms and intrusive questions are fine for poor and disabled people. Tough talk about cracking down on benefit cheats is great, even if it's likely to cost more money than it raises, but Heaven forbid a higher rate taxpayer be asked about one detail of their partner's finances or be fined if they lie on their tax form.