Wednesday, 22 October 2014
Saturday, 11 October 2014
I was thinking on fairness as I quite often do and give you this..
In the Uk the average salary is £26500 pa , even though we know this is distorted average due to some very high city salaries. I won't explore that. I'll take that average as a comparator.
Then look at MP . CURRENT BASIC SALARY BEING £67060 pa , rising to £74000 from 2015.
Non MP on average salary ...
Most have to find their transport, food , child care and many things from that salary.
Many of what average salaried people have to find from salary are not having to be found by MPs who get those items many times covered by Expenses.
And yet they have £40560 more money than those on average salary. Rising soon.
When you look at that.... Is it fair?
Tuesday, 7 October 2014
The list accessed through click is a list of people no longer with us.
It appears that each one is a welfare related death, as people are calling deaths that appear related to changes to benefits or welfare.
May they all RIP
Monday, 6 October 2014
I collected my thoughts currently...
IDS SAYS WANTS TO MEANS TEST DISABILITY BENEFITS. We must ask how? How many that claim are well off enough to have reduced or no awards due to financial status? And those people, have they applied/ Been awarded? Would those possibly mythical not needy people have put themselves through the application processes? And how much is reasonable income? Because if the means test is to be designed to slice into a strata that has need then that's wrong at all levels. Can you see what I'm saying? It's a populist statement to say we will check they actually financially need award. But from a wrong footing is disastrously dangerous.
Means test is there across unemployment. Maximum savings, hours worked , ancillary income. Yes precedent embedded.
In PRINCIPLE it has precedent. In principle if done right there can't be objection. Devil in the detail. I know this may sound very strange. But the whole post war creation of welfare system was based on means. Without detail of proposal be careful.
Confusingly by driving away from means test you weaken the basis of the whole net.
So to conclude.. Means testing is confronted by many, yet is an important core to current welfare system as a whole.
How do you know need without assessing means?
But means should be set fairly, not on basis of "they get too much," or "how can we save money" which I suspect current proposal includes both.
Hope this makes some sense.
I'm not prepared to comment further on means test to disability benefits at this time as these are current thoughts.
Friday, 3 October 2014
"Prices only up 3%"
This three per cent makes more difference the less money a person has.
Say an item costs 2 quid and it goes up 3% that's 6p.
But if you compare impact to someone with a tenner against impact of someone with a hundred quid. The relative impact gets visible. Then compare that to impact on someone with a grand.
There's even less impact.
This basic thing may sound easy,
Relative impact is very important.
That's how you arrive at other measures that are important , like...
How much of your income goes on food...
Example someone with a grand spend 20 quid. And then someone with a hundred quid spend 20 .
Why am I explaining so simply?
Because then I can start talking in terms of this basic seemingly simple impact understanding...
And then say that is where the more difficult analysis of regressiveness.
"We will introduce a fair uniform tax of 30%" could be said by a party.
Now how is that fair..
Flat income tax rate is regressive in impact.
Other regressives are VAT. There are more.
Now where did I put that 6p?