Labour minister blasts 'economically inactive' jobless label - "Labour's new Work and Pensions Secretary has complained that it is 'terrible' to call people who are unemployed and not trying to find a job 'economically inactive', because they are 'human beings' Liz Kendall told MPs she did not like the official term used by bodies including the Office of National Statistics (ONS) because of its dehumanising nature... the soaring bill for health and disability benefits will wipe out the Treasury's £25billion Budget national insurance raid by 2030."
Time to look for a new euphemism, until the left need to virtue signal again
People do not have a human right to receive benefits paid for by others - "Anyone who held out any hope that Britain’s benefit dependency was about to be tackled can finally relax: it’s not going to happen. Ever. It should have happened under the last Labour government, but it didn’t, and for all the same reasons that this Labour government won’t do anything either: establishment push-back, resistance from the poverty industry, threats from rebellious back benchers who fret about getting mean emails from discontented constituents. And if something was ever going to be done about the genuine scandal of the nearly 10 million people in Britain who are “economically inactive” – a euphemistic description for what everyone knows is going on – it was only ever going to happen under a Labour government, for the same reason that genuine reform of the NHS can only happen under Labour: because voters distrust it slightly less than the Conservatives on these areas... The comment that riled me then, and has done so ever since, was to the effect that people had a “human right” (she actually used those words) not to work while maintaining the right to benefits. And that, in a nutshell, is why, 20 years later, this new Labour government will do no more than what Keir Starmer has announced, an inaccurately-described “radical” plan to get Britain back to work by tinkering at the edges of the benefits system, making Jobcentres a bit easier to navigate and offering “support” to claimants to retrain if they feel they want to – if it’s not too inconvenient for them, what with their busy lives and everything. And just in case there was any prospect of these proposals being taken seriously, there will be an inevitable “consultation” period next year, during which all those well-paid advocates of the poverty industry will do their damndest to make sure that whatever proposals finally make it into government policy, they won’t change a thing. The consequences of this inaction – and it is inaction, however much it’s disguised as the opposite – will be a dreadful worsening of Britain’s economy and of the plight of millions of individuals, families and homes. It will mean a chronic and permanent imbalance in the relationship between what the state pays out and what it receives in tax revenue. The status quo can’t be sustained but it can be extended long enough to allow the current crop of politicians retire and bequeath their failure to the next generation of legislators, which is all the “success” they can reasonably hope for. And yes, we all know that the biggest drain on state largesse is pensioners, and that’s a really clever and fascinating counter-argument to those who say we really ought to do something about those of working age who don’t work, rather than deal with people who have worked and paid contributions for the last 40 years. So slow hand claps and congratulations all round. And yes, this government will clamp down on benefit fraud, as if every single one of its predecessors hadn’t come up with that “solution” to the problem. It’s a bit like opposition parties claiming they can increase public spending by “eliminating waste”: it sounds fine but it never happens. It was always no more than a faint hope that a Labour government with a three-figure majority would risk doing something unpopular and necessary, but for a moment I genuinely thought it might actually happen, that there might emerge a generation of political leaders who had more courage than my own did. That’ll teach me to hope."
Damn fascism! The "solution" is to "tax the "rich""
Waste Watch: Benefits bill will soon bankrupt Britain - "On the weekend of Labour’s 100th day in power, a YouGov poll found that nearly 60 percent of Britons disapproved of the Government’s record. However, among the policies which poll favourably with the Great British public is maintaining the two-child cap on child-related welfare benefits, enjoying the approval of 57 percent of the respondents. There are conservative arguments for and against the cap brought into effect by the Coalition Government back in 2017. But it says something about the state of our benefit system that a) a self-confessed socialist administration with a love for big government has decided to maintain the cap and b) voters across the political divide are in favour of that cap remaining in place. This is likely because in its current form, our welfare system raises questions around the affordability of a benefit bill which exceeds the country’s health budget by about £20 billion. It also raises questions around the perceived fairness of the system... By the Government’s own calculations, “[f]raud and error in the social security system currently costs the taxpayer almost £10 billion a year and since the pandemic a total of £35 billion of taxpayers’ money has been taken away from those who need it most.” That is just under 4 percent of the welfare bill which is lost to fraud and error every year. It is also about 6 times the amount of money Labour expects to raise from taxing private education in the country with a view to investing in state schools. But there are other less obvious examples of waste which have recently been in the news too. In September, the Institute of Fiscal Studies published a report which found the UK to have alarmingly earned the literal title of ‘the sick man of the western world’. 10 percent of the working-age population in England and Wales or just under 4 million Brits now receive at least one health-related benefit, at an annual cost of £48 billion. 2.9 million people, or 7.6 percent receive incapacity benefits while 2.7 million, or 7 percent receive disability benefits, with just under half of the claimants of these health-related benefits receiving both. “Prior to the pandemic, 2.8 million got at least one of these benefits (7.5% of working-age adults).” Not only do more people claim benefits now, but fewer people also end benefit claims. These figures mean the UK now spends 1.7 percent of GDP on working-age health-related benefits, against the OECD average of 1.6 percent, with the total health-related benefits spending for all ages having increased from £52 billion in 2019–20 to £65 billion in 2023–24. If, as forecast, spending on health-related working-age benefits continues to grow at this rate, “the UK will likely become one of the highest spenders” amongst comparable countries, with these benefits costing taxpayers 2.1% of GDP in 2028, which would be an all-time high of £63 billion. There has been an exponential rise in the numbers since the pandemic... The conditions which are “the most common among those applying for incapacity benefits” are mental and behavioural disorders, which alone accounted for 41 percent of disability benefit awards, up from 32 percent before the pandemic. But the most worrying revelation is this: “the conditions that claimants have are strongly related to age: 69% of new 25-year-old disability benefit claimants were primarily living with mental & behavioural disorders, while this was the case for only 22% of new 55-year-old claimants.” The waste here is two fold. One, the obvious cost to taxpayers; two, the colossal waste of human capital... Work and Pensions Secretary Liz Kendall has launched a Labour Market Advisory Board to advise the Government on “getting Britain working again” and we are told a white paper is to be published soon... “Efforts should focus on increasing economic opportunities and improving the health of the working-age population, rather than solely reducing welfare costs” is the guiding principle, and “early intervention” is advised. For example, “regulatory measures such as taxing high-sugar products are needed”, in order to raise revenue for policy proposals as well as to address health issues such as obesity. Bringing statutory sick pay (currently up to 28 weeks) in line with maternity pay by adding a further 28 weeks to it is one such policy proposal. “If successful”, writes Professor Gregg, “pushing it out to 76 weeks, giving a total of around 2 years with the SSP period, should be considered.” While employers would “have responsibilities similar to those during a period of unpaid Maternity Leave”, the longer statutory sick pay “could involve government-paid benefits rather than employer-paid SSP”. It remains to be seen if these or similar policies find their way into Ms Kendall’s green paper. But it seems reasonable to expect a complete ideological departure from the approach set out in Mr Hunt’s Autumn Statement last year. It also seems entirely reasonable to conclude that the Labour Market Advisory Board is very likely to become yet another quango to invent ways to add to the taxpayer’s burden."
Left wingers will just claim with a straight face that capitalism makes people sick
There is a cost to "destigmatising" and "raising awareness" about "mental health"
Thousands of UK farmers descend on Parliament to protest a tax they say will ruin family farms - "the famers’ union says more than 60% of working farms could face a tax hit. And while farms may be worth a lot on paper, profits are often small. Government figures show that income for most types of farms fell in the year to the end of February 2024, in some cases by more than 70%. Average farm income ranged from about 17,000 pounds ($21,000) for grazing livestock farms to 143,000 pounds ($180,000) for specialist poultry farms. The last decade has been turbulent for British farmers"
Carl Benjamin on X - "Farmers (English people) have hoarded land (owned property) for too long. Inheritence tax (theft) will bring new life (government ownership) to rural Britains (state monopoly)."
Peter Lloyd on X - "This is Arun Advani. He's the man behind plans to screw farmers with inheritence tax. Documents reveal he actually advocates for FORCED land nationalisation, which would see Labour steal land from farmers and become their landlord. This is the communist reality of the budget."
Hector Drummond on X - "Andrew Lloyd Webber just single-handedly yanked the Overton Window right: "Many, many, many people are hovering around at the moment, rubbing their hands in glee about [the tax]... I can assure you they're not British."
Lloyd Webber also said, "In the longer term what will happen is they'll all be bought by, probably, foreigners, outsiders.""
Keir Starmer should sack Rachel Reeves over her CV fibs - "It would be tempting to feel a modicum of sympathy for Rachel Reeves. As two-tier Keir gallivants the globe, our neophyte Chancellor has been lumped with defending Labour’s indefensible domestic policy. It cannot be easy coming into a key post like this with no previous experience in government and no detectable political nous. She’s making enemies Left, Right and centre, and may soon discover that even her union chums will desert her when economic reality bites. But reader, do not give into this urge. Since assuming the role, Reeves has barely uttered a single truth: the claim Labour inherited the “worst set of circumstances” since the Second World War was a nonsense, her promises not to raise taxes on “working people” were hollow. She was at it again this week, justifying her inheritance tax raid on grounds it is necessary in order to “invest in... [our] health services”, as though the NHS isn’t already showered with riches. Even before the election, Reeves appeared to display a somewhat loose relationship with the truth. She is facing accusations of breaching the ministerial code, after reportedly embellishing her CV to suggest she had worked as an economist for the Bank of Scotland before standing for Parliament. Her LinkedIn profile has been changed to reflect that she had actually spent three years in retail banking at Halifax. This would be easier to shrug off as a momentary lapse were it not for her proclamations that she “knows how to run an economy”, or the fact that her most recent book pulled chunks of material from other sources, including Wikipedia, without acknowledgement. She joins a long line of LSE graduates whose training in economic theory seems to have drummed any common sense out of them. Reeves might feel “deeply proud to be Britain’s first female Chancellor” but, for now at least, we still live in a country that values performance over progressivism. And she is conceivably the worst holder of the post, excluding those of very short tenure, since Anthony Barber triggered a wage-price spiral and massive inflation in the 1970s. Of course, from Elizabeth I’s Sir Richard Sackville onwards, the Exchequer has been a poisoned chalice. There’s rarely been a shortage of eager candidates, but few have had much clue about what to do with it and fewer still enhanced their reputation as a consequence of their stint. Businesses are now warning that Labour’s hike to employers’ national insurance and increase in the minimum wage makes job losses “inevitable”. However innumerate Reeves may at times appear, she must have known that no chancellor can squeeze £25 billion out of the economy without knock-on effects. And bosses are predictably irked: a new survey from even the milquetoast CBI has found that close to two-thirds have a negative view of the Budget. As pollster Luke Tryl reminds us, pensioners, farmers and small businesses owners – the big losers from the Budget – all “attract significant public sympathy beyond their own numbers and can be highly effective campaigners”. Scrapping the winter fuel payment (WFP) and ending agricultural tax relief might appeal to the bright sparks toiling at the Treasury, but they are politically calamitous. Yet in Reeves, they have one of their own: a bean-counter who shares their proprietary attitude towards other people’s money. She won’t be stung by the WFP in the way George Osborne was by the pasty tax; it’ll just be another of those supposedly “difficult decisions” such as cracking down on non-doms or slapping VAT on private school fees. Is it time for Reeves to go? Tough though it would be to hold back a tear, recent Tory experience cautions against switching ministers every five minutes. In 2022, let us not forget, we had four chancellors. And who would replace her? Louise Haigh, the Transport Secretary, would probably try to nationalise the FTSE100. Angela Rayner might force us all into the employ of the state. Shabana Mahmood seems to think women aren’t responsible for the decisions they make, which rather disqualifies her from becoming our next female chancellor. Bridget Phillipson says exam results don’t matter, so neither would growth rates presumably: “happiness, wellbeing and inclusion” being more important."
‘Labour will cripple our family business – despite paying £11m in taxes last year’ - "“But this policy puts their jobs more than ever in jeopardy because it rocks the foundations of the business. It’s short-sighted and could devastate family businesses like mine that form the backbone of the economy.” His frustration is evident. “We paid £1m in taxes last year and consistently invest to stay competitive, even in tough times. Yet now I’m questioning whether further investment is worthwhile. “Why should I expand when my warehouses could end up as part of my taxable estate? This policy discourages growth and innovation. “If Labour think they’ve delivered a Budget for growth, they either don’t understand how business works or they are delusional. “Very quickly the death of a family member could be the end of businesses that have been around for generations.” Mr Brundle believes the reforms could lead to an influx of foreign investors buying out British family businesses... Looking ahead to April 2026, when the BPR change is set to take effect, Mr Brundle is rethinking the company’s future. “I’m considering an exit strategy. I’d rather sell while the company is stable than leave my family with an unmanageable liability. It’s heartbreaking to think generations of work could end this way.” For Mr Brundell, this isn’t just about his business — it’s about the long-term viability of family-run enterprises across the country. “We generate huge revenues for the Government. Why would you kill the geese that lay the golden eggs?”... “This has been lauded as a Budget for growth,” he says. “In fact I believe Rachel Reeves used the word 31 times in her speech. “It just stifles. I don’t know what part of the Budget is growth apart from growth of the public sector.” It’s not simply inheritance tax that will affect the family, what also worries Mr Manning is the Chancellor’s decision to increase National Insurance contributions (NICs) for employers... Writing to his MP, Samantha Niblett, Mr Manning questioned which of the options he should take to fund the tax raid: 1. Redundancies, 2. Pay cuts or 3. Reduce staff working hours. Mr Manning still awaits a response. It seems Samantha Niblett MP is yet to set up her office, despite winning the South Derbyshire seat in July... “The Government is taking away the entrepreneurial spirit of business. We’re just losing that appetite to grow, expand, thrive and try because of what they’re doing to us. It’s not just the taxes they’re imposing, it’s the underlying feeling of why should we bother?”... Mr Thorpe doesn’t believe the Government understands small businesses. “They don’t understand that it’s us who employ most of the people in the country and are the workhorse. “They seem to favour corporates. They look after the corporates and they look after the public sector. We’re seen as cash cows in the middle. Not big enough to cause them a problem and not big enough to make any sort of significant changes. “We seem to be the people who always end up on the wrong end of these things.” When Mr Thorpe was dealing with his liquidator, she had shared with him that their business had supposedly gone up by 50pc."
How 70pc of Britain’s workforce is doomed to be poorer under Rachel Reeves - "Together, salaried employees make up over 70pc of the British workforce, and on balance they are now set to be worse off... As a result of the Budget, someone on the 2024 median wage of £37,430 – as revealed this week by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) – will now cost their employer an additional £965 a year, Telegraph analysis has found. This is the kind of charge that awaits the roughly 700,000 freelancers working under “IR35” tax rules – required to pay both employers’ National Insurance and standard income tax on bills paid by clients... Almost eight in 10 of them (342,000) have fewer than 10 employees. Just under a quarter (22pc) of such small firms – defined as micro-enterprises if their annual turnover is also below £1.8m – weren’t even able to turn a profit over the past year, according to market research company BVA BDRC. The Budget has just made life much tougher for them as individuals, all of a sudden responsible for payroll costs increasing “by just under 2pc”. roke her Budget promise to ‘working people’ Ollie Corfe Related Topics The Budget, Rachel Reeves, Tax rises 31 October 2024 6:00am GMT 197 Working People What are you doing to avoid Labour’s tax-grabbing policies? Please email: money@telegraph.co.uk Rachel Reeves’ Budget was a tightrope walk. Policy by policy, the Chancellor delicately avoided overtly raising taxes on “working people” as defined by a slew of her party’s ministers in the days prior. But millions will still be affected – albeit either indirectly, or not right away. The hike in the main rate of employers’ National Insurance up from 13.8pc to 15pc – as well as the 45pc reduction in the secondary threshold beyond which contributions kick in – will hurt both bosses and their employees in turn. The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), the Government’s fiscal watchdog, confirms it. Together, salaried employees make up over 70pc of the British workforce, and on balance they are now set to be worse off. The number of registered private sector businesses in the UK with employees on payroll stood at 1.4 million at the start of 2024, according to the Department for Business & Trade. In all, they employ 22.9 million people, out of a total workforce of 33.4 million. HMRC estimates the combined National Insurance measures – despite the raising of the employment allowance that employers can claim on their liabilities – will see 940,000 companies lose out in net terms, hiking their tax dues by around £26,000. The latest earnings figures published this week by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) found the median wage to now be at £37,430. As a result of the Budget, someone on the 2024 median wage of £37,430 – as revealed this week by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) – will now cost their employer an additional £965 a year, Telegraph analysis has found. This is the kind of charge that awaits the roughly 700,000 freelancers working under “IR35” tax rules – required to pay both employers’ National Insurance and standard income tax on bills paid by clients. The total business count total includes 428,000 where the owners themselves are involved with the day-to-day – so-called “working proprietors”. These aren’t captains of industry likely to be able to “write a cheque to get out of difficulties” – who last week Prime Minister Keir Starmer excluded from those he considered “working people”. Almost eight in 10 of them (342,000) have fewer than 10 employees. Just under a quarter (22pc) of such small firms – defined as micro-enterprises if their annual turnover is also below £1.8m – weren’t even able to turn a profit over the past year, according to market research company BVA BDRC. The Budget has just made life much tougher for them as individuals, all of a sudden responsible for payroll costs increasing “by just under 2pc”. Bridget Phillipson, the education secretary, defined a working person as someone “whose main income arises from the fact that they go out to work every day”. Yet the forecasts released by the OBR assume “around 60pc” of the increase in costs will be passed on to employees in the short term. Things get worse from 2026/27, when over three-quarters (76pc) of burden will be borne by workers – in the form of lower real wages."
Left wing logic - employers pay National Insurance, so workers aren't worse off
