Tendring Topics……..on line
‘The
King was in his counting house, counting out his money’
These
days, of course, it wouldn’t be the king but the Chancellor of the
Exchequer. For me, Chancellor George
Osborne lost all credibility and respect when, at the same time as introducing
an austerity programme that penalised the poor and disadvantaged, he reduced the
liability for income tax of the seriously wealthy; those with a taxable income
in excess of £150,000 a year! Quite
apart from the flagrant injustice of penalising the poor and rewarding the
rich, I find it incredible that any Chancellor of a country with a serious
deficit problem should deliberately, and despite widespread protest, cut off a
source of revenue. That the source consisted of very wealthy people who would
barely notice the loss compounds the irresponsibility of the action.
The Chancellor expects to be credited with ‘helping the poor’ when he raises the
threshold of liability for income tax, thus ‘taking thousands of low-paid workers out of the income tax system
altogether’. It isn’t only the poor who are helped. Raising the tax liability threshold benefits
all income tax payers, including the very wealthiest. What’s more, being ‘taken out of the income tax system altogether’ automatically makes
those affected into second class citizens, patronised by ‘we tax-payers who have to support a nation full of slackers and
scroungers!
Last
week’s financial statement continued the tradition that the Chancellor and his
colleagues have established. Can they
possibly really believe that the poor are to blame for their poverty and that
that there is work in plenty available for those who genuinely seek it? Extending to seven days the time that elapses
before an unemployed person can sign on to claim job-seekers’ allowance
suggests that they do. Unemployed and
penniless people and their families still need to eat, pay the rent, and buy
other necessities during those seven days.
How else can those without savings do so without resorting to the ‘help’
of a loan-shark or one of those pay-day loans that are so deceptively easy to
obtain and so very, very difficult to pay off.
It
isn’t likely that very many people will criticise the decision to deny the winter
fuel allowance to elderly Brits. living in countries enjoying milder winters
than those in the UK .
It hadn’t even occurred to me that those who choose to live permanently
overseas had been receiving it!
The countries affected are residents in European Union countries
bordering on the Mediterranean, including France
but excluding Italy . At first glance that seems ridiculous.
Surely winters in, for instance, Calais and Rouen must more closely resemble those in Britain than do winters in Naples
or Palermo ?
Probably
so – but the decision is made by a comparison between the average winter
temperature in south-west England
and the average winter temperature throughout
the country concerned. Italy ’s average
winter temperature is brought down by the permanently snow-capped Italian
Alps and by the peaks of the Apennines extending down ‘the spine’ of Italy . I doubt
if many, if any, ex-pats live among those peaks…………… but rules are rules!
I
really don’t understand why the
Chancellor is so reluctant to use income tax to make winter fuel allowance and
other benefits fairer, and yield revenue
to narrow that deficit much more easily and painlessly than anything that
he has done so far. The state retirement
pension is subject to income tax. I can
see no valid reason why all benefits
(in fact, all sources of income)
shouldn’t be similarly taxed.
The
only conclusion that I can reach is that the Chancellor’s political outlook,
and that of his colleagues sees something morally wrong in the idea that we should be taxed in
accordance with our ability to pay. A
couple of pence in the pound on VAT or customs duty may lose a few votes, but
it is tolerable because ‘the rich man in
his castle’ and ‘the poor man at his
gate’ pay exactly the same amount.
That clearly is the government’s idea of us ‘all being in this together’.
A tax for rich and
poor alike based proportionately on ability to pay? Unthinkable – that’s the road to red
revolution and the end of civilisation for ‘people like us’ (with a Rolls in the garage, a yacht in the
marina, and a second home in Majorca ).
Mrs
Thatcher must have had much the same idea when she replaced the rating system
for the local financing of local government by the Poll Tax. Rate demands had, admittedly very
imperfectly, reflected the wealth or poverty of the householder. The poll tax was the same for us all, the
millionaire, the slum dweller and the rural cottager. A late 14th century version of the
Poll Tax triggered the Peasants’ Revolt.
The late 20th century version triggered revolt against Mrs
Thatcher and her government and led to her eventual downfall at the hands of
her own supporters. I think it unlikely that I shall still be around to see the
eventual consequences in the 21st century, of robbing the poor to
make the wealthy even richer.
My
two sons were both pupils at Clacton
County High
School in the late 1960s and early ‘70s. Both did very well there and I have always
followed the progress of the school with a warm interest.
I
was very pleased therefore to read in the Clacton
Gazette that the CCHS is in the top twenty percent of schools for raising
pupils’ educational standards from admission at 11 to completing their GCSE
examinations at 16. Sue Williamson,
chief executive of the Secondary School Admission Test education group, is
reported as saying ‘Clacton County
High School should be congratulated for their stunning
performance in adding value to their students’ achievements. It is one of the best schools in the country
in outperforming expectations for their pupils and improving their future
prospects. There is plenty that other
schools could learn from their success’.
So far, so good. It isn’t quite the whole story though. On a back page of the same Gazette are to be found tables showing
the percentage of pupils from each school and educational establishment in Colchester
and the Tendring District who went on to University or other Higher Education
Institution. These give a rather
different picture. Out of 110 school
leavers from Clacton County High School 44 percent went on to Higher Education
Institutions but only 6 percent went to the top
third of these (that is, to a good university). Not a single pupil from any school or other
institution within the Tendring District gained admission to either Oxford or Cambridge
Universities . Things have been very different in the
not-too-distant past.
Peter Hall B.A.(Cantab) aged 21, on his graduation day. Selwyn College
Chapel is in the background. He was
subsequently made an M.A.
My elder son left Clacton County High School
in 1970 at the age of 17, having sat and passed his ‘A’ level exams with
outstanding results,. He had been accepted by Selwyn
College , Cambridge to begin his life there as an undergraduate
from September 1971. He would then be just 18.
He spent his ‘gap year’ working in the store room of the Eastern
Electricity Board HQ in Clacton , learning
something of the ‘real world’ of work before he began his studies. In 1971 he was one of at least four CCHS sixth formers who became
students at Cambridge
University , all of whom
graduated with honours. Those four I
knew about personally. There may well
have been others whom I didn’t know who started at either Oxford of Cambridge
that same year.
I
don’t believe that young men and women of Clacton
at the end of the 1960s were cleverer than those of the first decade of the 21st
century. While it is possible that they
were prepared to work and study harder (there certainly weren’t the
distractions then that there are today) I think that their expectations and
those of their teachers were higher, and that their teachers were more
inspiring – and perhaps more skilled.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment