Cameron's Not For Turning

David Cameron the UK's Primer Minister (well actually only the English PM, because you have to exclude Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as they have their own first ministers - agitprop ed), has just stated that the deficit reduction plan that is playing out in the UK is going to be stuck too come what may.

It sounds close to the, "You turn if you want to, the lady's not for turning", that PM Margaret Thatcher famously said at the Conservative Party Conference in 1980 in the depths of the worst recession (in living memory up until that point, the current recession is even worse - economics ed) of her leadership.

In my opinion Mr. Cameron's was a fairly well balanced speech, but there were a few parts that caused me to do a little finger waving and mild expostulations at the TV. What really got my goat (thanks (?) to Ralph the Alaskan for the latest picture of  what appear to be you skinny dipping in a lake) was the idea that the coalition has cut "in-half" the amount of income tax that "hard working families", on minimum wage pay .

But, but but, why on earth are people on minimum wage paying any income tax at all? The minimum wage is not a living wage anywhere in this country and particularly not in the southern half of the UK.

Some quick, back of the spreadsheet calculations show that a minimum wage earner grosses £11,884.80 per year and actually takes home (after tax), £10,442.66. (See below for hopefully correct calculations - maths ed)

'Da Government' (tm) own definition of poor is, "A family is considered to be officially poor if they are living on less than 60% of Britain's median (average) level of household income."

Britain's gross median (average) income in the year 2011-12  was £26,312 giving a post tax amount of £20,254.16. So anyone with a net income, of 60% or less of this figure, £12,152 is officially classified as poor. 

So figures for the tax year 2011-12, I have demonstrably shown that people on minimum wage even though they are deemed as officially poor, are paying not only income tax but national insurance as well.

How on earth have we got ourselves in this situation where those defined as and actually poor are paying any taxes at all? (answers on a postcard are not accepted - marketing ed)

Calculations
Minimum wage in the UK (2012) for over 21's is £6.19 an hour.

Take a working week as 40 hours.

Let say 240 working days a year.

So, given the above, the minimum wage earner doing one job, would have a gross income before tax and national insurance of 240 * 8 * 6.19 = £11,884.80 per year.

Now, taking into account income tax (using 2011-12 year for tax rates) of £881.96 and Employees National Insurance of £559.18 (an income tax by any other name is still an income tax - economics ed) . Lead us to a total of £1,441.14 of tax.

So the net income of this minimum wage earner is £11,884.80 - £1,441.14 = £10,443.66

Thanks to thesalarycalculator.co.uk for working out the tax and NI costs for tax year 2011/12. What a handy little tool you are.

Other assumptions: a single wage earner doing only one job. They get paid for the 8 Bank Holidays a year.

Afterthought

To be fair, I thought that this was a no brainer of an argument, that those on low pay should obviously not pay any taxes on income as they were too poor.

But it comes down to a "one size doesn't fit all", type of problem. Given the disparity in median income across the regions of the UK, if all of those on 60% or less of national median income did not pay any income tax, then this would disproportionately benefit some regions over others (up North in particular - ed)

However, those in work and on low wages (and paying income taxes) are at present eligible for various working tax credits to help boost their low income. So you have to ask yourself why is the government is taxing (clawing money from the poor - agitprop ed) them with one hand, then giving it or more back again in the form of working tax credits with the other (and causing a lot of cost in working it all out, overpaying, underpaying etc - ed).

You have to ask yourself, surely there is a simpler way than this?

Full force of the law

This is the phrase that politicians (or the great and the good, never the twain shall meet - ed), use when some individuals do things that upset, "Da Government" (tm), or arguably when people do things that make the front page of The Daily Mail/Express/Times etc (papers bought by people who are likely to vote at the next election - political ed) and so whose opinions matter.

Now, I don't get this at all (what don't you get? - ed)

Well surely, the law should and must be applied to each and every law breaker in a fair and just manner. It is not up to politicians, and particularly one in such an office as Prime Minister, to try and sway the judiciary in this overt and voter garnering way (How close to the Eastleigh by-election did he say this - political ed).

As a short aside, I live in the UK, not the USA (sorry Ralph the Alaskan, popping up for a visit for some bear hot tubbing is just a tad too far for me. What I still don't understand is why the bear would want to be in a hot tub with us, surely they want to be in a cold river, catching salmon - ed) - and there is nothing like the separation of powers that you would think. After all, if we had a written constitution, rather than an unwritten one, with a large history of precedent, where would that get us!

For me, the idea of making someone a scapegoat, to, "Send a signal", or to, "Make them think twice", smacks of rank (surely smells of rank - literary ed) unfairness.

Now I heard the above phrase, spouted out of the mouth of our beloved leader (Kim Jong-un? - political ed), no, no, not that beloved leader, the one with the mandate, the one that the voters of Witney (Oxfordshire, UK - geography ed) foisted upon us, the one chosen by the Conservative Party to be their leader, the one who managed to fail to clearly defeat, "the man in the bunker" (not Adolph Hitler, but Gordon Brown - political history ed). 

You know, the one that all those voters out there thought they were voting for (rather than their actual constituency MP), as he is, "Such a nice looking you man". The man who said, "Calm down dear", to an honourable member of parliament (MP) just for the laughs it would get him on the back benches (for overseas readers, the back benches are where all the naughty MPs sit when they have upset the Prime Minister so much that he has taken away all their toys - i.e. Cabinet Seats. Those that laugh loudest and longest get put to the top of roster for a seat on the front bench - political ed)

Now, this phrase came out, as part of the ongoing horse meat scandal (which is turning into a European wide hunt for a culprit. The more time goes on, my initial thought that it would be the labelling at fault appears to becoming true - pre-punditing ed). 

People have been arrested, documents have been gathered, (computers have been impounded - ed) meat has been sent to laboratories to be analyzed, men and women in white coats holding pippets have been raking in the overtime. Company after company have been clearing shelves of potentially horsey products. Frozen "beef" products sales have slumped. Fish and vegetarian dishes sales have soared. The national press point fingers at various European countries, the further East (obviously the more foreign - ed) the better. It is worth noting that three and only three people have so far been arrested in the UK.

So who is going to get the blame, who will bear the full force of the law. No idea. But what each and everyone from this country who gets charged with any wrong doing in this saga should get is:

"A fair and just application of the law",

Headlines in papers, outbursts from Prime Ministers, talking heads on TV can protest, lament, gnash their teeth and pull out their hair but in a mature democracy, we should expect the law to  be applied in a fair and consistent manner. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Muted approval

I have been watching The West Wing - Complete Season 1-7 [DVD] (I really should put a link to the boxed set on Amazon to get a few pence if anyone clicks through it and buys this after I mention it....but sometimes, some things are not easy enough. Hang on - will have a go at this again, means I have to remember yet another login and password combination.... argh.)

I have watched series 1-6 so far (for the third time) and it is now at the part where the campaign for the next President (they call it their General Election). It turns out to be race between Alan Alda (Arnold Vinick - Republican aka Hawkeye Pierce from M*A*S*H) versus Matthew Santos (Jimmy Smits - Democrat).

It is great TV with engaging characters and some absolutely brilliant dialogue - but you really have to pay attention or you miss it, so those of you browsing on your smartphones or tablets and allegedly watching it a the same time - you're missing it. What continues to astonish me is how so very far away it is from how things are done in the UK (are things really like that in the USA? - ed)

Do we as a nation get that excited about politics and particularly our politicians? Yes, if you read the newspapers or peruse the political blogs you can see some of the commentators frothing and foaming at the mouth about politics and what politicians should or shouldn't be doing to sort out 'Da Issue of Da Day' (tm)

However, my gut feeling is that we as a nation (England) just don't get that excited about politics and in particular the Prime Minister (PM) (for those overseas  in the UK that is currently one David Cameron, not that he has much sway over Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales any more, so maybe he is simply representing the English, that is where most of the votes for his party came from in the last few elections). I feel that we seem them as a necessary evil.

However, as many commentators have mentioned, PM's have been getting more Presidential and that may be partly because they can sell themselves as the person you are voting for, whilst as a matter of fact you are only voting for your constituency MP - who may or may not have voted for the leader of the party!

Where is this leading, well one Anthony Blair did his best to make the PM Presidential, even down to having his own team inside No. 10 but outside of his government to try and bypass the Civil Service and get things done. Not much success there then Tony.

However, what Tony must have done was read a book called Bring Home the Revolution: The Case for a British Republic by Jonathan Freedland. Now, I read this some time ago and it was interesting to say the least and it seems that some of those ideas have percolated into the political classes, as we now have a Supreme Court, votes for Police Commissioners, votes on having Mayor's and so on, giving us more democracy is the theme. To take what is best from the US and bring it on home to Blighty. Worth a read if you like that kind of thing.

(Muted approval anyone - ed) You mustn't rush things, really you mustn't, I am getting there - just you wait and see. So moving on. There is a wonderful book called Watching the English: The Hidden Rules of English Behaviour by Kate Fox- one of my must read again books that captures the essence of Englishness (other opinions are purchasable - ed). I think she has done a great job of getting to the heart of what it means to be English and this is where the title comes in (finally - ed).

As a nation the English  give only muted approval to politics and to their politicians, because we just don't seem to get excited by them, we don't like or trust them. (Note I can't speak for the other nations in the Union, not that it will be a Union for much longer if the Scottish vote to leave. Don't understand why the English don't get a vote on it?).

Is there another Second Law of Politics coming, "Whether you vote or not, whichever voting system is used we all lose as the politicians still get elected"

There might be a later post on where we would be if there were no politicians at all, but that seems a little far off at the moment.