Archive for the ‘Bit of politics’ Category

h1

Once more, with feeling

August 5, 2013

I wouldn’t usually blog twice in one day, but having sat down in front of the telly with twitter on my phone, I spotted a tweet from the Spartacus group reminding people that the consultation on the hard-won further consultation on the mobility element of the PIP closes tonight.

We have been here before, of course.  But I thought it worth sending another quick response.  You have just got time to do the same yourself: email pip.assessment@dwp.gsi.gov.uk before midnight if you can.  All you really need to say is no: it’s not reasonable to reduce the distance at which you get the kind of enhanced financial support that might enable you to get out and about from “being able to move 50 yards” to “being able to move 20 yards”.  Come on!

Here’s what I sent, although I’ve redacted some personal stuff about my own experiences of mobility issues.

My view is that it is unreasonable to set rigid limits, whether 20 or 50 metres, in deciding whether or not a person is entitled to the advanced rate of PIP.  In my experience disability is a fluctuating condition and fatigue is, in particular, difficult to quantify.  A person might reasonably be able to walk 30 metres one day and 10 another, for example.  They might be able to move about under some circumstances – early in the day, in familiar territory, with the use of aids – and yet unable to move the same distance under different circumstances – late in the day, in a strange place where there is additional stress, or under circumstances which include other stressors, for example.

I believe a more reasonable way of deciding whether a person should receive PIP at the lower or higher rate is to use a test analogous to that used in determining tax avoidance.  Under the General Anti Abuse Rule there is a “double reasonableness” test (see B12.1 middle bullet) Under this test, tax avoidance is not deemed to be “abusive” unless the double reasonableness test is met:

This requires HMRC to show that the arrangements “cannot reasonably be regarded as a reasonable course of action”.

This test could be adapted into the PIP regulations for existing holders of, and applicants for, the higher rate of PIP or analogous mobility allowance by specifying that the PIP will be paid at the higher rate in respect of mobility unless this “cannot reasonably be regarded as a reasonable course of action”.  In other words, rather than testing and (forgive me) harassing fellow citizens with disabilities as if they were trying to pull a fast one, you regarded them as having a legitimate need for the higher rate allowance unless it was reasonable to regard any other course of action as reasonable.

Kind regards

h1

Binaries

July 12, 2013

I’m not sure I buy into binaries.  There are two kinds of people in the world: those who think there are only two kinds of people in the world, and those who don’t.

Here’s a binary for you: either there is an unprecedented crisis which can only be solved by austerity politics, or there isn’t.

I don’t know which of these two states of being is true – I lean to the latter, but I could be wrong.  But today, let’s pretend we believe otherwise.  The government’s narrative is that we are in crisis, that the crisis isn’t of their doing, and that austerity measures are required to solve the crisis.  The narrative is, indeed, that this course of action is succeeding: we are moving “from rescue to recovery

So if that’s true, if austerity is the only way, then they are justified in freezing civil service salaries and reducing pensions.  If that’s true, then they are justified in capping benefits and reviewing payments to people with disabilities and making people pay for their “spare” rooms.

If that’s true…

If that’s true, then MPs can’t have a pay rise.

If that’s true, then it doesn’t matter how much evidence they can adduce that their salaries are uncompetitive.  It doesn’t matter how much evidence they can give us that they “ought to have” and “need to have” and “deserve” more.  Because in the world where the government’s austerity narrative is true, that hasn’t mattered to anyone else.

Welcome to the real world, MPs.  This is what austerity politics feels like from the sharp end.

There are only 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who don’t.

h1

Take the red pill

July 1, 2013

You take the blue pill, the story ends. You wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill, you stay in wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.“―Morpheus to Neo, the Matrix

Dear MPs

Take the red pill.

No, you can’t have a pay rise.  You’re public servants.  Don’t you know that your own policy is to “ensur[e] that public sector workers do not receive pay increases purely as a result of time in post”?  That public sector pay doesn’t rise with inflation but is capped at no more than 1% of the TOTAL paybill? That no more than 25% of very senior staff may receive performance related pay?  So you could – maybe – give up to a quarter of MPs a performance-related pay rise that didn’t amount to more than 1% of the total MP pay bill.  There are 650 MPs and they get £66396.  So 650 x 66396 x 1% = 431574 divided by a quarter of 650… you can have – maybe – £2656.  Or at least 162 or 163 of you can.

Take the red pill.

You need to compete for your share of the prize – you don’t get two and a half grand for nothing, you know!  You don’t have a performance agreement?  Well you’d better get on and agree one.  Because if a quarter of you are going to get prizes, and 65% of you are going to be assessed as “achieving”, then ten per cent of you are going to be assessed as “low” achievers (see paragraph 6)  And, well, you know you were all about the recall of underperforming MPs?  I think it’s only fair that the low achieving 10% should be recalled, now don’t you?

Take the red pill.

So what would be in your performance agreement?  Well objectives need to be SMART – specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound.   There’s no money, and the coalition comes to an end on 7 May 2015 .  So that reduces our options a bit, but have no fear – what gets measured gets done, so let’s make sure we’re measuring you on the right scale.  Let’s have between three and five objectives, the way individual civil servants do.  They’ll probably be quite generic: you’ll have to fight amongst yourselves for who gets the bonus pot relating to each one.

Take the red pill.

Let’s start with housing.  In the coalition’s Housing Strategy for England you pointed out that there were only 115,000 houses built in the year before you were elected, and that there were expected to be 232,000 new households a year.  So my first SMART objective for you would be to build 232,000 new houses (or flats, or “dwellings”) each year.  Stretching but achievable, right?  I mean, you have a strategy already!  After all, you started “nearly” 50,000 in 2012… oh.

Take the red pill.

How about unemployment?  There isn’t really a simple metric for that, is there? I mean, there are people who are “economically inactive” but aren’t on jobseeker’s allowance… do we count that as a success or a failure?  So let’s get real: how many jobs are there?  Let’s see… 400,000 jobs and upwards of 2million people chasing them?  So how about we set a target of, say, a 25% increase in vacancies.  If you want to be eligible for a pay-rise, let’s see half a million vacancies, and let’s see the ratio of unemployed people to job vacancies fall substantially.  And, shhh, don’t tell anyone, but if you achieved the first target and built some houses, why, you could probably employ some people to do that!  Two objectives hit in one!

Take the red pill.

Where else do you need a reality check?  What about food?  The Trussell Trust has some 325 food banks and hopes to have one in every town.  They spent about three quarters of a million on their charitable activities in the latest year they have.  The House of Commons spent about £5.8 million providing food, apparently making a profit, but managing to be rather numb and vague about whether there was a subsidy in there somewhere.  But how about making a performance indicator out of equalising the amount spent on food for the Commons and food for the commons?

Take the red pill.  Get real.  You can’t have a pay rise till you up your game.

h1

Spending review

June 26, 2013

I was watching the Spending Review this lunchtime.  Sad, yes, I know.  But none of the people in the House of Commons that I could see on the telly gave any evidence that they knew there was life beyond the Westminster bubble.  As I tweeted at the time,

The laughter and jeering on both sides of the House is offensive beyond belief. This is people’s lives you’re dickering with, posh boys.
While I was tweeting, did I really hear Osborne suggest that “some” public servants get 7% progression pay in a year?  I’d very much like to see evidence of that, and if it’s true I strongly suspect there’s an outlier being quoted as a norm there.
Let’s look at HMRC for a minute.  Here is what a tax inspector earns. Disclosure: I was on the G7 max for years… and years… and years.  Which is fair enough – I’d qualified, done a few years to get the rough edges off, and reached the rate for the job.  After that, if I wanted more, I had to get promoted (pause for hollow laughter) or get an “exceed” (performance pay) mark.  Oh, and the pay scale used to be bumped up every now and then to keep pace with inflation but that’s gone since the coalition took power – my former colleagues are still earning exactly the same as I was when I left… only now, of course, they’re taking home less, because they have to pay an extra “contribution” towards their pensions…
And no-one’s complaining about that.  It’s a good salary, and when you’re on the top of the scale you’re getting the rate for the job, and there are people worse off.  Yes, there might be a pay differential between the public servant and the accountant working for the other side, but it’s less than it used to be and there’s no-one hiring at present so there isn’t that immediate drain on the HMRC senior staff that there was when I finished my training.
But look at this, the age and grade profile of HMRC staff and you’ll see that there’s a big “bulge” of people in the G7 and G6 grades who are in their forties and fifties.  They might all have to work on till they’re 67 and 68, but I suspect a lot of them, like me, will scarper as soon as they get a halfway decent offer.  And look at the age profile of the people coming up behind them, the “fast streamers”, the bright kids they get in from university and train up to be the next generation of inspectors.
Ask yourself how they’re going to feel when they get promoted to G7 and sit there on the bottom of the scale?  There’s £8,921 between the top and bottom of the London G7 scales, £7,758 between the top and bottom of the National scale, and a whopping £14,607 between the bottom of one and the top of the other.  Yes, it happens, people in Sheffield do the same work as people in London.  So how would you feel about it?
I mean, I’m assuming the plan is to stop the music where everyone is standing right now and take away ALL of the chairs, not just one.  And then make everyone work extra hard to get that “performance pay” if they want more.  And devil take the hindmost, the person on fourteen grand less than the lucky sod doing the same job in a different place who got their foot on the ladder before the rungs were sawn off.
(Yes, all right, I’ll stop mixing my metaphors in a minute.  I get less articulate when I get cross, and I’m very cross at the moment, in case you hadn’t guessed.)
We were discussing equal pay for women in the Civil Service last week (there’s a summary of the discussion here).  I’m assuming that, since the point of the spending review was to spend less, that the government isn’t proposing to boost everyone UP to the rate for the job, thus removing the lingering equal pay issues, before imposing the ban on progression pay?
No, thought not.
Public sector unions are fools if they don’t set up a kickstarter for the legal expenses fighting fund and get the mechanism of an equal pay court case in motion.  Because austerity shouldn’t be at the expense of equality.
h1

…and another one

June 24, 2013

I wonder how many MPs are planning on demonstrating their constituency credentials by asking about the closure of their HMRC enquiry centre?  Here’s another one, from Penny Mordaunt, a conservative from Portsmouth North, and again the figures are interesting:

Number
2008-09 22,988
2009-10 21,855
2010-11 20,987
2011-12 20,973
2012-13 16,767

Two things interest me about this.  First, the precipitate fall in numbers of users of the service in the past year.  Do we think that might have any connection with the service’s concern with being “digital first” and the requirement to tell people to pick up the phone and speak to a distant call centre, rather than speak to the actual human being in front of them?

And, second, if you go to the HMRC page here and download the spreadsheet that seems to be the only way of finding out the opening hours of the enquiry centres, you’ll see that there are, in fact, TWO enquiry centres listed for Portsmouth, Portsmouth Lynx and Portsmouth Wingfield.  I’m rather curious as to why the Minister only reported on Lynx House and completely omitted to mention Wingfield.  But you can imagine why numbers might be problematic at Wingfield, when it’s only open two days a week.

Those figures don’t look so bad to me, actually.

h1

Eleven

June 20, 2013

Bit of an interesting exchange here, between David Gauke and Shaun Woodward, the Labour MP for St Helens South.

He asks how many people will be made redundant if the St Helens enquiry centre closes, and how many people they served.  Apparently there are five jobs at risk, but the numbers of visitors is the interesting bit:

Number
2008-09 15,900
2009-10 13,315
2010-11 17,070
2011-12 14,545
2012-13 13,296

So… five people answered between thirteen and seventeen thousand enquiries.  Take the middle number, 14,545.  Divide it by 5, and you get 2909.  Divide that by the average number of working days in a year, 252, and you wind up with about 11.

Eleven people a day.

Sometimes you might deal with them in a minute – point them towards the phone.  And sometimes you might be on sick leave, in a meeting, or training.  Filling in your paperwork and doing your performance management review.

Eleven people a day.

Not exactly twiddling their thumbs, the HMRC staff, were they?  So where are those taxpayers – sorry, customers – sorry, people – going to go to for help now?

h1

Return of the tax muggles

April 26, 2013

It’s like there’s this vast complicated otherworld existing alongside our own.  In the otherworld – let’s call it Taxworld, for the sake of argument – in Taxworld there are people who understand the mysteries of tax, who speak its language and share its assumptions.  Then there are the muggles, the rest of us, who live in the mundane world and don’t ever see the bizarre world of tax living alongside and parallel to our own, except when it thrusts itself into our attention in, say, a mysterious piece of code on a payslip or a scary brown envelope on the mat.

Me?  I suppose I’m a Squib: I know the Taxworld is there, and I know some of its funny little ways, but I’m on the side of the muggles, mostly.

So here comes the head muggle, “Tax Prat of the Year” Margaret Hodge and her merry band, issuing their PAC report into  Tax avoidance: the role of large accountancy firms

Their conclusions?

  1. The UK tax system is too complex and a more radical approach to simplification is needed
  2. There is no clarity over where firms draw the line between acceptable tax planning and aggressive tax avoidance
  3. It is inappropriate for individuals from firms to advise on tax law and then devise ways to avoid the tax
  4. Tax laws are out of date and need revising.
  5. Greater transparancy over companies’ tax affairs would increase the pressure on multinationals to pay a fair share of tax in the countries where they operate.
  6. HMRC is not able to defend the public interest effectively when its resources are more limited than those enjoyed by the big four firms.

The headlines, of course, are all about conclusion 3: is it appropriate for accountancy firms to loan out their staff to the Treasury and HMRC and then have them go back and work on the same legislation from the other side of the picture?

This is a red rag to a bull, so far as the accountancy and tax professions are concerned.  They think of themselves as professionals, and that they are more like the barrister who can give objective advice to a party to a court case whether the person is innocent or guilty.  They certainly do not recognise themselves in the “poacher turned gamekeeper” that PAC perceives.

To me the meat of the argument is in conclusion 6, but then I’m a retired tax inspector so I would say that, wouldn’t I?  But HMRC has lost 10,000 staff and many of its qualified and experienced staff are in their fifties and are leaving at an alarming rate – and there is very little “backfill” of people who have been through training and being seasoned by experience to fill those gaps.

Accountancy Live also reports that “hard working tax accountants” pay has risen by 10% in a year to an average of £79,670.  Which must be nice, because their HMRC equivalents have been frozen since 2011 at between £46,983 and £74,209.

So if HMRC is under-resourced, understaffed and underpaid, how are they to proceed except by borrowing staff from people who know about the subject under discussion?  Would it be more reasonable to take staff seconded from, say, a steel manufacturer or a supermarket?

To me, this is one giant red herring.  The responsibility for the existence of tax legislation and for the quality of that legislation lies with the people who make it, with Parliament.  Since the coalition came to power it has had a clear set of priorities for the tax system, set out at article 29 on page 30 of The Coalition: our programme for government:

The Government believes that the tax system needs to be reformed to make it more competitive, simpler, greener and fairer. We need to take action to ensure that the tax framework better reflects the values of this Government.

Part of that framework was set out in Tax policy making: a new approach which led to the invention of the TIIN – the Tax Information and Impact Note.  So each Budget they publish their proposals, consult on them, and then bring the legislation to Parliament along with a TIIN which tells you what the legislation does and why, how much it will raise and how much it will cost, and who will be affected.

Does Parliament ever look at them?

Do MPs ever challenge the legislation, and if they do, are any changes ever made?

Meanwhile the big glaring elephant in the room is the commitment to a tax system which is “more competitive, simpler, greener and fairer”.  In Taxworld, a “competitive” tax rate is a lower tax rate – a rate which competes for business with other tax jurisdictions.  Yes, it’s official coalition policy that, in the great multinational tax race, the UK should do its best to win the race to the bottom.

h1

Closing the enquiry centres: interlude

March 29, 2013

Yesterday I suddenly remembered that on 11 June last year I blogged about the HMRC Enquiry Offices not being included in the programme of work that – finally, after seven years – replaced all the old Inland Revenue signs with new HMRC ones.

And, when I was looking for the entry, I also noticed the entry from 8th June regarding the Bentley case and my prediction that Enquiry Centres would soon have to have notices warning they couldn’t cope with demand.

Just how long have they been planning the closure of the enquiry centres anyway???

h1

The Money Tree

March 15, 2013

“Dave, you’ve got to stop telling people about the Money Tree.”  Dave sat back in his chair and smiled the smile of the well-fed and contented.  “I thought it was a good line,” he said.

“Well, yes, but…”

“The first rule of the Money Tree is, you don’t talk about the Money Tree,” Nick smirked.

“That’s Fight Club, Oikey, and… It’s not true.  George.  Tell him.”

“Um…” George said, looking a bit shifty. “Look, where did you think we were getting £375 billion from for Quantitative Easing? Conjuring it from thin air?  I mean to say!  Why do you think there’s half an acre of walled garden outside guarded by the bloody SAS?”   Nick and Dave both looked like they’d been slapped in the face with a wet kipper.   George carried on, in the tone you’d use speaking to a couple of small and rather backwards children, “I go out into the garden on Tuesdays with a couple of the SAS lads, we fill a wheelbarrow, and then the boys backpack it round to the Bank of England. I thought you knew?”

“But… but that’s fantastic!” Nick said, bouncing in his chair.  “If we’ve got an actual, real, money tree, well there are no limits.  We could… abolish student loans altogether and reinstate student grants!  Abolish the bedroom tax without even bothering with a mansion tax!  Increase pensions by RPI instead of screwing them with CPI.  Increase benefits by the rate of inflation!  Abolish ATOS and give disabled people what they actually need instead of what we think we might be able to afford if we don’t mind a few of them living in squalor and poverty…  OMG we could have full employment!  Build council houses!  Take people off the dole and give them actual jobs, doing stuff!!!”

George pressed the panic button and the nurse came in with Nick’s sedative.

“Right,” Dave said, looking grim and determined.  He strode from the room and George hesitated for a moment, torn between the fun of watching Oikey fitted with his white jacket and worry about what Iggle Piggle might be getting up to.  Then he heard the garden door open and ran.  Surely he was just grabbing his own wheelbarrow, right?

“Stand back!”  Faced with a direct order the SAS men had no choice.  George was yelling “Noooooooooo!” but Dave’s hand was already on the axe.  “Do you really think,” he grunted between strokes, “that we were screwing the poor just because we’d run out of cash?”

 

So there we have it, my tenth and final post contributing to Krishnan Guru-Murthy’s #twittermillion effort for Red Nose day.  If you have enjoyed it, or any of the others, I’d be hugely grateful if you’d click here and donate a few quid to help people in need both in Africa and here in the UK:  https://my.rednoseday.com/sponsor/wendybradley.  Thanks so much.

 
h1

RTI, UC, and 42

March 11, 2013

If you’re earning, you don’t pay tax on the first £8105 of your wages – around £155 a week.

The aspiration is that this will go up to £10,000 – around  £192 a week.

If you’re employed on the minimum wage (which is £6.19 an hour – allowing for a 37 hour week) you’ll earn 228.29 a week and pay tax on £73 of it.

If you’re unemployed, you’ll get JSA of “up to” £71 a week

And if you’re on the state pension, you’ll get “up to” £107.45 a week.

OK then – let’s look at what happens if you are unemployed and you are offered a few days work – something seasonal, say, like fruit picking, or something short term and semi professional, like a data entry or translation job that only has a few days work attached, or perhaps you’re a semi-retired barmaid or a waitress and you occasionally cover for absence at the local pub or restaurant.

Let’s think about it from the employer’s viewpoint for a moment.  Either they use an agency and let the agent handle all the recruitment and payroll business – all you need is a specific number of bodies who can carry out a specific task after all – or else you do it yourself.  You pick someone you’ve used before, perhaps, or someone you know, and you pay them along with your other payroll and you process the payment at the end of the month along with everything else.

This year, along comes Real Time Information, RTI, where you are going to have to tell HMRC about the payment at the time you make it, even though you know your unscrupulous rivals are going to be tempted to bung their Friday night replacement barmaid a few quid in cash in a brown envelope and say no more about it.

Now there’s been a certain amount of kicking off about this in the accountancy and payroll press but then there always is when there’s a major change.  Either it’ll work or it won’t, and if it doesn’t then there are existing systems that people can fall back on.

But look at it from the point of view of the employee.

What happens at the moment if you’re unemployed and you’re offered a few days work?

Well, you “sign off” and – apart from the few quid you get for your fruit picking – you get nothing until you’ve managed to “sign on” again.  And it could be six weeks before your benefits come back on stream.  So you don’t take the work, because you can’t afford it.  A few days work might leave you penniless – literally penniless – for over a month.  You don’t have savings.  You don’t have mummy and daddy and a trust fund to fall back on.  You might wind up homeless, or having to get food from a food bank and a loan from a loan shark.  Or you work “cash in hand” and don’t mention it to anyone, and spend months or years worrying that you’re going to be penalised as a “benefit thief” and wind up on the front page of the Daily Mail.

There has to be a better way.

Universal Credit was supposed to be it.  Doesn’t look likely, not if you believe what you read in the papers, anyway.

So let’s do a thought experiment.  What would we WANT to happen, in an ideal world?

Personally, I’d like to see the tax threshold, pensions and benefits aligned.  So if you were working we’d move away from you not paying tax on the first £10,000 to giving you £10,000 but taxing you on everything else.  And if you were a pensioner, you’d also get £10,000 a year automatically.

And if you were out of work?

Well, you’d still get your £10,000 a year.  Only it would be on a daily, not weekly, basis.  £10,000 a year is £27.40 a day.

OK then.  You’re unemployed.  You sign on, and you’re paid £27.40 a day.  (Why not?  It’s going to be paid direct into your bank account anyway, and £27.40 a day is no harder to transfer than a £822 a month)

You pick up a day’s bar work.  You fill in the box on the claim screen that says you’ve had a day’s work.  The screen shows a smiley face and the words “congratulations!”  And you still get £27.40, because, well, everyone does, and as well as that you also have your money from the day’s bar work, less the tax which was taken off under RTI before you were paid.    But actually you wouldn’t NEED a claim screen, or to tell anyone you’d earned any money, because for tax and benefit purposes you’d be in exactly the same position as someone earning the minimum wage OR someone on an MP’s salary – you’d have your Citizen’s Income as a fall back, and you’d also have whatever earnings you could find, net of tax which was paid before it came to you.

So work pays – the money you get for working is yours to keep on top of  the £10,000 a year that everyone gets anyway.

Yes, I’m talking about a citizen’s income.  More specifically, replacing the tax free personal allowance with a Citizen’s Income.  Abolish means testing, tax credits, benefit caps, universal credit, JSA, pensions, tax free allowances and just give everyone ten grand a year.  And tax them on everything they earn above that.

 £10,000 is about £42 a working day  (take 10 bank holidays, 52 weekends and two weeks holiday off of 365 days and you get 241 days.  Let’s cheat, call it 240, and then round it up.  It IS Douglas Adams’ 61st birthday, after all)  There are currently two and a half million people out of work (1.5 million on the claimant count) supported by 29.73 million in work.  There are about 400,000 unfilled jobs.
Personally I’m very relaxed if the two million people for whom there ARE no jobs spend their time watching Bargain Hunt on forty two quid a day.
This post is the sixth of my ten Red Nose Day sponsored posts.  Thanks again to all who have donated!