This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/dec/04/chilling-facts-for-the-chancellor
The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 3 | Version 4 |
|---|---|
| Chilling facts for the chancellor | Chilling facts for the chancellor |
| (8 days later) | |
| Polly Toynbee's article (Tories at half time: cruel and inept, with worse to come, 4 December) and the Office for National Statistics' finding that the top 10% own 40% of the UK's wealth (Report, 4 December) underline how austerity economics has deepened already persistent inequality. Those at the bottom, especially social housing tenants, are bearing proportionately the greatest burden, undermining the chancellor's claim that we are "all in this together" ahead of Wednesday's autumn statement. | Polly Toynbee's article (Tories at half time: cruel and inept, with worse to come, 4 December) and the Office for National Statistics' finding that the top 10% own 40% of the UK's wealth (Report, 4 December) underline how austerity economics has deepened already persistent inequality. Those at the bottom, especially social housing tenants, are bearing proportionately the greatest burden, undermining the chancellor's claim that we are "all in this together" ahead of Wednesday's autumn statement. |
| Our research indicates that the country's 4 million social housing tenants, with a median household income of just £9,000 per annum, are poor and getting poorer. Austerity and above-inflation increases in essentials, such as food and fuel, have reduced purchasing power in social housing communities by 10% since the credit crunch hit, equating to a real-terms loss of income in excess of £3bn. | Our research indicates that the country's 4 million social housing tenants, with a median household income of just £9,000 per annum, are poor and getting poorer. Austerity and above-inflation increases in essentials, such as food and fuel, have reduced purchasing power in social housing communities by 10% since the credit crunch hit, equating to a real-terms loss of income in excess of £3bn. |
| Welfare reforms already announced will remove a further £2bn by 2015. Any further cuts in the welfare budget will bring into question the sustainability of many tenancies and the viability of social housing communities. Kevin Gulliver Director, Human City Institute | Welfare reforms already announced will remove a further £2bn by 2015. Any further cuts in the welfare budget will bring into question the sustainability of many tenancies and the viability of social housing communities. Kevin Gulliver Director, Human City Institute |
| • Patrick Collinson's excellent summary of wealth distribution figures from the ONS was chilling. I have long argued that the high rate of home ownership (and the attendant inflationary windfall) among baby boomers and current pensioners would ensure that a 10% levy for social care would simply skim a bit off that windfall, leaving "hard-earned savings" untouched. Bearing in mind the increasing crisis in hospitals (much of it the consequence of the disjunction between health and social care that the NHS reforms will exacerbate), Collinson would incline me to push my levy above 10% and/or consider an additional 5% tax on income above, say, £25,000 for individuals over 65. These proposals might make a small dent in the inheritances of an already cushioned group (clients of "Mum and Dad's bank"), but that minor discomfort is nothing compared with the distress caused by the current disintegration of care for older people and the dismal prospects and increasing inequality facing so many younger people in the UK. Colin Godber Winchester | • Patrick Collinson's excellent summary of wealth distribution figures from the ONS was chilling. I have long argued that the high rate of home ownership (and the attendant inflationary windfall) among baby boomers and current pensioners would ensure that a 10% levy for social care would simply skim a bit off that windfall, leaving "hard-earned savings" untouched. Bearing in mind the increasing crisis in hospitals (much of it the consequence of the disjunction between health and social care that the NHS reforms will exacerbate), Collinson would incline me to push my levy above 10% and/or consider an additional 5% tax on income above, say, £25,000 for individuals over 65. These proposals might make a small dent in the inheritances of an already cushioned group (clients of "Mum and Dad's bank"), but that minor discomfort is nothing compared with the distress caused by the current disintegration of care for older people and the dismal prospects and increasing inequality facing so many younger people in the UK. Colin Godber Winchester |
| • The Treasury is currently deciding how much to give local authorities for the next financial year in the local government grant settlement. We understand that these are tough financial times and that difficult decisions have to be made. In the 2010 comprehensive spending review the grant was cut by 28% over four years and councils encouraged to find efficiency savings. | • The Treasury is currently deciding how much to give local authorities for the next financial year in the local government grant settlement. We understand that these are tough financial times and that difficult decisions have to be made. In the 2010 comprehensive spending review the grant was cut by 28% over four years and councils encouraged to find efficiency savings. |
| Many councils have worked hard to ensure that frontline social care services which provide vital support services to older and disabled people are protected as much as possible from spending cuts. | Many councils have worked hard to ensure that frontline social care services which provide vital support services to older and disabled people are protected as much as possible from spending cuts. |
| However, despite their best efforts, we as organisations would be extremely worried if further cuts are made to local authority social care budgets which are already, in many cases, pared down to the bone despite rising demand. Already too many older and disabled people, those with long term mental or physical health problems and their carers and families are struggling to exist without support. Further cuts will mean more people trying to survive without basic everyday help with things such as washing, getting out of bed or leaving the house. | However, despite their best efforts, we as organisations would be extremely worried if further cuts are made to local authority social care budgets which are already, in many cases, pared down to the bone despite rising demand. Already too many older and disabled people, those with long term mental or physical health problems and their carers and families are struggling to exist without support. Further cuts will mean more people trying to survive without basic everyday help with things such as washing, getting out of bed or leaving the house. |
| The responsibility for ensuring that those who need help with social care needs receive a fair and quality service is shared between national and local government. | The responsibility for ensuring that those who need help with social care needs receive a fair and quality service is shared between national and local government. |
| We, as organisations that deal every day with the consequences of the social care cuts, appeal to the government to work with local authorities to ensure that social care budgets are protected and that a decent, fair system of support that allows people to live with dignity is in place with sufficient funding across every council. Jeremy Hughes Chief executive, Alzheimer's Society Martin Coyle Chief executive, Action For Advocacy Paul Breckell Chief executive, Action on Hearing Loss Michelle Mitchell Charity director general, Age UK Jane Ashcroft Chief executive, Anchor Judith Brodie CEO, Arthritis Care Mike Adamson Managing operations director, British Red Cross Simon Gillespie Chair, Care and Support Alliance; CEO, MS Society Thea Stein CEO, Carers Trust Srabani Sen Chief executive, Contact a Family Carol Boys Chief executive, Down's Syndrome Association Graham Faulkner Chief executive, Epilepsy Society Richard Leaman CEO, Guide Dogs David Praill CEO, Help the Hospices Rachael Byrne Executive director of care and support, Home Group Cath Stanley Chief executive, Huntington's Disease Association Janet Morrison Chief executive, Independent Age Simon Morris Chief executive, Jewish Care Merrick Cockell Chairman, Local Government Association Clare Pelham CEO, Leonard Cheshire Disability Ciarán Devane Chief executive, Macmillan Cancer Support Mark Goldring Chief executive, Mencap Mark Lever Chief executive, National Autistic Society Des Kelly Executive director, National Care Forum Eve Richardson Chief executive, The National Council for Palliative Care Oi Mei Li Chief executive, National Family Carers Network Jeremy Taylor Chief executive, National Voices Arlene Wilkie Chief executive, Neurological Alliance Paul Jenkins CEO, Rethink Mental Illness Brian Hutchinson Chief executive, Real Life Options Lesley-Anne Alexander Chief executive, RNIB Richard Hawkes Chief executive, Scope Peter Beresford Chair, Shaping Our Lives Alex Fox CEO, Shared Lives Plus; chair, Care Provider Alliance Jon Barrick CEO, Stroke Association Paul Woodward Chief executive, Sue Ryder Nick Partridge Chief executive, Terrence Higgins Trust Victor Adebowale Chief executive, Turning Point Bridget Warr Chief executive, UKHCA Jonathan Senker Chief executive, VoiceAbility | We, as organisations that deal every day with the consequences of the social care cuts, appeal to the government to work with local authorities to ensure that social care budgets are protected and that a decent, fair system of support that allows people to live with dignity is in place with sufficient funding across every council. Jeremy Hughes Chief executive, Alzheimer's Society Martin Coyle Chief executive, Action For Advocacy Paul Breckell Chief executive, Action on Hearing Loss Michelle Mitchell Charity director general, Age UK Jane Ashcroft Chief executive, Anchor Judith Brodie CEO, Arthritis Care Mike Adamson Managing operations director, British Red Cross Simon Gillespie Chair, Care and Support Alliance; CEO, MS Society Thea Stein CEO, Carers Trust Srabani Sen Chief executive, Contact a Family Carol Boys Chief executive, Down's Syndrome Association Graham Faulkner Chief executive, Epilepsy Society Richard Leaman CEO, Guide Dogs David Praill CEO, Help the Hospices Rachael Byrne Executive director of care and support, Home Group Cath Stanley Chief executive, Huntington's Disease Association Janet Morrison Chief executive, Independent Age Simon Morris Chief executive, Jewish Care Merrick Cockell Chairman, Local Government Association Clare Pelham CEO, Leonard Cheshire Disability Ciarán Devane Chief executive, Macmillan Cancer Support Mark Goldring Chief executive, Mencap Mark Lever Chief executive, National Autistic Society Des Kelly Executive director, National Care Forum Eve Richardson Chief executive, The National Council for Palliative Care Oi Mei Li Chief executive, National Family Carers Network Jeremy Taylor Chief executive, National Voices Arlene Wilkie Chief executive, Neurological Alliance Paul Jenkins CEO, Rethink Mental Illness Brian Hutchinson Chief executive, Real Life Options Lesley-Anne Alexander Chief executive, RNIB Richard Hawkes Chief executive, Scope Peter Beresford Chair, Shaping Our Lives Alex Fox CEO, Shared Lives Plus; chair, Care Provider Alliance Jon Barrick CEO, Stroke Association Paul Woodward Chief executive, Sue Ryder Nick Partridge Chief executive, Terrence Higgins Trust Victor Adebowale Chief executive, Turning Point Bridget Warr Chief executive, UKHCA Jonathan Senker Chief executive, VoiceAbility |
| • So the business strategy of Starbucks becomes clear (Starbucks to slash range of workers' benefits, 4 December). Impoverish and exploit staff to the full, operate temporarily on a no-profit basis and squirrel all profits safely away from the UK tax authorities. Over time, this should have the effect of putting out of business the small tax-paying cafes which contribute to the community, with the result that the only coffee "product" available will be those huge bowls of frothy, tasteless milk that Starbucks seems to specialise in. So much for the "free market". Geoff Fieldsend Sheffield | • So the business strategy of Starbucks becomes clear (Starbucks to slash range of workers' benefits, 4 December). Impoverish and exploit staff to the full, operate temporarily on a no-profit basis and squirrel all profits safely away from the UK tax authorities. Over time, this should have the effect of putting out of business the small tax-paying cafes which contribute to the community, with the result that the only coffee "product" available will be those huge bowls of frothy, tasteless milk that Starbucks seems to specialise in. So much for the "free market". Geoff Fieldsend Sheffield |
| • The blase way our politicians greet the ongoing decline in high-street shopping (VAT loophole 'costs more than Olympics', 4 December) is a shortsighted betrayal of the local communities they represent. The high street is being suffocated by online retailers who add nothing to local economies, nothing to local jobs and little to the Treasury's coffers. The chancellor could do more to level the playing field. The starting point for this should be a new tax of (say) 5% on online sales in the autumn statement, with the proceeds ploughed back into tax breaks for high-street retailers, many of whom are ill-placed to ride out a third winter of harsh austerity measures. Mark Campbell-Roddis Dunblane, Perthshire | • The blase way our politicians greet the ongoing decline in high-street shopping (VAT loophole 'costs more than Olympics', 4 December) is a shortsighted betrayal of the local communities they represent. The high street is being suffocated by online retailers who add nothing to local economies, nothing to local jobs and little to the Treasury's coffers. The chancellor could do more to level the playing field. The starting point for this should be a new tax of (say) 5% on online sales in the autumn statement, with the proceeds ploughed back into tax breaks for high-street retailers, many of whom are ill-placed to ride out a third winter of harsh austerity measures. Mark Campbell-Roddis Dunblane, Perthshire |
| Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. | Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. |
| Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. Enter your email address to subscribe. | Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. Enter your email address to subscribe. |
| Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox every weekday. |