Osborne’s “progressive” façade

Talk of a “fair and progressive” Budget disguises how cuts will hit the poorest hardest.

The coalition is determined to present today's Budget as "fair and progressive", with tax rises for the richest and tax cuts for the poorest. But does the rhetoric match the reality?

On tax, George Osborne will point to the plan (first mooted by the Lib Dems) to raise the personal tax allowance by £1,000 to £7,475, a move that will take 850,000 of the lowest-paid out of income tax altogether.

But this measure isn't as progressive as it initially appears. For a start, those individuals too poor to pay tax in the first place will gain nothing from the move. In 2009-2010, only 62 per cent of the adult population earned enough to pay income tax. Should the measure be combined with a rise in regressive VAT, the overall effect may be far from progressive.

But it's only once we take account of the likely spending cuts that any claim this Budget will be "progressive" falls apart. The coalition's decision to rely on spending cuts, rather than tax rises, to plug the deficit will have disastrous consequences for the poor.

With spending in non-ring-fenced departments poised to fall by up to 25 per cent, it is the poorest who will be hardest hit. As I noted yesterday, an analysis by the Financial Times showed that cuts would hit large parts of the north twice as hard as the south.

Today's FT contains a succinct explanation:

Spending cuts of such a scale could not be presented as "progressive" because public spending is concentrated in poorer areas and poorer families, suggesting that the Budget will have a sting in the tail.

Will Osborne, a better politician than he is an economist, have the chutzpah to claim that his cuts are "progressive"? If he does, Labour will be presented with an open goal.

Special subscription offer: Get 12 issues for £12 plus a free copy of Andy Beckett's "When the Lights Went Out".

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

New Statesman
Show Hide image

Quiz: Can you identify fake news?

The furore around "fake" news shows no sign of abating. Can you spot what's real and what's not?

Hillary Clinton has spoken out today to warn about the fake news epidemic sweeping the world. Clinton went as far as to say that "lives are at risk" from fake news, the day after Pope Francis compared reading fake news to eating poop. (Side note: with real news like that, who needs the fake stuff?)

The sweeping distrust in fake news has caused some confusion, however, as many are unsure about how to actually tell the reals and the fakes apart. Short from seeing whether the logo will scratch off and asking the man from the market where he got it from, how can you really identify fake news? Take our test to see whether you have all the answers.

 

 

In all seriousness, many claim that identifying fake news is a simple matter of checking the source and disbelieving anything "too good to be true". Unfortunately, however, fake news outlets post real stories too, and real news outlets often slip up and publish the fakes. Use fact-checking websites like Snopes to really get to the bottom of a story, and always do a quick Google before you share anything. 

Amelia Tait is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman.