Why Osborne’s "granny tax" makes sense

It is right for older people to contribute to deficit reduction.

Today's newspapers are full of predictable criticism for George Osborne's only Budget surprise - removing the higher tax allowances enjoyed by people aged 65 and over. The Chancellor has bungled this announcement, slipping it into the budget statement as a 'simplification' when it is clearly a tax rise of around £200 a year for millions of pensioners. But is it really such as a bad idea?

Older people have been relatively protected from the spending cuts imposed by the coalition. The young have taken the brunt of the pain, seeing an end to their educational maintenance allowances and the scrapping of the Future Jobs Fund. Youth unemployment has topped 1 million, the highest since records began. Working families have already seen their budgets stretched as tax credits for low earners are frozen and support for childcare reduced. Many older people enjoyed windfall gains from the house price boom that has priced many younger families out of the market.

This is not a crude argument that pits young against old. But as the population continues to age, putting extra pressure on public services, parties on all sides will have to make tough choices about tax and spend. Asking older people to contribute to tackling the deficit and shoring up the country's tax base in the long-term is not unreasonable. This is particularly true if we bear in mind that only a fifth of pensioners are poor - retirement no longer means the life of poverty that it might have a hundred years ago when the higher allowances were introduced.

"Granny tax": which pensioners lose out?

A

Removing the age-related allowances also makes sense because, on average, it takes much more from better off pensioners. It is true that the wealthiest fifth of pensioners do not lose much. They are not entitled to the higher allowances, which are reduced as income rises above £24,000. But IPPR analysis shows that the poorest fifth also lose very little. Most have incomes below the allowance so will not be affected by the freeze. The chart above shows that the biggest losses will be felt by the second richest fifth of pensioner households (those in the 4th income quintile). They are more likely to have two pensioners with incomes above the allowance but below the income limit.

Osborne's pleas of simplification have not played well, but he is right that age-related allowances add huge complexity to the tax system. This is important because it means that many pensioners do not even claim the higher allowance they are entitled to. An official report in 2009 estimated that 3.2 million older people failed to claim the extra allowance they were entitled to, which is over half of all older taxpayers. There are simpler and better targeted ways of supporting pensioners struggling on low incomes, that do not rely on people claiming complex allowances.

Kayte Lawton is a Senior Research Fellow at IPPR

Kayte Lawton is senior research fellow at IPPR.

Show Hide image

What it’s like to fall victim to the Mail Online’s aggregation machine

I recently travelled to Iraq at my own expense to write a piece about war graves. Within five hours of the story's publication by the Times, huge chunks of it appeared on Mail Online – under someone else's byline.

I recently returned from a trip to Iraq, and wrote an article for the Times on the desecration of Commonwealth war cemeteries in the southern cities of Amara and Basra. It appeared in Monday’s paper, and began:

“‘Their name liveth for evermore’, the engraving reads, but the words ring hollow. The stone on which they appear lies shattered in a foreign field that should forever be England, but patently is anything but.”

By 6am, less than five hours after the Times put it online, a remarkably similar story had appeared on Mail Online, the world’s biggest and most successful English-language website with 200 million unique visitors a month.

It began: “Despite being etched with the immortal line: ‘Their name liveth for evermore’, the truth could not be further from the sentiment for the memorials in the Commonwealth War Cemetery in Amara.”

The article ran under the byline of someone called Euan McLelland, who describes himself on his personal website as a “driven, proactive and reliable multi-media reporter”. Alas, he was not driven or proactive enough to visit Iraq himself. His story was lifted straight from mine – every fact, every quote, every observation, the only significant difference being the introduction of a few errors and some lyrical flights of fancy. McLelland’s journalistic research extended to discovering the name of a Victoria Cross winner buried in one of the cemeteries – then getting it wrong.

Within the trade, lifting quotes and other material without proper acknowledgement is called plagiarism. In the wider world it is called theft. As a freelance, I had financed my trip to Iraq (though I should eventually recoup my expenses of nearly £1,000). I had arranged a guide and transport. I had expended considerable time and energy on the travel and research, and had taken the risk of visiting a notoriously unstable country. Yet McLelland had seen fit not only to filch my work but put his name on it. In doing so, he also precluded the possibility of me selling the story to any other publication.

I’m being unfair, of course. McLelland is merely a lackey. His job is to repackage and regurgitate. He has no time to do what proper journalists do – investigate, find things out, speak to real people, check facts. As the astute media blog SubScribe pointed out, on the same day that he “exposed” the state of Iraq’s cemeteries McLelland also wrote stories about the junior doctors’ strike, British special forces fighting Isis in Iraq, a policeman’s killer enjoying supervised outings from prison, methods of teaching children to read, the development of odourless garlic, a book by Lee Rigby’s mother serialised in the rival Mirror, and Michael Gove’s warning of an immigration free-for-all if Britain brexits. That’s some workload.

Last year James King published a damning insider’s account of working at Mail Online for the website Gawker. “I saw basic journalism standards and ethics casually and routinely ignored. I saw other publications’ work lifted wholesale. I watched editors...publish information they knew to be inaccurate,” he wrote. “The Mail’s editorial model depends on little more than dishonesty, theft of copyrighted material, and sensationalism so absurd that it crosses into fabrication.”

Mail Online strenuously denied the charges, but there is plenty of evidence to support them. In 2014, for example, it was famously forced to apologise to George Clooney for publishing what the actor described as a bogus, baseless and “premeditated lie” about his future mother-in-law opposing his marriage to Amal Alamuddin.

That same year it had to pay a “sizeable amount” to a freelance journalist named Jonathan Krohn for stealing his exclusive account in the Sunday Telegraph of being besieged with the Yazidis on northern Iraq’s Mount Sinjar by Islamic State fighters. It had to compensate another freelance, Ali Kefford, for ripping off her exclusive interview for the Mirror with Sarah West, the first female commander of a Navy warship.

Incensed by the theft of my own story, I emailed Martin Clarke, publisher of Mail Online, attaching an invoice for several hundred pounds. I heard nothing, so emailed McLelland to ask if he intended to pay me for using my work. Again I heard nothing, so I posted both emails on Facebook and Twitter.

I was astonished by the support I received, especially from my fellow journalists, some of them household names, including several victims of Mail Online themselves. They clearly loathed the website and the way it tarnishes and debases their profession. “Keep pestering and shaming them till you get a response,” one urged me. Take legal action, others exhorted me. “Could a groundswell from working journalists develop into a concerted effort to stop the theft?” SubScribe asked hopefully.

Then, as pressure from social media grew, Mail Online capitulated. Scott Langham, its deputy managing editor, emailed to say it would pay my invoice – but “with no admission of liability”. He even asked if it could keep the offending article up online, only with my byline instead of McLelland’s. I declined that generous offer and demanded its removal.

When I announced my little victory on Facebook some journalistic colleagues expressed disappointment, not satisfaction. They had hoped this would be a test case, they said. They wanted Mail Online’s brand of “journalism” exposed for what it is. “I was spoiling for a long war of attrition,” one well-known television correspondent lamented. Instead, they complained, a website widely seen as the model for future online journalism had simply bought off yet another of its victims.