Posted on

Arms and Aid: A dis-integrated review

I was deeply concerned recently to read the Government’s Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy. While there are many positives in terms of a stated commitment to upholding human rights, conflict resolution, poverty reduction and care for the environment, these commitments become empty rhetoric when held up against the stark reality of the government investing further in weapons of mass destruction while at the same time cutting back on its foreign aid spending.

The decision to raise the cap on the stockpile of nuclear warheads to 260 reverses all the progress that has been made over the past decades. This is in direct contravention of the UK’s commitments under the Non-Proliferation Treaty and ignores the more recent UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Increasing the UK’s stockpile of nuclear weapons will do nothing to protect our citizens; it will make the world a more dangerous place for all; and it is an enormous and unaffordable waste of tax-payers’ money.

It is particularly galling that the government should make such a commitment while simultaneously cutting the aid budget and offering to return to its commitment to spend 0.7 per cent of gross national income on development ‘when the fiscal situation allows’.

How is it possible that the fiscal situation can allow for the investment of a £24bn increase in military spending over the next four years, and yet cut the foreign aid budget from £15bn to £10bn over the next two years?

Posted on

George Osborne’s Budget: more reasons to be angry

A report from the Resolution Foundation has estimated that the UK Chancellor’s raising of the higher rate income tax threshold in this year’s budget will boost incomes for higher rate taxpayers by £200 per year.

At the same time, his increase in the personal tax allowance will raise incomes for basic rate taxpayers by just £60 per year.

When you look at the changes by distribution of household income, these inequalities are even more stark, with the poorest 10% of UK households receiving less than £10 per year extra, while the richest 10% (myself included) will receive an average of around £270 per year extra.

 

Distributional impact of income tax threshold changes in April 2017
Distributional impact of income tax threshold changes in April 2017

 

But it gets worse.

When you take into account other changes to benefits and taxes, the Resolution Foundation calculate that by 2020-21, households in the bottom half of the income distribution will be £375 worse off, while those in the top half will be £235 better off.

 

How can this be right?

 

Having had a few days now to reflect on this budget, I am appalled by the preferential treatment of the rich:

  • As a high earner with a secure job, I will gain by an extra £2,615 of my salary being taxed at a lower rate;
  • As someone who can afford to save, I could invest in shares and pay less tax when I sell those shares for a profit;
  • I could give up to £4,000 per year to each of my children to put into a new lifetime ISA, to which the government will add £1 of tax payers’ money to every £4 they save;
  • When Esther and Joe move away from home later this year, we could rent out the extra rooms through AirBnB and earn up to £1,000 per year tax-free.

 

disabled sign

Meanwhile, the chancellor has announced that he will cut £4.4 billion from benefits for disabled people. Apparently this means that 200,000 disabled people who are dependent on personal independence payments for help in personal care will lose out on these benefits, while a further 400,000 will see them cut.

If the health of our nation is measured, even in part, by how we treat the poorest and most vulnerable of our neighbours, it seems to me that we are sadly lacking at present.

 

 

 

 

But let justice roll on like a river,     

righteousness like a never-failing stream!

  • Amos 5:24