It’s coming up to election time so the legacy parties are broadcasting their wares for the punters. Money talks, so if the politicians can convince us through pecuniary means that we should vote for them then surely they are doing what comes naturally. Thing is, of course the government has no money. First it has to get it off the taxpayer and then it can use it to encourage as many people as possible to vote for it. This is reality and as long as the sun shines by day and the moon by night you cannot stop a degree of offering financial benefits to the electors to win their vote. These days that’s a very high degree. The degree to which any government tries to buy peoples’ votes will be in inverse proportion to the spiritual and moral integrity of that government. But then the government also reflects who we are as a people and the type of society we have built, so as George Osborne said, we are all in it together.

Two articles in the Times this last week illustrate the pre-election courting of the voters is cooking on gas as George and Ed fall over themselves to persuade us to vote for them.

So we have George Osborne aiming his sights fair and square at the silver surfers, the older members of the population who make up a substantial proportion of the voter base. No doubt Dave and George are terrified of the purple peril looming at their shoulders that has quite a lot of appeal for a lot of older voters who quite frankly resent being patronised by politicians over their ‘outdated’ views on things like the EU and gay marriage. The silver surfers comprise a substantial proportion of the electorate and so are a lucrative target for the main parties. They also tend to take their voting responsibilities seriously. Uncomfortably for the left, this vast swathe of people often tend to be more conservative in their thinking and so it will significantly be a fight between the Tories and UKIP for this section of the electorate.

What is George proposing? Nothing less than a multimillion pound bonds windfall for the over 65s, with pensioner bonds being given market leading savings rates. He has extended the 65 plus pensioner bonds scheme for another three months, until just after the election, after huge demand. It looks like about 1 in 10 of all pensioners will take part in the scheme. Thing is, this is all going to cost taxpayers rather a lot of money at a time of as we all know of necessary austerity, an estimated £500 million over 5 years. Mark Littlewood, director general of the Institute of Economic Affairs states that ‘borrowing more expensively than the government needs to is a direct subsidy to wealthy pensioners from the working age population.’

On the other hand, with eye wateringly low interest rates in recent times it has been tough for savers, many of whom are older people, so this helps to redress the balance some might argue. Borrowers such as those with tracker mortgages have had a whale of a time with lower repayments, whilst savers have had to put up with chicken feed. Bonds represent a fair rebalancing? However, there is one rule George appears to have broken and that is to borrow on the best terms for taxpayers. As Patrick Hosking, Financial Editor for the Times says, he could have borrowed the money at 0.3 per cent in the gilts market, instead he has borrowed at nine times that rate from pensioners.

Meanwhile David Cameron strongly hints he would protect universal pensioner benefits such as the winter fuel allowance and free TV licence. So the Conservatives are desperate for those silver votes.

Ed Milliband meanwhile is targeting new parents and working families with children with goodies from his gift bag. He was set to announce plans to give new fathers four weeks off work after a baby’s birth and to increase their statutory pay by £100 to at least £260 a week if he wins in May. This won’t be very popular with business groups, especially smaller companies. In addition of course Ed is planning to extend free childcare from 15 to 25 hours per week for working parents with three and four year olds. This would reduce spending on tax credits or benefits payments for low income families. Which is better, state subsidised work or state subsidised childcare?

So the parties line up to tell us how they are going to spend the money they have previously taken off us in tax. Trouble is, how well or badly the main parties intend to redistribute our money is not the main issue facing the UK. If people vote mainly on how much extra finance they will enjoy, or how much better off they could be financially, they could be voting for the increasingly swift demolition of our nation. It takes far sighted and perceptive voters to see through the short term financial gains being dangled in front of the electorate by the different parties, you might argue this is hoping for a bit too much from the average British voter. But there we are. There are far more salient issues to do with our survival as a cohesive nation than how much extra money we enjoy per year, and It’s going to be an interesting few months! The mantra, ‘it’s the economy, stupid’ does have its limits.

Well it seems that I agree with at least one British mum. She gave Ed Miliband on the radio a real pasting over his proposed policy of providing childcare for women who want to work, and not giving proper support to stay at home mums. The word used is that she ‘monstered’ him, and this is what needs to happen again and again with the current crop of UK leaders. Of course some newspaper wags might argue that Ed has already been ‘monstered’ by a bacon sandwich, but this stay at home mum takes it to a much more profound level. He needs such a pasting from an ordinary person giving him both barrels. Until the leaders of the UK see the paramount importance of the next generation, its emotional, spiritual and moral health, and how much that is rooted in a loving home of mum and dad giving full attention to their offspring and being gently encouraged to be able to do so by the government, we will continue to career down the wrong path. Children are the greatest asset a country can ever have, and their priority always comes before government tax take. But that would upset the short term self interest of the political class. What matter the long term stability of the country? Of course there are other issues here, like where low wages are paid to husbands or partners, the enormous pressures on families, the emphasis of modern society on materialism and the need for all the extras, etc, etc. Tomes could be written about all these issues. But the health of human relationships and particularly the safety and security of the next generation always comes before money, GDP, economic growth and international productivity league tables. And you can more guarantee the health of those relationships if you can make it as easy as possible for the mum who wishes to stay with her children in those early years to do so. Perhaps the greatest inheritance I have is not financial legacy but the values instilled in me through my background. These things are priceless. The UK must get back to pushing individual responsibility firmly and clearly back into the hands of its populace so that it’s ‘crystal’ that the government owes absolutely no one a living at the expense of the taxpayer, and that includes help with childcare!

Here’s the article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2713833/Stay-home-mum-mauls-Ed-live-radio-Accused-putting-no-value-women-like-choose-not-work.html

This great day falls on the 28^th May this year. If you are not familiar with this day it represents the day when British taxpayers stop working for the government and start working just for themselves. Here’s the link if you want to trawl a little further:

http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/2020tc/2014/05/happy-tax-freedom-day.html

So every penny of income you earn up to the 28^th May in effect goes to the UK government. For nearly five full months of the year that hard earned dosh from the sweat of your brow all goes to funding Her Majesty’s Treasury. At least you keep over half of your gross income, or seven-twelfths to be specific to spend at your own discretion. More tax means less freedom to spend your money as you wish, or less freedom full stop some might say. Some might argue it’s a good thing on average as the spending of some individuals reflects a distinct lack of discretion as to their long term good, the results of whose expenditure may constitute a long term burden on the State. One thinks of lifestyle choices and consequent health problems. Others might argue that the government is far too lax about spending other peoples’ money, we all know how people treat resources that are not specifically owned or earned by themselves.

It may be worth you having a look at the Taxpayers Alliance website just to see how your taxes are being spent, and how profligate government is with your money.  This is why it is in all our interests to get taxation down. Do we actually stop and think why the government takes so much money from us in tax and then gives it back in benefits such as tax credits? Apart from funding basic pensions and unemployment benefit, do we need a massive rethink?  Why not leave it in peoples’ pockets in the first place and let them spend more of their own money as they wish, rather than the government being the ‘big wise daddy’ who knows better than ourselves how our money should be spent.

One interesting little aside is the amount spent by British taxpayers to the EU. The Daily Telegraph reported in December 2013 that the British contribution to the European budget will climb from £30B to £40B in the next five years. Meanwhile the Full Fact website examining Nigel Farage’s claims about our EU contribution comes to the conclusion that in 2013 after rebates and other receipts have been taken into account, the UK’s net contribution to the EU was £8.6B. Given a UK population estimate of 63, 485, 015 for 2014, this is an annual contribution per capita of about £135, allowing for statistical error. I think I could spend £135 of my own money better than the EU could.

Ed Milliband shows his socialist credentials

One of the latest wheezes from Ed Milliband is free childcare for all in the long term, to extend childcare in pre-school years for UK parents so they can go out to work and have their children looked after while they can increase their family incomes. In effect they are taking away responsibility for the children away from the parents and putting it in the hands of the taxpayer and the State. So you and I pay for someone else’s children to be looked after while they can work longer hours and earn more money.

No one is deriding the fact that a lot of people are finding life hard at the moment because of economic constraints, and the government does have a responsibility to ensure provision is made for the poor, the disadvantaged and struggling families, etc. Many would argue for instance that incentivising marriage through the tax system is not a bad idea, as marriage is the most stable relationship for bringing up children, so it is in the interests of the State to support it for the common good. Extremes are often problematic, and the idea that the State has no responsibility for the welfare of its citizens, that absolutely everything should be left to the individual, is such an extreme.

What is the key issue here? Women returning to work is not the priority and making financial savings is not the priority. The priority is the emotional health and wellbeing long term of the most important asset we have, our children. Maternal employees paying more taxes at work to the Exchequer is not the priority, it is the health and welfare of family life. You get family right, everything else falls into place, including the economy.

Here’s a quote from Lucy Powell, the shadow childcare minister, ‘Enabling women to go back to work who want to go back to work, in the same jobs they were doing before – so that they don’t pay that pay and status penalty for the rest of their careers – will increase revenues to the exchequer significantly, such that over time it pays for itself.”

Again this is an attempt to change reality. No-one is denigrating women working and wanting to improve their career but if you decide to have a family you cannot have it both ways, the ‘pay and status penalty’ is reality when people are running a business, and talented men and women committed to their careers are bound to have more opportunities and undivided ambition than those who decide to withdraw from the workforce to have a family. There is as an economist would say, an opportunity cost. If you decide to have a family, arguably the most important job in the world, the next best alternative foregone is a possibly uninterrupted rise up the career ladder and consequent higher earnings.  You reap what you sow. Arguably, the decision to have a family is a more significant and valuable decision to society as a whole because you are raising the next generation.

The IPPR did a recent interim report where they estimated that getting 280,000 mothers back into the workforce would generate an extra £1.5B in tax revenue and make savings in benefit payments. But what about the existing unemployed who need to return to work? There were 1.27m people claiming unemployment benefit in October 2013 (claimant count) surely they are priority, especially the young people desperate for work.

But on this matter, let’s remind ourselves again, the government has no money. All the money it has is taken off you the taxpayer in order to fund its endeavours, and I suggest the less money it takes, and the more money you have in your pocket to decide how to spend, the better. It may be debateable the point at which a government ceases to incentivise a particular course of action it wishes its citizens to take, and starts to bribe voters with voters’ money, but childcare costs funded by the taxpayer to my mind is suspiciously hovering around the second category. When voters realise that they will substantially benefit from the largesse of the Treasury by voting for a particular party regardless of life choices, i.e. they will benefit from receiving other peoples’ money for which they themselves have not strived, then you are well on the way to total corruption of the democratic system. Some will say we are already there and have been for a good while.

It all comes back to individual responsibility, you are entirely responsible for your own life and must not look to the government to look after you in any way before using your own resources and ingenuity. I will come back to this again and again because it must become the default position of the UK population, as it has been in the past and can be again. If you decide to have children, you and you alone are responsible for them, not the taxpayer. History tells us that often parents go through a ‘poverty cycle’ when bringing up a family, but that’s just the way it is, it’s reality again which has a habit of cropping up at the most inconvenient of times when we want to enjoy personal peace and affluence. The benefits of sacrifice and responsibility are well worth it for I suggest the majority of parents when you can present responsible socially adjusted young adults to the grown up world after a sound foundation in life. Surely the benefits of a child being with its parents, and particularly with its mother, for the first five years, without her feeling pressured to work, are immeasurable. When you put money and the economy before everything else you are putting the cart before the horse. When you get family right, and strong healthy emotional bonding between parents and children, then you get everything else right. The government should be putting human relationships, health and well being first, not the economy.

So we have established the government has no money. Therefore not funding childcare means we all have more money in our pocket to begin with, including parents with children. They may not have a lot more money, but that reflects the fact that they have decided to have children and therefore presumably know they will have to make a sacrifice. Individual responsibility = big people = big society. Perhaps some families having a little more money in their pockets will enable them to make the decision not to have both parents pressured to go out to work.  A tax system that faces us with our responsibilities will focus us much more sharply on the decisions we all as individuals have to make. Having children is a huge sacrifice and I’m not sure it should be shared to the extent of Ed’s universal childcare.

So Ed Milliband is giving us more of the socialism that gets us into financial straits every time. We end up with a bloated State and another predicable deficit. Roll on the revolution!