UNFAIR! Part 1 in an indeterminate (but probably quite lengthy) series

It is reported that George Osborne has decided not to pursue Vodafone for a tax bill of £6billion. That's £6,000,000,000 when we are told that every £ counts. The BBC reported that Boots now declares its profits in low tax Switzerland despite making its income predominantly in the U.K. How much is that lost to the U.K. economy? Apparently around £90,000,000 a year. And we can be sure that other big companies are similarly failing to believe that "we are all in it together" by doing the same.

Just as there are those skilled at avoiding/evading tax, there are those skilled in the manipulation of the benefits system. I have just come across the first story I have seen of adaptation to the Government's new approach. One mother is complaining that she will have to return to work when her child reaches seven. Her friend tells her she just needs to get pregnant every sixth year and then she will always have a child under seven and thereby retain her benefit entitlement for the foreseeable future.

The unfairness will fall most heavily, and probably most quickly, on those who have paid their taxes and have expectations that services will be available when they need them. Those who are long term sick or disabled, and I mean genuinely so, will soon be experiencing a very hard time. Many will lose basic benefits because the systems put in place will have difficulty in making the correct distinction between those who cannot work and those who choose not to work. Local authorities will have to cut back hard on their social care budgets and will be removing services from many needy individuals. One London borough has already told one service user that she will have to wear incontinence pads rather than have the assistance with toileting that she has been receiving.

Over the past twenty years, when faced with potential spending constraints, local authorities have tended to raise charges rather than cut services. Social care has been particularly affected by this approach. I always tried to find scope for reasonable increases in charges, rather than cut back on services, when I was advising Councils. But the justification for social care charges was the additional income that service users were receiving from disability benefits. Reflecting changed circumstances and reducing charging systems for services is unlikely to figure very high in local government budget discussions now taking place.

So, many of those who are sick or disabled will experience a TRIPLE WHAMMY:

1. Loss or reduction of benefits income
2. Loss or reduction of services
3. Continuing high charges not reflecting these losses or reductions

So, big business will be O.K. 

Benefits manipulators will be O.K. 

But those who are sick and disabled will bear the impact of the cuts. They are the real squeezed middle.