So here’s a column in defence of the 1%, which at least is something you don’t see in any other rag, so let’s hope you enjoy the novelty. Worse, it’s arguing that those paid north of £100,000 are being hard done by. A challenging sell.
But, but, but. It is increasingly this paper’s view that most of Britain’s problems could be fixed by reforming the NHS in the vision of a Swiss or Aussie system, building more houses where people actually want to live and making childcare significantly cheaper by reforming the absurd way in which it is regulated.
The former pair we can park for now. Instead, let’s focus on the latter, which Chancellor Jeremy Hunt attempted to address in his recent budget with two extra years of thirty-hours-worth of childcare for one and two years old. In the finest tradition of Westminster, it’s dealing with the symptom not the cause, but as far as it goes it was welcomed.
Unfortunately, however, there’s a sting in the tail. Like the original policy, it disappears at the point at which one parent goes over the £100,000 salary mark; with four years of childcare being ‘worth’ anywhere from £25,000 to £50,000, over the period, and anyone over £100,000 going into a 62% tax rate, according to research you’re now better off as a young parent earning £99,000 than £140,000ish. The CEBR, an economic think tank, reckon it affects about 55,000 people, mainly in London.
Will anyone by overly sympathetic? Probably not. But is it a stupid cut-off that will mean high-flyers voluntarily take themselves out of the economy for a day of the week or more? Yes. So much for fixing our productivity crisis.
