The Guardian\’s starvation wages

Most amusing. The assistant comment page editor at The Guardian complains that he\’ll be hard hit, as the father of five, by the changes in child benefit.

Just to let you know, assistant comment page editor is quite a senior position.

So let, us now deploy one of the guardianistas favourite arguments about, say, tax credits.

That they are a subsidy to those companies that refuse to pay a living wage. And so, yes, child benefit is clearly a subsidy to The Guardian which refuses to pay sufficient wages to someone in middle to upper management so that they can raise their family.

Worth reading the comments as well. Looks like my supposition about how the benefit cap will go over was reasonable enough. sure, cap it at the equivalent of £35k pre-tax? Well above median household income?

Sure, why not?

The article just keeps on giving on each re-reading:

However, not since China\’s one-child rule has there been such a penalty for having kids.


5 thoughts on “The Guardian\’s starvation wages”

  1. the comments, at the time of writing, are almost unremittingly hostile to his preening claims on poorer people’s money. Which is nice

  2. There’s only one editor on a newspaper or magazine.
    Everyone else, no matter what their title: deputy editor, features editor, executive editor, etc. is “not the” editor.

    p.s. 5 kids: the ecomentalists won’t like that – think of their carbon footprints.

  3. This Harker article, and the one by Nicholas Serota on the loss of government funding for the arts, ought to have shown everyone who (still) reads the ‘Guardian’ just what a hollow shell covers their much-vaunted ‘progressive’ values…

  4. On the one hand I agree with your point Tim.

    On the other hand I do feel uncomfortable with making people who have made rational decisions under one set of rules lose out when those rules are changed, when it perhaps isn’t necessary.

    The age at which child benefit stops could be reduced.

    The number of children child benefit applies could be limited to 2 *for those who currently only have two or fewer children*.

    In the current atmosphere Harker and his brood are easy prey but the general culture of taxpayers subsidising large families needs tackling, regardless of the parental income.

    At the bottom of the pile are large families of children leading chaotic and desperate lives and a minority of those people end up costing enormous amounts to the taxpayer through healthcare, social services and policing. This will continue so long as the incentives remain.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *