See previous letters to the editor. If you would like to contact Yorkshire Bylines, email editor@yorkshirebylines.co.uk
None of us knows when we might need a safety net
14 September
Dear editor,
I am totally sick of hearing people talking about “taxpayers paying for this, that and the other” (well, perhaps not the other!).
Seriously though, you never know when you might be the person who needs and benefits from the support provided by the state.
For almost 40 years I worked, paid my taxes and earned a good salary. I never imagined that one day I would develop a chronic illness that would fundamentally change my life. In the three plus years before I retired last year, my illness meant I lost around £20,000 a year and potentially considerably more in earnings because I simply couldn’t work as I once had.
I didn’t suddenly stop wanting to work. I didn’t stop contributing. My circumstances changed.
I survived during that period with the help of Universal Credit, PIP and the very limited amount of work I was still capable of doing. And, as I’ve said before, the illness is still here. Without that support, goodness knows where I would have ended up.
That is what social security is supposed to be about. It is a safety net. We all contribute to it, and any one of us can find ourselves needing it. It isn’t a sign of failure, laziness or lack of ambition. Sometimes life simply throws something at you that you could never have planned for.
And that is why, when I read this morning about someone wealthy complaining about children receiving free breakfasts, I honestly thought: have we completely lost the plot?
Children don’t choose the circumstances they are born into. They shouldn’t have to sit in a classroom hungry because their parents are struggling. If providing a breakfast helps a child start the day fed, able to concentrate and ready to learn, then frankly I’m more than happy for my taxes to help pay for it.
I’m paying tax again now, and I don’t begrudge one penny of it.
Because I know something that perhaps we all need to remember:
None of us knows what is around the corner.
You can be healthy, working, earning well and completely independent today and find yourself desperately needing help tomorrow.
I never expected to need the state. I spent nearly 40 years contributing to it. When my circumstances changed, I was incredibly grateful that it was there.
And it is probably fair to say that without that support, I might not be here now.
So yes, my taxes help pay for other people.
And I’m proud of that. Because one day, it could be me again. It could be you. Or it could be someone you love.
Best wishes,
John
Looking forward not back
5 August
Dear editor,
In his first speech as prime minister, Andy Burnham spoke of wanting to achieve the “biggest changes in the last 40 years”.
This was immediately interpreted by conservative voices as a yearning for a return to the ‘bad old days’ of the 1970s. Kemi Badenoch even accused Burnham of wanting to return to the days of “endless strikes, rubbish not being collected etc”. Even those who were ideologically opposed to the drive to privatisation, that took place under Margaret Thatcher, would admit that underfunding of public services and utilities by the 1970s had left them in an unsatisfactory condition.
The time is right for a total reassessment of neoliberal economic thinking where the market is always right and the state needs to shrink as much as possible.
In the face of such negativity, the new prime minister’s desire to listen and move forward is refreshing. Facts rather than ideology should be the benchmark.
The country struggles with water shortages. No new reservoirs have been completed in England since 1992. Will the privatised water companies construct them when one water company has just given its chief executive a 14% pay rise, despite being subject to a ban on bonuses? Water should be part of the national infrastructure and not in the hands of private companies often based abroad.
One of the arguments put forward for privatisation was that it put ownership in the hands of ordinary people through the purchase of shares which broke the model of public monopolies. Setting aside the point that ‘ordinary people’ like Sid already owned public utilities having sustained them through the taxation system, these individual shares were duly sold and many of our former public utilities are now wholly or partly owned by large institutional and overseas investors.
Furthermore, privatisation did not totally relieve the public purse. Large state subsidies had to be provided to make the issue of rail franchises attractive to the private sector.
This is not an argument for widespread renationalisation. We need to objectively reassess our economy and find the right balance between private enterprise on the one hand and public good and national security on the other. Our new prime minister has the character and ideas to approach matters going forward, not looking back.
Justin Enthoven
Harrogate
