Out to Lunch

Tags

autism, Education, School

Matthew, being a typical autistic child (if there is such a thing as a typical autistic child) who finds any social situation a mystifying and often terrifying experience. He is socially awkward and has no idea of how to cope. His answer is to go into mini-meltdown which makes him incredibly difficult to deal with.

Now, the school Matthew attends have been advised of this on numerous occasions as to how difficult Matthew finds it to interact socially with others. Right from the outset of his formal education, we agreed with the school that we’d take him home for lunch. We’ve both seen how Matthew reacts when put in a situation when he’s required to eat in the presence of non-family members. I can recall when we took him to the birthday party of one of my friends’ daughter at a soft play centre near where we live. Matthew was quite happy being perfectly autistic – being involved in situation with other playing, yet at the same time managing to be on his own. He is quite happy being on his own and playing by himself. Quite sad in a way to see him be so alone whilst surrounded by other children. The party was going well until it was time for the feed. Matthew need both mum and dad to sit with him. When the food was brought out, Matthew filled his plate neatly – everything must be kept separate. However, the situation soon got the better him, and he wouldn’t eat unless he was sitting on the floor under a table. To him, he couldn’t see others, so they couldn’t see him eat. As the mealtime got progressively noisier, the more agitated he got and ended up eating hardly anything.

We’ve mentioned it to the school at every review when Matthew staying for school lunches is raised. The consensus has been to delay even giving it a try. This term though they school have regularly pushed for Matthew to try staying for lunch. We’ve tried re-iterating that Matthew can’t cope with being in that situation, can’t cope with the noise. We’ve seen what that results in. Matthew has never been a good eater, but in a situation where we aren’t there to make him eat, he won’t eat.

But, eventually we agreed to give it a go. We agreed a day to try it out. Someone Matthew trusted would be there to help him. We put it to Matthew, who was initially receptive to the idea. We tried a packed lunch on him at home. unsurprisingly, he took so long to eat, and ate the sweets, and all but leaving the sandwich, which was only finally (partially) eaten after constant prompting from us. This is one of Matthew’s typical behaviours – eating needs to be reinforced every day. Mealtime can last up to 45 minutes – or more – as he needs constant reminding to keep eating. Given that he would only have 20 minutes to eat at school, as things stand, there is no hope he’d finish it. Anyway, when the day approached, Matthew had a panic attack at the thought of staying at school for lunch the day before. He was in tears and inconsolable at the thought of not coming home for lunch. He was getting so worked up that we thought he’d be sick.

We thought this year he’d like to stay at school for the Christmas lunch. It was all arranged, and Matthew seemed happy about it. But again, two days before, another panic attack occurred, and the deal was off. I can understand what the school are doing – they are trying to help him integrate with his class mates, but they don’t see what we do – the panic attacks, the storm of tears, the terror that Matthew experiences at the thought of not coming home at lunchtime.

Well, another attempt was made today. His teacher spoke to me today about Matthew staying for lunch. They’ll advise us when Matthew’s favourite classroom assistant would be in the dining area. I was sceptical that it would work, but agreed we’d raise it with Matthew. Guess what happened? As soon as I suggested it, it brought Matthew to the verge of panic. “No, no no. I want to come home.” He is genuinely scared of social gathering and just can’t cope.

We’ll see what happens when we get the days his classroom assistant will be in the dining area, but I can almost guarantee it won’t happen again. I’m not keen at the thought of putting Matthew through what will be an ordeal. He’s not comfortable around others, and can’t join in the general banter that would ensue. The school seems to think its just Matthew not being sure of what is involved. But, Matthew is autistic, and his brain just isn’t wired to comprehend being sociable. His brother starts school in August and we suspect he’ll want to stay. Matthew adores his brother, and we’re hoping Daniel can help Matthew through lunch at the school.

Well, this is part of having an autistic child. Needing to be at home each lunchtime means Matthew’s mum can’t go out between 11am and 1pm – making it impossible to do things like going into town, or even think about part-time work. One day that will maybe change, but I’ll not be holding my breath.

The dreaded DLA minefield.

Tags

asd, aspergers, autism, disability

Its highly topical at the moment. The welfare system is being reformed, and by reformed I mean its being made harder for legitimate claimants to claim for benefits. There’s a misconception that all you need to put your hand out, and you are quids in! I’m fairly sure that anyone with that view obviously hasn’t had to claim for anything at all.

My tale begins with our son being diagnosed with an Autistic Spectrum Disorder. The thought on claiming for anything hadn’t even occurred to us. It was hard enough to take in the fact that we’d been landed with this bombshell. Fortunately for us our Health Visitor – kept in the loop thanks to details of Matthew’s case being passed onto his GP – was on the ball. She came round to see Matthew and asked if we were claiming Disability Living Allowance. As I say, the idea hadn’t even occurred. Going off on a tangent, how many other parents suddenly becoming the parent of a child with a very special need don’t even think on claiming for something to which they would most likely be entitled to?

Our Health Visitor gave us great advice on the sort of things to included in the claim. Lots of the advice related to things we hadn’t had the chance to think about. Simple things like taking a bus. How would Matthew cope if, for example, a bus that wasn’t ours went past the stop without stopping? It would almost certainly result in a tantrum. The National Autistic Society website was a fantastic resource. I’d gathered all the advice I needed, requested a claim form from the DWP. Now it was time to make a claim!

To make sure I got everything down, I decided to draft each section in word so I could put in all my additional comments as supplementary sheets. The advice of the NAS was to be as detailed as possible. If anyone is in a similar position, don’t tell them about what an “average” day is like with your autistic child. Think about what its like when it’s as bad as it can get. Don’t say he/she can manage round a supermarket. Tell them you have to consider leaving your child at home because you can’t bear the stress that going down the frozen aisle, your little one may go into meltdown and lay screaming and kicking on the floor while you have to stand and endure the stares of other shoppers. Think of what its like when your child wakes in the night in terror, waking up the entire house at 3am with their screaming. Think of what its like to take almost an hour to get them dressed each and every day. Just think of how drained and exhausted you are every day trying to cope with an autistic child. Just remember, parents of “normal” children don’t have these problems.

If anyone making a claim for their disabled child think it’s just a case of saying “He’s autistic, can I have DLA now?” drop that idea at the outset. It’s a draining and time-consuming process. We all need to focus on the positives for our child. Yes, they are autistic, but what can they do? What do they achieve? None of that when claiming DLA. The constant focus is on the negative. Page after page is all about what your child can’t do. They can’t dress themselves, they need constant supervision in the bathroom, they need help eating.

The detail needed, whilst perhaps in someway understandable, but seriously, asking how many minutes it takes to wash, how long they are disturbed for at night. It goes on and on. You just have to compartmentalise your child’s life and think clearly what a difference having an autistic child makes to your life. As I say, and autistic child isn’t a “normal” child. It’s surprising how much extra time you take with everyday activities. Try cooking a meal whilst trying to supervise an autistic four-year old who’s a danger to himself and see how long it takes.

Ultimately in took about a week to make sure I’d got it right, and had it detailed sufficiently. The submission from me alone ran to 10,000 words. That wasn’t the end of it though. After the claim had been submitted, the DWP needed a school report. We decided to speak to the nursery teacher, as we’d had no report of them struggling with Matthew. I didn’t see the point of the school report considering he was at home 21.5 hours out of every day. The problems were all ours. Astonishingly his teacher asked what we wanted to the money for! Honestly, I think that’s our business. But then again, most don’t realise DLA is to enable claimants to live as independently as possible. It has allowed us to make sure Matthew’s mum can stay at home and give Matthew the care and supervision he so badly needs. To many, it’s a god-send.

Ultimately we got a call from the DWP to say we’d been awarded higher rate care component. The only disappointment was that the claim period was for 1 year. A call to the DWP to try to ascertain if this was normal for a child yielded nothing. The NAS did think that it might be that they couldn’t assess a mobility component until Matthew was five. In July last year we were advised to submit yet another claim to the DWP. Incredibly we had to do it all over again within a year of the original claim. Fortunately nothing had changed for Matthew. If anything were we discovering more things he couldn’t do. We took the Health Visitor’s advice on the mobility side. Getting Matthew from A to B regularly involves going via C, D and E! Despite the claim not being officially due for review until September, the DWP called in August to say Matthew was getting higher rate care and lower rate mobility until October 2013.

Things have changed since then and his review will be dreaded and will be highly stressful. But, somehow we negotiated a claim process designed to deter claimants, and had come out the other side with the chance of giving Matthew the help he so badly needs.

Autism – Hidden But Always There

Tags

autism

Physical disabilities are a clear and obvious sign that something isn’t right with a person. It needn’t take a doctor to give a diagnosis to make that clear. Even assessors for Atos would see that a DLA claimant with a clear physical disability isn’t fit for work. But what about autism? It doesn’t always manifest itself in physical form, but its there. It’s a lifelong condition, so there’s no cure. It will be with the “victim” always. It can make life hard and a challenge, but it’s not the end of life as we know it.

We first noticed things weren’t quite right with Matthew when he was about 18 months old. He would sit in his high chair and flap his arms uncontrollably, and was “miles away”. After a few weeks, I said to Matthew’s mum that I’d never seen any other children do that. We decided to take him to our GP, setting us on a path that would change his – and our – lives for good.

The diagnosis process was long and stressful. Matthew had several sessions with the Community Health team and the doctor there. It involved several interviews for Matthew, which he found hard. Ultimately, they saw enough to warrant referring him to a weeklong assessment at the Raeden Centre in Aberdeen. There Matthew met Dr Strachan, a clinical psychologist at ARI in Aberdeen who would take Matthew on to her caseload. Over the whole process, she was marvellous. So supportive and helpful, ultimately diagnosing Matthew with an ASD in February 2009.

As I say, it’s not obvious that an autistic child has anything wrong with them, and without an official diagnosis from an expert, you have nothing to support any assertion that your child is disabled. We encountered that view in Matthew’s first session at nursery. His nursery teacher – who had special needs training – had Matthew sized up as a problem child. It was all down to bad parenting too. We would have to pick Matthew up 15 minutes early each day, excluding him from the quiet read time at the end of the session to prevent him from disrupting the class. We were asked to take him to the library and collect him from there, rather than him go with his classmates. The teacher took Jane to task for refusing. She made it clear they didn’t want a problem child to walk to and from the library.

All that changed when Matthew went into his second year at nursery with much more understanding teachers and us getting the diagnosis. To be fair, the nursery nurses were fantastic. So understanding and patient. It was their patience that got Matthew on track for primary one. Sadly, one of his P1 teachers was less understanding. It was a hard year for us. Matthew took a big dive and was in a dark place for a few months following disruption to his routine after bad weather closed the school on and off. It was clear his teachers couldn’t cope with Matthew at this point. They had had a pleasant, quiet boy for 4 months, and now he was difficult to deal with – for us too, and we were learning to cope with an autistic child. Jane was reduced to tears regularly by the teacher on the step of the school in front of Matthew and other parents. We were regularly asked to “sort out” Matthew and his attitude. At one point Jane was told, “I can’t teach him when he’s like this.” His other teacher – much more able to adapt to Matthew’s behaviour – admitted to us she was completely unprepared for the change in Matthew. Things had come to a head with the school, resulting in us meeting with the head teacher and her depute over the teacher’s conduct towards Matthew. Both were clearly shocked at her behaviour. One of the changes they made was a “smiley chart” that visualised how Matthew had been during the day to save us from speaking to the teachers.

It was a dreadful situation. They had demonstrated a clear lack of understanding of how an autistic child can be, and had no strategies for coping with Matthew. We know how he can be, had done our research and were developing coping strategies. It was like the diagnosis had been for nothing, and it was back to Matthew being a badly behaved boy with parents not up to the job. Nothing could be further from truth. Matthew has been loved from day one. We were doing everything we could to cope with Matthew, while giving time to his younger brother. Suddenly we were getting no help from the school. We were at a point where if he had the same teacher for P2, we were going to move him to another school. Ignorance of autism is commonplace – we were only just starting to see what that ignorance could do.

His poor brother Daniel has also had to suffer from Matthew’s autism. He may well be “normal” but suffers as much as Matthew. Matthew’s autism leads to uncontrollable urges – without warning he may throw objects across the room, run off, and worst of all for Daniel, hit him without warning. Daniel can’t understand why Matthew does this. He doesn’t understand why Matthew won’t play with him. That’s the lack of understanding of a child though. But Daniel is persistent – he and Matthew have built up a close bond, and Matthew already relies on Daniel. Daniel hasn’t learned prejudice and has learned to cope with and accept Matthew for who he is.

Fortunately now, Matthew is more settled, although in many ways he hasn’t changed at all. He has two understanding teachers and is getting the support he needs. But with autism, the hidden disability, we know things might just change at any time.

Bounced (by) Czechs

Well now, what can be said about that tragic performance put in by Scotland? Has Craig Levein bought into the media hysteria regarding Scotland’s limitations so much that he has to employ such negative tactics? There was a Czech side that is decent but not great, which an attacking approach would surely have seen off. Sadly, you’d have been forgiven for thinking that the game was played on a pitch half size, so few times did Scotland make into the Czech half.

When we need to change the game, all we have is Chris Iwelemu & Kenny Miller! By then, it was all too late, and the negative approach taken for the first 70 mintues couldn’t be reversed.  By then, the Czechs were sitting just outside our penalty area dictating the game, with all the possession. With Scotland’s backline, that’s always a dangerous tactic. No disprespect to Caldwell, McManus & Weir, but they are sh*t!

It must have been said a million times before – certainly after every qualifying tournament failure – that Scottish football needs to reorganise and regroup. We had Ernie Walker’s think tank, involving the likes of Rinus Michels. That seemed to fade away into the ether. Now we’ve got Henry McLeish’s review, which will no doubt go the same way. Why? Well, when David Cameron rails against vested interest in the public sector, he ain’t seen nothing until he looks at Scottish Football. All the Stenhousemuirs, Albion Rovers, Brechin City – they would resist any change with their dying breath. The way the game is organised and players are coached is a blueprint for failure. Its working admirably then. We need to look at the likes of the Dutch, and perhaps closer to home, the Norwegians. They were going utterly nowhere until they decided to revolutionise their football. The game was changed, coaching was changed, the culture was changed. They’ve slipped back somewhat in recent years, but showed what can be achieved.

We’ve still got the chance to redeem ourselves on Tuesday. However, it will just be papering over the cracks, and until we grasp the nettle and plough on with the wholescale changes needed, we’ll continue to fail.

Czech Mate?

Here we go again, another game for Scotland, this time in Prague. A game we must be looking to win, surely, but not if you listen to the depressing Scottish media. While we cringe at the over-the-top jingoism associated with England, the Scottish media are polar opposite. Despite the Czechs not being the force they were up to Euro 2008, and the big boys struggling at Hampden, some in the broadcast media in particular are claiming that 1 point out of six would be job done. Is that how far we’ve fallen that this would be considered a good return? 4 points would be viewed a success in my view. Trouble is, if we come out of the games against the Czechs and Spain with nothing, will anyone care? That of course brings me to the Tartan Army.

Fabled for their good natured, unwavering backing for the Dark Blue, how much do they hold Scotland back? England fans will get on the back of their coach & players if results go poorly. Scots fans? We’ll, win, lose or draw, we’re just here for the party. Their support for the side is laudable – I’ve not been to a Scotland in 9 years – the attitude of pretty much ignoring turgid performances because we’re in Prague, Paris, Rome etc for a party.

There’s got to be more realism on all sides. The media must realise their negativity is having a bearing on what we really could achieve. Such low expectations are in place that we aren’t being allowed to consider beating Spain. I think the big boys don’t relish coming to Hampden. France and Holland have been beaten, and a draw secured against the Germans. The Italians and Dutch were fortunate to escape with single goal victories.

The fans though should learn to question poor performances, and bad results. Forget the party – lets get a winning mentality on board. Partying fans in Vilnius at the start of the campaign were a mystery after a game we should have won, but failied in again.

Media expectations might help Craig Levein ultimately, although rather strangely, they were champing at the bit to slaughter Levein going into the finals seconds against Lichstenstein, when we had the temerity to score to spoil the reporters’ fun. Why were they complaining? They’re happy enough to point out we’ve got little hope against the Czechs and Spain.

This is a an exciting time I feel for Scotland I feel. Levein isn’t afraid to try new blood. This side can be built around the likes of Graeme Dorrans. Let’s not kid ourselves that we’re capable of winning the Euros, but with a little realism and belief, we’re capable of rejoining the top table again.

Give us some (tax) credit.

By chance, I looked at the summary of likely budget cuts that may be announced by our esteemed Chancellor, George Osborne. It reads like a litany of attacks on the most vulnerable members of society. Claims that that poorest would be protected must surely be nonsense, as cuts in welfare spending will hit those with least the hardest. But its not just the poorest that are in George Osborne’s firing line it seems. Yet again, low/middle income families will bear the brunt of Tory cuts, although the potential cut that caught the eye seems to be a policy of their supporters in government, the Liberal Democrats. What does Nick Clegg have in store for us?

Child Tax Credits are a complete Godsend for many families. It can make the difference between merely surviving and actually living for many. It emerged during the election campaign that the Tories wanted to cut the income threshold for tax credits to a combined household income of £50,000 per annum. A fair income, you might think, and perhaps its reasonable that those earning more than that shouldn’t received Tax Credits – it’s a measure to help the poorest after all. However, its almost laughable that millionaires David Cameron & George Osborne consider a family grossing £50k a year to be privileged! As the campaign went on, it seem that the income threshold went lower and lower. Now, the BBC summary noted that Osborne could consider removing tax credits from families grossing more than £26,000. Yes, that could be 2 people earning £13,000 each would be considered to be earning enough not to need tax credits! Is it reasonable to consider £26k a reasonable household income? After tax, what would you be looking at? £18k disposable income a year? £1500 a month to pay your mortgage/rent, council tax, utilities, food to live on? What if you want to save? Good luck to you!

Nick Clegg will tell us that such families will be compensated by their proposals to increase the personal allowance to £10k. This really doesn’t hold water. The poorest households of course won’t get a penny, as many don’t earn enough to pay tax. Some Liberal Democrat leaflets noted this would be £100 for pensioners. Again, not true – only the wealthiest 40% of pensioners would benefit. The poorest 10% would benefit by approximately £5 per week, with the richest 10% benefitting by £17 per week. Sound fair? Of course not – the only purpose it serves is to widen the income inequality gap. During power sharing negotiations, it appeared that the Tories conceded ground on the Liberal Democrat proposal. The fact is this is a Tory dream. Lord Tebbit has argued for it most recently, and back in 2005, Maurice Saatchi argued for it. Who debunked this idea at the time? Was it Tony Blair, the then PM? No. Was it Gordon Brown, Chancellor at the time? No. It was none other than David Willets, on the Shadow Cabinet at the time! So, a Tory dream that even some Tory MPs have rubbished! If Lord Tebbit and the Tax Payers Alliance are so enthusiastic about these proposals, are we sure it’s a good idea?

If you want the detail of Willets’ excellent response to Saatchi, have a look at:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article536372.ece

Basically, the lowest paid don’t pay much in the way of direct taxation as it is. Willets’ response noted that the poorest 20% paid 28.5% of their income in indirect taxes. Direct taxes only take 9.5% of their income, with Council Tax representing 4.6%. Only 3.5% was down to income tax. David Willets asked the Treasury in 2005 what it would cost to raise the personal allowance to £10k – £30bn came the loud reply. How much would contribute to taking tax payers out of paying income tax? £2bn. Even back then, Willets called for a reform of the tax system to make it less complicated. As my last blog explained, this Is urgently needed still to close avoidance loopholes.

Anyway, lets look at the £26k again. Supposing a family had 2 children under 16. Depending on all circumstances, they may be looking at £125 per week or so Child Tax Credit. Now, up the personal allowance to £10k. Take away the current PA, and the additional portion of income that would be untaxed would be £3,525. At 20%, that’s £705 a year less tax. Simple arithmetic says Tax Credits (125 x 52) = £6,500 less £705 equals a drop in income of £5,795. Well, that policy would really help the low to mid income families. Simplistic I know, but it gives you the idea. David Cameron says he intends this Government to be the most family friendly we’ve seen. I’m at a bit of a loss as to how slashing gross income of low/mid income families will achieve that. Over to you David and Nick.

Tax not Cuts Please.

Yesterday’s speech by David Cameron was yet another in a run of oratories about how much the public finances deteriorated under Labour – despite the budget deficit being £11bn lower than previously forecast – and the need for “painful” public spending cuts. No one can argue of the need to address the budget deficit, although it is disingenuous to suggest the UK is facing a Greek-type financial crisis. However, it is the methodology of addressing the deficit that is at question.

We all know what precipitated the current crisis we find ourselves in. Reforms under Thatcher & Reagan in the mid-1980s, the “Big Bang”, led to a period of unrestrained pursuit of profit – no matter the risk – by unfettered banking institutions. Thatcher dismissed the contract tax payers have with the government to pay for the public services that are needed to allow society to function as a whole when she infamously declared, “There’s no such thing as society.” Where did this take us? It left us at the mercy of the markets where the UK Gini coefficient – the scale the illustrates the changes in income equality – rose sharply before levelling off under John Major’s premiership, before a dip under Blair/Brown. The last Labour government does not get off scott-free here either, as under Gordon Brown’s latter years, the Gini coefficient increased yet again, as reported in the Compass document, “In Place of Cuts – Tax Reform to Build a Fairer Society (Irvine et al). It is apparent that the system of taxation is not “fit for purpose” and is only serving to increase income inequality.

Public sector spending isn’t an unnecessary evil that can be cut at will. Making cuts to public spending ignores the pressing need – a need ignored by the previous Labour government as well as the current and previous Tory administrations – for a serious reform of tax to be carried out to ensure taxation is fair, and that we have a well funded public sector, upon which many people rely on therefore negating the need for cuts. Cutting public spending risks putting the country back into recession. The recession of course could have been a lot worse had the previous government not been forced into bailing out the banks to prevent a full-blown depression, which would have catastrophic effects on Britain. But making further cuts when economic recovery is tenuous still risk pulling us back into recession, exacerbating the crisis we find ourselves in. Tax revenue will decline further, benefits will increase, leading to more cuts – the cycle goes on. Its appalling that the poorest are paying for the top earners in this country being bailed out for their reckless risk taking to the tune of nigh-on £100bn. Thanks to them, people who live in comfort, the poorest and most vulnerable face their lives being blighted. To suggest, “we’re all in this together, and will share the pain” is complete nonsense. Cuts to jobs, pensions and benefits will crush the poorest sectors of society, while those sitting on vast fortunes, and inflated pay packets jacked up by obscene bonus payments will suffer no ill effects.

On to the tax system then. The Compass document I referred to earlier notes that the lowest 10% of earners pay a staggering 46% of their gross income in direct and indirect taxes whereas the highest 10% pay 34% of gross income in direct & indirect taxes, despite earning, in average, 10 times more. How is this fair? Murphy in “The Missing Billions” estimates that the UK Exchequer loses £13bn per year through LEGAL tax avoidance. That’s just for individuals alone.  In 2008, HRMC disclosed that the total loss to the Exchequer from tax avoidance and evasion was up to £41bn per year. Taking the top end figure of £41bn, this would almost plug the deficit gap of £45bn for the period 2014 – 2018 estimated by the Institute of Fiscal Studies. Reforms would result in fairness, and a crackdown of avoided tax. Substantially increase tax revenue, and the need for cuts is alleviated!

It seems clear that a more fair and painless means of addressing the budget deficit would be to reform the tax system and crack down on avoidance and evasion measures. It’s a myth that UK taxes are too high. According to the European Commission (2009) Taxation Trends in the EU, the UK ranks 17^th amongst member states in terms of the top rates of personal tax – that’s alongside Greece, Hungary & Poland. Plenty of scope to increase tax revenues at the top end. A radical adjustment of the tax system should ensure low earners pay less tax in total and high earners pay more, although care would be required to ensure there is no disproportionate increases in tax paid when income increases. Byrne & Ruane (2008) indicates the changes in post-tax income where a more equitable system is put in place. Instead of the lowest 10% paying 46% of their gross income in tax, that would reduce to 12%, rising to 55% for the top 10%. The total tax take for the lowest 10% would fall by £3,096 based on an average gross income of £9,076 per annum, where as only the top 20% of earners (£54,609 gross income per year – £11 more tax take, £94,524 gross income per year – £19,707 more tax take.) This would have the added benefit of lower welfare dependency at the lower end of the earnings scale.

Don’t be fooled by the myth that higher taxes will mean higher avoidance. The Compass report notes that research by the Work Foundation debunks this myth. If the top rate of tax is increased, and reforms to the tax system minimise avoidance and evasion, the effect will be minimal – tax revenue will increase.

The Compass report proposes a number of reforms, which I can’t disagree with;

• · A top rate of 50% for earnings over £100,000 per annum (most could struggle by on that kind of income
• · Removing the upper limit on National Insurance Contributions by employees, and making investment income subject to NICs
• · Introducing a minimum tax rate for gross incomes of £100k & £150k
• · Restoring the 10% tax band up to £13,500 pa & the 22% basic rate.
• · Increasing Council Tax multipliers above band D.

These reforms could raise between £4.7bn and £18.9bn per annum. At the top end of those estimates, that would half the budget deficit in 4 years without the need for cuts. Of course, there’s anti avoidance measures that should be considered that would increase tax revenue. UK Tax law is hideously complex, and is loaded in the favour of those capable of employing clever tax accountants. Some legal avoidance measures are plainly ridiculous, such as allowing tax payers to transfer assets to a partner to avoid paying Capital Gains Tax. I suspect some Members of Parliament would be aghast at the thought of that! There are countess avoidance measures in tax law that allow for tax payers to minimise what they should be morally obligated to pay. Public services benefit us all, yet the most wealthy do all in their power to avoid paying the those services meaning the poorest pay the price.

I’d urge David Cameron, Nick Clegg and George Osborne to call a halt to swinging cuts that will destroy lives, and make due consideration of reforming the tax system to make sure it is equitable, and minimises the opportunities to avoid paying tax. The benefit to the Exchequer would be considerable, and would avoid the need for cuts to be made. In the interests of fairness, and to build a society where the poorest do not subsidise the richest, let’s not let an antiquated tax system herald in an era of devastating spending cuts. That’s not to say all cuts should be avoided. ID cards have been rightly cancelled by the current government. They were expensive and a massive infringement of civil liberties. Trident – a key policy pledge now ditched by Nick Clegg – would present a massive saving, as would the hideously expensive Eurofighter project. Closer co-operation with the United States could alleviate the need for expensive additional defence spending, saving the tax payer an estimated £4bn per year. These cuts plus a reform of the tax system would cut an estimated £23bn per year from the deficit, eliminating it within 7 years without the need for cuts to child trust funds, tax credits, benefit etc. It seems, sadly, that ideology is driving these cuts and those that again didn’t vote Tory will suffer the consequences.

Migraine week!

This week should surely go down as migraine week. I’d made a late-ish decision to run in the Baker Hughes 10k in Aberdeen at the weekend. Whole thing went ok – I got round! Despite great soreness, it was job done.

Well, I thought I’d taken on enough fluid, but a slight headache in the evening suggested otherwise! Wasn’t too bad the following morning, however, by lunchtime it was getting that bit worse, so I came home at lunchtime. Cue then a great headache! Desipite sleeping the afternoon, it had just got worse. On to the evening and here comes being sick. Delightful. That’s how a 2-day migraine attack can start. To cap it all, eldest son came down with one on Tuesday afternoon – even he slept the afternoon, which is so out of character. As with me though, as soon as he was sick, back to normal. Sadly for yours truly, another (much, much milder) one arrived today – thankfully clear!

It seems it’s a real mystery why headaches really occur. During a testing programme I was involved in a few years back, I asked what caused them. Doctors gave the surprisingly honest answer of, “We don’t know.” Here’s hoping understanding the human brain moves on in time, and headaches, particularly migraines, can be consigned to the dustbin of history!