Nathan Gower
speaker
107 appearances
6 recordings
1 series
first heard Oct 2024
last heard 8 Jul
Nathan Gower’s voice in public audio — every appearance, attributed to the second.
Trend
recordings per month · last 12 monthsRecordings per month over the last 12 months — 4 in all, peaking in Jul 2026 with 2.
Appearances
But when I read his office's breakdown of the figure, it was clear that the figure is deceptive.
Someone on those benefits would not receive £46,000 a year.
They'd only get about £37,000.
That's how much an employed person would need to earn before tax in order to have a take-home income of £37,000, what the benefits claimant is getting.
Tim, that is you all over.
Charitable to a fault.
Thank you, Nathan.
Charitable and wrong.
As he says in the original clip, Jeremy Hunt does precisely the opposite.
He compares it not to a pre-tax salary, but to an after-tax salary.
That £22,000 he talks about is how much you take home on the minimum wage after tax.
Let's look at how much you'd actually get in your bank account.
So sticking with the London example, for the benefits claimant, they'd get about £37,000, while someone full-time on minimum wage after tax would take home about £22,000, as Jeremy Hunt correctly said.
Everything that we've said about the London example holds for the Newcastle one as well, remember.
A single person in Newcastle will get about £25,500 compared to the £22,000 on minimum wage.
But that brings me on to the second big problem –
The examples of benefit claimants that Jeremy Hunt has chosen are not typical of people who are out of work.
Well, they're not just out of work, they're also disabled.
In fact, to receive the payments that Jeremy Hunt describes, they would have to be recognised as severely disabled.
Edwin Latimer is a senior research economist at the Institute for Fiscal Studies, focusing on benefits policy and the low-paid labour market.
Showing 21–40 of 107 · page 2 of 6
← Previous
Next →