Should the better-off pay more for everything?

Once the energy price cap expires in April, the Chancellor is apparently considering the levy of ‘social tariffs’ on the energy bills of the better off – a pleasantly elastic category, since most of us are better off than somebody. Charging wealthier customers extra for their energy could facilitate reducing the bills of benefit claimants. The same kilowatt hour would cost the ‘rich’ (i.e. the marginally solvent) more than the socially dependent.

To bolster our beloved fairness, might this novel pricing scheme be extended to all British goods and services? After all, for higher-rate taxpayers (assuming that after obeisance to HMRC they have anything left), springing for a £7.95 fillet steak at the supermarket is a relatively mild experience. Yet for a shopper reliant on Universal Credit, the same splurge must be gut-wrenching. Is that fair? So why not price foodstuffs in accordance with consumers’ tax brackets?

Thus, for benefit claimants, that steak might be knocked down to a couple of quid; better yet, the clerk could give the shopper £2 for ‘buying’ the beef. Basic raters could pay the straight-up £7.95. According to the logic of the tax system, higher raters should pay twice as much for the same meat, or £15.90. Obviously, those odious additional raters should be reamed. Think of how anxiety-producing buying that fillet was for anyone surviving on meagre state handouts. Well, that’s how pariahs who make more than £125,000 per year should also feel when purchasing their dinner. One 200g steak for £100!

True, fitting all these different prices on a small packet could present geometrical difficulties. Perhaps we could all be issued with magnifying glasses at the entrance to shops to discern the tiny print. Meanwhile, our loyalty cards could be chipped with our most recent tax return to prevent the filthy rich from scoffing that fillet for a mere eight quid.