Osborne has to eat his words?

[Keith Rich 10]

In a Commons debate on April 6 2005 George Osborne praised the IFS as being a "much respected independent insitute." I wonder if he has now conveniantly changed his mind.

 

http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/parliament/2010/08/george-osbornes-praise-for-the.html

[mj.scuba 10]

Relatively speaking, I don't see how budget cuts could ever hit every person equally, there will always be some groups hit more than others.

[Alex C. 10]

Shouldn't it always be the people that are better-off then?

 

Only if a budget in good years disproportionally rewards the better off people.

 

That said, whilst to a degree I do agree with mj scuba, I find it poor that he's now rubbishing a think tank he's spent 5 years using against labour.

[Alex C. 10]

Why? (10 chars)

 

Because otherwise you end up with a downward spiral of hitting the better off all the time with tax rises or allowance cuts. This in turn incentivises people to look to move to a country with a better tax regime, the very people who contribute the most in tax.

[mj.scuba 10]

Shouldn't it always be the people that are better-off then?

 

Higher taxation hits the better off, cuts hit the less well off. Labour already ramped tax up to 50% for top earners, but the Government need to cut expenditure not just raise revenue.

 

Take this paragraph from the Telegraph:

The study also suggests that, as a percentage of their annual income, the poorest families will lose five times as much as richer childless households over the next four years. The analysis contradicts the Treasury’s official projections.

 

It's stating the obvious isn't it? What burden on the state are rich(er) childless households? No child benefit. No Child Tax Credit. No tax free childcare vouchers. No income support. No council tax benefit.

 

Compare that with a lower income family taking Working Tax Credits, Child Tax Credits, Child Benefit, income support or JSA, Surestart grants, council tax benefit etc etc and it's easy to see any attempt to cut expenditure in any of those areas is going to hit those in receipt of those benefits than those not in receipt.

[Boblet 10]

Part of the issue is the proportion of your disposable income affected by the budget changes

 

If you "earn" £1,000,000 a year, a reduction of £50 a week won't make any difference to your living standards

 

If you receive £12,000 a year it would

[sandie 11]

We now have a Conservitive Goverment propped up with a pathetic Liberal support.

Clegg has had well past his 15mins of fame.

We now see Hospitals, Schools and Libary's shut down and sold off, as we did under Thatcher. She sold of School playing fields, Railways, Public Transport, the Mines and the NHS. Do we want this again

[Wildcat 10]

The Today programme was funny this morning...

 

Interviewer: Did you do the Equality Impact Assessment required by law?

Treasury spokesman: bluster and evasion

 

Interviewer: Did you do the Equality Impact Assessment required by law?

Treasury spokesman: bluster and evasion

 

Interviewer: Did you do the Equality Impact Assessment required by law?

Treasury spokesman: bluster and evasion

 

[Vague_Boy 10]

I find it poor that he's now rubbishing a think tank he's spent 5 years using against labour.

 

But not surprising. He's a politician. They're all hypocrites.

 

Take Labour leadership candidate Diane Abbott, who criticised Tony Blair and Harriet Harman for sending their children to private schools, "Why did you send your boy to a private school, when you boast of being a socialist?"

 

Guess where Ms Abbott sent her son?

 

Oh go on, guess.

 

LINK

[mj.scuba 10]

From BBC Six O'Clock News. According to the IFS study:

A person earning £81,000 will lose 4% or £3240

A person earning £22,000 will lose 3% or £660

A person earning £10,000 will lose 5% or £500

 

So although the lowest earner will lose more as a proportion of their income, the highest earner will lose more than six times as much. Even for the low earner, it's less than a tenner a week.

[atticus 97]

This illustrates a fundamental differance between the tories and labour,when money needs to be raised,labour take it off the rich and the tories take it off the poor.

[Berberis 10]

From what I heard this is not a like for like comparison and does not take into account the welfare reforms as they have yet to be finalised. I think the IFS has jumped the gun a bit here, but if those such as the long term unemployed(able) receive less and are ecouraged to get off their backsides and do some work, it’s a good thing.