Jump to content

Osborne has to eat his words?

Recommended Posts

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

 

I think you will find there is 1% in it and the group having to find that 1% extra are the lowest paid, so it equates to the least amount.

 

I would like to see the real figures down to the many decimal places. What has been rounded up and what has been rounded down. The actual figures could be something more akin too:

 

4.49% for the richest

- and -

4.5% for the poorest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

If that is what the BBC are saying then they are misreporting the IFS report. The figures you are quoting are not those for the Tory budget, but figures for both the Tory budget and the preceding Labour budget. Under the Tory budget the impact on the richest is around 1% and the poorest 5%.

 

As End Child Poverty report explicitly state:

 

“The measures announced in the June 2010 budget are regressive as they hit the poorest more than the seventh, eighth and ninth deciles in cash, let alone percentage, terms.”

Families with children lose more than pensioners or other household types in all except the top three income groups (3).

The poorest families with children lose more than any other group. As a result of the changes announced in the June Budget, families in the bottom income decile are set to lose over 5 per cent of their income, compared to less than one per cent for non-pensioner households without children in the top decile.

http://www.endchildpoverty.org.uk/news/news/new-ifs-research-shows-families-and-poorest-hardest-hit-by-coalition-cuts/23/184

 

That is under the Tory budget the poorest pay more than the highest earning.

 

The ConDems are making the poor pay.

 

Incidentally the poorest 10% of society lost out in total under labour compared with the rest of society in percentage terms. But this budgets attack on the poor goes way beyond that.

 

But then the ConDems appear to have a very strange view of what fairness means.....economic growth. I think someone should suggest they get a dictionary.

http://www.touchstoneblog.org.uk/2010/08/mark-hobans-new-definition-of-fairness/

 

And also ask them why economic growth is now well below the levels they were predicting, which commentators are putting down to these austerity measures. Even by their own bizarre definition of fairness this budget is regressive.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-23/cameron-economy-set-to-take-a-pounding-as-traders-turn-bearish.html

Edited by Wildcat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

And what work will they do exactly?

From what I understand there is no work to be had.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

The point is though that for that person on the lowest income £10 a week can be a lot of money that makes the difference between paying the gas bill or not whereas the person on £80k might not like losing £3240 (who would?) but it's not going to seriously affect their lives in any way.

 

The only reason Osborne (and now Clegg) can even argue their budget is progressive is because they're including measures taken by Darling (the 50% tax rate for example - which they actually wanted to scrap in the run up to the election). Without those they couldn't make the claim at all. And all of this is before we start feeling the cuts which will also affect the poorest disproportionately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Are you saying that all the long term employed are fat and lazy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And what work will they do exactly?

From what I understand there is no work to be had.

 

Go to direct.gov.uk and do a jobcentre job search and see the number of jobs available. Speak to companies that employ lots of migrant workers about why they do not hire British people? I'm willing to bet all come up with the same response, they can’t find British workers who will do the work.

 

Migrants are not coming to the UK and stealing people’s jobs. They are coming to the UK and DOING peoples jobs, because they won’t do it and think these jobs are beneath them.

 

To be unemployed in the UK is to be encouraged to sit on your backside and do nothing. If you don’t want to work, there is nothing to make you work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Go to direct.gov.uk and do a jobcentre job search and see the number of jobs available. Speak to companies that employ lots of migrant workers about why they do not hire British people? I'm willing to bet all come up with the same response, they can’t find British workers who will do the work.

 

Migrants are not coming to the UK and stealing people’s jobs. They are coming to the UK and DOING peoples jobs, because they won’t do it and think these jobs are beneath them.

 

To be unemployed in the UK is to be encouraged to sit on your backside and do nothing. If you don’t want to work, there is nothing to make you work.

 

I am an engineer, and am just setting off for work.

If and when this foul excuse for a governmnet causes my job to finish, I want another job as an engineer.

I am not going picking potatoes along with illegal immigrants as you suggest.

I have paid into the system all my life and will want my fair share of the insurance policy we all contribute to, the National Insurance.

it is my privelege and right as a British worker to have it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

 

Clegg gets sadder and more pathetic by the day, desperately trying to defend Tory policies because he is more interested in the trappings of power than in Lib dem manifesto policies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am an engineer, and am just setting off for work.

If and when this foul excuse for a governmnet causes my job to finish, I want another job as an engineer.

I am not going picking potatoes along with illegal immigrants as you suggest.

I have paid into the system all my life and will want my fair share of the insurance policy we all contribute to, the National Insurance.

it is my privelege and right as a British worker to have it.

 

So you have changed your tune then? You initially said there was no work about:

 

And what work will they do exactly?

From what I understand there is no work to be had.

 

So now you are saying even if there is paid employment, people should be able to turn their nose up at some careers because they might be holding out for something better?

 

This is exactly the problem with this country. People think doing certain jobs are below them, but expect the rest of society to foot the bill.

Edited by Berberis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
She sold of School playing fields, Railways, Public Transport, the Mines and the NHS.

 

And BT, British Gas, the water companies, the electrical distribution network

 

Do we want this again

 

Not really (they were even considering removing the free milk for children in primary schools recently, but dropped it when it becam public knowledge and was associated with Thatcher (milk/pension snatcher).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And BT, British Gas, the water companies, the electrical distribution network

 

 

 

Not really (they were even considering removing the free milk for children in primary schools recently, but dropped it when it becam public knowledge and was associated with Thatcher (milk/pension snatcher).

 

It wasn't Thatcher that took away the Milk, it was the government. She wanted to keep it, but the cabinet had other ideas.

 

This was back when we had a government and not the presidential system imposed by Blair. Something we should all be happy is being dismantled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So you have changed your tune then? You initially said there was no work about:

 

 

 

So now you are saying even if there is paid employment, people should be able to turn their nose up at some careers because they might be holding out for something better?

 

This is exactly the problem with this country. People think doing certain jobs are below them, but expect the rest of society to foot the bill.

 

You are quite right.

Certain jobs are below me, and many others like me.

If you want to grub about like some 3rd world coolie be my guest, but dont expect self respecting educated hard working people to join you.

 

I have paid over and above what I should have into the system, over the decades I have worked, and will expect something back if all goes horlicks.

I live in England not some banana republic.

We are a welfare state, the money I, and millions like me, pay in is for the support of my fellow man, as much as myself.

Get with the program or get out is my advice to you people trying to kick over the traces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.