Cyclone Posted December 4, 2006 Share Posted December 4, 2006 What real cost? Would that be the minus 2.6% experienced by some people, or the 9% experienced by others? Or would it be an overall average, which is - hey, look! - exactly what we use now. No it isn't. The CPI doesn't measure the real cost of anything. It deliberately excludes important factors in the cost of living because they would increase the headline figure. I think the article was misleading when it talked about averages, it wasn't clear whether they were referring to the CPI calculated value, or an average value worked out by themselves including the factors such as mortgages and council tax that CPI excludes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greybeard Posted December 4, 2006 Share Posted December 4, 2006 What real cost? Would that be the minus 2.6% experienced by some people, or the 9% experienced by others? Or would it be an overall average, which is - hey, look! - exactly what we use now. I think you need to read the article, or read again if you already have read it. Then you need to find out what 'living costs' are included and what are excluded from the CPI. You might then be on the same wavelength as most other people who are concerned about the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heyesey Posted December 4, 2006 Share Posted December 4, 2006 I think you need to read the article, or read again if you already have read it. Then you need to find out what 'living costs' are included and what are excluded from the CPI. You might then be on the same wavelength as most other people who are concerned about the issue. All I see is people who are concerned that many people's cost of living is going up faster than the average. WELL, DUH. What next - are we going to have the old chestnut about half of school children being below average in ability? That's a terrible sin, that is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted December 4, 2006 Share Posted December 4, 2006 I think people are more concerned that the figure given out by the government bears no resemblance to reality, they then use this figure to set their own department payrises (with the xception of themselves) and businesses use it to calibrate employees payrises. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greybeard Posted December 4, 2006 Share Posted December 4, 2006 That was deliberate, the BoE are supposed to be independant and act in the best interest of controlling inflation and keeping the economy healthy. Appreciate that, and it has been generally successful in stopping the treasury hitting the panic button. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightrider Posted December 4, 2006 Share Posted December 4, 2006 All I see is people who are concerned that many people's cost of living is going up faster than the average. WELL, DUH. The issue is the average quoted by the goverment is not the actual average rise in cost of living expense. So it should not be compared at all with an individuals rise of cost of living because it does not reflect this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted December 4, 2006 Share Posted December 4, 2006 Lying about inflation and the true state of the economy seems to have been quite an effective policy for Gordon Brown's so far. The RPI has been around for donkeys years - certainly since the 70's - and yes as inflation has tended to hit neccesities (not to mention the huge hike in gas and electricity prices) those at the bottom of the pile have usually been those worst hit by inflaton. On the other hand things like consumer electrics (TV's / PC's etc), cars and a whole host of other things are much cheaper relatively - and food prices seem to have been pretty stable for a good few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greybeard Posted December 4, 2006 Share Posted December 4, 2006 On the other hand things like consumer electrics (TV's / PC's etc), cars and a whole host of other things are much cheaper relatively - and food prices seem to have been pretty stable for a good few years. This true of course, but with the exception of food etc., many of these items are not regular purchases and people have some choice over the level of cost, buying at a price point they can afford; whereas housing costs and council tax over which we have no choice are excluded from the CPI. As others have pointed out the CPI is a con, - formulated to the govt.'s advantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted December 4, 2006 Share Posted December 4, 2006 Housing costs (for owner / occupiers) are a difficult one because one persons price increase is another persons profit - if you included house prices in the price index shouldn't income from housing sales be included in earnings data? Just a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upinwath Posted December 4, 2006 Share Posted December 4, 2006 This should come as no surprise to anyone - in simple terms the Labour government is bleeding us dry and cooking the books to befuddle the voters, most of whom are just too dim to realise what is going on around them. My god I agree with Bartfarst. What shocks me is that so many people still seem to think that bent tony is still ok. Taxed to hell and lied to at every turn by tony and his bunch of grabbing pals. Bet in years to come we will find out him and his mates own masses of asylum seeker's houses and have taken more backhanders from peers (mates that just happen to be peers now ) That and helping start a war that has done so much damage and killed so many. That git and his mates should be in prison not in number 10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.