Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
interestrateripoff

Cuts Will Hit The Poorest Harder, Claims Think-Tank

Recommended Posts

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cuts-will-hit-the-poorest-harder-claims-thinktank-2113045.html

Coalition claims that the spending review was fair were dealt a heavy blow today when a leading economics think-tank insisted the cuts would hit the poorest harder than most of the better off.

The respected Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) warned that Chancellor George Osborne's £81 billion cuts package was "regressive" except for its impact on the richest 2%.

Families with children would be the biggest losers, it said.

The intervention came as David Cameron and Nick Clegg met voters together in a bid to sell the deficit reduction measures to the public.

Without naming the IFS in particular, Deputy Prime Minister Mr Clegg accused the Government's critics of "frightening people" with claims that they were "doing unfair things when we are not".

But he also appeared to acknowledge that the Government's claims that the rich would pay the most were based on tax changes introduced by the former Labour government.

In its analysis of the spending review, the IFS said the changes announced yesterday would reinforce the "regressive" nature of the Government's plans to tackle the deficit, including the £7 billion of welfare cuts.

"The tax and benefit changes are regressive rather than progressive across most of the income distribution. And when we add in the new measures announced yesterday this is, unsurprisingly, reinforced," said IFS acting director Carl Emmerson.

"Our analysis continues to show that, with the notable exception of the richest 2%, the tax and benefit components of the fiscal consolidation are, overall, being implemented in a regressive way."

IFS analyst James Browne added: "Overall, families with children seem to be the biggest losers."

He said that while the Treasury had claimed the overall package was "progressive" - as a result of measures previously announced by former chancellor Alistair Darling - it had ignored a third of the welfare changes.

"The poorest are losing more as a proportion of their income as a result of these changes," he said.

Looks like the battle lines are now being drawn.

I'd like to see a better breakdown looks like I'll have to find the original.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11592700

Prime Minister David Cameron and his deputy Nick Clegg have rejected claims the Spending Review cuts were "unfair".

The respected IFS think-tank says poorer families with children would be the "biggest losers".

But Mr Cameron said higher earners would pay more, while Mr Clegg said those who called the measures unfair "were not being straight with people".

"Frankly they are frightening people and that is not right," said Mr Clegg during a joint visit to Nottingham.

And Chancellor George Osborne said that, including June's Budget measures, the top 10% of earners would be hit hardest, although everyone would have to make a contribution to cutting the deficit.

Labour called the £81bn cuts - the biggest since the 1970s - a "reckless gamble" with the economy.

'In a hole'

It has been estimated that the measures will lead to the loss of 490,000 public sector jobs - with the Local Government Association saying 100,000 of them will be at local authorities, which are facing a budget squeeze.

The govts response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many people I know have infact put off having children, due to the fact that they work for a living, and couldn't afford to have children. A lot can't even afford to buy a house, let alone start a family, and refuse to stoop to the Nu communist ideal of becoming a sponger. For the last decade, the poorest have been the lowest earners - in some cases worse off than the kiddie factories that bring up a brood of feckless shameless losers. If these are hit the hardest, maybe they can learn shame - which after all, is a prerequisite of having honour - become a functional family for the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the £81 billion in cuts are imaginary how can anyone have been "hit" at all.

Here the Adam Smith Institute explains the obfuscation regarding our new so-called savings.

We're hearing a lot about the £81bn of 'cuts' identified in the Comprehensive Spending Review, so you'd be forgiven for thinking that spending is going to fall by £81bn. But that isn't the case at all, as p.78 of the CSR document makes clear:

The Spending Review sets out the Government’s plans to cut £81 billion from TME by 2014-15 as set out in Table A2. This figure is calculated in comparison to the level of spending if DEL had grown in line with inflation and AME had followed the Office of Budget Responsibility’s forecast with no policy changes.

Essentially this means that the government starts by assuming that one half of public spending, departmental expenditure limits, will go up by 10 percent over the next five years, while the other half, annually managed expenditure, will rise by 23 percent. Any deviation from the growth is called a cut.

This strikes me as a peculiar and rather dishonest approach, which obviously makes it much more difficult to 'sell' any reductions in public spending. Then again, I guess that's probably the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many people I know have infact put off having children, due to the fact that they work for a living, and couldn't afford to have children. A lot can't even afford to buy a house, let alone start a family, and refuse to stoop to the Nu communist ideal of becoming a sponger. For the last decade, the poorest have been the lowest earners - in some cases worse off than the kiddie factories that bring up a brood of feckless shameless losers. If these are hit the hardest, maybe they can learn shame - which after all, is a prerequisite of having honour - become a functional family for the future.

...well put..... :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cuts Will Hit The Poorest Harder

The unfortunate consequence of bleeding both the rich and middle earners dry, throwing it all at your core supporters and then squirting another £150bn up the wall.

When the cuts come there's only one group left to target. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cuts-will-hit-the-poorest-harder-claims-thinktank-2113045.html

Looks like the battle lines are now being drawn.

I'd like to see a better breakdown looks like I'll have to find the original.

The IFS made a mistake, again, allocating 100% of the income losses from reduced HB to poor tenants, and zero to private BTLers. In other words, they assume that rents will not fall at all.

Here: http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=153200&view=findpost&p=2755132

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought that thread was just going on about the housing benefit side of things.

...links in to the post on the IFS release and the Flanders Blog on it....she is definitely swinging Red Ed and Labour ....don't worry the two threads can live ....... :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was amused to see the awful Phillip Blond complaining last night that his Big Society project was nowhere reflected in the spending plans. We all knew it was Cameron's smoke screen for deep public spending cuts that meet the neocon/Tory objective of shrinking the State.

Cameron's defence that the rich will pay more is disingenuous. Of course they will pay more in absolute terms but 5% of s*** all will hurt the poor.

The cuts in public sector jobs and the reductions in support for disabled people are particularly cynical. With only a few exceptions private sector employers do not want disabled people. No money, no job, no hope.

I am surprised at the principled Ian Duncan Smith supporting the cuts to family incomes.

Frankly, I am aghast at the sheer scale and ruthlessness of the cuts. When the defecit is paid down, will the poorest recoup some of the sacrafice we have required them to make on our behalf?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If these are hit the hardest, maybe they can learn shame - which after all, is a prerequisite of having honour - become a functional family for the future.

Yes- perhaps those at the top of our society can teach them something about shame and honour- assuming they can get their snouts out of the trough long enough to do so of course. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes- perhaps those at the top of our society can teach them something about shame and honour- assuming they can get their snouts out of the trough long enough to do so of course. :lol:

...yeah ...Tony Blair is a good example..... :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes- perhaps those at the top of our society can teach them something about shame and honour- assuming they can get their snouts out of the trough long enough to do so of course. :lol:

Yes and we also need an eugenic policy. :D

"I wish very much that the wrong people could be prevented entirely from breeding; and when the evil nature of these people is sufficiently flagrant, this should be done. Criminals should be sterilized and feebleminded persons forbidden to leave offspring behind them... The emphasis should be laid on getting desirable people to breed..."

Roosevelt, “Twisted Eugenics,” in The Works of Theodore Roosevelt, op. cit., National Edition, XII, p. 201.

Edited by Gary Wonka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the defecit is paid down, will the poorest recoup some of the sacrafice we have required them to make on our behalf?

The poorest are workers with no children and who earn just enough to be independent but not to benefit from tax credits - I guess that means self-employed single men in their 20s in privately rented accomodation. They may get drunk alot, but at least they don't leech.

Perhaps we could stop taxing their income, just as a little thank you for their sacrifice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was amused to see the awful Phillip Blond complaining last night that his Big Society project was nowhere reflected in the spending plans. We all knew it was Cameron's smoke screen for deep public spending cuts that meet the neocon/Tory objective of shrinking the State.

Cameron's defence that the rich will pay more is disingenuous. Of course they will pay more in absolute terms but 5% of s*** all will hurt the poor.

The cuts in public sector jobs and the reductions in support for disabled people are particularly cynical. With only a few exceptions private sector employers do not want disabled people. No money, no job, no hope.

I am surprised at the principled Ian Duncan Smith supporting the cuts to family incomes.

Frankly, I am aghast at the sheer scale and ruthlessness of the cuts. When the defecit is paid down, will the poorest recoup some of the sacrafice we have required them to make on our behalf?

I am sickened by the pure nasty politics of Osborne and the coalition. Picking ont he weakest who can't fight back. They make New Labour look like amateurs. Now attacking their favourite think tank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Labour called the £81bn cuts - the biggest since the 1970s - a "reckless gamble" with the economy."

And let's face it, Labour know all about taking reckless gambles with the economy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The poorest are workers with no children and who earn just enough to be independent but not to benefit from tax credits - I guess that means self-employed single men in their 20s in privately rented accomodation. They may get drunk alot, but at least they don't leech.

No the poorest are those that are, through no fault of their own, sick and unable to work. They depend on the state to support them and are going to suffer the most as the etonians destroy the support systems that decent socities put in place to help those that can't help themselves

Margaret Lynch, a multiple sclerosis sufferer, accused Mr Cameron of ‘picking on the weakest people’. The 52-year-old said: ‘It’s completely unfair how you’re applying these budget cuts.’

She said she felt she had to press her point because she believed cuts to council services would have a major effect on services for the disabled.

Her care allowance of about £50 a week would be in effect halved by having to pay for her own home care.

Read more: http://www.metro.co.uk/news/844785-expect-more-tory-tax-rises-and-spending-cuts-soon-warns-ifs#ixzz132SN1y3B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 140 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • 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.