Budget hits the poorest hardest, says IFS

StevieJ

You would fully expect a Tory govt to set a regressive Toffs budget but the LibDems, oh dear

The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) said the measures announced in the Budget in June were "regressive".
Its analysis suggests that low income families with children are set to lose the most as a percentage of net income due to benefit cuts announced in the Budget.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11079496

chucky

StevieJ wrote: »

You would fully expect a Tory govt to set a regressive Toffs budget but the LibDems, oh dear



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11079496

the peoples party

ILW

I did hear an interview, and their main point seems to be that poor people living in very expensive houses in very expensive areas may have to move to cheaper areas. Seems logical to me.

bendix

Well, what do you know. An indepedent research group issues a report which was commissioned and part-funded by End Child Poverty concludes that . . . .

Do I need to go on?

I suspect that the exact same group using the exact same data would have come to an entirely different conclusion had the report been commissioned and funded by, say, the CBI.

Graham_Devon

StevieJ wrote: »

You would fully expect a Tory govt to set a regressive Toffs budget but the LibDems, oh dear

What do you suggest then, if this is a "toff" thing?

Give MORE out in benefits, to protect from the impact of the cuts?

This was on the radio earlier, and the IFS has only looked at tax and cuts. Not the whole budget.

Changing to CPI instead of RPI for benefit increases etc does cut the amount of the rise in benefits the recipient will get. BUT, no one else get's RPI rises (especially in the public sector). They get CPI rises.

So yes, it may hit those on benefits harder, but it does bring them in line with the rest of the country.

On a political point....labour was looking to do exactly the same with the RPI and CPI thing. So I am struggling to agree with your "typical tory toff" line, as your favoured party would have done the exact same thing.

What I would like to know is who's paying for this research, as it seems to be a "detailed analysis" on "some parts" of the budget.

EDIT: Just read the article (had been listening to this on the news this morning rather than reading the article). Part funded by "End Child Poverty". Says it all.

bendix

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Part funded by "End Child Poverty". Says it all.

Not just part-funded. Commisioned also.

End of discussion.

Really2

Did child poverty not get worse under Labour? It is the failing to tackle welfare dependendency that has caused this outcome.

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

Did child poverty not get worse under Labour? It is the failing to tackle welfare dependendency that has caused this outcome.

I'm not sure it got worse. More a case of the goalposts kept changing, putting more and more in to "poverty".

Harriet Harman releasing the "poverty list" was the last straw for me. Can't take the issue of child poverty seriously with that list she came up with.

Not having a holiday abroad each year was apparently a tick box for being in poverty. Yeah, whatever.

ILW

Harriet Harman!
You have just reminded me how bad they were.

StevieJ

Really2 wrote: »

Did child poverty not get worse under Labour? It is the failing to tackle welfare dependendency that has caused this outcome.

In a word, NO. relative poverty, maybe.

Sir_Humphrey

I don't remember the Tory boys here criticising the IFS before the election.

It is the IFS for goodness sake.