Budget hits the poorest hardest, says IFS

ILW

StevieJ wrote: »

In a word, NO. relative poverty, maybe.

It must be awful having poor relatives.

Really2

StevieJ wrote: »

In a word, NO. relative poverty, maybe.

I did a google and seem to remember it being an issue last year.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labours-record-on-poverty-in-tatters-1681047.html

The full scale of Labour's failure to help the poorest in Britain was laid bare yesterday with revelations that hundreds of thousands of people were being plunged into deprivation even before the recession hit, and that the Government had been unable to make any impression on the numbers of children and pensioners in poverty.

Ministers were forced to admit that they had all but abandoned Labour's historic promise to halve child poverty by next year, telling The Independent that the state of the economy meant that saving jobs had to be the priority.

So not worse but no better in the whole term and a failure to half it like they said they would.

I don't think it just a tory problem, labour failed to make any inroads in 13 years.

I still believe the reason this looks bad is because of benefit dependence and the article backs that up.

The torys cant be blamed for that surely.

michaels

Of course they cunningly separate out the impact of the budget announced changes from the pre announced but still to be implemented tax increases on higher earners even though they will all come in to effect at the same time.

Excluding housing costs from the benefits inflation adjustment seems to make sense if those on benefits are having their housing costs paid by HB anyway. And of course as stated above a political decision has been made that hose on benefits should receive HB that gives them a slightly below average (for the area) standard of accommodation - by all means agree or disagree with this decision but I am not sure it should form part of any consideration of comparative pre and post budget income levels?

StevieJ

Really2 wrote: »

I did a google and seem to remember it being an isue last year.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labours-record-on-poverty-in-tatters-1681047.html



So not worse but no better in the whole term and a failure to half it like they said they would.

I don't think it just a tory problem, labour failed to make any inroads in 13 years.

I still believe the reason this looks bad is because of benefit dependence and the article backs that up.

The torys cant be blamed for that surely.

As I said maybe relative poverty, i.e. these measure the difference between rich and poor and don't measure changes in actual poverty levels.

Really2

StevieJ wrote: »

As I said maybe relative poverty, i.e. these measure the difference between rich and poor and don't measure changes in actual poverty levels.

So relative poverty increased under labour, actual poverty stayed about the same, would that be correct?

Why is everyone avoiding the built up problem that was benefit dependency? That is also why labour failed to hit their targets.

I dont want a labour, boo, Tory, boo on this TBH. Just that labour were as equally poor at dealing with poverty and the causes, and that was in a boom.
It is hardly surprising a bust welfare spending being reigned in.

The route cause and the financial situations are the causes and would have been the same in reality who ever got in power.

bendix

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

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

It is the IFS for goodness sake.

Don't you have anything more important to do, civil service boy? Shouldn't you be busy formulating plans about putting yourself out of a job?

Jowo_2

I switched off during the elections once it was clear that none of the main parties had any great radical policies to deal with the causes of poverty in the UK, including the working poor, such as tackling the housing issues that have led to high rents, the lack of job opportunities and the lack of cheap childcare.

It's absolutely no surprise to me that the Tory govt is making changes to punish those in the benefits system rather than tackling the underlying issues that lead people to claim them.

I also detest tax credits whose objectives are good in principle but have backfired and are counter productive. I think they've had some minor tinkering to them by this govt but the Benefits Board is still crammed with posts from people about tax credits, including those who want to manouvre their work patterns so they can reach the right threshold to qualify, and all the difficulties people have with under and overpayments and the TC system is crippled and complex.

PasturesNew

Tax credits destroyed "good wages for normal people". LHA destroyed "affordable housing for good people".

It's my belief that if neither had ever existed, then I'd be able to find jobs at £18-21k and be able to afford to pay rent on a basic but nice 1-bed flat. Because of them, all jobs are £13-14k and 1-bed flats are out of my affordability.

marklv

What a pathetic thread. Someone posts an article and then you get all the political !!!!!ing to follow. Are people here not capable of commenting without referring to a political agenda?

Pitiful.

Really2

marklv wrote: »

What a pathetic thread. Someone posts an article and then you get all the political !!!!!ing to follow. Are people here not capable of commenting without referring to a political agenda?

Pitiful.

TBF the first line by the OP was political.

StevieJ wrote: »

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

The article was made political, hard not to make the responses political also.

I am sure SteveJ does not mind.;)