We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Budget hits the poorest hardest, says IFS
Comments
-
Graham_Devon wrote: »This isn't always the case though is it. Depends on what else has gone on in the budget, which is the part the IFS ignores.
You mean like 20% VAT?'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher0 -
In the debate about fairness the most important task for the coalition is to emphasise reform. It needs to state that the good life is not a life where you are maintained by the state. It needs to say that the amount of money the state redistributes from rich to poor is not the true test of a compassionate society. It must establish a new paradigm.
The surest route out of poverty is a good education, a strong family and a willingness to take work, however low paid it may be at first. Labour made all of those things harder. Discipline broke down in Britain's schools during the Brown-Blair years and we slid down international league tables for educational attainment. On the family, Gordon Brown actually crafted a benefits system that discouraged low-income couples from living together. On work, he created a benefits maze that generated fraud and disincentives to take a job.
The coalition should proudly be pro-poor but on its own terms. It should define itself by Michael Gove's school reforms, Duncan Smith's welfare reforms and by the wider social mobility agenda set out last week by Clegg. Yes, it must guarantee a fair safety-net income and decent public services for the poor but, most of all, it should say that it wants to fight poverty, not maintain it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/25/coalition-redefine-poverty-fight"fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." (Bertrand Russell)0 -
flashnazia wrote: »
You "forgot" to mention that the article was written by Tim Montgomerie of ConservativeHome.
Trying to attack the integrity of the IFS does not wash.Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists of choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable. J. K. Galbraith0 -
Sir_Humphrey wrote: »
Trying to attack the integrity of the IFS does not wash.
Why not?
Every single think tank - every single body of people with political views - is necessarily political.
What is intrinsically wrong about that.
The important thing is to know that there is no such thing as a right or wrong piece of information - every 'fact' is channelled through a prism of political prejudice.
I could make a very compelling case that Adolf Hitler was an englightened humanitarian if I wanted, simply be being selective in the evidence I chose to present.
There is no such thing as objectivity. It's humanly impossible.0 -
-
Graham_Devon wrote: »No, because that's included in the IFS report.
As is the increase in the personal allowance, so enlighten me what is not included, real points please not tough love.'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher0 -
As is the increase in the personal allowance, so enlighten me what is not included, real points please not tough love.
It ignores plans being put in to place to make work more attractive, and get people off benefits, and out of the benefits trap.
Heard a commenter earlier saying it ignores the lack of fuel, alcohol and tobacco duty in the budget also (how true i don't know, but as they were only looking at tax and benefits in terms of income and NI tax, I'd assume it's true).
A bigger proportion of the lower income families spend more on those products as a percentage of their income. But the report ignores the "savings" made there.
When I say savings, I do mean it in the way the commenter stated. These products were widely expected to have a tax increase applied.
So basically, although they get less of a rise, one of their biggest proportions of spending hasn't had it's tax increased as was expected.
I've answered your question now! Can you answer mine which I've asked twice
What would be your suggestion, considering we had to cut in the budget? 0 -
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.
The IFS are not fly by night.....their reports are taken seriously by economists and politicians alike. They are able to use Treasury models to make very accurate forecasts.
This report is a genuine body-blow to the government, particuarly the Lib-dems.0 -
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.
See, that's why I come here, for the open, reasoned debate.
It is lucky that we don't look at the author & dismiss evidence on the basis of the author isn't it.:)It's getting harder & harder to keep the government in the manner to which they have become accustomed.0 -
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.
Exactly the same organisation whose pontifications were regularly used to castigate the Labour party.
They were often supported and quoted by the Tory halfwits on this forum and are now dissmissed as irrelevant.
Tory mugs.Hi, we’ve had to remove your signature. If you’re not sure why please read the forum rules or email the forum team if you’re still unsure - MSE ForumTeam0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards