Budget hits the poorest hardest, says IFS

StevieJ

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It ignores plans being put in to place to make work more attractive, and get people off benefits, and out of the benefits trap.

I did say without the tough love i.e bullsh1t. The duties are interesting, nice of Osbourne to think about the poor peoples luxuries but I don't think that was the reason, more like they know that if duties increase so does smuggling (that will be lobbying from the Tory pals in the Drinks and Tobacco industry). What would I do? get me a copy of the treasury books and financial models and I will have a look and then respond

Graham_Devon

StevieJ wrote: »

I did say without the tough love i.e bullsh1t. The duties are interesting, nice of Osbourne to think about the poor peoples luxuries but I don't think that was the reason, more like they know that if duties increase so does smuggling (that will be lobbying from the Tory pals in the Drinks and Tobacco industry). What would I do? get me a copy of the treasury books and financial models and I will have a look and then respond

Maybe you could have done as you preach

Doubt a few pence on a pint would lead to much more smuggling than already happens

StevieJ

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Maybe you could have done as you preach

Doubt a few pence on a pint would lead to much more smuggling than already happens

Ah so there is another reason :think: got it they are trying to kill them off, solve the pension problem as well :eek:

Graham_Devon

StevieJ wrote: »

Ah so there is another reason :think: got it they are trying to kill them off, solve the pension problem as well :eek:

To good an opportunity to miss this one!

You said that, as a labour supporter? The party that gave 24 hour licences the go ahead so people could buy alcohol round the clock?

Of course, thats different, right?

blueboy43

every time I see Nick Clegg on the TV, I feel sick at the thought of voting Lib-Dem in May.

headcone

blueboy43 wrote: »

every time I see Nick Clegg on the TV, I feel sick at the thought of voting Lib-Dem in May.

Never again I hope.

olly300

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You said that, as a labour supporter? The party that gave 24 hour licences the go ahead so people could buy alcohol round the clock?

Which only the two 24 hour supermarkets near me have taken advantage off.

The pubs and clubs are too near residential areas so haven't been able to extend their licenses.

Thrugelmir

StevieJ wrote: »

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

Selective memories. From 2002. Did Labour do any better by 2010?

Tony Blair will pledge today to redistribute power and wealth to the poor when he commits the Government to eradicating child poverty by 2020.

As figures are published on the extent of poverty across the country, the Prime Minister will announce the creation of 800 SureStart children's centres offering cash and advice to parents in deprived areas.
In an attempt to galvanise support among Labour MPs worried about action against Iraq, Mr Blair will promise that reducing the number of children on the breadline will be a "key test" of his second term.
Anti-poverty campaigners are likely to seize on the fact that the Government has taken only 500,000 children out of poverty in its first five years, well short of the one million target it had set. The Prime Minister will explicitly refer for the first time in his tenure to Labour's policy of redistributing wealth from rich to poor. The policy, known as "the R-word" by many Blairites, has been avoided by Downing Street until now because of its connotations with higher taxes, which have traditionally deterred voters.
Senior government sources said Mr Blair had been emboldened by the public reaction to the Budget's tax rises to pay for an improved NHS.
Speaking at a SureStart Centre in north London, he will announce that 1.4 million children have been taken out of absolute poverty by Labour since 1997 and teenage pregnancies have dropped by 6 per cent.
Mr Blair will admit that truancy figures and qualifications for the worst-off remain poor and emphasise that poverty is influenced by ill-health and not just income.
SureStart, a scheme set up to help poor parents, has been a "hidden success" of the Government. It will be expanded so that the most deprived 20 per cent of wards in Britain will have a children's centre by 2006.
Some 650,000 children should benefit from the service. Mr Blair will say that he wants "a Britain in which nobody is left behind and people go as far as their talent allows". Such a society meant "equal status and opportunity, not equal outcomes".

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/blair-pledges-to-eradicate-child-poverty-by-2020-643123.html

Rochdale_Pioneers

Its an interesting one. The Tories spend years lauding the IFS for the work they do in exposing "the truth" in Labour budgets. When Brown had a habit of having nice headlines with a hidden sting, they always quoted the reliability of the IFS in digging behind the numbers. Osborne himself even referenced his budget to them when delivering it - no need for their work, here are the details!

And yet the IFS do their usual work, dig behind the numbers and demonstrate categorically that the budget does the polar opposite of what Clegg claims. Osborne latched onto Clegg's comments about it being progressive and the whole government has been parroting that ever since.

Except of course that it isn't, so now they have to attack the IFS for doing exactly what they spent years praising it for - exposing the truth. According to Clegg "It does not include the things we want to do to get people off benefits and into work".

Hmmmm. The work point is hilarious 2.5m jobs would be created they said, nonsense said the HR indusry Nonsense now says the Bank of England et al pointing out that the budget makes it more likely than not that we get a double dip recession. Moodys now points out that this - not our deficit - is threatening our AAA rating. Remember how Osborne said before the election that protecting the rating would be at the centre of economic policy? They point out that the deficit was dropping thanks to growth - growth now threatened by the budget. So what will the government be doing to create jobs when not only does the budget directly threaten yet more jobs, but they're cutting funding to the various agencies and charities that create jobs?

And benefits? Yes, the IFS shamefully failed to factor in the impact of IDS's changes to the benefits system. The changes that as widely reported he is having to fight a serious battle with the Treasury over to keep in play.

From the Tories, no surprise. A budget to hammer the poor to deliver ideological permanent cuts isn't exactly unexpected. For their voter base who like that sort of thing I can see it being popular as it was in the 80s. And you have to admire the speed at which they are going about things - compared to the paranoid nervousness sown by Blair in the early days of his government, Cameron's administration has been a revelation.

No, the criticism on every news comments board and web forum all seems to be aimed at the LibDems. And what a surprise. Clegg continues to read off Oik's script despite the reality being so cruelly exposed. He sold the budget to a sceptical party on the basis that it was helpful to the poor. Thats been exposed as a blatant lie. He is getting serious form for blatant lies now (yes I changed my mind on cuts but didn't tell my party colleagues and campaigned on the opposite).

So, with respect to comments about the thread being pathetic or partisan, lets just look at the facts. The IFS have a reputation for doing exactly that and consistently deliver the same critique of budgets whoever writes them. To attack them is to attack reasoned argument. But here's the thing. Were it not for the LibDems I'd expect the Tories to laud the fact that the budget hammers the (no good !!!!less scrounging) poor - thats their thing. Another thing Clegg is screwing up.

kabayiri

Read all about it.

"Budget makes people poorer" shocker.

Well, duh.

Aren't budgets just an excuse to find newer and more elaborate ways of parting Joe Public with their cash?

You will be telling me we can believe what Politicians tell us during election time next.