Budget hits the poorest hardest, says IFS

Alan_Cross

Rubbish.

These are cobblition cuts with the Libdems having been outmanoeuvered yet again by their Tory toff overseers.

When are Libdem voters and party members going to wake up to the nightmare their precious leader is inflicting on us all, not least the less well off in society, for the sake of his pompous but powerless title?

Would it not be better for them to regain at least some pride as a political party by leaving the cobblition and getting rid of this egomaniac Clegg?

Bob_the_Saver

Sorry to interject, I want to have a chav BBQ and need to find a benefit scrounging chav to marinate and baste, does anyone have one. It's always the same, when you're not having a BBQ you can't move for them. This is urgent because it's for tomorrow night (inside if wet).

Alan_Cross

Bob_the_Saver wrote: »

Sorry to interject, I want to have a chav BBQ and need to find a benefit scrounging chav to marinate and baste, does anyone have one. It's always the same when you're not having a BBQ you can't move for them. This is urgent because it's for tomorrow night (inside if wet).

Personally I find that scrounging, white-van-man tax fraudsters are far tastier.

Go upmarket, why don't you?

Really2

andykn wrote: »

The point is that the Tories are actually making it worse by design.

All New Labour did was made the rich richer more than the poor got richer.

How, they never invented the benefit culture we seemed to have gained over the past 10 years. If it was unsustainable what choices have they got.

Bob_the_Saver

Alan_Cross wrote: »

Personally I find that scrounging, white-van-man tax fraudsters are far tastier.

Go upmarket, why don't you?

No I'm afraid they stick in my throat

blueboy43

Generali wrote: »

That's all well and good but unfortunately Labour's policies can't be paid for. The Government can tax a maximum of about 40% of GDP but was spending about 52% of GDP at the time of the election. As a result, they were spending about 1/4 more than the maximum income the Government can take.

t=2686191[/URL]

any link or actual figures for 52%.

I don't believe it has exceeded 48% in any fiscal year since 1982

andykn

Really2 wrote: »

How, they never invented the benefit culture we seemed to have gained over the past 10 years. If it was unsustainable what choices have they got.

Oh, I see, benefits didn't exist before 1997, that's your argument.

Right.

Shakethedisease

Are you trying to claim that all people on benefits are single mothers? That's a pretty grubby piece of stereotyping.

Very few of the 2,500,000 unemployed will be single mothers as only people actively seeking work are counted as unemployed.

You need the read the budget again. Sorry. You've missed bits. Single parents WILL be counted as 'actively seeking work' once the kid hits 5. They WILL be counted as unemployed, moved off Income Support and on to JSA, thus 'counted'.
So they won't be 'very few' any more. Sorry to disappoint. But it was these people I was talking about as being a major spanner in the works in terms of getting 'people off benefits'.

And how dare you call me grubby and stereotyping for pointing out childcare in the UK is the most expensive in the western developed world ?

I wasn't saying that ALL unemployed are single mothers/parents. Just that in terms of job opportunites, the cost of childcare being very expensive, and, in the context of the IFS report.. that they would be adversely affected. Spanner in the figures, and a big spanner in how they'll get them back working when the childcare costs are so high.

Get your facts straight, please.

They're going on to JSA once the youngest hits 5. There is little afforadable childcare out there for them, few 'school time' hours + summer holidays off jobs going ( how many of them are around ?).. and crucially, their LHA rates will be cut by 10% once they've been out of work for 12 months... because they're now on JSA and 'actively counted' as unemployed the same way an 18 year old school leaver is, or a single 55 year old man.

http://www.touchstoneblog.org.uk/2010/07/did-the-budget-pass-the-fairness-test-from-the-perspective-of-women-and-families/

Overall, the House of Commons Library estimates that women will pay roughly 72% of the net cost of the changes in taxes, benefits and tax credits that it analysed

http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=1165

The Fawcett Society has filed papers with the High Court seeking a Judicial Review of the government's recent emergency budget. (1)
Under equality laws..

Women already earn less, own less, and have less control over their finances than men. Yet some £5.8 billion of the £8 billion of cuts contained in the budget will be taken from women, who will also be worst affected by the coming cuts to public services - 65 per cent of public sector workers are women.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/aug/03/budget-cuts-equality-theresa-may

Theresa May, the home secretary and equalities minister, warned the chancellor that cuts in the budget could widen inequality in Britain and ran a "real risk" of breaking the law..
May wrote "there are real risks" that people ranging from ethnic minorities to women, to the disabled and the old, would be "disproportionately affected".

http://blogs.findlaw.com/solicitor/2010/08/budget-cuts-unlawful-absent-equality-assessment.html

The Equality and Human Rights Commission says it will monitor the Fawcett Society's legal bid closely. It is also weighing up whether to exercise its statutory power to take legal action against the government. "We have written to the Treasury to ask for reassurance that they will comply with their equality duties when making decisions about the overall deficit reduction, and in particular in relation to any changes to tax and benefits for which they are directly responsible."

I can back up my 'grubby' facts. In fact there is at least one legal challenge, and futher in the pipeline to come perhaps on this budget, and what it means in terms of the laws of equality in this country. All exactly on the things I've pointed out.

Where did you get your facts from then ?

I can only presume you missed this part in the budget about JSA etc, and the legal challenge and concerns of other insititutions on the basis of it. Keep up..I'm not the only one out there with severe misgivings.. and I still can't believe I was actually called 'grubby' for highlighting this.. shudders.

* off to have a shower with Aussie mint shower gel *

Generali

blueboy43 wrote: »

any link or actual figures for 52%.

I don't believe it has exceeded 48% in any fiscal year since 1982

It is a projection for 2010 and the figure should be 53% not 52% (link), I was out by 1% due to my faulty recollection.

Government spending = £772,000,000,000
GDP = £1,451,000,000,00

772/1451 = 0.532 or 53.2%

Generali

@Shakethedisease. So I'm right then, single mothers aren't currently included in the 2,500,000 unemployed. I called your stereotyping grubby rather than you grubby strictly speaking but I didn't mean to cause offence and am very sorry if I did so.

Childcare costs are expensive and that is a problem (I am a father of 2) but as at present single mothers aren't counted as unemployed for the most part that isn't going to be a factor in trying to get unemployed people back to work.

We come back to the basic problem. The Government looks set to spend 53% (not 52%, sorry for my dodgy stats) of GDP. That isn't sustainable when it seems only able to raise about 40% in taxes. Would you be happy to see your disposable income cut by 25% to maintain the status quo or do you think someone else (The Rich for example) should foot the bill?