UK Coalition Government Comprehensive Spending Review - Oct 20th 2010

StevieJ

Mr_Mumble wrote: »

It's also a lot harder to cut down on than just, for example, cutting child benefit for anyone over the age of 16. I'd expect a lot of commentary about how the plans for 'cuts' are unworkable over the coming days.

Didn't understand how not cutting CB for those over 16 increased the savings on child benefit from 1billion to 2.5 billion?

ILW

lemonjelly wrote: »

Absolutely. I loved how he said he'd answer all questions, so those in the studio all got at him. He didn't know where to look. His response..."I'll come back & discuss that in detail another time".

Made himself look a puppet.

Isn't he the one that is known as Beaker because he actually looks like a Muppet.

Wheezy_2

ILW wrote: »

Isn't he the one that is known as Beaker because he actually looks like a Muppet.

Yup.

Blacklight

lemonjelly wrote: »

Typically inarticulate response with a complete lack of thought, logic, or relevance to the issues being discussed.

Lets not let the relevant issues get in the way of your pre-conceived agenda though eh? Carry on with spouting out offensive remarks without any provocation.

But, at first glance, the cuts to the welfare benefit are regressive, in the most basic sense of costing families in the lower half of the income distribution more, as a share of their income (and often in cash terms as well) than families in the upper half.

There will be an extra £7bn from the means-tested part of the welfare budget. This will overwhelmingly affect families in the lower half of the income distribution. I cannot see how to avoid that conclusion - even with the increase in the child element of the working tax credit, which enables the government to say that child poverty is not directly increased by these changes.

The same old boring comment repeated by every left wing politician or union leader, I can't believe you think there's any substance to it, it's just a stock response. 'These cuts will hit the poorest hardest'. When in fact the incumbent government have gone out of their way to ensure that no-one will be worse of working than on benefits. The two alternatives are to get a job or be no worse off than the average working family.

Problem?

With the housing benefit cuts, the cuts in social investment, and the re-definition of "affordable" housing to include rent that is 80% of the going market rate, the government is surely ensuring a massive rise in the demand for social housing, and only a modest increase in supply. When you consider that local authorities have also been told that they do not have to stick with the targets for private house building which were imposed on them by the previous government, this is a big gamble with the bottom end of the UK housing market.

Totally overlooked the fact that the private sector have partnered up to build new affordable homes. I started a thread on that a few weeks back.

In summary, usual biased view from someone who unashamedly left wing in her opinions.

dori2o

Blacklight wrote: »

But, at first glance, the cuts to the welfare benefit are regressive, in the most basic sense of costing families in the lower half of the income distribution more, as a share of their income (and often in cash terms as well) than families in the upper half.

There will be an extra £7bn from the means-tested part of the welfare budget. This will overwhelmingly affect families in the lower half of the income distribution. I cannot see how to avoid that conclusion - even with the increase in the child element of the working tax credit, which enables the government to say that child poverty is not directly increased by these changes.

The same old boring comment repeated by every left wing politician or union leader, I can't believe you think there's any substance to it, it's just a stock response. 'These cuts will hit the poorest hardest'. When in fact the incumbent government have gone out of their way to ensure that no-one will be worse of working than on benefits. The two alternatives are to get a job or be no worse off than the average working family.

Problem?

With the housing benefit cuts, the cuts in social investment, and the re-definition of "affordable" housing to include rent that is 80% of the going market rate, the government is surely ensuring a massive rise in the demand for social housing, and only a modest increase in supply. When you consider that local authorities have also been told that they do not have to stick with the targets for private house building which were imposed on them by the previous government, this is a big gamble with the bottom end of the UK housing market.

Totally overlooked the fact that the private sector have partnered up to build new affordable homes. I started a thread on that a few weeks back.

In summary, usual biased view from someone who unashamedly left wing in her opinions.

This is the problem though. Despite both myself and my wife working, our household income is still below the Average household income. So by your own admission, I would be better if I simply packed in work and claimed the £500 p/w in benefits.

StevieJ

Blacklight wrote: »

Totally overlooked the fact that the private sector have partnered up to build new affordable homes. I started a thread on that a few weeks back.

In summary, usual biased view from someone who unashamedly left wing in her opinions.

Wasn't just her, others wanted to know where these people are going to live up to the time when the HA start receiving the increased funds and get their act together?

ILW

What is the average household income?

dori2o

ILW wrote: »

What is the average household income?

£26000. In our area it's slightly more.

lemonjelly

Blacklight wrote: »

Typical lefty drivel from the Labour party bicycle.

Blacklight wrote: »

But, at first glance, the cuts to the welfare benefit are regressive, in the most basic sense of costing families in the lower half of the income distribution more, as a share of their income (and often in cash terms as well) than families in the upper half.

There will be an extra £7bn from the means-tested part of the welfare budget. This will overwhelmingly affect families in the lower half of the income distribution. I cannot see how to avoid that conclusion - even with the increase in the child element of the working tax credit, which enables the government to say that child poverty is not directly increased by these changes.

The same old boring comment repeated by every left wing politician or union leader, I can't believe you think there's any substance to it, it's just a stock response. 'These cuts will hit the poorest hardest'. When in fact the incumbent government have gone out of their way to ensure that no-one will be worse of working than on benefits. The two alternatives are to get a job or be no worse off than the average working family.

Problem?

With the housing benefit cuts, the cuts in social investment, and the re-definition of "affordable" housing to include rent that is 80% of the going market rate, the government is surely ensuring a massive rise in the demand for social housing, and only a modest increase in supply. When you consider that local authorities have also been told that they do not have to stick with the targets for private house building which were imposed on them by the previous government, this is a big gamble with the bottom end of the UK housing market.

Totally overlooked the fact that the private sector have partnered up to build new affordable homes. I started a thread on that a few weeks back.

In summary, usual biased view from someone who unashamedly left wing in her opinions.

Firstly, the source I gave in my original post clearly highlights the reasons for what I asserted, though you try to be a clever little geezer & don't include that in what you quote. Funny that, but hey.

Secondly, this response you have put up actually highlights that you intentionally tried to be as offensive as possible.

Firstly, you have assumed a gender for me. Then, having assumed I am female, you have effectively called me a !!!!!. That is deliberately an inflammatory remark, designed to be as offensive, and as hurtful as possible.

You are clearly a vulgar person.

Perhaps you aren't getting any, which is why you have to make such derisory remarks rather than engage in any realistic debate?

Blacklight

dori2o wrote: »

This is the problem though. Despite both myself and my wife working, our household income is still below the Average household income. So by your own admission, I would be better if I simply packed in work and claimed the £500 p/w in benefits.

I haven't seen the £500 figure stated anywhere other than the likes of the tabloids.

All I have heard is 'no worse off than the average working family'.