Osbourne's July budget

marleyboy

missbiggles1 wrote: »

I think you mean non working poor people.

No No, Poor people in general.

padington

marleyboy wrote: »

No No, Poor people in general.

True, the increasing trend I've seen in London is that people stay when they're single for as long as they can but if they haven't made a mint by the time the first child comes along, they head back either home or to their university town or one of the London outer boroughs (Brighton, Bristol, St Albans or Melbourne).

However even the outer 'boroughs' are beginning to offer little respite these days.

Spidernick

I know nothing about Osbourne's July Budget, but wouldn't be surprised to see Osborne's do something like limit Child Benefit to two children only.

michaels

Spidernick wrote: »

I know nothing about Osbourne's July Budget, but wouldn't be surprised to see Osborne's do something like limit Child Benefit to two children only.

Hmm - there was a campaign promise not to further reduce child benefit so it would take quite a lot of front to do so: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32562390

Tromking

I`m genuinely intrigued to see how more departmental cuts to the MOJ will be found.

Spidernick

michaels wrote: »

Hmm - there was a campaign promise not to further reduce child benefit so it would take quite a lot of front to do so: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32562390

Ah, but remember Standard Life's 'a promise is not a guarantee' (or words to that effect)?

They could easily play fast and loose on the definition of 'cutting' child benefit. If the rate per eligible child remains static but the number of eligible children is reduced, I can quite easily see politicians arguing that this is not a cut at all. To you and me that would be complete nonsense, but politicians argue logic in a different way to most of us!

missbiggles1

marleyboy wrote: »

No No, Poor people in general.

Don't forget how much help the working poor get from tax credits and LHA/HB in an area with high rents.

Thrugelmir

Tromking wrote: »

I`m genuinely intrigued to see how more departmental cuts to the MOJ will be found.

Efficiency savings will be found in every department. Amazing what can be found once a little squeeze is applied.

missbiggles1

Spidernick wrote: »

Ah, but remember Standard Life's 'a promise is not a guarantee' (or words to that effect)?

They could easily play fast and loose on the definition of 'cutting' child benefit. If the rate per eligible child remains static but the number of eligible children is reduced, I can quite easily see politicians arguing that this is not a cut at all. To you and me that would be complete nonsense, but politicians argue logic in a different way to most of us!

Particularly if it isn't applied restrospectively but only to new claims.

Tromking

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Efficiency savings will be found in every department. Amazing what can be found once a little squeeze is applied.

I`m struggling to see where they`ll find the wholesale cuts needed in Prisons/Probation/Courts to be honest.
Just got this sneaky feeling that property/asset sell offs and the possible relocation of Government departments out of London might be their way forward.