david cameron and tax credits

zagfles

missapril75 wrote: »

Or perhaps they have.

But then the IFS analysis was a complete analysis of take home income including the effect of all tax and benefit changes between May 2010 and May 2015, ie period of the last govt.. Whereas your quote just concerns tax, not benefits, and includes 2 years of a Labour govt.

Keep trying to find evidence to feed your confirmation bias. Next you might find evidence that student grants are "long gone" :rotfl:

missapril75

zagfles wrote: »

Whereas your quote just concerns tax, not benefits, and includes 2 years of a Labour govt.

Quote? It wasn't a quote. It was a summary.

Here's something from the report.

In its annual assessment of household finances...

Note the part about an assessment of household finances.

Doesn't sound so restricted really does it.Another bit.

British households are still £500 a year worse off than before the financial crisis in 2008, according to new official figures

Well done for pointing out that it includes two years of a Labour Government though.

Of course that just means you're inadvertently highlighting that things have changed for the worse for those at the lower end of the scale following the Conservatives taking over.

Oops.

I'll just leave you to it as you obviously don't need my help.

zagfles

missapril75 wrote: »

Quote? It wasn't a quote. It was a summary.

Here's something from the report.


Note the part about an assessment of household finances.

Doesn't sound so restricted really does it.Another bit.


Well done for pointing out that it includes two years of a Labour Government though.

That's because anyone with an ounce of common sense can see the cause wasn't the party of the govt, it was something else that happened around 2008. Any ideas?

Of course that just means you're inadvertently highlighting that things have changed for the worse for those at the lower end of the scale following the Conservatives taking over.

The IFS report I posted a link to highlighted the same thing. The poorest lost most in % terms. That wasn't the point though, was it?

Oops.

Oops indeed. Let me know when you've found anything that might address the point. Don't stay up too late though.

andrewmp

zagfles wrote: »

It's an analogy of being unable to knock the "man" down, ie being unable to provide a counter argument to the point actually made, so instead, build a "man of straw", ie something which vaguely resembles the "man" but which is a lot easier to knock down.

It's a common tactic used mainly, but not always, by those on the left. It often includes an implication of moral judgement, and is often used as an excuse for an angry and judgemental response to attempt to gain the moral high ground.

An example (about benefits, to keep it on topic):

A: I think benefit rates are easily enough to provide the basics for living
B: So you think benefit claimants live in the lap of luxury do you? Well, I can tell you from personal experience I could never afford champagne and caviar when I was on benefits...

So knocking down the "strawman" - ie the claim which was never made that benefit claimants live in luxury, which is quite easy, rather than addressing the actual point made, which is that they are sufficient.

Ah right, cheers, yeah I've noticed that. I see it from both the left and right though, clowns to the left, jokers to the right and all that.

Pedent

poppasmurf_bewdley wrote: »

I don't think I've read anything so far fetched since the last issue of The Beano.

I just saw Tim Montgomerie saying something on Newsnight that reminded me of this thread: "I'll let you into a little secret: the Tories never expected to win the General Election. A lot of promises were made that they thought would be traded away in coalition negotiations... things like these £12bn cuts. The Tories never expected to have to make them."

Bollotom

I'm afraid wages DO need to go up really. If not, employers will still be paying lower wages knowing that there'll be top ups from benefits. The difference between the National Minimum Wage and the National Living Wage in London is about a fiver an hour. £200 weekly (40 hours)!! So the employers have been on a goodun for a long time. Course it'll affect the economy and profits but with productivity and output increasing I'm sure it can be overcome. As it stands I think the government should reduce the benefits they intend to over about a five year period thus limiting the amount of grief to families. :cool: