God knows how the current generation would have coped in WW2 where we all poor and rich bonded together for the greater good to beat the enemy and rich and poor lived on rations plus Churchill would not have been able to do anything to Germany under human rights legislation and the elf n safety executive would have clamped down on every measure and we would have ended up facing the germans with peashooters, mind you the elf n safety executive would have probably banned that too incase a pea blinds a German :rolleyes:

 

You're actually comparing this to WW2?? That really proves just what a complete idiot you are tbh... For a start, yeah, the rich and poor DID come together for one glorious moment in history, the rich had ration books too, rich landowners in the country threw open their houses and their properties to poor kids from the cities who were evacuated from Hitler's bombing raids.. Pray tell just what the fukk the rich are doing for us now you berk, in 2010.... The poor however have BAILED OUT the rich and the rich have basically said "thanks very much suckers, now we can just continue getting our fat fukkin' bonuses and our fat fukkin' pensions while you lose your jobs and rot on the dole...". Yeah, you can REALLY compare the two situations cant you..... <_<

 

If you cant see just how much the rich capitalist scum have fukked this country over and fukked the poor over while maintaining their privileged positions (which the Tory scum are allowing them to as well, they are completely complicit in this as they always have been from beginning to end, because the Tories are the party of the rich and privileged, as are the Fib Dems who are just taking it up the arse and hoping to get whatever scraps they can to at least try and salvage some dignity out of their Faustian Pact with Cameron and Osbourne), well there really is no point in having a debate with you, because you clearly are even more stupid than Crazy Chris, you're one of these deluded middle class idiots who actually believes these rich b'astards will let you have a seat at their table, oh please, how pathetic is that.....? Wake the fukk up dude, they dont want you any more than they would want me.... Difference is, I know this and I dont want anything these c'unts have to offer.....

 

Declare it illegal and compel the Chancellor to do it again. Fyi, the "royal prerogative" cannot be used to carry out an act that Parliament rejects (such as repealing the Equalities Act) but the royal prerogative CAN be used to oust a government that refuses to comply with court orders.

If you're seriously complaining about a requirement that insists the poorest aren't disproportionately affected by measures, then that says everything about your charater.

 

Just because a left wing thinktank says something doesn't make it so, I am anything but convinced by the report in the first place.

 

I will not shed tears at a scrounger having his benefit cut after a year, I will not shed tears at someone defrauding the system faking mental or physical conditions losing out, I will not shed any tears for anyone that can't find accomodation for under 1600 a month, those types of people are the ones that will be losing out big time and frankly fukk them.

 

State benefits are not being cut so people will still be getting benefit increases next year, yes VAT will be going up but on stuff like food which is zero rated VAT and childrens clothing there will not be any difference in circumstances for a benefit claimant bar luxuries and non essential items so if they smoke and drink loads they will end up paying a greater proportion of their income than now. Food and clothing is an essential beer and fags isn't.

 

Those that live within their means and are careful with their benefits won't see any difference in their circumstances.

 

Working poor will still have things like tax credits.

 

 

You're actually comparing this to WW2?? That really proves just what a complete idiot you are tbh... For a start, yeah, the rich and poor DID come together for one glorious moment in history, the rich had ration books too, rich landowners in the country threw open their houses and their properties to poor kids from the cities who were evacuated from Hitler's bombing raids.. Pray tell just what the fukk the rich are doing for us now you berk, in 2010.... The poor however have BAILED OUT the rich and the rich have basically said "thanks very much suckers, now we can just continue getting our fat fukkin' bonuses and our fat fukkin' pensions while you lose your jobs and rot on the dole...". Yeah, you can REALLY compare the two situations cant you..... <_<

 

If you cant see just how much the rich capitalist scum have fukked this country over and fukked the poor over while maintaining their privileged positions (which the Tory scum are allowing them to as well, they are completely complicit in this as they always have been from beginning to end, because the Tories are the party of the rich and privileged, as are the Fib Dems who are just taking it up the arse and hoping to get whatever scraps they can to at least try and salvage some dignity out of their Faustian Pact with Cameron and Osbourne), well there really is no point in having a debate with you, because you clearly are even more stupid than Crazy Chris, you're one of these deluded middle class idiots who actually believes these rich b'astards will let you have a seat at their table, oh please, how pathetic is that.....? Wake the fukk up dude, they dont want you any more than they would want me.... Difference is, I know this and I dont want anything these c'unts have to offer.....

 

I was not comparing it directly but I was using it as an example of A) How when the country is in a mess instead of whingeing everyone should take their medicine on the chin, you never had the poor whingeing then how they cant make ends meet and how the rations aren't enough, everyone took it on the chin for the greater good and B) How in those days governments could do whatever was necessary for the greater good of the nation without being hamstrung by petty bureaucrats and jobsworths

Edited August 26, 201014 yr by I ❤ JustinBieber

Just because a left wing thinktank says something doesn't make it so, I am anything but convinced by the report in the first place.

 

http://imgsrv2.tennisuniverse.com/wtaworld/images/smilies/spit.gif Seriously, do you know NOTHING about economics? The IFS is renowned for being impartial and is probably the most credible economic thinktank in the country. It first came to prominence in the 70s when it hammered the Labour government's plans and it regularly contradicted various claims made by Gordon Brown over the last 13 years - George Osborne regularly cited its reports in Parliament, and once said, when asked for his reponse to a Labour Budget, that he wouldn't make any comment until the IFS report had been released.

 

And again, it doesn't actually matter whether you'll be shedding tears. The fact is it's ILLEGAL. What part of that don't you understand? The Coalition's Budget will take on average £420 a year away from the poorest 10% and £400 a year away from the richest 10% - meaning it impacts on the poorest the most in RAW CASH TERMS, never mind percentage terms. How on earth can you say that's not regressive?

Edited August 26, 201014 yr by Danny

http://imgsrv2.tennisuniverse.com/wtaworld/images/smilies/spit.gif Seriously, do you know NOTHING about economics? The IFS is renowned for being impartial and is probably the most credible economic thinktank in the country. It first came to prominence in the 70s when it hammered the Labour government's plans and it regularly contradicted various claims made by Gordon Brown over the last 13 years - George Osborne regularly cited its reports in Parliament, and once said, when asked for his reponse to a Labour Budget, that he wouldn't make any comment until the IFS report had been released.

 

And again, it doesn't actually matter whether you'll be shedding tears. The fact is it's ILLEGAL. What part of that don't you understand? The Coalition's Budget will take on average £420 a year away from the poorest 10% and £400 a year away from the richest 10% - meaning it impacts on the poorest the most in RAW CASH TERMS, never mind percentage terms. How on earth can you say that's not regressive?

 

Do you have a breakdown of where this £420 a year will be lost ? I am fascinated to see it I bet I could tear holes in it without bother as I simply don't believe it and those that lose £420 a year are probably the scroungers and cheats who are ripping us all off.

 

Cuts in housing benefit won't affect someone's pocket, housing benefit is paid directly to the landlord the claimant doesn't see it so how is a housing benefit cut going to leave someone poorer when they never had the money in their pocket in the first place ? plus more often than not landlords up their prices in order to fleece the taxpayer so am sure housing benefit caps will lead to landlords being more realistic with their prices.

 

Those that have been out of work for a year will see a loss in their pockets, those that pretend to be depressed or pretend they have a bad back will lose large amounts of money but in the case of the latter who gives a fukk, in the case of the former a year is ample time to get a job.

 

What I think this thinktank has done is added everything up and divided it by the number of claimants without taking into account the fact that the claimant never sees the housing benefit in the first place. And my heart really bleeds for someone that will have to move from Hampstead or Camden or Notting Hill to Streatham or Brixton NOT

 

Those that are genuinely looking for work, those that are genuinely disabled won't be losing a penny

Do you have a breakdown of where this £420 a year will be lost ? I am fascinated to see it I bet I could tear holes in it without bother as I simply don't believe it and those that lose £420 a year are probably the scroungers and cheats who are ripping us all off.

 

Cuts in housing benefit won't affect someone's pocket, housing benefit is paid directly to the landlord the claimant doesn't see it so how is a housing benefit cut going to leave someone poorer when they never had the money in their pocket in the first place ? plus more often than not landlords up their prices in order to fleece the taxpayer so am sure housing benefit caps will lead to landlords being more realistic with their prices.

 

Those that have been out of work for a year will see a loss in their pockets, those that pretend to be depressed or pretend they have a bad back will lose large amounts of money but in the case of the latter who gives a fukk, in the case of the former a year is ample time to get a job.

 

What I think this thinktank has done is added everything up and divided it by the number of claimants without taking into account the fact that the claimant never sees the housing benefit in the first place. And my heart really bleeds for someone that will have to move from Hampstead or Camden or Notting Hill to Streatham or Brixton NOT

 

Those that are genuinely looking for work, those that are genuinely disabled won't be losing a penny

 

Read the IFS's report. All your assumptions are utterly wrong. It clearly states that the working poor will also lose out more than the richest, not just people on benefits.

 

Just because a left wing thinktank says something doesn't make it so, I am anything but convinced by the report in the first place.

 

I will not shed tears at a scrounger having his benefit cut after a year, I will not shed tears at someone defrauding the system faking mental or physical conditions losing out, I will not shed any tears for anyone that can't find accomodation for under 1600 a month, those types of people are the ones that will be losing out big time and frankly fukk them.

 

State benefits are not being cut so people will still be getting benefit increases next year, yes VAT will be going up but on stuff like food which is zero rated VAT and childrens clothing there will not be any difference in circumstances for a benefit claimant bar luxuries and non essential items so if they smoke and drink loads they will end up paying a greater proportion of their income than now. Food and clothing is an essential beer and fags isn't.

 

Those that live within their means and are careful with their benefits won't see any difference in their circumstances.

 

Working poor will still have things like tax credits.

I didn't bother reading beyond the sixth word. The IFS, as Danny says, is most definitely not a left wing think tank. It is probably just about the only think tank which can truly be labelled independent.

From the IFS:

 

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/48863000/gif/_48863679_ifs_gra_304.gif

 

And that's including Labour's more progressive measures that they introduced in March and which the Coalition didn't repeal - if we judge solely on the Coalition's new measures in the June Budget, the poorest 10% are hit 8 times as hard as the richest 10%.

I wish the government would have the honesty to accept that it is mostly the measures introduced by the last government which make the overall effects of the 2010 budgets vaguely progressive.

 

Nick Clegg has tried to point out what the IFS have ignored. However, most of the examples he gave (e.g. the effect of growth, getting more people off benefits and into work) are purely speculative. The only example he gave where he has a point is that they ignored the effects of the pupil premium. This (Lib Dem) policy ensures that more money goes into schools in the poorest areas.

Read the IFS's report. All your assumptions are utterly wrong. It clearly states that the working poor will also lose out more than the richest, not just people on benefits.

 

Those that smoke and drink and buy state of the art plasma tv's or smartphones or have all the sports and movie channels on sky etc who are working poor will have to cough up more but the simple thing is don't buy them and you won't have to pay a greater proportion of income, the only things that are essential in life are food, running water, a bed and clothing, everything else is pretty much a LUXURY

 

The poor will still be getting tax credits as an incentive to get them into and staying into work.

 

People have been living beyond their means for too long, being frugal has been considered as sad in society as being a trainspotter while people have been getting mass credit cards and having spending sprees with money they haven't got

 

A bit of reality setting in and realising that the gravy train has hit the buffers is what this country needs

 

 

From the IFS:

 

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/48863000/gif/_48863679_ifs_gra_304.gif

 

And that's including Labour's more progressive measures that they introduced in March and which the Coalition didn't repeal - if we judge solely on the Coalition's new measures in the June Budget, the poorest 10% are hit 8 times as hard as the richest 10%.

 

State benefits for the genuine unemployed and the genuine disabled are not being cut, how is this 5% drop in income explained when state benefits are not being cut by 5% ? the report more than likely includes housing benefit which will not leave people worse off, maybe living in less upmarket areas but not worse off financially.

Edited August 26, 201014 yr by I ❤ JustinBieber

Nick Clegg has tried to point out what the IFS have ignored. However, most of the examples he gave (e.g. the effect of growth, getting more people off benefits and into work) are purely speculative. The only example he gave where he has a point is that they ignored the effects of the pupil premium. This (Lib Dem) policy ensures that more money goes into schools in the poorest areas.

Although I think the pupil premium sounds like an excellent policy, I'm sceptical of whether its good effects will be cancelled out by the planned cuts of atleast 25% to the education budget as a whole.

 

 

State benefits for the genuine unemployed and the genuine disabled are not being cut, how is this 5% drop in income explained when state benefits are not being cut by 5% ? the report more than likely includes housing benefit which will not leave people worse off, maybe less upmarket areas but not worse off financially.

 

For God's sake, will you please READ what the Budget does, and READ the IFS report before you start making assumptions about things you clearly know NOTHING about. JobSeekers' Alowance is to be linked to the Retail Price Index rather than the Consumers' Price Index, which amounts to a cut. Housing benefit is being cut. Child trust funds have been scrapped. Disability living allowance is being cut. The most regressive tax of them all, VAT, is being rising, affecting the working poor as well as the unemployed. The wages for even most of the lowest-paid public sector workers are being frozen.

Although I think the pupil premium sounds like an excellent policy, I'm sceptical of whether its good effects will be cancelled out by the planned cuts of atleast 25% to the education budget as a whole.

For God's sake, will you please READ what the Budget does, and READ the IFS report before you start making assumptions about things you clearly know NOTHING about. JobSeekers' Alowance is to be linked to the Retail Price Index rather than the Consumers' Price Index, which amounts to a cut. Housing benefit is being cut. Child trust funds have been scrapped. Disability living allowance is being cut. The most regressive tax of them all, VAT, is being rising, affecting the working poor as well as the unemployed. The wages for even most of the lowest-paid public sector workers are being frozen.

 

Housing benefit is not being cut it is being capped

 

The absolute bulk of claimants (I think I read in a paper after the budget something like 96%) are already below the £400 a week ceiling, the other 4 need to find a cheaper house and rightly so, those 4% are taking the p***.

 

 

I wish poor people and rich people could all just live happily together!

The absolute bulk of claimants (I think I read in a paper after the budget something like 96%) are already below the £400 a week ceiling, the other 4 need to find a cheaper house and rightly so, those 4% are taking the p***.

 

Or that 4%, living in the most expensive parts of Britain, need to pay that much to get something that's even halfway-decent.

 

Please read this in full, particularly the Benefits section, before you make any other incorrect assumptions: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10374475

Or that 4%, living in the most expensive parts of Britain, need to pay that much to get something that's even halfway-decent.

 

Please read this in full, particularly the Benefits section, before you make any other incorrect assumptions: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10374475

 

 

Please tell me what is regressive about the ones below

 

880,000 taken out of tax altogether, no increases on alcohol and cigs both of which the poor are the highest consumers of, increases in child tax credits above the rate of inflation, they all seem PROGRESSIVE to me

 

 

 

Personal income tax allowance: To be increased by £1,000 in April to £7,475 - worth £170 a year to basic rate taxpayers. It is expected that 880,000 of the lowest-paid will be taken out of income tax altogether.

 

CIGARETTES, ALCOHOL AND FUEL

No increases this time round. Labour's plan to increase the duty on cider by 10% above inflation will be scrapped from July.

 

Tax credits: Reduced for families earning over £40,000 next year. But low income families will get more Child Tax Credit - the amount per child will rise by £150 above the rate of inflation next year - at an annual cost of £2bn.

 

 

Someone out of work for a year will have a 10% cut in HOUSING benefit, simple solution, don't be out of work for a year

 

Medical assessments for those on DLA, no mention of cuts like you said above

 

 

I think you should only be out of work if you are genuinely physcially or mentally unfit, have retired, or are so rich you dont need to work

Please tell me what is regressive about the ones below

 

880,000 taken out of tax altogether, no increases on alcohol and cigs both of which the poor are the highest consumers of, increases in child tax credits above the rate of inflation, they all seem PROGRESSIVE to me

Personal income tax allowance: To be increased by £1,000 in April to £7,475 - worth £170 a year to basic rate taxpayers. It is expected that 880,000 of the lowest-paid will be taken out of income tax altogether.

 

CIGARETTES, ALCOHOL AND FUEL

No increases this time round. Labour's plan to increase the duty on cider by 10% above inflation will be scrapped from July.

 

Tax credits: Reduced for families earning over £40,000 next year. But low income families will get more Child Tax Credit - the amount per child will rise by £150 above the rate of inflation next year - at an annual cost of £2bn.

The increase in the tax threshold is thanks to the Lib Dems

 

There are no further increases in duty on cigarettes, alcohol and fuel. They are still going up as a result of the last Labour budget.

The increase in the tax threshold is thanks to the Lib Dems

 

There are no further increases in duty on cigarettes, alcohol and fuel. They are still going up as a result of the last Labour budget.

 

I have found 3 examples on 1 section of where the poor will gain so I fail to see why people are casting Cameron and Clegg as the anti christ who are demonising the poor

 

If they wanted to take it out on the poor there is a hell of a lot that they could have done that really would