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.

 

Wow, you managed to pick out two that are progressive in a list of more than 20. Kudos :lol:

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

 

So are you saying the IFS are wrong?

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

 

Yeah because people choose to be made redundant and be thrown onto the scrap-heap don't they...? FFS, try actually reading up on what went on in the country in the 1980s some time, history is gonna be repeating itself real soon....

 

Yeah because people choose to be made redundant and be thrown onto the scrap-heap don't they...? FFS, try actually reading up on what went on in the country in the 1980s some time, history is gonna be repeating itself real soon....

 

Dont FFS me. How dare you

Sorry for my outburst but FFS is one of my pet hates.

So are you saying the IFS are wrong?

 

I am saying that the way the IFS have made their calculations is in my opinion flawed, I will read the report proper tomorrow when I have more time but I believe that they are over exaggerating the effects yes

Dont FFS me. How dare you

 

Well, don't make glib posts in a serious debate which are likely to be met with short shrift.....

Sorry for my outburst but FFS is one of my pet hates.

 

Fair enough, but glib posts is one of my pet hates as they detract from the seriousness of what's being discussed here....

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.

Yes they ARE Craig, stop ignoring me when I tell you these things! The JSA has been cut from about £60 to £51.

Yes they ARE Craig, stop ignoring me when I tell you these things! The JSA has been cut from about £60 to £51.

 

 

HOUSING benefit for those out of work more than a year is being cut by 10% not the basic rate of benefit for those out of work for a year although it should be cut as no one really needs a year to find a job if they try hard enough

 

 

"Unemployed people will see their Housing Benefit cut by 10%, after 12 months of claiming Jobseekers Allowance from April 2013. "

 

^ From the BBC's own budget report, 4th line down

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10374475

 

No mention whatsoever of a 10% cut in the basic rate of JSA

I am saying that the way the IFS have made their calculations is in my opinion flawed, I will read the report proper tomorrow when I have more time but I believe that they are over exaggerating the effects yes

 

You've already proven from this and many other threads that you know bugger all about economics so what position are you in to say that you know better than a renowned think tank, left wing or not?

HOUSING benefit for those out of work more than a year is being cut by 10% not the basic rate of benefit for those out of work for a year although it should be cut as no one really needs a year to find a job if they try hard enough

"Unemployed people will see their Housing Benefit cut by 10%, after 12 months of claiming Jobseekers Allowance from April 2013. "

 

^ From the BBC's own budget report, 4th line down

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10374475

 

No mention whatsoever of a 10% cut in the basic rate of JSA

Why do you need a mention from the BBC when I can give you testament myself that JSA was £60 a year ago and that it's £51 now?

You've already proven from this and many other threads that you know bugger all about economics so what position are you in to say that you know better than a renowned think tank, left wing or not?

 

Because they have lumped all the poor in together in the same basket working and unemployed and have come up with an average of the 3 without taking into account circumstances

 

Suppose 1 sector is going to be 10% better off (lets say for arguments sake the working poor who are going to not pay tax any more and will have increased tax credits)

Suppose 1 sector is going to be about the same (lets say for arguments sake the unemployed poor)

Suppose 1 sector is going to be 20% worse off (for arguments sake they are being moved from incapacity benefits they dont need as they are fit for work)

 

+10

0

-20

 

= the average of the 3, THAT is my point

 

They are going for headline grabbing doomsday scenarios instead of seperating the working poor, the unemployed who want to work and the cheats who are ripping us off in their calculations

 

800,000 people in work are going to be better off substantially thanks to being taken out of tax ENTIRELY, on top of that a gain thanks to child tax credits

Edited August 26, 201014 yr by I ❤ JustinBieber

HOUSING benefit for those out of work more than a year is being cut by 10% not the basic rate of benefit for those out of work for a year although it should be cut as no one really needs a year to find a job if they try hard enough

"Unemployed people will see their Housing Benefit cut by 10%, after 12 months of claiming Jobseekers Allowance from April 2013. "

 

^ From the BBC's own budget report, 4th line down

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10374475

 

No mention whatsoever of a 10% cut in the basic rate of JSA

 

As the IFS report clearly states, the Coalition's decision to link unemployment benefits to the Retail Prices Index rather than the Consumers' Price Index (or it might be the other way round) amounts to a cut.

Why do you need a mention from the BBC when I can give you testament myself that JSA was £60 a year ago and that it's £51 now?

 

A relative of mine is on JSA, he gets £65 a week, he asked the benefits office only a week or 2 ago whether JSA was being cut next year and he was given a catergorical NO, this was from someone who works in the JSA and has access to all the information

Because they have lumped all the poor in together in the same basket working and unemployed and have come up with an average of the 3 without taking into account circumstances

 

Suppose 1 sector is going to be 10% better off (lets say for arguments sake the working poor who are going to not pay tax any more and will have increased tax credits)

Suppose 1 sector is going to be about the same (lets say for arguments sake the unemployed poor)

Suppose 1 sector is going to be 20% worse off (for arguments sake they are being moved from incapacity benefits they dont need as they are fit for work)

 

+10

0

-20

 

= the average of the 3, THAT is my point

 

They are going for headline grabbing doomsday scenarios instead of seperating the working poor, the unemployed who want to work and the cheats who are ripping us off in their calculations

 

800,000 people in work are going to be better off substantially thanks to being taken out of tax ENTIRELY, on top of that a gain thanks to child tax credits

 

Seriously, stop embarrrasing yourself and READ THE REPORT, because you're wrong yet again. The IFS report produces separate calculations for how the working poor and the unemployed will be affected - it shows the working poor will still be affected more than the richest 10% (especially those with children), albeit not quite as much as the unemployed.

 

As the IFS report clearly states, the Coalition's decision to link unemployment benefits to the Retail Prices Index rather than the Consumers' Price Index (or it might be the other way round) amounts to a cut.

 

Then all they have to do is look hard for work, get work and they will be able to take advantage of 0% tax and tax credits that the working poor are getting

 

There is work out there, most are simply not looking hard enough or dismiss it because it is not glamourous or well paid

Then all they have to do is look hard for work, get work and they will be able to take advantage of 0% tax and tax credits that the working poor are getting

 

There is work out there, most are simply not looking hard enough or dismiss it because it is not glamourous or well paid

 

Despite the fact 1.5m jobs are being cut?

Despite the fact 1.5m jobs are being cut?

 

Unemployment fell by 50,000 or so in the last statistics

 

As many if not more jobs will be created as lost over the next few years

 

If I went bust tomorrow I bet I could find a job inside a week even if it was as a waiter, shop assistant, fruit picker, car washer or whatever, sure not glamourous jobs, not well paid but money and self respect

Unemployment fell by 50,000 or so in the last statistics

 

As many if not more jobs will be created as lost over the next few years

 

 

:rofl:

 

It's already been confirmed 1.5m public sector jobs are to be axed over the next 5 years. Do you really think the private sector will be able to create that many jobs - bearing in mind the private sector created only 1.5m jobs between 2000 and 2008, when the economy was booming?

 

 

If I went bust tomorrow I bet I could find a job inside a week even if it was as a waiter, shop assistant, fruit picker, car washer or whatever, sure not glamourous jobs, not well paid but money and self respect

 

Tell you what, if you're so sure you could find a job, and that being in the poorest 10% of society will be so easy, how about you close your business and go stroll down to your shop or car wash and get one of those jobs that are so plentiful? We're all in this together, after all.