I ❤ JustinBieber

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

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

Not a bad group tbh for us Inter won't be as strong without Jose and Werder/Twente are beatable

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

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

Shelli you are a legend :D you should post in this section more :)

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

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.

Nothing I can add to what euro music and Shelli added ^_^

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***.

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.

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

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

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

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 would just go ahead with the cuts anyways, what are the courts going to do ? they are hardly going to jail the chancellor, after that I would put legislation before the house to scrap the act and if the house vote it down use the royal perogative that gives the government the right to veto parliamentary decisions, it is ridiculous, a nonsense that this act should get in the way of nuking the deficit. I don't deny that the poor will lose out with these measures, do I take any satisfaction out of it ? no, but these measures that were bought in to nuke the deficit are for the greater good, quicker the deficit is tackled quicker jobs can be created and taxes can be cut then everyone benefits including the poor. 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:

Labour did far more to squeeze the working poor (scrapping the 10p tax band for example) than this government has ever done or ever will do, Labour have no moral right to call themselves the champion of the poor

A Robin Hood tax on the banks would lead to even less lending to businesses than there is now, instead of a Robin Hood tax I would impose on banks a minimum % of their revenue has to be lent to businesses (they are not doing anywhere near enough to help businesses) if they do not reach that minimum then 50% of their profits or whatever have to be given to the treasury, that gives them a carrot and stick approach and businesses are ultimately what will get us out of this mess. Again I have no objection to the closing of all tax loopholes, were I an MP and that came before the house I would vote in favour of it I would go further than you and impose a windfall tax on energy companies and oil companies, they are taking the p*** out of us with obscene prices while at the same time lining their pockets. Again I would have no objection to the likes of Ashcroft being hammered. But I am against the idea of 60% tax on the very high earners, I would have no objection at 500k or 1m but £250k includes a lot of doctors, surgeons, scientists, engineers, company directors, sports people and so on, taxing them highly would be counter productive, footballers for example if all the best ones left the premiership because of tax rates then that would not be a good thing because of the revenue that they generate, the typical F1 senior engineers and designers all earn over £250k, would it be good for this country if they left the country ? motor racing alone in this country and the spin off services employ over 100,000 people in this country, doctors/surgeons/scientists etc would leave the country for countries with lower tax. Raising tax so high at £250k would be counter productive.

That isn't going to happen, the IMF not long ago praised us for taking measures to curb the debt, even the report that was put on here yesterday was a misleading headline and the danger of it happening are minimal not to mention countries like USA and Germany who are more powerful than us were mentioned.

Can a mod delete this thread please :blush:

The country can't spend what it hasn't got, I would love a utopia where everyone works, where everyone is happy, where everyone is healthy, where fluffy bunnies hop majestically through the fields but instead we have harsh economic realities having come through the deepest recession for over 70 years, the country can't afford to spend like it has and to borrow like it has, harsh economic realities, if the budget is overturned in court there is 2 choices 1) Keep things as they are and slide deeper and deeper into debt 2) Scrap the cuts in services and raise income tax steeply Both of those measures are economic suicide, I bet these Unison workers will be the first to complain when their income tax is put up by 10p, I bet the lawyers who are bringing the case against Osborne to court will be the first to complain when Osborne scraps the budget and instead puts another 10p on top rate tax

Sometimes things have to be done for the greater good as opposed to being hamstrung by political correctness or legal technicalities. Take the disabled for instance, no genuinely disabled person will be having benefits cut, those that are faking and trying it on and playing the system will lose out but the happiest people at that happening should be the genuinely disabled themselves as the fakers and shirkers are getting genuinely disabled tarred with the same brush

You can keep your Messi and your Ronaldo and your Drogba and your Rooney, Peter Crouch is the f***ing best :cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :wub: :wub: :wub: :wub: :D :D :D :D :D Championssssssssssssssssssssss Leagueeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 2010 We did it :D:D:D:D:D:D

Being a company owner I have no doubt that I will have to cut prices quite substantially in order to gain contract renewals, the majority of my clients renew next year, with the economy likely to result in belt tightening I am expecting my revenues to drop by 1/3 so likewise my salary I pay myself will have to probably go down by 1/3 In the last financial year I took a salary of 44k, next year I will be lucky if I pay myself 30k if I have to cut prices at the level I expect to have to so don't be under any illusion, I will be swallowing plenty of the bitter tasting medicine But as a businessman I believe that the long term gain out of the deficit reduction will be substantial, much more scope for massive tax reductions which is the one thing that boosts the economy more than anything IMHO

The world has changed since Maggie's era Danny We have emerging super powers in the form of China (forecast to become the worlds most powerful economic nation in the next 30 years), India, Russia, a revitalised Germany etc, unless Britain takes action to be competitive and a powerful economy we will lose out big time and getting rid of the debt will make us a more stable country economically and thus more attractive to businesses and to deals with India, China, Russia etc, just because other countries have debt doesn't mean we should clobbering the debt which costs us billions a year in interest alone will give more scope for dramatic tax reductions which will make our country more dynamic, more prosperous and more attractive to the emerging superpowers to deal with when the tax cuts come at the end of the debt reduction. There will be short term pain, next year will be tough, the following year even tougher I am under no illusion there but it is best that the patient swallows some bitter tasting nasty medicine if long term health is the end result.