The 2010 Emergency Budget thread

[Grahame]

Explain to me why people should pay more for a product just because of how much they earn?

 

Same product = same price for everyone regardless of income.

 

They don't pay more. If the VAT is twenty pounds then that is what everyone pays, rich or poor. But if one person earns £100.00 per week and someone else earns £500.00 per week, the high earner will find it much easier to pay £20.00 than the person who is on a low wage.

 

The high earner will only be paying 1/25 of their wage, while the low earner will be paying 1/4 of their wage.

[JFKvsNixon]

They don't pay more. If the VAT is twenty pounds then that is what everyone pays, rich or poor. But if one person earns £100.00 per week and someone else earns £500.00 per week, the high earner will find it much easier to pay £20.00 than the person who is on a low wage.

 

The high earner will only be paying 1/25 of their wage, while the low earner will be paying 1/4 of their wage.

 

Wouldn't the higher earner buy more expensive products and as such pay more VAT?

[Grahame]

Wouldn't the higher earner buy more expensive products and as such pay more VAT?

 

Again that is another smack in the teeth for the low earner isn't it?

 

The rich person drives round in a Rolls Royce while the poor person drives round in an old banger. Admittedly the rich person has paid more but they can afford it and probably still have money in the bank?

 

So again in percentage terms the poor person has an inferior product and is skint, while the rich person lives in luxury and has money in the bank?

 

How even-handed is that? Mind you that is a different issue really isn't it about the gap in earnings?

[llamatron]

I've made no claims about fairness or otherwise.

 

The fact remains that the amount of VAT paid on and item by someone on a low income is proprtionately higher than that paid by someone on a high income. Which is why I said "disproportionately".

 

what are you talking about-it is exactly the same.

[Dogs Of War]

roads left to crumble and so on.

 

 

where have you been , sheffield`s roads crumbled years ago ,so any less money spent on them now wont make any difference.

[Wildcat]

The Chartered Institute of Personnel Director's (CIPD), the professional body that HR professionals joins statement on this is that the budget will prolong and make the recession worse.

 

“The Chancellor has introduced what must surely rank as the most astonishing UK budget statement in modern times. Mr Osborne’s combination of £32 billion additional spending cuts by 2014-15 and an £8 billion net tax hike amounts to an unprecedented fiscal squeeze, including an extremely severe clampdown on the welfare bill. Yet both he and the independent Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) reckon there is a greater than evens chance that the government will meet what the Chancellor calls its ‘fiscal mandate’ with barely any serious short-term impact on economic growth and employment.

 

“Although the OBR* has downgraded its pre-Budget economic growth forecasts in the light of Mr Osborne’s austerity measures, and become a bit more pessimistic about jobs, the suggested outlook for the economy is nonetheless remarkably rosy, with investment and net exports more than making up for weak household spending and a big drop in public spending. The Chancellor could hardly have asked for more had he and his Treasury team stuck with tradition and come up with the forecast themselves.

 

“One suspects, however, that the forecast outlook will prove too good to be true. The fiscal squeeze both at home and across the eurozone will curb the demand for the goods and services that ultimately drives business investment and exports. Economic growth will slow by far more than today’s budget suggests and, rather than peaking at 8% this year, unemployment will continue to rise toward 3 million (10%) by the time Mr Osborne’s measures take full effect. This will add to public borrowing and debt, not reduce it. The 2010 Emergency Budget is not the beginning of the end of the UK’s post-recession economic difficulty but the start of a period of painfully slow growth, falling living standards, and prolonged high unemployment.”

 

http://www.touchstoneblog.org.uk/2010/06/cipd-stick-the-boot-in/#more-8242

 

*Note the OBR the Tories are relying on for their forecasts that is supposedly independent was set up by them in opposition... no wonder their projections are so favourable to the Tories then..

[JFKvsNixon]

Again that is another smack in the teeth for the low earner isn't it?

 

The rich person drives round in a Rolls Royce while the poor person drives round in an old banger. Admittedly the rich person has paid more but they can afford it and probably still have money in the bank?

 

So again in percentage terms the poor person has an inferior product and is skint, while the rich person lives in luxury and has money in the bank?

 

How even-handed is that? Mind you that is a different issue really isn't it about the gap in earnings?

 

Why is it a smack in the teeth for the poor that people buy the goods and services that they can afford? Why should I feel aggrieved if I purchased a TV for £500 and the person in the queue behind me purchases a TV for £2500?

 

They be paying more in tax I did mind you.

[llamatron]

Again that is another smack in the teeth for the low earner isn't it?

 

The rich person drives round in a Rolls Royce while the poor person drives round in an old banger. Admittedly the rich person has paid more but they can afford it and probably still have money in the bank?

 

So again in percentage terms the poor person has an inferior product and is skint, while the rich person lives in luxury and has money in the bank?

 

How even-handed is that? Mind you that is a different issue really isn't it about the gap in earnings?

 

So what, maybe the rich person works harder.

 

Noone has the right to a car, the right to a telly if you can't afford it don't buy it.

[Grahame]

Why is it a smack in the teeth for the poor that people buy the goods and services that they can afford? Why should I feel aggrieved if I purchased a TV for £500 and the person in the queue behind me purchases a TV for £2500?

 

They be paying more in tax I did mind you.

 

Have a nice evening.

[Guest sibon]

what are you talking about-it is exactly the same.

 

I'm talking about proportion, which you pulled me up about. Despite the fact that you don't seem to understand it.

 

Grahame has it nailed up there ^^^

 

Perhaps you should nip back and read my posts properly.