Is it right that the Government are punishing the poor the most?

[hitch_1980]

For some perspective if you look at graph 1 here you can see that under Labour the poorest 10% of society have seen their wealth decline whilst everyone else has seen their wealth grow.

 

http://www.poverty.org.uk/09/index.shtml

 

I suppose the graph would hide benefits from improved services the poorest will have disproportionately benefited from.

 

But none of that justifies the ConDems putting the boot in to the poorest and most vulnerable in society. And the IFS study only looks at the impact of the budget on tax and benefits. The 40% cuts in Govt services they are investigating haven't even been factored in.

 

The ConDems seem to be doing all they can to fast track us to a third world economy with the huge divides between rich and poor that characterise them.

 

Do you mean the lowest paid or the unemployed? when you state " poorest and most vulnerable in society". The reason I ask is I know alot of people who are fed up of the benefits culture. So in my eyes, reducing the benefits to below the minmum wage maybe a good thing.

[Grandad.Malky]

What i'd ike to know is why Hitch, working in the public sector, felt he couldn't vote Labour (or even Liberal).........

 

If he was born in 1980 he wouldn’t be old enough to remember life under a Tory government …………….. he’ll learn.

[Wildcat]

I see a respected organisation has reached the same conclusion that a lot of us have been saying for a while and that is that the Budget attacked the poor and vulnerable more than any other group.

 

At the risk of stating the obvious, shouldn't we be looking to make those making a lot of money a bit more worse off as opposed to attacking these people.

 

Still as Nick puts it, "It's only a partial report" which I think means he doesn't deny it is accurate and he'd like to draw attention on to other areas.

 

Anyway, should they be hitting the poor, those above Benefit levels, or the very rich.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11086137

 

Did our Nick really say it is only a partial report?

 

He really has sold his soul to the dark side. The partial report on the budget is the one the Govt is using because they only factored in 2/3rds of the cuts from the budget with their figures. It is including the concealed third that has taken the IFS so long to get right. The IFS report is the most complete report of the impact of the budget.

 

He could be partly correct in that one of the impacts of the budget will be the 40% cuts in expenditure asked of the non-ringfenced parts of the public sector. These will be announced in the Autumn but you can bet whatever you can afford cuts in services aren't going to prevent this being a regressive budget since they won't affect the richest in society... if anything they will be better off as the cuts will mean lighter enforcement of their tax avoidance.

 

http://www.touchstoneblog.org.uk/2010/08/ifs-analysis-is-not-selective-treasury-model-only-included-two-thirds-of-benefit-and-tax-credit-changes/

[hitch_1980]

As i've said a million times before on these forums....try constructive criticism! Most people on here have slated the Tories & that's fair enough, you're entitled to your opinions.

 

What i'd ike to know is why Hitch, working in the public sector, felt he couldn't vote Labour (or even Liberal).....whcih according to most on here are supposedly better at running public services....

 

My reason for not voting labour was that I had lost all confidence in them, and that brown came across as someone who could not lead a party. The only way to remove him, was to remove a whole party. If labour had stayed, and then removed brown, and brought in someone else, it would have been a kick in the teeth as it would have been another unelected prime minister.

 

edit: and Mandleson was still there....who I dont like as a politician.

[hitch_1980]

If he was born in 1980 he wouldn’t be old enough to remember life under a Tory government …………….. he’ll learn.

 

For labours loss, and your predicted "DOOOOOOM"....blame labour themselves, rather than the Tories.

 

(see my previous post for why)

[Wildcat]

Do you mean the lowest paid or the unemployed? when you state " poorest and most vulnerable in society". The reason I ask is I know alot of people who are fed up of the benefits culture. So in my eyes, reducing the benefits to below the minmum wage maybe a good thing.

 

I mean the lowest paid and the unemployed. If you are earning around £12k or less the impact of the tax changes on you will be around 5% of income...... that compared with around 1% for the richest 10%.

[wednesday1]

It was Thatcher who solved the problems, and there are still a lot of people who'd rather complain that the medicine tasted nasty, than bother to think about why we had to take it.

 

 

 

:hihi: tell me one good thing the Tories did for the NHS? HN

[Wildcat]

My reason for not voting labour was that I had lost all confidence in them, and that brown came across as someone who could not lead a party. The only way to remove him, was to remove a whole party. If labour had stayed, and then removed brown, and brought in someone else, it would have been a kick in the teeth as it would have been another unelected prime minister.

 

We never elect Prime Ministers.

 

Who voted for the Cleggeron?

[Grandad.Malky]

For labours loss, and your predicted "DOOOOOOM"....blame labour themselves, rather than the Tories.

 

(see my previous post for why)

 

I must admit I cant see why they backed Brown until the end.

[hitch_1980]

I mean the lowest paid and the unemployed. If you are earning around £12k or less the impact of the tax changes on you will be around 5% of income...... that compared with around 1% for the richest 10%.

 

Do you think its right that people on benefits (not including disability) should not recieve higher than the minimum wage?