Is austerity working- and will it ever end?

[Cyclone]

It certainly didn't happen because of austerity did it.  It would have happened more and faster if that policy didn't exist.

5 hours ago, El Cid said:

If only we knew who is meant to fund those services, the council should be providing essential services, but they are struggling - but they are still providing the non-essential services. Like the big TV screens in the city center.

There should be a clear divide, between what service the Government fund and what services the council provide/fund.

 

We do know and there are.

[Robin-H]

2 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

It certainly didn't happen because of austerity did it.  It would have happened more and faster if that policy didn't exist.

We do know and there are.

Why would it? It might have done, it might have not. 

 

It didnt happen under Labour. Inequality grew. 

[Cyclone]

Well, the evidence from the countries that didn't follow policies of austerity...

We've had this discussion before, I don't know why, but you refuse to accept any criticism of this government regarding the austerity measures.

[bendix]

6 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

Well, the evidence from the countries that didn't follow policies of austerity...

We've had this discussion before, I don't know why, but you refuse to accept any criticism of this government regarding the austerity measures.

Oh come on.  You can't just breezily talk about evidence from the countries that didnt follow policies of austerity and expect us to accept it as fact.  If there is evidence to support what you are saying, post it.

[Cyclone]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/07/imf-austerity-doesnt-work-immigrants-working-class

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/austerity-has-damaged-europe-vs-us-gdp-growth-2018-11?r=US&IR=T

 

https://academic.oup.com/eurpub/article/27/suppl_4/18/4430523

 

https://www.tuc.org.uk/blogs/new-evidence-imf-suggests-austerity-holding-back-wages

 

Right.  Any evidence that austerity actually works.  And no, a moderate increase in equality is not evidence unless you can show that austerity caused it rather than hindering it.

[Robin-H]

11 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

Well, the evidence from the countries that didn't follow policies of austerity...

We've had this discussion before, I don't know why, but you refuse to accept any criticism of this government regarding the austerity measures.

I don’t know why you think I refuse to accept critisicm of austerity measures.

 

I am merely pointing out that despite austerity inequality has decreased and the incomes and disposable incomes of the poorest fifth of people in this country have increased the most. 

 

Ive not claimed that those things are due to austerity, but they are due to policies such as increasing minimum wage above inflation and raising the tax threshold. This has mitigated the worse effects that may have come about by austerity policy and protected the worse off. 

[Cyclone]

2 hours ago, Robin-H said:

Why would it? It might have done, it might have not. 

 

 

I mean, it looks like you're saying that maybe it WAS because of austerity and that we can't say that austerity works against equality.

On 15/03/2019 at 10:50, Robin-H said:

Which makes it even more impressive that at a time of austerity the government have ensured inequality has gone down by increasing the incomes of the poorest and raising the tax burden on the richest.. 

And that the government should be applauded for a moderate increase in equality, which could have been a much greater increase, if not for government policies which directly cause inequality.

On 15/03/2019 at 07:20, Robin-H said:

Income equality has decreased since 2010.  

 

The richest are paying a higher share of the tax than before. 

 

Is that the ‘establishment agenda’.? 

And you're directly arguing against Anna B's point that austerity hit the poorest the hardest;

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/14/austerity-poor-disability-george-osborne-tories

 

Quote

Our analysis shows that, contrary to Alexander’s pledge, changes to taxes and welfare payments since 2010 have indeed hit the poorest hardest, whether you look at the record of the 2010-15 coalition government or that of the Conservative government elected in May 2015. Some changes, such as increases in the personal allowance and the minimum wage, have boosted incomes; but others, especially cuts to benefits and tax credits, more than offset this.

Looking both backward and forward, by 2021-22 the overall impact of all these changes will have been to reduce the net incomes of the poorest fifth of households by about a tenth, on average, while making little or no difference to the incomes of the richest fifth.

 

Quote

Income tax cuts for millions of workers announced in Philip Hammond’s budget will “overwhelmingly benefit richer households”, analysis has found, with almost half set to go to the top 10% of households.

The analysis by the Resolution Foundation (pdf) thinktank found that welfare cuts would continue to affect the poorest households, despite Hammond’s announcement that austerity was coming to an end.

It kind of makes you wonder about those equality figures actually doesn't it.

[Cyclone]

On 15/03/2019 at 07:20, Robin-H said:

Income equality has decreased since 2010.  

 

The richest are paying a higher share of the tax than before. 

 

Is that the ‘establishment agenda’.? 

https://data.oecd.org/inequality/income-inequality.htm

 

Decreased SINCE 2010?  Doesn't look like it.

 

It decreased between 2009 - 2010, and has never been lower than the 2010 figure.

 

It's also still significantly higher than most of our comparable peers.

[Robin-H]

10 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

I mean, it looks like you're saying that maybe it WAS because of austerity and that we can't say that austerity works against equality.

And that the government should be applauded for a moderate increase in equality, which could have been a much greater increase, if not for government policies which directly cause inequality.

And you're directly arguing against Anna B's point that austerity hit the poorest the hardest;

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/14/austerity-poor-disability-george-osborne-tories

 

 

It kind of makes you wonder about those equality figures actually doesn't it.

I never said austerity didn’t hit the poorest the hardest. Please don’t put words in my mouth. 

 

I said the government enacted policies that mitigated against them being hit harder by ensuring that their income increased more than any other group and the poorest have been taken out of paying income tax altogether. 

[Cyclone]

2 hours ago, Robin-H said:

I am merely pointing out that despite austerity inequality has decreased and the incomes and disposable incomes of the poorest fifth of people in this country have increased the most. 

 

Is there a source for this, it's proving fairly difficult to check.

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/813338/average-disposable-income-per-household-uk/

That gives a snapshot now (or recently) of disposable income by decile.  But we need multiple years of data to see if it's increased or decreased.

1 minute ago, Robin-H said:

I never said austerity didn’t hit the poorest the hardest. Please don’t put words in my mouth. 

 

I said the government enacted policies that mitigated against them being hit harder by ensuring that their income increased more than any other group and the poorest have been taken out of paying income tax altogether. 

I don't think I was putting words in your mouth.  

On 15/03/2019 at 00:17, Anna B said:

Austerity was a Tory con. It didn't need to happen. In fact it has added to the problem, but it suited the Tory and Establishment agenda - a further move towards Neoliberalism - every man for himself, winner takes all. Austerity has mostly affected the lower echelons of society and left those nearer the top untouched. In fact during this period of 'Austerity,' the richest have got even richer off the back of it.

No wonder the Tories don't want it to stop, and are therefore at great pains to stop Jeremy Corbyn from getting in.

You specifically told Anna that she was wrong.

Now you appear to be agreeing that it's hit the poorest the hardest.