Tough economic times ahead for the masses

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

To counter what I'm sure was dune's attempt to distract you all from a bad news day for the Condem gonverment, it has come to light that Osbourne's budget does indeed hit the poorest hardest...what a suprise!

 

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has labelled his budget as 'clearly regressive'. The IFS has stated that "Once all of the benefit cuts are considered, the tax and benefit changes announced in the emergency budget are clearly regressive as, on average, they hit the poorest households more than those in the upper middle of the income distribution in cash, let alone percentage, terms."

 

This could certainly cause some 'rocking of the boat' by back bench Lib Dems couldn't it; so much for 'we're all in this together'.

 

Read in more depth here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/aug/25/poor-families-bear-brunt-of-austerity-drive

 

and here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1305877/Budget-hit-poor-families-hardest-Changes-cost-poorest-households-423-year.html

 

Note that I included the Heil article so that our right wing members can't scream "It's all a commie plot!"

 

May I also just add, as I am sure it will be mentioned, that I don't think I've ever said that cuts were not needed but that if cuts 'have to happen' then they should be done in areas which would not impact on the lives of people who had nothing to do with the collapse of the system.

[Gingeletiss]

Perhaps they should take a leaf out of my book then..........tighten their belts! No pay rise in two and a half years, a pay cut last year, and loss of holiday, in real terms, worse off than at any point in nearly ten years. Why the hell should they in any way, not feel the effects of Labours overspending, they were quick enough to hold their hands out for the last 13 years. Boo Hoo!

[CB Saint]

To counter what I'm sure was dune's attempt to distract you all from a bad news day for the Condem gonverment, it has come to light that Osbourne's budget does indeed hit the poorest hardest...what a suprise!

 

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has labelled his budget as 'clearly regressive'. The IFS has stated that "Once all of the benefit cuts are considered, the tax and benefit changes announced in the emergency budget are clearly regressive as, on average, they hit the poorest households more than those in the upper middle of the income distribution in cash, let alone percentage, terms."

 

This could certainly cause some 'rocking of the boat' by back bench Lib Dems couldn't it; so much for 'we're all in this together'.

 

Read in more depth here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/aug/25/poor-families-bear-brunt-of-austerity-drive

 

and here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1305877/Budget-hit-poor-families-hardest-Changes-cost-poorest-households-423-year.html

 

Note that I included the Heil article so that our right wing members can't scream "It's all a commie plot!"

 

May I also just add, as I am sure it will be mentioned, that I don't think I've ever said that cuts were not needed but that if cuts 'have to happen' then they should be done in areas which would not impact on the lives of people who had nothing to do with the collapse of the system.

 

and these are? Cuts in public spending will never impact the bankers - they have private health, pensions, schools etc etc.

[thefunkygibbons]

People are gullible if they think all of the problems were caused by the banks

 

Sure there were big problems there

 

However, the root of the problem was over spending by the Blair and Brown governments and a failure to put aside reserves when times were good

[dune]

People are gullible if they think all of the problems were caused by the banks

 

Sure there were big problems there

 

However, the root of the problem was over spending by the Blair and Brown governments and a failure to put aside reserves when times were good

 

Precisely. When Brown sold our gold reserves at a rock bottom price, against the advice of experts, it sums up the Socialists handling of public finances.

[Clapham Saint]

People are gullible if they think all of the problems were caused by the banks

 

Sure there were big problems there

 

However, the root of the problem was over spending by the Blair and Brown governments and a failure to put aside reserves when times were good

 

Iron Chancellor my hairy ****

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

@Dune

 

Sorry but you sound such a mong with all this "socialists" talk. Do you really think Labour under Blair were socialist? BTW being to the "left" of you doesn't mean they were socialist.

[Special K]

To counter what I'm sure was dune's attempt to distract you all from a bad news day for the Condem gonverment, it has come to light that Osbourne's budget does indeed hit the poorest hardest...what a suprise!

 

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has labelled his budget as 'clearly regressive'. The IFS has stated that "Once all of the benefit cuts are considered, the tax and benefit changes announced in the emergency budget are clearly regressive as, on average, they hit the poorest households more than those in the upper middle of the income distribution in cash, let alone percentage, terms."

 

This could certainly cause some 'rocking of the boat' by back bench Lib Dems couldn't it; so much for 'we're all in this together'.

 

Read in more depth here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/aug/25/poor-families-bear-brunt-of-austerity-drive

 

and here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1305877/Budget-hit-poor-families-hardest-Changes-cost-poorest-households-423-year.html

 

Note that I included the Heil article so that our right wing members can't scream "It's all a commie plot!"

 

May I also just add, as I am sure it will be mentioned, that I don't think I've ever said that cuts were not needed but that if cuts 'have to happen' then they should be done in areas which would not impact on the lives of people who had nothing to do with the collapse of the system.

 

It seems obvious to me that any cut will affect poor people more, simply because they have less to start with and any cut will affect them greater. I don't need the IFS to tell me that and also don't want to hear a load of whinging Labour politicians bleat on ad infinitum about it. Trouble is, politicians seek to make political gain out of any story that suits their short term argument and the information sometimes gets twisted.

 

I don't agree that there are a bunch of poor people who had nothing to do with a collapse of "the system". If you are referring to the credit tightening that the banks imposed, part of the result was because "poor people" (and i use the term loosely) borrowed more than they could pay back. There is an element of personal responsibility which appears to be lost in the excuse-finding event of trying to find scapegoats.

 

Having said that, the Banks have been bloody lucky; quantitative easing simply went to repair their balance sheets and they got away with royally screwing over a great many people and businesses in the process. Whilst they are now (generally) back in the black, the legacy of their opportunism will continue to affect an ever increasing number of individuals.

[Weston Super Saint]

 

May I also just add, as I am sure it will be mentioned, that I don't think I've ever said that cuts were not needed but that if cuts 'have to happen' then they should be done in areas which would not impact on the lives of people who had nothing to do with the collapse of the system.

 

So, those millions of people who borrowed money from the banks and defaulted on their loans / mortgages, and those who had no intention to pay in the first place, had no contribution to the collapse whatsoever? Sub-prime anyone?

 

Not laying the blame solely at their doors, as I'm sure they were just taking advantage of loopholes in the system, but at the same time you can't exonerate them from any of the blame.

[$$$]

Meh. There are far more important things to worry about...

 

http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=990390

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UVB-76

http://www.uvb-76.net/

http://uk3-pn.mixstream.net/8026.m3u

 

[1976_Child]

The best, quickest and healthiest way to save money is to either quit eating meat altogether or to cut right back. I used to spend about £150 a month on food. Now I have stopped eating meat at home I am spending only about £60 a month on food. Seriously. £60. Make me own bread, by hand, eat a lot of lentils, beans and vegies. A much healthier diet and a huge saving too.

 

I still enjoy a meat pie on a match day. Well, I used to until NC confiscated all the pies from SMS.

[Whitey Grandad]

It takes far less land to grow food than it does to grow meat. The trouble with this veggie stuff is... ...it tastes like sh!t.

[1976_Child]

It takes far less land to grow food than it does to grow meat. The trouble with this veggie stuff is... ...it tastes like sh!t.

 

Agree RE land. But proper veggie cooking doesn't need to taste sh!t. I have mastered the art of cooking a red bean Jamaican curry. Have it once a week now. Do a big slow cooker worth and it goes three meals for less than £1 per meal.

[1976_Child]

Another good money saving tip, if you live alone in a small flat, is not to turn the light on in the bathroom when you take a slash. Just leave the door open and let the light from the rest of the house guide your urine to the bowl. Same with taking a dump. Every little helps

[benjii]

It seems obvious to me that any cut will affect poor people more, simply because they have less to start with and any cut will affect them greater. I don't need the IFS to tell me that and also don't want to hear a load of whinging Labour politicians bleat on ad infinitum about it. Trouble is, politicians seek to make political gain out of any story that suits their short term argument and the information sometimes gets twisted.

 

I don't agree that there are a bunch of poor people who had nothing to do with a collapse of "the system". If you are referring to the credit tightening that the banks imposed, part of the result was because "poor people" (and i use the term loosely) borrowed more than they could pay back. There is an element of personal responsibility which appears to be lost in the excuse-finding event of trying to find scapegoats.

 

Having said that, the Banks have been bloody lucky; quantitative easing simply went to repair their balance sheets and they got away with royally screwing over a great many people and businesses in the process. Whilst they are now (generally) back in the black, the legacy of their opportunism will continue to affect an ever increasing number of individuals.

 

Exactly right.

 

What does the country need to do - cut public spending.

Who benefits the most from public spending - the "poor".

Therefore who is, correctly and justifiably, going to be "hit" hardest - the "poor". No more Sky Sports, bookies and fags.

 

That last bit was a joke. I know most people are responsible and brilliant and hard-working. It was a joke, just a joke.

 

Seriously though, the main problem facing the country is over-spending. It is inevitable, natural and sensible that those who benefit the most from this spending will lose out a bit. And if you're going to say "why should the poor pay for the bankers' mistakes?", then it (notwithstanding whether it's a silly question or not) is just as valid to ask "why should the rich.."? One is no fairer than the other (most "rich" are not bankers, never will be and had nothing to do with any bad banking practice) and there is, frankly, a logical disconnect there anyway.

[1976_Child]

Seriously though, the main problem facing the country is over-spending. It is inevitable, natural and sensible that those who benefit the most from this spending will lose out a bit. And if you're going to say "why should the poor pay for the bankers' mistakes?", then it (notwithstanding whether it's a silly question or not) is just as valid to ask "why should the rich.."? One is no fairer than the other (most "rich" are not bankers, never will be and had nothing to do with any bad banking practice) and there is, frankly, a logical disconnect there anyway.

 

Agree-ish. The main problem facing the country is that housing is still WAY too over priced and wages are not even keeping up with inflation. Housing needs to fall by at least another 40% here in the South before household budgets start to add up. Not much fun if you already own a house, but when it is still cheaper to rent than to buy something is not correct in the market. Take my flat for instance. If I were to buy this place now I would need a mortgage of a minimum of £145,000 and a deposit of £25,000 to get to the 'market' price. To convince the bank to lend me the dosh I would need an income of £35,000 minimum and the monthly repayment at the LOWEST rates in history would still be more than the rent I am paying. So why bother,especially as at the moment I have no responsibility for maintenance. Anyway you cut it, the housing market is still way, way over priced.

Edited 25 August, 2010 by 1976_Child

[AndyNorthernSaints]

Another good money saving tip, if you live alone in a small flat, is not to turn the light on in the bathroom when you take a slash. Just leave the door open and let the light from the rest of the house guide your urine to the bowl. Same with taking a dump. Every little helps

 

Is this a Viz top tips thread?

 

If so

 

Frozen sprouts make a good cheap alternative to boiled sweets and they don't rot your teeth.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Instead of sniping on the sidelines perhaps some of the lefties will give us some practical policies that would pay off the deficit in a way that doesn't effect the poor.If taxing the rich at 80% was the answer, then we wouldn't have needed Mrs Thatcher to repair the economy after the previous Labour Govt ran out of money as well.

[RonManager]

Is this a Viz top tips thread? If so

Frozen sprouts make a good cheap alternative to boiled sweets and they don't rot your teeth.

 

Here's another one -

 

SAVE MONEY on newspapers by watching the evening news, writing down what they say, then reading it back tomorrow.

[bridge too far]

Interestingly, it's just been reported on BBC News that countries that have taken a similar stance to the ConDems to address their deficits have seen the gap between rich and poor grow even wider.

[AndyNorthernSaints]

Here's another one -

 

SAVE MONEY on newspapers by watching the evening news, writing down what they say, then reading it back tomorrow.

 

SAVE MONEY on milk by not reporting your neighbour's death. You can even leave a note for their milkman to bring more expensive items like chicken or spuds.

[Weston Super Saint]

Interestingly, it's just been reported on BBC News that countries that have taken a similar stance to the ConDems to address their deficits have seen the gap between rich and poor grow even wider.

 

Interestingly, I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, nor should it be the Govt's highest priority....

[badgerx16]

Instead of sniping on the sidelines perhaps some of the lefties will give us some practical policies that would pay off the deficit in a way that doesn't effect the poor.If taxing the rich at 80% was the answer, then we wouldn't have needed Mrs Thatcher to repair the economy after the previous Labour Govt ran out of money as well.

Stop Trident; stop the pointless super carriers; cut back on the Typhoon fighter order; tax on bank profits ( not a windfall, an annual tithe ); transaction tax on the stock market ( a fraction of a % won't hurt ); cut back on 'universal benefits' such as child tax credits ( people on over £50k pa don't need it ); stop MP's second homes; move all major whitehall departments out of London; surcharge on premier league club turnover; 35% VAT on chelsea tractors and on their fuel consumption; +2p on income tax between £30k pa & £70K, +5p thereafter; tax on all residential properties in the UK owned by non UK tax payers, ( including non-doms ); tax on second / holiday homes. VAT at +5% over normal on 'luxury' goods.

 

And the main ones; try for a maximum of 12% budget cuts rather than 25%, and pay the deficit off a couple of years later. Also, gtf out of Afghanistan.

Edited 25 August, 2010 by badgerx16

[dune]

Interestingly, it's just been reported on BBC News that countries that have taken a similar stance to the ConDems to address their deficits have seen the gap between rich and poor grow even wider.

 

If the Socialists hadn't left the cupboard bare prior to the crisis we wouldn't be in the mess we are now. I think we should all be thankful that we now have a government that is putting Britain back on its feet.

[rocknrollman no2]

Stop Trident; stop the pointless super carriers; cut back on the Typhoon fighter order; tax on bank profits ( not a windfall, an annual tithe ); transaction tax on the stock market ( a fraction of a % won't hurt ); cut back on 'universal benefits' such as child tax credits ( people on over £50k pa don't need it ); stop MP's second homes; move all major whitehall departments out of London; surcharge on premier league club turnover; 35% VAT on chelsea tractors and on their fuel consumption; +2p on income tax between £30k pa & £70K, +5p thereafter; tax on all residential properties in the UK owned by non UK tax payers, ( including non-doms ); tax on second / holiday homes. VAT at +5% over normal on 'luxury' goods.

 

And the main ones; try for a maximum of 12% budget cuts rather than 25%, and pay the deficit off a couple of years later. Also, gtf out of Afghanistan.

 

Blimey badger your proposals sound a lot better than the ones put in place by the Condem government.

Get into polictics and i will vote for you!!

[solentstars]

Stop Trident; stop the pointless super carriers; cut back on the Typhoon fighter order; tax on bank profits ( not a windfall, an annual tithe ); transaction tax on the stock market ( a fraction of a % won't hurt ); cut back on 'universal benefits' such as child tax credits ( people on over £50k pa don't need it ); stop MP's second homes; move all major whitehall departments out of London; surcharge on premier league club turnover; 35% VAT on chelsea tractors and on their fuel consumption; +2p on income tax between £30k pa & £70K, +5p thereafter; tax on all residential properties in the UK owned by non UK tax payers, ( including non-doms ); tax on second / holiday homes. VAT at +5% over normal on 'luxury' goods.

 

And the main ones; try for a maximum of 12% budget cuts rather than 25%, and pay the deficit off a couple of years later. Also, gtf out of Afghanistan.

 

good post makes alot of sense seeing it was the bankers who caused the world wide recession ,

[aintforever]

Stop Trident; stop the pointless super carriers; cut back on the Typhoon fighter order; tax on bank profits ( not a windfall, an annual tithe ); transaction tax on the stock market ( a fraction of a % won't hurt ); cut back on 'universal benefits' such as child tax credits ( people on over £50k pa don't need it ); stop MP's second homes; move all major whitehall departments out of London; surcharge on premier league club turnover; 35% VAT on chelsea tractors and on their fuel consumption; +2p on income tax between £30k pa & £70K, +5p thereafter; tax on all residential properties in the UK owned by non UK tax payers, ( including non-doms ); tax on second / holiday homes. VAT at +5% over normal on 'luxury' goods.

 

And the main ones; try for a maximum of 12% budget cuts rather than 25%, and pay the deficit off a couple of years later. Also, gtf out of Afghanistan.

 

Can't argue with any of that.

[Redbul]

Stop Trident; stop the pointless super carriers; cut back on the Typhoon fighter order; tax on bank profits ( not a windfall, an annual tithe ); transaction tax on the stock market ( a fraction of a % won't hurt ); cut back on 'universal benefits' such as child tax credits ( people on over £50k pa don't need it ); stop MP's second homes; move all major whitehall departments out of London; surcharge on premier league club turnover; 35% VAT on chelsea tractors and on their fuel consumption; +2p on income tax between £30k pa & £70K, +5p thereafter; tax on all residential properties in the UK owned by non UK tax payers, ( including non-doms ); tax on second / holiday homes. VAT at +5% over normal on 'luxury' goods.

 

And the main ones; try for a maximum of 12% budget cuts rather than 25%, and pay the deficit off a couple of years later. Also, gtf out of Afghanistan.

 

F***, you've got my vote!!!!

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

Stop Trident; stop the pointless super carriers; cut back on the Typhoon fighter order; tax on bank profits ( not a windfall, an annual tithe ); transaction tax on the stock market ( a fraction of a % won't hurt ); cut back on 'universal benefits' such as child tax credits ( people on over £50k pa don't need it ); stop MP's second homes; move all major whitehall departments out of London; surcharge on premier league club turnover; 35% VAT on chelsea tractors and on their fuel consumption; +2p on income tax between £30k pa & £70K, +5p thereafter; tax on all residential properties in the UK owned by non UK tax payers, ( including non-doms ); tax on second / holiday homes. VAT at +5% over normal on 'luxury' goods.

 

And the main ones; try for a maximum of 12% budget cuts rather than 25%, and pay the deficit off a couple of years later. Also, gtf out of Afghanistan.

 

I would vote for this

[dune]

Stop Trident; stop the pointless super carriers; cut back on the Typhoon fighter order; tax on bank profits ( not a windfall, an annual tithe ); transaction tax on the stock market ( a fraction of a % won't hurt ); cut back on 'universal benefits' such as child tax credits ( people on over £50k pa don't need it ); stop MP's second homes; move all major whitehall departments out of London; surcharge on premier league club turnover; 35% VAT on chelsea tractors and on their fuel consumption; +2p on income tax between £30k pa & £70K, +5p thereafter; tax on all residential properties in the UK owned by non UK tax payers, ( including non-doms ); tax on second / holiday homes. VAT at +5% over normal on 'luxury' goods.

 

And the main ones; try for a maximum of 12% budget cuts rather than 25%, and pay the deficit off a couple of years later. Also, gtf out of Afghanistan.

 

I agree with a few of your ideas but disagree with most of them (red i disagree, green i agree). I would raise VAT accross the board to 25% for a few years - it'd be painful but it'd be worth it.

[badgerx16]

Blimey badger your proposals sound a lot better than the ones put in place by the Condem government.

Get into polictics and i will vote for you!!

I wouldn't sell my principles for a share of power. ( Nick Clegg please note ).

[badgerx16]

I agree with a few of your ideas but disagree with most of them (red i disagree, green i agree)..

Fair's fair, I probably disagree with all of your political dogma.

[Jonnyboy]

Stop Trident; stop the pointless super carriers; cut back on the Typhoon fighter order; tax on bank profits ( not a windfall, an annual tithe ); transaction tax on the stock market ( a fraction of a % won't hurt ); cut back on 'universal benefits' such as child tax credits ( people on over £50k pa don't need it ); stop MP's second homes; move all major whitehall departments out of London; surcharge on premier league club turnover; 35% VAT on chelsea tractors and on their fuel consumption; +2p on income tax between £30k pa & £70K, +5p thereafter; tax on all residential properties in the UK owned by non UK tax payers, ( including non-doms ); tax on second / holiday homes. VAT at +5% over normal on 'luxury' goods.

 

And the main ones; try for a maximum of 12% budget cuts rather than 25%, and pay the deficit off a couple of years later. Also, gtf out of Afghanistan.

 

[1976_Child]

Instead of sniping on the sidelines perhaps some of the lefties will give us some practical policies that would pay off the deficit in a way that doesn't effect the poor.If taxing the rich at 80% was the answer, then we wouldn't have needed Mrs Thatcher to repair the economy after the previous Labour Govt ran out of money as well.

 

My good Lord Hunter of Ducks,

 

One does not pay off the deficit. One pays off the debt. One may attempt to reduce the difference between what one earns and what one spends so as to address the problem of the deficit but ultimately one's endeavors will come to nought. You see, we have a debt based monetary system which is fueled by a fractional reserve banking system employing usury which in turn relies upon the never-never not ever-ever understanding that infinite exponential growth upon a finite planet is simply not possible.

Edited 26 August, 2010 by 1976_Child

[OldNick]

My good Lord Hunter of Ducks,

 

One does not pay off the deficit. One pays off the debt. One may attempt to reduce the difference between what one earns and what one spends so as to address the problem of the deficit but ultimately one's endeavors will come to nought. You see, we have a debt based monetary system which is fueled by a fractional reserve banking system employing usury which in turn relies upon the never-never not ever-ever understanding that infinite exponential growth upon a finite planet is simply not possible.

and also a society that in the main does not know the first thing about budgeting. It is obvious that if you earn 100 but borrow 150 you are in trouble, sadly our last government did not understand this and the population followed behind.

[OldNick]

. VAT at +5% over normal on 'luxury' goods.

 

.

could you tell us what you class as luxury goods?

[dune]

and also a society that in the main does not know the first thing about budgeting. It is obvious that if you earn 100 but borrow 150 you are in trouble, sadly our last government did not understand this and the population followed behind.

 

You're right there Nick, Brown led by example. I hope that the lesson has now been learnt and we do what previous generations did by saving for luxury items and not expecting them on the spot and paying for them later. This is common sense as far as i'm concerned.

[badgerx16]

could you tell us what you class as luxury goods?

Most jewelry sold ( other than by H Samuel ); cars advertised as capable of more than 130 MPH, having engines above 150 BHP, or only having 2 seats; first class travel tickets; all champagne and 'snobby' wine; anything with a 'designer' label; any meal at a restaurant displaying or aspiring to a Michelin star; all 4 & 5 star hotel accommodation; premier league club shop sales; any private practice plastic surgery that is not for a clinically justifiable purpose.

 

There's a good start.

[dune]

all champagne and 'snobby' wine.

 

What do you class as "snobby" wine? I am assuming you're a blue nun/black tower drinker.

[badgerx16]

What do you class as "snobby" wine? I am assuming you're a blue nun/black tower drinker.

Don't drink wine at all. In fact my total alcohol 'units' per month is probably about 2. I was asked to give my views of what constitutes a "luxury", and I personally would view paying more than about £15 a bottle as 'snobby', after all it's only going to end up being p!ssed down the lavatory.

[ZebadeeRust]

It's likely that it would cost the government more to cancel the production of the 2 Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers than to actually complete them.

The financial penalties for breaking the contracts makes cancelling them almost impossible now. Its Probably why there are rumours that the second carrier may be sold to India, at a loss, to recoup some of the costs.

[badgerx16]

It's likely that it would cost the government more to cancel the production of the 2 Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers than to actually complete them.

The financial penalties for breaking the contracts makes cancelling them almost impossible now. Its Probably why there are rumours that the second carrier may be sold to India, at a loss, to recoup some of the costs.

The Government, as we have experienced many, many, times over the last 30 years, can be a law unto themselves, and can do just about whatever they want, ( even ignoring Judicial rebuke ), so canceling these carriers is feasible, plus it will additionally save all the accrued costs of manning and operating them for how ever many years they are planned to be in service. If the private companies involved want to complete them, they can find another buyer, it is, after all, a free market economy.