Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
and the poor people with children get it harder than anyone else.
Typical Tories. . .
Joined up thinking there...
why did I hear the Tories claimed the assessment was wrong because it failed to include the new jobs their cuts would create. Hmmm...Interesting.
doesn't take into account all the people from the public sector who might lose their jobs, thus increasing the benefit bill.
and a lot of the new jobs are in theory dependent on the private sector filling the gaps the public sector will leave when it cuts back on services. This rarely happens in real life.
and they claimed that the cuts in corporation tax etc negated the pain that would be felt at the bottom. Trickle down economics only goes so far. The very poorest, particularly those who are seeing a large drop in the net income will not exactly see the benefit of lower taxes for businesses and top earners.
http://i33.tinypic.com/oksk86.jpg (sfw, fear not)
"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."
only you are : )
also, whilst VAT can in practical terms affect the rich more than poor, it still remains an optional rather than a compulsory tax. people aren't obliged to buy stuff, even rich people. they're quite capable of saving their money and depressing our economy even further, which is why it's hard to describe VAT as progressive. it might affect the rich more than the poor, but it's still a very unwieldy tax system.
and it's not clear whether he was talking in cash terms or in terms of proportion of income.
Could well be true but that's a pretty weak source.
before the full assessment was made.
Read page 9 of the report: http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn108.pdf
"Considering all tax and benefit reforms, the overall package of reforms is regressive within the poorest nine decile groups, although the richest tenth of households lose the most in both cash and percentage terms. This is because of the reforms announced in the June 2010 Budget: most of the losses for the bottom half of the income distribution are coming from measures announced in the June 2010 Budget, whereas most of the losses for the upper half result from pre-announced measures. However, this is at least in part because many households in the bottom decile group spend more than their income and hence the amount they lose from increasing VAT is high as a percentage of their income. Losses as a percentage of expenditure are very similar for each of the bottom nine decile groups."
-Contrary to accepted wisdom, but do go on...
>"It is the richest, with the higher expenditure, who will actually be feeding the government’s coffers with a VAT increase."
-As is the case with taxes other than VAT. The rich pay more as an ABSOLUTE value. But what about as a PROPORTION OF THEIR INCOME? Ergo, this particular point is entirely spurious. More than that, it's actually malicious because it knowingly deflects from the point at hand by talking about something entirely different and superfluous to the point at hand, but uses a very similar language that very easily muddies the waters if your don't give it much critical thought.
>"If you are going to accept the analysis in the BBC article, you must also accept this analysis as both come from the same organisation. "
-Nope. Just because some guy says one particular thing that I may or may not agree with, doesn't mean that his whole argument is watertight or coherent and that everything he says is valid and that I automatically have to agree with everything he says.
Please spare me a moment while I weep for the "richest tenth of households".
The more you say, the less sense anything else you've said makes.
Papa's got a brand new (rate of) VAT.
will find times a lot harder having to pay more for nearly everything than people on £40K+
As it is contrary to everything just about every economist says.
The comment you post is from the end of June.
Today's report seems to contradict this.
Next year, the rockabilly budget.
Therefore, please could you stop commenting on it? Thanks.
A rise in VAT causes people to pay more tax DISPROPORTIONATE to their income. Therefore, if shit gets more expensive, poor people have less money to absorb the extra expense, therefore, are proportionately worse off.
Although a 2.5% rise isn't going to bankrupt anyone really so it's a bit of a misnomer...
And taking the VAT rise in isolation is a pretty spurious thing to do, given that it's part of a package of measures designed to work as a whole.
Seeing as though the thread is titled, "Budget hits the poorest hardest," it doesn't suggest that the richest aren't being hit at all.
However, you'd be right to think that people are giving the impression that they think that the government is "just being mean to the poor, defenceless, low earners," because, well, we think that actually, it is pretty mean to make those at the bottom, who have suffered most out of the recession (don't give me any crap about this being a 'middle-class' or 'south-east' recession, because that's certainly not the case), be the ones to lose the most, as a percentage, of their income/earnings.
I'm inclined to believe trusting an economist to have the first clue about economics is a mistake.
...that the VAT rise will hit the richest hardest. You then, to your credit, backed it up with what an economist said.
However, it's very simple here's what you said:
"The VAT will hit the richest (or at least richer) hardest."
YOU said this right? It's up there. Scroll up... see it? Yes. It's there. I was refuting DIRECTLY what you said, because anyone who says that "VAT will hit the richer [...] hardest" doesn't understand a basic concept of economics. Actually, it's not just a basic concept of economics, it's basic maths.
Milton Friedman was the most decorated economist of the late 20th Century. And, you know what, he believed in the 'trickle down effect'. Sometimes, even economists don't understand economics...
Sorry mate, I just get very annoyed when people make strong statements about things they don't really know a lot about. It makes you look like an idiot. But that's part of your charm so don't go changing now...
Google hard and wide enough and you'll get an 'expert' in a chosen field who can back up anyone's bollocks. And I don't think it's especially arrogant to assert that you don't understand what you're commenting on, in direct response to a comment which proves that you don't. You'd argue that someone who said that "Teresa May is the most liberal Home Secretary since Roy Jenkins" doesn't understand what they're talking about, right?
Although coming across as a dick? Couldn't give a toss fella...
I innocently clicked on the CoalTalk thread and ended up in here...
I laugh at these wannabe Lib Dem bedwetters!
but not the budget we wanted. the party i voted for did not believe in rapid deficit reduction until clegg had his religious conversion.
did you get the government you wanted? I've seen you complain about it enough on here.
and subsequent discussions on the actions of the party you voted (or didn't vote) for.
I don't know if your original post was kind of flippant, but the classic case is that people feel shortchanged by the campaign promises when compared to the actual outcomes. By the same token, Cameron could turn into a Che-quoting red tomorrow and you'd have no recourse for complaint, because you voted for him.
(Actually isn't he being touted as the leftiest Conservative PM of all time?)
Not as someone involved in the party.
Yes, the richer will pay more in monetary terms because of the VAT rise, but that is because people with more money spend more than people with less money. But rich and poor people broadly consume the same amount of products that are zero rated (food, childrens clothing etc). As a percentage of earnings a 20% VAT rate will hit someone who earns £200 a week harder than someone who earns £2000 a week.
The richest 10% pay £1 in every £25 of their income on VAT, while the poorest 10% pay £1 in every £7. Stats.
Creating datasets upon which to create false statistics is a hassle.
But it's easy to present stats in a way that favours your cause. Like when you said "the richest" but specifically meant "the richest tenth of households".
My point was a short response to a troll who had posted some tat but hadn't in anyway backed it up.
Did you think he specifically meant the Queen?
usually applied to things like this, but yeah, they usually apply 10% or 20% percentile groups. The IFS report uses quintiles (20% boundaries).
For wont of a comparison, as a proportion of those that actually own the assets of the country, it’s usually said that 5% of the people own 80% of the UK’s wealth and that inheritance tax, for example, is applied to 6% of estates.
'the richest', without qualification, is a nebulous term that could quite easily mean the richest 50%. The IFS might usually apply it to the top 10% or 20% or whatever, but that needs to be stated.
'richest tenth of households' is what CG/his source actually meant, and his/his source's argument/quotes/comments could only started to hope to make sense when qualified with this clarification. But once you introduce this level of accuracy then the rest of the argument demands careful use of language. And in doing so, it unravels. Not least because of the deliberate conflation of ABSOLUTE and PROPORTIONAL concepts.
can barely pay the rent and have to buy all their kids school uniform from charity shops/get hand-me-downs and have to live on netto own brand because they can barely get by or do you mean still manage to live rather comfortably but reduced to two vacations a year instead of three?
Don't play the innocent. You know what you're doing.
-Bollocks. Separating them is imperative.
>"the richest suffer most on both accounts"
-*the RICHEST TENTH "suffer" most on both accounts.
Not just VAT?
"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."
yes it says upper middle and you're saying richest but the people at the very top are wealthy to the point where their lives will barely be impacted on a little, if at all.
5% will fancy their chances of breaking into the 10%.
The rest, as a whole, will stand to benefit.
So tell us CG, why did you feel the need to wade into this thread with "The VAT will hit the richest (or at least richer) hardest."?
that as it is the poorest who will see their already rubbish quality of life go down even lower, particularly those who are trying to work or who have families to support, that it is they who will truly suffer the hardest under Osbourne's "progressive" policies.
and that the richest tenth will hardly notice the difference, even if they do whinge the loudest.
of today's report and it seems to be a fairly damning conclusion to make considering both lib dem and tory said they'd protect to the poor and make the progressive changes needed to help them, when in fact the thing they've gone and done is the opposite of that.
If their lives are impacted, I genuinely couldn't give a flying fuck if they have to sell their private island and buy a smaller one.
You're still snidely using the blatantly evocative word "suffer".
You're still avoiding specifiying which bracket of "rich", so the claims have exceptionally limited meaning. You'd ordinarily be fine putting "very" in there if we were discussing concepts and you didn't want to commit to an exact percentage, but we're getting into the nitty gritty of the figures on this occasion so you need to be more specific.
Don't play the innocent. You know what you're doing.
Stop acting like a thick cunt when you're not one.
You don't just rile things up, you specifically try to rile things up from a standpoint of a Tory. However much you cariacature yourself.
You hurt the cause you claim to support (but are "no longer formally linked with") when 95% of people on here issue a solid rebuttal.
That might not matter much on here when you're a 'figure of fun' and we're all 'loony lefties' (or whatever this week's meaningless rhetorical phrases are).
DiS is like a nice dress rehearsal for when I have to point out the bullshit foundations of some IRL people's more short-sigted political commentary.
Arguments have been rehearsed. "Yeah but..."'s have been anticipated.
I swear this occurs every other day. Just rise above, and ignore each other.
it's like a nice dress rehearsal for the real thing
it's not just actual poor people who are getting hurt by the budget. Some people are being forced to live on as little as £500 per week.
Gets better every time I read it
and it not being the Darling Buds of May?
and it not being the Darling Buds of May
is a little hazy. Check out the chart on the BBC page:
The discrepancy seems to arise from almost identical charts on pages 8 and 10 of the report. I have no idea what the difference between them is.
But there is another similar chart on page 6 that takes the same conclusion about the 'richest tenth'. The difference with that one is it talks about 'direct' reforms.
We're having a good time, right?!
I have just pissed my pants in terror.
we're really lucky that my parents have some money kicking about, and my mum has sent her a cheque to cover it (i imagine my dad will do the same for his mum). my grandma is also really worried that they'll take her bus pass away from her - it's literally a LIFELINE for her, she has to use a stick to walk so can't get to the shops without the bus. i just really really feel for those elderly people who won't be able to be supported by other members of their family, it's worrying.
i don't see the government coming up with any ideas to kill them off