|
|
Post by Yellow River on Oct 22, 2010 7:49:16 GMT
Now that we've had a little time to digest the Government's Spending Review...
Massive cuts and tax increases are coming soon.
How does it affect you? Oxford has a high level of public sector workers.
Do you feel the cuts are fair?
Difficult times ahead for all or just the poorest in society?
Do you agree with universal benefits regardless of income? i.e. wealthy pensioners continuing to receive winter fuel allowance, free eye test, free TV license etc
How do you feel about the pension age being raised?
Discuss......
|
|
|
|
Post by Sheik Djibouti on Oct 22, 2010 8:18:08 GMT
I think what Stephanie Flanders says outlines who will bear the most costs quite nicely:
"To get a sense of the numbers involved - if you rank households by income, the poorest 10% of households will lose an average of roughly £550, or just over 5.5% of their net income, versus a roughly 4.5% loss for the top 10%.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies does not like focussing on the bottom 10% because a lot of people in this group are students or have intermittent income and are not "poor" in the sense we usually mean. So, it is more comfortable talking about the changes being clearly regressive "across 90% of the income scale", because the top 10% (largely the top 2%) are paying more than most other groups.
However, if you rank households by spending rather than income, which the Treasury also does in some of its tables, the bottom 30% of households are all contributing more to the deficit reduction effort, as a share of their spending, than the top 10%.
Taking into account all tax and benefit changes up to 2014-15, the average loss across the bottom 30% is roughly 6% of their spending, versus just over 3% for the top 10%.
More generally: the IFS notes that the benefit changes have actually increased, slightly, the money going to pensioners. By far the biggest losers from the coalition's benefit changes will be families with children.
As I discussed in a post in August, it is an interesting irony of the coalition's approach that a plan which is supposed to be "saving our children from the burden of rising national debt" is being paid for, in large part, by families and children.
The baby boomers who benefited so much from the boom, and will start to retire next year, are being relatively protected from the costs of paying for the bust."
|
|
|
|
Post by Gavin Archery on Oct 22, 2010 8:21:26 GMT
I think what Stephanie Flanders says outlines who will bear the most costs quite nicely: "To get a sense of the numbers involved - if you rank households by income, the poorest 10% of households will lose an average of roughly £550, or just over 5.5% of their net income, versus a roughly 4.5% loss for the top 10%. The Institute for Fiscal Studies does not like focussing on the bottom 10% because a lot of people in this group are students or have intermittent income and are not "poor" in the sense we usually mean. So, it is more comfortable talking about the changes being clearly regressive "across 90% of the income scale", because the top 10% (largely the top 2%) are paying more than most other groups. However, if you rank households by spending rather than income, which the Treasury also does in some of its tables, the bottom 30% of households are all contributing more to the deficit reduction effort, as a share of their spending, than the top 10%. Taking into account all tax and benefit changes up to 2014-15, the average loss across the bottom 30% is roughly 6% of their spending, versus just over 3% for the top 10%. More generally: the IFS notes that the benefit changes have actually increased, slightly, the money going to pensioners. By far the biggest losers from the coalition's benefit changes will be families with children. As I discussed in a post in August, it is an interesting irony of the coalition's approach that a plan which is supposed to be "saving our children from the burden of rising national debt" is being paid for, in large part, by families and children. The baby boomers who benefited so much from the boom, and will start to retire next year, are being relatively protected from the costs of paying for the bust." Thinking man's crumpet? |
|
|
|
Post by Sheik Djibouti on Oct 22, 2010 8:36:26 GMT
I think what Stephanie Flanders says outlines who will bear the most costs quite nicely: "To get a sense of the numbers involved - if you rank households by income, the poorest 10% of households will lose an average of roughly £550, or just over 5.5% of their net income, versus a roughly 4.5% loss for the top 10%. The Institute for Fiscal Studies does not like focussing on the bottom 10% because a lot of people in this group are students or have intermittent income and are not "poor" in the sense we usually mean. So, it is more comfortable talking about the changes being clearly regressive "across 90% of the income scale", because the top 10% (largely the top 2%) are paying more than most other groups. However, if you rank households by spending rather than income, which the Treasury also does in some of its tables, the bottom 30% of households are all contributing more to the deficit reduction effort, as a share of their spending, than the top 10%. Taking into account all tax and benefit changes up to 2014-15, the average loss across the bottom 30% is roughly 6% of their spending, versus just over 3% for the top 10%. More generally: the IFS notes that the benefit changes have actually increased, slightly, the money going to pensioners. By far the biggest losers from the coalition's benefit changes will be families with children. As I discussed in a post in August, it is an interesting irony of the coalition's approach that a plan which is supposed to be "saving our children from the burden of rising national debt" is being paid for, in large part, by families and children. The baby boomers who benefited so much from the boom, and will start to retire next year, are being relatively protected from the costs of paying for the bust." Thinking man's crumpet? Not your type then Gav?  |
|
|
|
Post by Gavin Archery on Oct 22, 2010 8:39:18 GMT
Not your type then Gav? I like Jackie Oatley.  |
|
|
|
Post by Agadoo on Oct 22, 2010 9:39:31 GMT
Now that we've had a little time to digest the Government's Spending Review... Massive cuts and tax increases are coming soon. How does it affect you? Oxford has a high level of public sector workers. Do you feel the cuts are fair? Difficult times ahead for all or just the poorest in society? Do you agree with universal benefits regardless of income? i.e. wealthy pensioners continuing to receive winter fuel allowance, free eye test, free TV license etc How do you feel about the pension age being raised? Discuss...... Sorry, Tax increases? Apart from VAT going up in january, which taxes are going to be increased? |
|
|
|
Post by SteMerritt on Oct 22, 2010 10:35:33 GMT
Not your type then Gav? I like Jackie Oatley. I like the way you have got straight to the important issues on this ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Gavin Archery on Oct 22, 2010 12:26:38 GMT
I like Jackie Oatley. I like the way you have got straight to the important issues on this ;D Well it's more interesting than the spending review and impending cuts. Whose the girl who sits on a table in the football league show reading out peoples texts and e mails. She is quite nice too. |
|
|
|
Post by Agadoo on Oct 22, 2010 12:57:14 GMT
I like the way you have got straight to the important issues on this ;D Well it's more interesting than the spending review and impending cuts. Whose the girl who sits on a table in the football league show reading out peoples texts and e mails. She is quite nice too. Yeah but you could have started another thread on that, instead you've gone off topic because you think it's not interesting, well other people might find it interesting or at least a serious issue that affects their everyday lives. |
|
|
|
Post by Gavin Archery on Oct 22, 2010 13:11:03 GMT
Well it's more interesting than the spending review and impending cuts. Whose the girl who sits on a table in the football league show reading out peoples texts and e mails. She is quite nice too. Yeah but you could have started another thread on that, instead you've gone off topic because you think it's not interesting, well other people might find it interesting or at least a serious issue that affects their everyday lives. I'm suitably and deservedly reprimanded. It is worth saying at this point that opposition comments about the cuts are rather rich given that the economic mess in which the country is in, and so severely in debt to, is the previous government's parting gift. Thank you Gordon! |
|
|
|
Post by amarillo on Oct 22, 2010 14:30:23 GMT
I think Labour did undoubtedly overspend, but these cuts are too extreme. This government will balance the books but screw the country socially, just like Thatcher did.
|
|
|
|
Post by Agadoo on Oct 22, 2010 14:46:25 GMT
I think Labour did undoubtedly overspend, but these cuts are too extreme. This government will balance the books but screw the country socially, just like Thatcher did. Many business leaders have backed Osbourne. If we don't cut harshly now it will cost us around £100Bn in extra interest payments, that's money that could go back into the economy otherwise it will mean tax rises. Apparantly we are reducing our expenditure to what it was in 2006, when you think of it like that it isn't as harsh as it's being made out. Most of the money saved is prudence and cutting waste |
|
|
|
Post by Gavin Archery on Oct 22, 2010 14:47:06 GMT
I think Labour did undoubtedly overspend, but these cuts are too extreme. This government will balance the books but screw the country socially, just like Thatcher did. But more so the conservatives than libs, will want to be re-elected and cutting too much will destroy more than it will save. Perhaps a more measured approach would have been better but we got what we got and have to try and get through it. Good luck everyone. |
|
|
|
Post by peterdevo on Oct 22, 2010 17:03:00 GMT
I think the government faced with some difficult choices made the right ones. I am sure that had Labour been in they would have been looking at some vote winners. The difficulty is that there are no vote winners in there as there is no money left to play with. Thanks GB he has left GB in a much worse state than was previously thought.
The government could have gone further and looked at closing some of the tax loopholes that have been exploited and coming down a lot harder on tax evasion.
as to the pension age going up, I am 55 so I will have another year added on. I am not that bothered as I will have to work longer anyway to ensure that I can get more into my private pension that GB dipped into when he was chancellor
|
|
|
|
Post by Lone Gunman on Oct 22, 2010 18:22:00 GMT
I think the government faced with some difficult choices made the right ones. I am sure that had Labour been in they would have been looking at some vote winners. The difficulty is that there are no vote winners in there as there is no money left to play with. Thanks GB he has left GB in a much worse state than was previously thought.The government could have gone further and looked at closing some of the tax loopholes that have been exploited and coming down a lot harder on tax evasion. as to the pension age going up, I am 55 so I will have another year added on. I am not that bothered as I will have to work longer anyway to ensure that I can get more into my private pension that GB dipped into when he was chancellor And i suppose the collapse of the american mortgage market, liman brothers et al can be blamed on him too...? Why not tag the holocaust on him while you're at it. I'm not saying brown isn't culpable, but people who infer that the whole sorry state of affairs is down to brown need to take a rain check. |
|
|
|
Post by peterdevo on Oct 22, 2010 19:19:21 GMT
No. I wouldn't blame the American mortgage market on him. That was purely down to the Americans overcommitting themselves like they always do. Everything on credit.
Bit difficult to blame the Holocaust on him since he wasn't born then.
Lehman Brothers. I can remember being at Heathrow and seeing drivers pick up passengers and displaying their board. Little were they to know that they would be thrown out of their hotel in the middle of the night following the news.
What is fact is that Gordon Brown did tax the pension funds £5billion a year and of course it was the suckers who had private pensions that financed it.
A lot of observers mentioned that Gordon Brown was an astute chancellor. He wasn't that good at judging the right time to sell off the gold reserves. Immediately he sold up went the price and has kept rising ever since.
The reality is that he tried to do well, failed to do well and the electorate voted him out
|
|
|
|
Post by Belgian Yellow on Oct 22, 2010 21:43:00 GMT
The "debt" could be eradicated overnight by genuine nationalisation of the banks and use of their profits to improve public services. The reason it isn't is due to class interests.
|
|
|
|
Post by Agadoo on Oct 22, 2010 22:26:37 GMT
The "debt" could be eradicated overnight by genuine nationalisation of the banks and use of their profits to improve public services. The reason it isn't is due to class interests. and how do they get people to invest? It wouldn't be a bank anymore... |
|
|
|
Post by Bampton Beech Boy on Oct 22, 2010 22:31:16 GMT
My rainy day savings were tied up in Lloyds TSB shares which amounted to a couple of thousand pounds. Thanks to the last Labour goverment who managed to flog HBOS to a moronic Lloyds board who completed a take over but weren't allowed a look at the books, they are worth a couple of hundred pounds. How many bank shares are held by pension funds? It's all very well bashing the banks, but it will be ordinary hard working people up & down the country who suffer with the sort of policy who suggest, not the moronic bankers who have got all of us in to this mess The "debt" could be eradicated overnight by genuine nationalisation of the banks and use of their profits to improve public services. The reason it isn't is due to class interests. |
|
|
|
Post by YellowHoods on Oct 23, 2010 9:49:39 GMT
"The banks" clearly have a lot to answer for. But what happened to people taking responsibility for their own actions? No matter how much you want "that house", wouldn't you feel a little uneasy borrowing five times your income?
The banks shouldn't have lent it, but "we" shouldn't have borrowed it.
|
|
