The Budget

[HonaloochieB]

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sorry to make this personal Jeremy, but you lose

> all class/non-class arguments by dint of your

> name. Now if your moniker were Gary ...

Take the gloves off Jeremy and tell 'em how much you like The Clash.

And when that canard about Joe Strummer's father being a high-ranking diplomat instead of a medium level civil servant, who by the way was quite the rebel comes up, ensure they're sent away with a flea in their ear.

A flea you picked up in an Elgin Road squat.

And PGC's point could be said to be somewhat spurious, if you were named Gary, you might have turned out to be Gary Bushell.

And no one wants that.

Anyway bollocks to the working class, I'm one and while I've no particular complaints, I wish I had better small talk.

Seriously, meet me in a pub and after 'So, how's it going'? 'What have you been up to since I saw you last'? and 'Hot enough for you'? I'm pretty well buggered.

I look around and there are scads of people having spontaneous conversations and there am I pressed up to the window of their wit like an aural Bisto Kid.

Still, they can't touch you for it.

[HonaloochieB]

Brendan Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Probably put the price of cans up, that?s what.

> Arseholes.

The 'Con Dems' as me and me bredren are now calling them, might be putting up the price of tin cans, eh?

So can I take it that large (66cl) bottles of Peroni will be given a bye?

Christ, how relieved am I that I've not let a working class tin of anything pass my lips for lo, these many years.

I'm off now to put a Dean Martin LP on the Dansette in celebration.

Chow.

(Sorry, my Italian's only phonetic, my spelling is lamentable).

[Jeremy]

HonaloochieB Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Take the gloves off Jeremy and tell 'em how much you like The Clash.

I was going to save that one in case Carnell had me backed into a corner. Now you've gone and ruined it.

[Mick Mac]

Take the gloves off Jeremy and tell 'em how much you love The Cash.

[Brendan]

Marmora Man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What the fuckis going on there and what is this

> government going to do about it ?ey?

>

> I rather like the idea that this government

> doesn't think it has to something about

> everything. Less micro management - more

> responsibility. A good thing.

Yeah I know. By this point I had pretty much lapsed into taking the piss out of myself and my grousing.

[HonaloochieB]

Brendan Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Marmora Man Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > What the fuckis going on there and what is this

> > government going to do about it ?ey?

> >

> > I rather like the idea that this government

> > doesn't think it has to something about

> > everything. Less micro management - more

> > responsibility. A good thing.

>

> Yeah I know. By this point I had pretty much

> lapsed into taking the piss out of myself and my

> grousing.

Hyuck, snark, snuffle.

Brendan said he was taking the piss out of h!mself.

Into his pretty lap at that.

Still at least he brought a game bird with him.

Fair play, says I.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Bad form I say - Season doesn't start til the Glorious Twelfth.

[david_carnell]

It's not just me and my (stolen) grpah that think this budget hits the poorest hardest. The IFS, an independent financial think-tank thinks so too.

[Loz]

The IFS report can't be easily distilled into one sentence. What they said first was that, when you take the budget as a whole, then the poor will on average be down about 2.5% of their income and the rich will be down about 7.5%. The IFS agreed that, as a whole, it was progressive.

But what the IFS then did - and what caused the headlines - was to take away any measures that Labour had previously proposed/budgetted for this year and just concentrated on any new proposals, and that is what caused the 'regressive' comments. Now you can read this in one of two ways: either Osborne ideologically slapped the poor (always possible) or that he looked at the Labour measures, accepted some of them and rejected some others (i.e. the employers NI rise). Osborne was under no obligation to keep any of the Labour stuff.

It's worth noting the IFS also said that, (according to the Indy), "The rise in VAT to 20 per cent will be a regressive move, though the IFS concedes that, once an individual's lifetime spending is taken account of, it is a more progressive form of tax than often assumed.". So I'm confused...! Interestingly, the rather progressive Swedes have a VAT rate of 25% - but then they have one hell of a benefits bill to pay out.

[Ladymuck]

Well, for what it's worth I too happen to agree with DC.

Contrary to what George Osbourne said, the effect of this budget is that it is regressive.

From the Independent: Mr Osborne has added to the burden on the rich, but only by about 1 per cent of their average income, bringing the total loss in their income as a result of current tax and benefit measures to about 7.5 per cent. Thus the Chancellor has placed about two-and-a-half times the burden on the poorest as he has on the richest ? a loss of 2.5 per cent against one of 1 per cent. Full article here.

Sure, few of us will escape it's effect, but it will be those with the least who will be the hardest hit. Bad news for the poorest I think (and for fairness/equality generally).

*ducks*

[Jeremy]

OK, so if the poor will lose on average 2.5%, and the rich will lose on average 1%... what is the breakdown of this? How much of that is VAT and how much of that is benefits?

It seems only logical that of the rich person's 1% loss, most of this is VAT increase. But of the poorer person's 2.5%, the vast majority of this is down to loss in benefits.

Yes it does seem as though those relying on benefits will be hardest hit, but it isn't because of the VAT rise.

[????]

The VAT rise brings in ?15bn a year, is a tax on consumption/spending, is easy to collect and adminsiter, hard to avoid/evade and brings us in line with much of Europe....and yet, the same old crap from those who don't want to face up to the problems we are in and are trying to make political hay from tough choices that the coalition government wll have to make.

[????]

As Jeremy said, the Benefit question is a different one and one in which criticism of the government can at least be debated and to a degree justified. Criticisng the rise in VAT is entirely politically driven or for those living in financial la la land.