Autumn Statement 2012

[LordSplodge]

The poor are hardly the only ones being "shafted". Without beating a dead horse, everyone needs to take their hit to reduce the deficit. Why should benefits continue to rise when everyone else gets hit with it? At the end of the day, no one should be on benefits (job seekers) for more than a year. I refuse to accept the majority can't find a job in that time. Hell, I bet most could find one within 6 months.

Yes everybody should 'do their bit' but the bit needs to be proportional. Hitting the poorest hardest isn't fair.

Yes people should be incentivised to find work, I agree on that point, but benefits includes the disabled and carers. People who have little choice.

On a side note, the steps he's taking are reasonable and most are recommended by independent, knowledgeable economists. For example, the reduction in waste in the public sector to fund capital projects in the private sector such as science and infrastructure. The reduction in one public job generally leads to two in the private sector and they'll have more skills as they require training to perform non-admin roles such as building roads.

Rubbish. Public sector waste hasn't been reduced one bit, I know work in that sector and if anything it is on the rise. Science funding has been slashed already and the 600 million being put back isn't even close to getting the funding back to previous levels.

As for saying the loss of one public sector job makes two in the private sector? Seriously?

 

[Kemik]

The privileged whining royally ****s me off.

The rich and middle class are vocal and keen voters. That's why we hear about their plight on TV. The poorest get screwed or labelled as 'workshy scum'

There's a difference between privileged and hard workers. For example, my parents raised me to work hard (my mum's an admin and my dad has worked on HGV's doing 50 hours a week for 25+ years), so I planned out my career, went to Uni, got the job I was aiming for, qualified in professional exams and I'm now on decent money. I don't class myself as privileged or lucky (other than to have the parents I have). I worked damned hard to get there.

My parents don't vote because the town is "labour and won't change".

I'm personally all for policy that will motivate state funded people into jobs as it helps the economy. If that motivation doesn't work because they've grown accustom to state funding then they need to be given a slight push because we can't afford it. I really don't think it's fair for people to work 50 hour weeks and end up with little more than people who would rather sit in the pub. The system is setup to give people jobs for life for doing sod all. Instead it should be setup to help those who fall out of work to stay afloat and then get back into it as soon as possible.

Yes everybody should 'do their bit' but the bit needs to be proportional. Hitting the poorest hardest isn't fair.

I don't see how the poorest are being hit the hardest. Raising the personal allowance has brought a huge amount of people out of the tax system.

Yes people should be incentivised to find work, I agree on that point, but benefits includes the disabled and carers. People who have little choice.

Aren't theirs being increased with inflation?

Rubbish. Public sector waste hasn't been reduced one bit, I know work in that sector and if anything it is on the rise. Science funding has been slashed already and the 600 million being put back isn't even close to getting the funding back to previous levels.

Which is something the Government is trying to address. The scientists I follow seemed happy with the investment.

As for saying the loss of one public sector job makes two in the private sector? Seriously?

Yes - http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/as2012_statement.htm

If you tax the rich to kingdom come then they'll go elsewhere. Headquarters bring in the most money. If that moves, so will the tax revenue. The Adam Smith Institute has proven lower tax rates generate higher income levels because people spend less effort avoiding taxes.

 

[danielanthony]

If you cannot live a good lifestyle (and give your children a good upbringing) on £50,000+ a year without that extra £1600 (0.03%) then you're doing something wrong.

Maths fail there, £1600 is 3.2% of £50,000. I'm sure you'd be the first to whine if benefits got cut by that much. But as people who can be bothered to go out and work aren't seen as being deserving of their own income, lets tax them until everyone in society earns the same no-matter what job they do

This whole "parents go without food so their kids can eat" line really gets on my nerves. With housing benefit, child tax credits, council tax benefit and income support, no family with kids is going hungry because they're not getting enough money. Poverty nowadays is based on the distribution of wealth, so if most people in society had an iPhone and a PS3 but Little Johnny didn't - then he could be classed as poor despite having housing, food and clothing all provided by the state through benefits.

 

[Yamahahahahaha]

I'm interested to see what tax reform they'll come up with. It would also help if they could lift a lot more of the red tape on small businesses.

The whole budget seemed to be aimed more towards acknowledging the utter **** they've been spouting previously and revising everything to be more realistic. Especially on the growth figures (One of Ed Ball's only decent points, the flapping norman).

The markets didn't implode, so we can all assume it's what they wanted and expected to hear.

The Adam Smith Institute has proven lower tax rates generate higher income levels because people spend less effort avoiding taxes.

Still no sign of merging Income Tax with National Insurance though...

 

[scorza]

Osborne got a real savaging from Evan Davies on the Today programme this morning. He was evasive and vague when talking about his financial slight of hand with the 4G auction receipts. Osborne's whole demeanour spoke of playing politics with the British economy while hard working families suffer.

 

[estebanrey]

Osborne's whole demeanour spoke of playing politics with the British economy while hard working families suffer.

Grrrrrr, I can't stand that bloomin' expression? What exactly is a 'hard working family'? It sounds like something from the Victorian era when the dad would be down the pits 20 hours a day and the kids would be out sweeping chimneys.

When people say 'hard working family' they simply a family where both parents have a job.

 

[PMKeates]

while hard working families suffer

Why is everything nowdays about 'hard working families' and 'cash in the back pocket'? These two phrases make me feel sick.

 

[ubersonic]

That would mean August in Wales is Autumn

Yeah possibly, we do the seasons in the same order as you afaik

*EDIT*

Yeah, double checked, our Autumn starts on August the 1st with the equinox on the 22-23 of September.

 

[LordSplodge]

Maths fail there, £1600 is 3.2% of £50,000. I'm sure you'd be the first to whine if benefits got cut by that much. But as people who can be bothered to go out and work aren't seen as being deserving of their own income, lets tax them until everyone in society earns the same no-matter what job they do

This whole "parents go without food so their kids can eat" line really gets on my nerves. With housing benefit, child tax credits, council tax benefit and income support, no family with kids is going hungry because they're not getting enough money. Poverty nowadays is based on the distribution of wealth, so if most people in society had an iPhone and a PS3 but Little Johnny didn't - then he could be classed as poor despite having housing, food and clothing all provided by the state through benefits.

Yeah, we'll it was late when I posted. Still if you earn £60,000 and need that £1600 then something is well out of whack. I don't see how you equate that with me thinking that everybody should be taxed until they earn the same (complete with double rolleyes too!)

Whilst not everybody on benefits has to chose between feeding themselves or their children it isn't the booze and fags and Sky TV utopia that some parts of the national media likes to make out.

Everything has to be balanced and I don't envy the governments role in this. But just like "parents on benefit going without" winds you up, I equally get wound up by privileged parents bemoaning the loss of child benefit.

 

[LordSplodge]

There's a difference between privileged and hard workers. For example, my parents raised me to work hard (my mum's an admin and my dad has worked on HGV's doing 50 hours a week for 25+ years), so I planned out my career, went to Uni, got the job I was aiming for, qualified in professional exams and I'm now on decent money. I don't class myself as privileged or lucky (other than to have the parents I have). I worked damned hard to get there.

You are privileged. It doesn't matter if that privilege came from being born into it or working your way to it. I too worked my way into the privileged position I am in now.

Grrrrrr, I can't stand that bloomin' expression? What exactly is a 'hard working family'? It sounds like something from the Victorian era when the dad would be down the pits 20 hours a day and the kids would be out sweeping chimneys.

When people say 'hard working family' they simply a family where both parents have a job.

It's probably a two income family where the amount of hours worked is x and disposable income is y. Either that or it is just a useless political soundbite. Probably the later alas in these times of political spin.

The soft, pampered average worker couldn't do what the Victorian working class did. It would be amusing to see some modern day workers try to do that for a week.

I had to sweep my own bloody chimney the other week. Disgusting but my son is too big to get up their and my grandson as of yet too small...

 

[Deleted member 66701]

Grrrrrr, I can't stand that bloomin' expression? What exactly is a 'hard working family'? It sounds like something from the Victorian era when the dad would be down the pits 20 hours a day and the kids would be out sweeping chimneys.

When people say 'hard working family' they simply a family where both parents have a job.

Well, once people get used to that expression then they can start slipping in the "undeserving poor" catch phrase

A return to Victorian values is just around the corner chaps.

 

[MrMoonX]

Once again ocuk members and daily mail readers fail to understand exactly what poverty is and blatantly discriminate. This government is driving down standards of living for 1000s of families whilst giving tax breaks to greedy corporations and millioanaires. The fact is that it's going to cost them more in the long run as poor families get poorer the state will need to step in and look after their chidlren and vulnerable adults. This government is on a crash course to driving us back to the poor houses of the Victorian era.

 

[LordSplodge]

A return to Victorian values is just around the corner chaps.

That would not be a bad thing really.

* Women and men dressed well in public. No visible midriff, no tracksuits.
* Stuff got done. Canals got built railways got built.
* People were not work shy.
* The advancement of the UK through engineering and science was the number one priority.

Obviously we don't want the rampant poverty of inner city slums, the early mortality and the high level of disease.

Oh and curiously despite being almost prudish in public the Victorians liked lots of sex behind closed doors. It just wasn't done to talk about it.

 

[delta0]

Asian and American countries are leaving us behind because of this work culture that we lack here. Not saying we should start working every hour of the day, but that's what some of the Asian countries do. They typically work Monday to Saturday from 8am-midnight. Quite extreme, but it is the difference between here and there.

 

[delta0]

Once again ocuk members and daily mail readers fail to understand exactly what poverty is and blatantly discriminate. This government is driving down standards of living for 1000s of families whilst giving tax breaks to greedy corporations and millioanaires. The fact is that it's going to cost them more in the long run as poor families get poorer the state will need to step in and look after their chidlren and vulnerable adults. This government is on a crash course to driving us back to the poor houses of the Victorian era.

Poverty is relative to the rest of the population. Poverty is pretty much zero in this country when you compare it with the rest of the world.

 

[MrMoonX]

Poverty is relative to the rest of the population. Poverty is pretty much zero in this country when you compare it with the rest of the world.

Such a bigoted response, I'm not even going to explain it to you, the fact is there are thousands of people living in poverty in this country right now. This crappy government is only making it worse.

 

[delta0]

Such a bigoted response, I'm not even going to explain it to you, the fact is there are thousands of people living in poverty in this country right now. This crappy government is only making it worse.

Please don't be offensive.

I think Africa would laugh when they hear the word poverty being incorrectly used in a first world country.

There are people out there that don't eat for long periods, have to drink poor quality water, are exposed to diseases, have no access to medical care (let alone free medical care), have no roof over their heads, have no shoes, do not have any money or access to any money, have no emergency services to call, have no school and have to work all day for almost nothing.

 

[do_ron_ron]

I don't see how the poorest are being hit the hardest. Raising the personal allowance has brought a huge amount of people out of the tax system.

Which was a LbDem push, not Tory and has been for years. I dislike the LibDems but credit to them for the big rise in allowances.

Aren't theirs being increased with inflation?

No. 1% for the next couple of years

Which is something the Government is trying to address. The scientists I follow seemed happy with the investment.

If they were funded less a lot of more research would go abroad as it has done for the last ten years.

Yes - http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/as2012_statement.htm

If you tax the rich to kingdom come then they'll go elsewhere. Headquarters bring in the most money. If that moves, so will the tax revenue. The Adam Smith Institute has proven lower tax rates generate higher income levels because people spend less effort avoiding taxes.

A far right wing think tank says that right wing ideas are correct. Well, you will be telling us that the Pope remains stubbornly Catholic next.

They still believe in the 'trickle down' theory which originated with Regan and later taken up by Thatcher. It has been derided in the US since but there are still some especially in this country who believe.

 

[delta0]

A far right wing think tank says that right wing ideas are correct. Well, you will be telling us that the Pope remains stubbornly Catholic next.

They still believe in the 'trickle down' theory which originated with Regan and later taken up by Thatcher. It has been derided in the US since but there are still some especially in this country who believe.

History has shown that tax intake reduces over a certain percentage of tax. This was first discovered in the US. It was also noticed with the 50% tax rate here which is why it was cut. When taxes went up significantly here before it caused the brain drain.

 

[do_ron_ron]

Osborne got a real savaging from Evan Davies on the Today programme this morning. He was evasive and vague when talking about his financial slight of hand with the 4G auction receipts. Osborne's whole demeanour spoke of playing politics with the British economy while hard working families suffer.

The BBC economics man on Radio 4 said that the very rich were not being hit at all. The pension change was at the level of judges and doctors but apparently would have no effect on the very rich. He said it was the middle and bottom group of people who would be out of pocket.