The Institute of Fiscal Studies has just released figures which show that the average family will be £891 worse off this year thanks to changes made by Osborne and Cameron - unless your name is Akers-Belcher that is.
That's not entirely true is it Steve?
Because of changes made by the government the average working household will be better off by over £300 a year [and nine out of ten families across the board].
The reason families may feel worse off is due to other factors - rising energy prices, cost of food increased due to an extremely bad harvest etc etc.
If you are this comfortable spinning crap for your own political gain when it comes to national politics, Lord only knows how much you do it on a local level on here.
So much for straight talking and being different to the others.
Must have been those farmers that screwed up the banking system and brought in Wonga, sold off the energy companies and set up food banks.
What about the highly flawed bedroom 'tax' and child benefit 'tax' ...both over simplified so they are easier to administer as opposed to being fair.
Pure logic suggests that if the Chancellor is pulling money in from here there and everywhere, the average family is bound to be hit.
The nonsense about the average family being £300 pounds better off cannot be true, otherwise we would be all out spending and the economy would sort itself out. More VAT for the chancellor etc etc.
Quote from: SRMoore on April 04, 2013, 07: AM
That's not entirely true is it Steve?
Because of changes made by the government the average working household will be better off by over £300 a year [and nine out of ten families across the board].
The reason families may feel worse off is due to other factors - rising energy prices, cost of food increased due to an extremely bad harvest etc etc.
If you are this comfortable spinning crap for your own political gain when it comes to national politics, Lord only knows how much you do it on a local level on here.
So much for straight talking and being different to the others.
I think you're losing the plot, Shane. I'm not spinning anything. I'm just quoting the
Institute of Fiscal Studies - if you have a problem with their conclusions then argue it out with them, not me.
You took the figure from the IFS and stated it was because of Osborne & Cameron without mentioning any other factor = Political spin. X
Well I was under the impression that Cameron was Prime Minister and Osborne was Chancellor - are you suggesting that it's all down to the Tooth Fairy?
Incapable of holding an adult conversation these days?
Indeed they are Prime Minister & Chancellor but the "changes made" by them have not resulted in the figure quoted. Other factors such as those I stated earlier have been the main contributing factor.
Actually the reference to Cameron and Osborne also comes straight from the Institute and wasn't added by me.
The IFS did not say that at all.
You are probably referring to the report published by Labour based on information contained in a report from the IFS
The Labour report conveniently uses the figures from benefit cuts and tax rises but none of the information from the budget which will put money back in peoples pocket.
They use these two figures:
•2.4 million families on low incomes will pay on average £138 more in council tax in the year 2013/14 as a result of cuts to council tax benefit, according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
•660,000 people will lose an average of £728 per year or £14 a week as a result of the bedroom tax, according to figures from the IFS.
Add them both together and then add the difference between the 1% benefit increases and inflation (which doesn't leave you 'worse off' because its money you didn't have last year anyway) and you get more or less on the figure of £891.
So no, the IFS didn't say that the average family would be worse off by £891 because of changes made by Cameron and Osborne. Labour cherry picked information and created an 'average' family that is effected by every benefit cut and tax rise in yet another blatant attempt to spread half truths to feed off fear for their own political gain.
Shane, you're pissing into the wind. Get yourself out onto the street, stop the first person that you come across and ask them if they think they are £300 a year better off.
I suggest that you stand well back before they answer.
You two really don't get on, do you?
Whether they 'think' they are £300 better off or if they actually are better off are two completely different things when people like you spread half truths as fact.
You like to try and portray me as a stereotypical Tory, Steve. One who doesn't have a clue what it is like for 'real' people because I'm too comfy in my nice house in a posh estate without a financial worry in the world; when the reality couldn't be any different.
I have a fairly nice house in a nice street in West View, I work 37 hrs a week in a local forge earning well below the national average. My wife works part time and has benefitted from being taken out of paying income tax completely, as well as my personal allowance increasing. Interest rates have remained low during this government which has meant that my mortgage payments have not increased.
Confidence in the manufacturing industry has risen due to various schemes to help companies invest, which has resulted in a payrise of 2% for all employees at my forge which is the first payrise in 5 years.
And to top it all off... My beer is now 1p a pint cheaper!
So when I take a step back and ask myself 'am I better off' I'd certainly say YES.
Which only proves that you are a true Tory because as long as you personally can say YES to the question that's all that really matters and sod everyone else.
AAAaannnyway, back to how we save the town from falling into the abyss?
>:(
Well we can start by getting the nobs up the Park to elect some proper Tories thereby reducing the labour majority by 3 then add on two up-and-coming Independents and that's 5 - which means 7 in practice and the loss of Labour's 2/3 majority needed to get a budget through ;)
Shane's probably best placed to do that though out of all of us, in the sense that he's connected on some levels within the party itself. Surely their core support must be annoyed at Mr Wells seemingly selling out the party name for a committee chair or whatever though Shane?
@SRMoore - you obviously consider yourself to be a most fortunate chap. Wouldn't it be wonderful if that sense of well-being could be echoed by the majority of people; I'm sure that those who are scrabbling around to find a job (never mind one that pays ever escalating fuel bills and the cost of feeding their family in the face of soaring supermarket prices) would love to feel as you do. The unemployed/low waged family who are suddenly having to stump up towards housing costs and council tax or those affected by the ill conceived decisions of Atos/league tables for benefit sanctions would be envious indeed.
I'm not naive enough to believe the Blair and Brown period to be one of halcyon days - they too were in bed with organisations such as Atos.
Nor am I playing the 'nasty party' vs. the downtrodden workers card; yes, the current lot inherited one hell of a mess - whoever won in 2010 would have inherited a poisoned chalice - and yes, the years of crazy overspending had to stop, but surely not at the cost of a cohesive society.
Neither the Conservatives nor Labour seem to have a clue about the man in the street's real challenges and frustrations. To my mind, what really stinks is that the pretence of a civilised, caring society seems to be shrinking in favour of an 'I'm alright Jack' mentality, where the weakest go to the wall ... sad days indeed.
The shenanigans within HBC reflect this national disease - as long as certain factors are OK then to hell with the rest of the town. Time to remove the gloves for the fight of a lifetime - after all, the establishment is looking distinctly moribund even at this stage in the battle.
You really don't like being proven wrong do you Steve.
If the poor are so hard up then why did they spend millions on internet gambling last year, i think not....
Quote from: The Great Dictator on April 04, 2013, 06: PM
If the poor are so hard up then why did they spend millions on internet gambling last year, i think not....
Did you get that one from Archetypes R Us?
Quote from: The Great Dictator on April 04, 2013, 06: PM
If the poor are so hard up then why did they spend millions on internet gambling last year, i think not....
We can all chuck generalisations about..... here`s 1 for you.
If the Rich are so well off........... How come they want even more & do anything to get it........
Don`t believe everything you read in The Daily Mail
Quote from: The Great Dictator on April 04, 2013, 06: PM
If the poor are so hard up then why did they spend millions on internet gambling last year, i think not....
As opposed to the rich who gambled billions (of our money) and lost it.
Then got their mates in Parliament to give them more billions to play with......
and got Osbourne to rush around Europe begging the other leaders not to tax them any more...........
The poor get penalties and the rich get incentives..........
Sorry Lucy, I didn't see your post before my last.
Yes, I do consider myself to be in a more fortune position than some. More fortune than I myself was a few years back too.
The rich did not gamble our millions, bankers did.
Quote from: The Great Dictator on April 05, 2013, 12: AM
The rich did not gamble our millions, bankers did.
Can you point me out a Banker who is not rich?
I was just following the Osbourne line of reasoning. Man who kills his kids is on welfare-everyone on welfare is a killer!
Quote from: The Great Dictator on April 04, 2013, 06: PM
If the poor are so hard up then why did they spend millions on internet gambling last year, i think not....
How would you or anyone else know who has been gambling on the internet, let alone how rich or poor they were?
What a really silly statement.
Stevef The National Lottery for one knows exactly how much is spent and where if not the individual. It is used to pinpoint their ad campaigns and, I understand, is sold to other lotteries and gambling organisation just as the charities do. Many organisations do similar research. Every log on to a site is recorded which is another reason why you should decline cookies and delete them when exiting a browser. Google and others make their money from such activities all in the guise of making things easier for the user. Another example of big brother....
I haven't read anything about it in this recession but in the last one it was reported that the NE had the largest increase in spending on the lottery. Other more affluent areas showed a decrease. Make what you will of that.
"Don`t believe everything you read in The Daily Mail"
Or anywhere else for that matter including here!
I am directing this comment to some researcher in a future time who is reading this (probably in error) by courtesy of the British Library who from tomorrow is storing any UK website page, blog, you name it, for posterity.
Whether the readers of 3013 will understand any of it better than we can is debatable.
They may also wonder why we do it instead of getting out in the sun................... :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(
Stand outside Tesco or Gillans and you will see which numpties do the gambling, the bloody council house riff-raff, use your head.
The bankers i know are on £6.19 an hour, unemployed chavs spend all day in Ladbrokes you divvy.
What's a council house?
Riff Raff................ isn`t that one of those Low Sugar Breakfast Cereals ???
The council house tenants bought them up and cashed them in, good old socialists that they are..
Quote from: The Great Dictator on April 05, 2013, 05: PM
The council house tenants bought them up and cashed them in, good old socialists that they are..
Your other flame-bait didn't work and you will be no more successful with this one...........
Finally! Some sense from the Labour back benches.
SIMON DANCZUK, Labour MP
GEORGE Osborne says we need a welfare debate. I've got news for the Chancellor — it's already happening.
The word on the street in my constituency is way ahead of Westminster — and the Left of my party.
There are plenty of people capable of working in Rochdale that have been parked on benefits for years.
There is nothing to be proud of watching people's potential waste away, trapped on a life of benefits.
The Left has to accept there are some people on the dole that don't want to work, and we need to have a plan to get them into work.
Those trapped in welfare dependency will never experience the satisfaction of a hard day's work.
This is a criminal loss of human potential we should all fight against.
The majority of people recognise that benefit reform is neccessary Shane, we don`t need it ramming down our throats, but for Gideon to use the deaths of 6 children as a drumbeat for welfare reform was, to say the least dispicable.
Now you can tell us about the 1 Million jobs your government have created in the public sector, as well as the hundreds of thousands of apprenticeships.......
BTW.... how long does it take to serve your time as a shelf stacker in a supermarket these days ???
Quote: "The Left has to accept there are some people on the dole that don't want to work, and we need to have a plan to get them into work. "
I've not read anything on here or heard anything on 'the street' that would disagree with the above. After all, there are nearly 3 million to choose from so it would be something of a miracle if there weren't some people on the dole that don't want to work. It's a question of emphasis, really and why the emphasis is so much concentrated on the small minority of those who don't want to work rather than the vast majority who do but can't because of the lack of available work. Isn't this were the Government should be concentrating its efforts?
This lack of balance leaves the genuine 'job-seekers', who are in the majority, feeling as if they little more than parasites.
In your rush to defend the indefensible and try to score cheap political points you completely miss the point. Until now, Labour have maintained the line that there is nobody playing the system and they will therefore object to any changes to the benefit system.
It is a fact universally accepted, Steve, that it is only a small percentage of the total number claiming some kind of benefits that are fiddling the system but even that is unacceptable.
It is only a small number councillors that are allegedly lining their pockets with public funds, Connected Care is only one £300k contract out of hundreds of service contracts - It's all still public money. Are you suggesting that because we are only talking about a small percentage of the councils overall budget we should not seek to change this type of behaviour?
Quote from: SRMoore on April 08, 2013, 10: AM
It is a fact universally accepted, Steve, that it is only a small percentage of the total number claiming some kind of benefits that are fiddling the system but even that is unacceptable.
Ahhhhhhh Ty Shane for accepting the facts........... So why does the government constantly demonise "People On Benefits"
There is a constant barrage of criticism about people on benefits, & as you quite rightly mention there are only a small percentage actualy "At It",
They have adopted the tactic of setting poor working people on benefits, against non working people on benefits, working people on no benefits, against working people on benefits... a clever tactic, but in the real world & with people having to face the harsh realities of living in Britain post Bankers Greed........Its a nasty way to try & run a country.
As Dave said "We are all in this Together".........It`s just that some are more "In It" than others
I believe the amount of tax being lost in avoidance schemes and in outright tax fraud is some 10 times the amount said to be lost in 'benefit fraud' but I do not think the publicity/resources devoted the tax recovery is 10 times that of benefit recovery.
Be aware that more benefits are paid to people in work than those who are unemployed and that over half the 'Welfare' budget is in fact pension payments.
It is not a question of right and wrong her but a shameful attempt to scapegoat a small section of the community whilst Osbourne is scuttling around Europe begging that his chums be spared any restrictions on their looting.
Yes, there should be more effort to collect due taxes. A bit hypocritical of you all though I should guess. It is generally thought that the NE has the largest black economy in England.
Hands on heart: how many of you have never done or received a 'guvvy' job? Just think of the VAT and income tax 'lost' to the treasury - if these taxes had been paid we might have been able to increase benefits.
Quote from: whatabouthisthen on April 08, 2013, 01: PM
Yes, there should be more effort to collect due taxes. A bit hypocritical of you all though I should guess. It is generally thought that the NE has the largest black economy in England.
Hands on heart: how many of you have never done or received a 'guvvy' job? Just think of the VAT and income tax 'lost' to the treasury - if these taxes had been paid we might have been able to increase benefits.
That amount is a drop in the Ocen compared to the "Legal Avoidance" aka ( Morally Corrupt ) tax avoided by Big Business.
So it's ok for the NE but not for the rich? At least the rich don't break the law. However, I do accept that some schemes are dubious and, of course, most are morally wrong.
I've never done a guvvy job, I chose the wrong career path for that to be an option, which is an aside.
I don't agree with guvvy jobs but can understand the temptation for anybody struggling to survive financially.
Is tax avoidance legal because those doing it have the politicians making the laws on their payroll ?
Isn't that a bit like buying off the jury and calling yourself innocent ?