The Comprehensive Spending Review Thread

[Gary L]

But it can turn out that we can keep having 'cuts' and it will all be in the guise of saving money and fixing what's broke.
it'll be like the first ever government that can do what they want. and people will suffer as a result, but it's all for the best?
they won't have to look after the old and vunurable anymore. the old and vulnurable will understand that they have to go without for the sake of the country.

I think at the moment people are ok about it as it's not actually affecting them. but give it time and who knows what will happen.

[Taf]

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Gary L

But it can turn out that we can keep having 'cuts' and it will all be in the guise of saving money and fixing what's broke.
it'll be like the first ever government that can do what they want. and people will suffer as a result, but it's all for the best?
they won't have to look after the old and vunurable anymore. the old and vulnurable will understand that they have to go without for the sake of the country.

I think at the moment people are ok about it as it's not actually affecting them. but give it time and who knows what will happen.

I think it's fair to say that that is highly unlikely and there is nothing to suggest that it may be the case.

These policies have a lot in them to try and mitigate their impact on many of the most vulnerable.

Again also note my comments on the scale of these cuts, for all the comments about how massive they are the only reason they are massive is because of the amount of extra people and money added to the public sector. They are only rolling the state back to where it was in 2006-7 which, again, was hardly doom and gloom time.

[NitroNutter]

I have to say whats more amusing than being proved right is how easy it apears to have been for the government to pass the buck of the failings in particular with reference to poor econimics of past governance from all parties onto the general populous and in turn, turn that populous against each other, absolutely remarkable, however it has always been said, never underestimate the stupidity of the general public, I guess on that point I have failed too.

As a disabled couple with 2 teenage children on approximately 19k a year including housing plus low level dla where child benefit is deducted from our suplemetary benefits to be forced to live in fear like we are now is abhorent, if this is a modern civil society then I would hate to meet its less civil counterparts. I thought we won the second world war, must have read that wrong aswell.

[Chrysalis]

my very cut down thoughts are.

this is an agenda against the poor, particurly the unemployed poor. benefit cuts during a recession is not common sense as people cant be forced into jobs that dont exist, and in particular attacking those who cannot work due to ill circumstances.

cameron has outright lied claiming the richest are taking the biggest hit as % of income when published figures disagree. clearly he is assuming people will just take his word for it. What he means is richest workers pay more as a % than the poorest workers so basically the tories are discounting welfare claimants as people. Similiar to that they disregard the welfare buget a sa budget as the chancellor claimed the budget cuts were reduced by adding more to welfare cuts, he forgot welfare is a budget.

if we were in true financial crisis then things like the nhs we wouldnt be able to afford to ringfence. The fact we can shows they have overhyped the situation to push their agenda. We have an elitist government now.

one has to wonder how thatcher can get admitted for a week with flu, yet anyone else off the street would be laughed at for wanted a bed for flu. in my hospital people dont get admitted even after surgery.

Originally Posted by NitroNutter

I have to say whats more amusing than being proved right is how easy it apears to have been for the government to pass the buck of the failings in particular with reference to poor econimics of past governance from all parties onto the general populous and in turn, turn that populous against each other, absolutely remarkable, however it has always been said, never underestimate the stupidity of the general public, I guess on that point I have failed too.

As a disabled couple with 2 teenage children on approximately 19k a year including housing plus low level dla where child benefit is deducted from our suplemetary benefits to be forced to live in fear like we are now is abhorent, if this is a modern civil society then I would hate to meet its less civil counterparts. I thought we won the second world war, must have read that wrong aswell.

And the relevance of that comment to the current economic situation is?

---------- Post added at 14:55 ---------- Previous post was at 14:44 ----------

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

my very cut down thoughts are.

this is an agenda against the poor, particurly the unemployed poor. benefit cuts during a recession is not common sense as people cant be forced into jobs that dont exist, and in particular attacking those who cannot work due to ill circumstances.

cameron has outright lied claiming the richest are taking the biggest hit as % of income when published figures disagree. clearly he is assuming people will just take his word for it. What he means is richest workers pay more as a % than the poorest workers so basically the tories are discounting welfare claimants as people. Similiar to that they disregard the welfare buget a sa budget as the chancellor claimed the budget cuts were reduced by adding more to welfare cuts, he forgot welfare is a budget.

if we were in true financial crisis then things like the nhs we wouldnt be able to afford to ringfence. The fact we can shows they have overhyped the situation to push their agenda. We have an elitist government now.

one has to wonder how thatcher can get admitted for a week with flu, yet anyone else off the street would be laughed at for wanted a bed for flu. in my hospital people dont get admitted even after surgery.

You are mistaken - they talk about household income (including benefits), not about salaries, so they are including non-working people.

Re the NHS, it is all about balance - what will affect/benefit most people; it's not binary, it's fuzzy.

Re Thatcher - two things; 1) when my mum-in-law had flu (she's 82), she was admitted to hospital, and 2) You will probably find that Mrs T has Private Health, so she is not being a drain on your taxes/the NHS

[Chrysalis]

if they are including benefit claimants then cameron lied or is misinformed.

Or you have misread/misinterpreted what was said.....

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Or you have misread/misinterpreted what was said.....

in what way, am happy for you to explain.

the way I understood it cameron said the highest earners pay the biggest % of income towards the deficit. Have I misunderstood that?

If you could point out to me where you read it, I am happy to discuss.....


Update - found the link - BBC, and there's an explanation on BBC's Stephanie Flander's blog why the Government and the Treasury think that way (it's disputed by others).

Here's a stylized example, using numbers that are roughly similar to the real ones, but generously rounded for simplicity.

Say the average household in the bottom fifth has an income of around £200 per week. The government reckons that government services are so important to them, these benefits in kind are worth another £200 a week. The state plays a much smaller role in the life of the average household in the top fifth of the income distribution: they get benefits of kind of about £100 a week, to add to their weekly net income of £1,000.

The Treasury has looked at around two-thirds of departmental spending, and taken a best guess of how these different households will be affected by the cuts, including Health, Education, Communities and Local Government, Work and Pensions, and Transport. (Unlike the benefit analysis, the IFS has not said that there any glaring omissions from the Treasury's list.)

Their conclusion? The poorest will lose government services worth about seven per week whereas the richest fifth have lost services worth about 10 a week.

This is what lets the IFS conclude that the governments programme looks even more regressive, once spending cuts are added to the mix. That 7 is obviously worth a lot more to the poor family than the rich one . In my (roughly right) example, its worth just over 3 per cent of their net income, while the 10 hit to the top fifth is only 1%.

For the IFS, that is more or less the end of the story. But Mr Osborne and Nick Clegg - think it is relevant than the poorer family are getting a lot more from the state to start off with. That seven represents roughly 3% of their benefits in kind from the government whereas the 10 hit to richer households reduces their in-kind benefits by fully 10%.

If you think this sounds fishy, the Treasury doesn't provide all the details of the calculation, but I think the idea is that the bits of the state that have been hardest hit - like Higher Education - are often the parts that richer households use the most. Most of the subsidy for the poorest students has been protected. (Oddly, the same logic wasn't applied to child benefit and education maintenance allowances: middle class 16 year olds will keep their benefit, but their poorer peers will have lose their allowances.)

That is why the Treasury thinks the spending cuts will be fairly evenly spread in their impact, with the poorest taking a smaller hit than the rich - though they still need Labour's tax rises to say that the top fifth are hurting the most

And from the Comprehensive Spending Review document, page 98


and on page 100

[NitroNutter]

Originally Posted by Hugh

And the relevance of that comment to the current economic situation is?

Who benefited from the grossly artifical boom of the new millenium decade which some warned about through knowledge based on past experience several years ago but were often ridiculed and laughed at for spreading a doom phylosophy even though it mounted to little more than the most basic of maths and general econmic knowledge to know it was never sustainable ?

The corporations, the politicians and the bankers, the countrys tax money bailed them out of bankrupcy and now its the population being penalised, hundreds of thousands thrown onto to the dole que through redundancies and other job loss methods whilst those putting people out of work are then pointing their fingers at the people who have suffered at the hands of corporate industry and political failure, blatantly accusing them of scrounging and whipping up a frenzy of deflected contempt that should with very good reason be directed at those who played their part in this and benefited.

The bankers in essence committed fraud on an unprecedented scale of which house prices have still yet to fall to an affordable level for the majority of regular working couples as stated by Mr Osbourne himself on an appproxiamte average of 29k net per year and 10k in thier pocket would struggle and rightly so to obtain a responsible mortgage above 91k so even with approximately 10% deposit under normal mortgage criteria the vast majority of proffessional couples could not afford a house above £105k, it is the bankers who should be writing off with full impunity any debts arising as a direct result of their folly especially where secured lending went beyond normal mortgage lending criteria, it is the bankers who should be investing responsibly into the countries future to ensure the people who can work will have sufficient placements of suitable employment and it is the politicians who should be ensuring the bankers fulfil their obligations, otherwise all the past decade has proved is the bankers and largest corporations can and will commit fraud any time they like as they are beyond reproach due to their sheer size and our politicians will do nothing but benefit from continued insider trading whilst patting their good buddy corporates on the back.

We're in this together ? Like hell we are, I dont see those in power taking a paycut, I dont see those in power scrounging a second house of the tax payer handing it back to the country, I dont see those earning money on false pretences being threatened with job loss. Looks to me like they are after deflecting the blame away from themselves and hoping for a wider multicultural civil unrest whilst they sit pretty with their ammassed wealth.

Hug a hoody ? Thats got to be the biggest joke of all because Mr Osbourne is round the corner waiting to shank them in the back, (This is just a variation on the phrase to be stabbed in the back and should not be taken litterally).

Tough on crime tough on the causes of crime, another joke as we are about to see such an increased level of poverty it will without doubt raise crime levels exponentially. The impending increase in poverty is a direct result of the current governments policies, previous governments blunders, failings within the banking sector and overall general corporate greed.

These are the people who should be footing the bill of their past discrssions, not the middle working classes or lower who can barely afford their home and regular billsand a general mediocre lifestyle. Any working family below a sultry income of say £50k or less simply should not be affected by any cutbacks, and those who have fallen foul to a wide variety of unfortunate circumstances as a direct result of our often abusive society, in particular the corporate sector and other workplaces should not ever be scapegoated, the general public should never allow themselves to be motivated to persecute those who have already had significant misfortunate brought upon them at no fault of their own, otherwise the government may aswell start supplying tickets to Switzerland instead (hence the reference to the second world war) as the drastic measures currently being implemented by the new government will almost certainly mount to some level of involuntary euthenasia. Its one thing to see if anything can be done to aid the more vulnerable people into a more fulfilling and contributary lifestyle, its something else to enforce it with a whip.

[NitroNutter]

PLease note the final paragraph in the above post is incorrect and should begin:

"These are the people who should be footing the bill of their past indiscretions"

Apologies for the error it was late at time of posting and I was unable to edit the post later.

Originally Posted by NitroNutter

Snippety snip snip, the drastic measures currently being implemented by the new government will almost certainly mount to some level of involuntary euthenasia. Its one thing to see if anything can be done to aid the more vulnerable people into a more fulfilling and contributary lifestyle, its something else to enforce it with a whip.

We're being a little over-dramatic now, don't you think?

I actually agree with some of your points re the Bankers and House Price inflation, but when you descend into emotive harangues using terms like "involuntary euthanisia" and "enforce it with a whip", you are drifting off the beaches of reality and dabbling your feet in the shallow waters of fantasy (imho). What's your next proposition - that the Government are setting up "death panels" and "internment camps"? You may wish to contact Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh - they have said it all before......

btw, as I said before, I agree with some of your points re Bankers, but you seem to have missed out the flagrant over-spending by the previous Government of monies they (and the country) didn't have - or doesn't that fit in with your world-picture?

[Chrysalis]

Hugh, you watched that dispatches that ignition linked to in the other thread? Shows the true face of the tories, not enforcing taxation on tax havens as a requirement for loans.

The "we all in this together" is a load of nonsense.

No, I haven't - I will try to watch it on Catch-Up or On Demand this week. Can I point you in the direction of the C4 comments page where one repondent states

I'm a UK Solicitor who specialises in international tax.

This programme was appalling and littered with errors that made it laughable. I feel sorry for the lawyer from Burges Salmon who was clearly hoodwinked into giving what appeared to be justification for some of these claims. There are aggressive tax avoidance schemes out there, but this programme didn't catch any of those, merely getting some real tax basics very wrong.

The lack of understanding of UK withholding tax, the lack of mention that dividends from a UK company are paid from the profits *after* UK tax (so the benefit over taking a salary is not as described) and so on. Shocking journalism.

Also on the comments page is an interesting debate between the two tax accountants featured on the programme - it starts at October 21st, 2010 at 18:21.

Can I point out that "The Tories" are not one amorphous mass - there are lots of differing viewpoints, just like in any large movement/organisation; I am a Tory, but I am a One-Nation lefty Wet fiscally conservative socially liberal Tory, who is poles apart for the Bone-Dry extreme monetarist Libertarians, who are poles apart from.... you get my drift.