Revealed: Conservatives and Lib Dems have helped the rich by crushing the poor Watch

viddy9
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
According to independent research conducted by economists at the London School of Economics, the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition has transferred money from the poor to the well off through changes to the taxation and welfare system, refuting George Osborne's claim that "we're all in it together".

It is also likely to add fuel to Labour's focus on inequality and living standards, and this redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich looks likely to continue after the election, as the Conservatives plan to freeze the incomes of the working poor via their benefits while giving a tax cut to above average earners, similar to the tax cut they gave to millionaires during this government while plunging hundreds of thousands more people into absolute poverty and food poverty.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...george-osborne
0
reply
corinnetomsett
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
no surprises there
0
reply
Obiejess
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 years ago
#3
They also found out the sky was blue.

Posted from TSR Mobile
1
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
Your notion supposes that we agree government should subsidise wages, i don't.

The problem is that the private sector is not increasing wages, that is not the Tories nor Labour's fault. It is a structural issue that needs to be solved but as yet has not.
0
reply
viddy9
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#5
Yes, my apologies. I agree that the headline should have been more along the lines of 'Tories continue their life goal of helping the rich and crushing the poor.'

The Telegraph's headline, meanwhile, would have been 'Mission accomplished - Conservatives rejoice as poor get poorer!'

And, the problem is that changes to taxation and welfare, which are within the government's remit, have been specifically designed to help the rich. It had nothing to do with the deficit at all, as the study shows. Nothing, therefore, to do with wages in the private sector either. They should be higher, but there are other ways to deal with the cost of living crisis with government intervention. If anything, it simply demonstrates, yet again, that the market can't look after itself. This article of faith has been refuted so many times, and yet the Tories seem to have such short memories.
2
reply
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 years ago
#6
The thing is this is ultimately the goal of any party that wants power, you target the middle of the population, slightly skewed to the top as these tend to be the intelligent and more importantly likely to vote crowd. What do they want? To be better off. Who must this be at the expense of? Those at the very top and at the bottom, ie not your target.

Suddenly there is no surprise in the headline. Ultimately, Labour would have probably done the same thing

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
Alfissti
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 years ago
#7
What exactly is wrong with the rich having a tax cut again?

That's right, absolutely nothing considering they still pay the most in taxes.
0
reply
Clip
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 years ago
#8
Are you saying that it's......illegal to be poor?
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 years ago
#9
(Original post by Alfissti)
What exactly is wrong with the rich having a tax cut again?

That's right, absolutely nothing considering they still pay the most in taxes.
Would that be the tax cut that was 40% for most of labours government and now 45% under the present coalition?

What we seem to have at the moment is a lot of people who have got used to spending other people's money getting vocal about not having as much other people's money to spend.
0
reply
viddy9
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#10
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Suddenly there is no surprise in the headline. Ultimately, Labour would have probably done the same thing
Except, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, they didn't from 1997-2010. Their taxation and welfare policies redistributed wealth from the rich to the poor, culminating in a 50% reduction in absolute poverty and a 33% reduction in relative poverty under the last Labour government.

Suddenly, there's no surprise in the headline: it's still, as always, the Conservatives who look out for the rich, and there's no point in projecting morally negative attributes onto others.

(Original post by Alfissti)
What exactly is wrong with the rich having a tax cut again?

That's right, absolutely nothing considering they still pay the most in taxes.
What's wrong? Well, for a start, it's led to this redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich. We should be looking at the consequences of any policies, and the consequences are that we have a million people who can't even afford to feed themselves and millions more struggling to pay their bills, while at the other end we have millionaires and billionaires being taxed less.

Any rise in taxes for the rich will still result in them being richer than everyone else. The same can't be said for the poor. So, it's grossly unfair that the rich get a tax cut.

Secondly, seeing as Conservatives clearly don't know what ethics is, inequality is also bad for economic growth, as even the IMF have admitted, and they have also admitted that tax rises for the rich are a way to reduce this inequality to aid economic growth. We only have to look at that capitalist utopia - 1920s USA - to see the effects of tax cuts for the rich and laissez-faire economics, namely a worldwide depression.
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 years ago
#11
(Original post by viddy9)
Except, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, they didn't from 1997-2010. Their taxation and welfare policies redistributed wealth from the rich to the poor, culminating in a 50% reduction in absolute poverty and a 33% reduction in relative poverty under the last Labour government.

Suddenly, there's no surprise in the headline: it's still, as always, the Conservatives who look out for the rich, and there's no point in projecting morally negative attributes onto others.



What's wrong? Well, for a start, it's led to this redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich. We should be looking at the consequences of any policies, and the consequences are that we have a million people who can't even afford to feed themselves and millions more struggling to pay their bills, while at the other end we have millionaires and billionaires being taxed less.

Any rise in taxes for the rich will still result in them being richer than everyone else. The same can't be said for the poor. So, it's grossly unfair that the rich get a tax cut.

Secondly, seeing as Conservatives clearly don't know what ethics is, inequality is also bad for economic growth, as even the IMF have admitted, and they have also admitted that tax rises for the rich are a way to reduce this inequality to aid economic growth. We only have to look at that capitalist utopia - 1920s USA - to see the effects of tax cuts for the rich and laissez-faire economics, namely a worldwide depression.
Alas labour didn't redistribute wealth. It borrowed money at unsustainable levels and have it away in the form of ever increasing benefits to those at the bottom. Nobel motives possibly, but completely unsustainable.

Just as a point to note. Government statistics don't do absolute poverty. Its relative poverty they calculate.
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 years ago
#12
Osborne and Cameron are really upset by this news.

0
reply
BrainDrain
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 years ago
#13
(Original post by viddy9)
Except, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, they didn't from 1997-2010. Their taxation and welfare policies redistributed wealth from the rich to the poor, culminating in a 50% reduction in absolute poverty and a 33% reduction in relative poverty under the last Labour government.

Suddenly, there's no surprise in the headline: it's still, as always, the Conservatives who look out for the rich, and there's no point in projecting morally negative attributes onto others.



What's wrong? Well, for a start, it's led to this redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich. We should be looking at the consequences of any policies, and the consequences are that we have a million people who can't even afford to feed themselves and millions more struggling to pay their bills, while at the other end we have millionaires and billionaires being taxed less.

Any rise in taxes for the rich will still result in them being richer than everyone else. The same can't be said for the poor. So, it's grossly unfair that the rich get a tax cut.

Secondly, seeing as Conservatives clearly don't know what ethics is, inequality is also bad for economic growth, as even the IMF have admitted, and they have also admitted that tax rises for the rich are a way to reduce this inequality to aid economic growth. We only have to look at that capitalist utopia - 1920s USA - to see the effects of tax cuts for the rich and laissez-faire economics, namely a worldwide depression.
Lol a million people unable to feed themselves, is that after paying for mobile phones , televisions , computers and all the rest. I suggest they head for Tesco and the pound shops , cornflakes 31p two pasties for a pound, bread and milk for a quid. If you can't feed yourself on the benefits provided you need to apply for disability as there is something seriously wrong with you.
0
reply
BrainDrain
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 years ago
#14
(Original post by BrainDrain)
Lol a million people unable to feed themselves, is that after paying for mobile phones , televisions , computers and all the rest. I suggest they head for Tesco and the pound shops , cornflakes 31p two pasties for a pound, bread and milk for a quid. If you can't feed yourself on the benefits provided you need to apply for disability as there is something seriously wrong with you.
Sorry was meant in reply to MatureStudent
0
reply
illegaltobepoor
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 years ago
#15
Wage purchasing power has been dropping since the 1960s while since 1980 to 2011 the Rich 10% has increased their wealth by 400% in comparison to the poorest 10% of workers.

Also before the Tories came into Government wage growth was 3% (2000 to 2010 average). Now it is as low as 1.3%. (2010 to 2014 average).

There is a reason why wages are subsidized! Because low paid workers wouldn't be able to live in London and do all the menial jobs. It is effectively subsidized slavery.

We have had numerous recessions in this country and each time wages have been reduced while banks profits continue as nothing ever happened.

We need to make up for 30 years of stagnant wage growth. I personally feel that the Robin Hood tax should be introduced.

Min-wage should be around £12 a hour to reflect the losses of previous recessions and the costs of a ever bloated island.

And who should pay for it?
Well the very people who caused the recessions.

And now the Tories / UKIP's are trying to give reasons for more austerity. See this is the real face of the Right-wing.

Its screw you! I've got mine! I want more! Why should I pay taxes for a fair society?

This report is very rewarding to me. Shows after numerous posts I have been fighting the good fight. I salute the OP and all others who have been fighting against ideological austerity.
0
reply
BrainDrain
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 years ago
#16
(Original post by illegaltobepoor)
Wage purchasing power has been dropping since the 1960s while since 1980 to 2011 the Rich 10% has increased their wealth by 400% in comparison to the poorest 10% of workers.

Also before the Tories came into Government wage growth was 3% (2000 to 2010 average). Now it is as low as 1.3%. (2010 to 2014 average).

There is a reason why wages are subsidized! Because low paid workers wouldn't be able to live in London and do all the menial jobs. It is effectively subsidized slavery.

We have had numerous recessions in this country and each time wages have been reduced while banks profits continue as nothing ever happened.

We need to make up for 30 years of stagnant wage growth. I personally feel that the Robin Hood tax should be introduced.

Min-wage should be around £12 a hour to reflect the losses of previous recessions and the costs of a ever bloated island.

And who should pay for it?
Well the very people who caused the recessions.
Meanwhile back in the real world, we are billions of pounds in debt, and some have short memories of who took away bank restrictions and allowed banks to run out of control and get us into this mess. Lets all have a rise, I suspect I could get elected by promising riches to everyone, and with a bit of luck get away with passing the baton on to the next generation. Get real it's going to hurt a lot more than this before things start to improve.
0
reply
illegaltobepoor
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#17
Report 4 years ago
#17
(Original post by BrainDrain)
Meanwhile back in the real world, we are billions of pounds in debt, and some have short memories of who took away bank restrictions and allowed banks to run out of control and get us into this mess. Lets all have a rise, I suspect I could get elected by promising riches to everyone, and with a bit of luck get away with passing the baton on to the next generation. Get real it's going to hurt a lot more than this before things start to improve.
If you think the United Kingdom is broke you fail to understand one thing. We have lots of rich people in this country and all the Government needs to do is freeze their bank accounts and levy them. Exactly what happened in Cyprus.

Ayn Rand's nightmare if you like.

But let me let you in on something else. Britain has defaulted on its debts before and guess what? We are still here. That is because the monetary system needs us. We are in a certain position in the world with a good University system that pumps out finance workers every year. We will get another IMF bail out to keep us running.

But the big thing is this. We pay most of our capital to parasites. Not welfare claimants ...... But landlords & utility firms that capitalize on everyone elses trading. They simply use bogus reasons to increase their rates and make lots of excess profit.

So how do we become extremely productive to pay £12 a hour? We re nationalize all basic amenities including telecom and build lots of council houses but also abolish the right to buy so private gain is pushed out of public finances for good. Something Tories dred to think about because that is where they make most of their money.

Once living costs reduce in price the country will become productive again because the majority will not be in survival mode.

We currently live in a privatized hell hole where nearly all services have profiteering rackets behind them. And you wonder why this country isnt working lol.

We need a PM that will take on the rich and tell them how its going to be! We don't need a yes man who will take orders from the rich.
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#18
Report 4 years ago
#18
(Original post by illegaltobepoor)
QFA
Wage purchasing power has been dropping since the 1960s
Evidence.

Also before the Tories came into Government wage growth was 3% (2000 to 2010 average). Now it is as low as 1.3%. (2010 to 2014 average).
Your 00-09 average should be 1.8%, your 10-13 average is correct (Q4 growth of 0.7% would pump the 10-14 average up to 1.6%. Relatively good chance that we can beat the last decade since the recession took a slice.

There is a reason why wages are subsidized! Because low paid workers wouldn't be able to live in London and do all the menial jobs. It is effectively subsidized slavery.
Or because it's in the government interest for people not to live within their means and reduce discretionary consumption.

We have had numerous recessions in this country and each time wages have been reduced while banks profits continue as nothing ever happened.
Banks did make losses (aside from HSBC). It should not be a shock that profits return in advance of wages.

We need to make up for 30 years of stagnant wage growth. I personally feel that the Robin Hood tax should be introduced.
Not consistent with the data. Real wage growth in the UK was okay until the recession (granted wage growth should have been higher).

0
reply
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#19
Report 4 years ago
#19
(Original post by viddy9)
Except, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, they didn't from 1997-2010. Their taxation and welfare policies redistributed wealth from the rich to the poor, culminating in a 50% reduction in absolute poverty and a 33% reduction in relative poverty under the last Labour government.
As discussed time and again, although not necessarily with you, poverty is defined so poorly I cannot take anybody seriously who talk about povery. Trivially the number of people in "absolute poverty" will decrease. And what's that decrease? from 2 to 1?

And if you push the top up 50% then that renders an increase in tax revenue from income tax by a significant amount which you can then use to pull up the bottom enough to stop being a statistic. Once they were above the relative poverty line did they go any further, or were they left just above it? Collectively the bottom 20% is only just above it.

And in the same time how much did the middle class benefit? I imagine a hell of a lot more
0
reply
illegaltobepoor
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#20
Report 4 years ago
#20
(Original post by Rakas21)
Evidence.



Your 00-09 average should be 1.8%, your 10-13 average is correct (Q4 growth of 0.7% would pump the 10-14 average up to 1.6%. Relatively good chance that we can beat the last decade since the recession took a slice.



Or because it's in the government interest for people not to live within their means and reduce discretionary consumption.



Banks did make losses (aside from HSBC). It should not be a shock that profits return in advance of wages.



Not consistent with the data. Real wage growth in the UK was okay until the recession (granted wage growth should have been higher).


My source is the National Average Earnings Index.

http://www.ariespensions.co.uk/publi...tables/nae.htm
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Where do you need more help?

Which Uni should I go to? (166)
18.55%
How successful will I become if I take my planned subjects? (91)
10.17%
How happy will I be if I take this career? (148)
16.54%
How do I achieve my dream Uni placement? (131)
14.64%
What should I study to achieve my dream career? (85)
9.5%
How can I be the best version of myself? (274)
30.61%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise