Budget hits the "poorest" hardest!!

[shaunbhoy]

BBC News - Budget hits the poorest hardest, says IFS

"Once all of the benefit cuts are considered, the tax and benefit changes announced in the emergency Budget are clearly regressive as, on average, they hit the poorest households more than those in the upper middle of the income distribution in cash, let alone percentage, terms."

Well just maybe some of the feckless layabouts in the "poorest" households might then be persuaded to get off their lazy fat arses and find a job to supplement the handouts they currently receive from the rest of us then!!!

[snaw]

BBC News - Budget hits the poorest hardest, says IFS




Well just maybe some of the feckless layabouts in the "poorest" households might then be persuaded to get off their lazy fat arses and find a job to supplement the handouts they currently receive from the rest of us then!!!

Amazing logical deduction there SB.

Being poor = being a feckless layabout, what sits around on their lazy fat arse all day.

This means that only the richest 10% of households lost more in cash terms from the Budget, than those in the bottom 60%.

BTW Are there that many jobs going for them to be taking?

What next, taking benefits off junkies .. now there's a really fcking clever idea, with no consequences ...

[Mich the Tester]

The shadow work and pensions secretary Yvette Cooper accused the government of carrying out a "shocking and unfair attack on children and families".

I wonder what Yvette Cooper has to say about this;

National debt 15,000 pounds for every inhabitant
National debt 32,500 pounds for every working person
Interest payments on national debt 1,891 pounds per household


UK National Debt Clock - No-nonsense Guide to Britain's Debt Crisis

And now Lyingbastardbour have the nerve to say Dave and Nick are mounting a ‘shocking and unfair attack on children and families’.

FFS, the last Labour government saddled everyone with huge amounts of debt, including kids who hadn’t even reached voting age to do anything about it and are going to spend much of their working lives paying for this profligacy.

[fullyautomatix]

The difference between a country that is 'developed' and ones which are 'developing' or 'underdeveloped' is that the 'developed' country pours in a lot of its money into looking after the poor, vulnerable society. India and China are rapidly developing but with no social security and once glance at the poor in those countries will tell you why having a social security umbrella is good for mankind.

[shaunbhoy]

Amazing logical deduction there SB.

Being poor = being a feckless layabout, what sits around on their lazy fat arse all day.

So your "logic" suggests that all those currently living on benefits are hard done by, willing to work but simply unfortunate, deserving cases then snaw?
Can I have some of what YOU are smoking please?



And maybe, just maybe, when the great many layabouts that are currently better off staying at home suddenly find they are NOT better off staying at home, they might get a grip of their useless socialist MPs and ask them why all of the jobs that they MIGHT have been doing for the last few years are all being done by Poles?

[d000hg]

Well just maybe some of the feckless layabouts in the "poorest" households might then be persuaded to get off their lazy fat arses and find a job to supplement the handouts they currently receive from the rest of us then!!!

Amazing logical deduction there SB.

Being poor = being a feckless layabout, what sits around on their lazy fat arse all day.

So your "logic" suggests that all those currently living on benefits are hard done by, willing to work but simply unfortunate, deserving cases then snaw?

Whereas your "logic" is fair and unbiased, saying they're all workshy sponges?

Where exactly are they all going to get jobs from, in your plan?

[Old Greg]

Does this mean than an increase of 1,000,000 unemployed is the result of an extra 1,000,000 people deciding they would rather live on benefits?

[d000hg]

Absolutely. It's propaganda that companies are laying off staff. Instead, thousands of people a week are quitting their jobs, despite their employers begging them to stay, so they can shop for cheap sportswear at Primark and eat own-brand Pot Noodle from their benefits cheque.

[shaunbhoy]

Whereas your "logic" is fair and unbiased, saying they're all workshy sponges?

Well we have to start somewhere. Let's work back from that premise shall we?

Where exactly are they all going to get jobs from, in your plan?

If you listen carefully, you may hear the phrase WGAS marching towards this thread with all trumpets blaring!



Once the dust has settled, and the truly vulnerable and needy have been fairly assessed and established, THEY will get more.
As for those that have been milking the system, they can wrestle with their predicament in much the same way that tens of thousands of hard-working people have been doing with regards to how they will pay all of their ever-rising bills each month.

[HairyArsedBloke]

Where exactly are they all going to get jobs from, in your plan?

Cut the cost of employing people and the demand would go up.

Get rid of the minimum wage, employers NI, employment contract laws, and 'elf and safety rules.