Resolution Foundation Briefing - Budget Response: Spoiler: Link to PDF http://www.resolutionfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/On-the-day-Budget.pdf Key Points The richest 20% of households will gain £225 on average from the income tax cuts announced yesterday, while the poorest 20% will get just £10 on average. please log in to view this image Taking a longer view, the latest income tax changes further skew the distributional impact of policies announced since the 2015 election. After accounting both for previous announcements (relating to the National Living Wage, benefit freezes and cuts to Universal Credit and the tax credit system) and for those from the Budget that we can reasonably model (including the income tax threshold changes, a further reduction in the rate of Capital Gains Tax from next month and another freeze in the fuel duty) we find that households in the bottom half of the income distribution face being worse off in 2020-21 than they would have been in the absence of any policy changes. We estimate their average loss to be £375 (or 1.8 per cent of their net income). In contrast, we estimate average gains of £235 (or 0.5 per cent of their net income) among households in the top half. please log in to view this image The scale of cash consolidation needed in this pre-election year will be made even tougher by the commitment to raise the Personal Tax Allowance (PTA) to £12,500 and Higher Rate Threshold (HRT) to £50,000 by the end of the parliament. The foundation estimates that these tax cuts will cost a further £2.5bn by 2020-21, with a third of the gains going to the richest ten per cent of households. However by increasing spending through expensive and poorly targeted tax cuts, the chancellor has created a herculean task of reducing borrowing by £32bn in a pre-election year. It is hard to see a government seeking to build a pre-election feelgood factor delivering a consolidation comparable to that seen during the Chancellor’s first two years in office.
Oh my, this thread has turned quiet serious! Anyone ever watch "The New Statesman" with Rik Mayall? That's all I'm thinking while shifting through these posts!
Only a matter of time before politics took over this thread. Hope it doesn't finish it off like last time. Talking of Rik Mayall FML... Trivia question: Who can tell me which childrens book was parodied in an episode of the Young Ones?
Is it the one from the; cure for not being an axe weilding homicidal maniac? "Little pigs, little pigs let me come in!" Bah!
I think all this is very astute stewardship of the economy. It gives all those loathsome poor people something to aspire to. Get a great education from your war zone of an academy where 60% of the students are nfl, get a very expensive degree unless you're a sweaty and join the highly paid masses so that you can look down on your lazy poor brethren who didn't pull their socks up. We must make these poor folk strive a bit more and heres a classic carrot for them, caviar and volovons anyone! pip pip, jolly hockeysticks Bah!
Wasn't there an episode where Jennifer Saunders played a fairy tale type character? In a yellow dress, looked like a bo-peep type.
My wife wanted to run her hands through my hair this morning , I had to pull down my pants cause I'm bald ... Don't get no respect
Not up to date with it mate, I'm into my reading at the moment, looking forward to the new Peaky Blinders though, that'll get me out of me books!
I do both, I'm very lucky that way! It's as good as ever, I love it. Yep, PB - can't wait, what a series that was. Edit: We don't have a book strand just now, that would be welcome
Well off topic, I'm afraid but just seen this on BBC sports site. Novak Djokovic believes men should be paid more than women in tennis. His argument is based on bigger crowds and TV audiences, mine is based on 5 sets versus 3. Why the hell should some floozy earn in just over an hour what the guys graft and sweat for for sometimes well over four hours? If you worked an hour and a half shift, you'd not expect to earn the same as a three and a half hour long stint, I'm pretty sure? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35859791 Anyway, rant over, calm...and a two point cushion to the drop zone returns
Whilst I half agree with your rationale that they work longer and should perhaps get greater reward. They work in a sport dependant on entertaining the paying public, so market forces will be the overall deciding factor. As long as mens and womens tournaments are played simultaneously it is difficult to seperate out who the public are truely paying to see. But I'm sure the sponsors and the paymasters know their market and pay accordingly. (If nothing else the TV people will be able to get more money for more adverts screened during a longer match) But if the ladies want the biggest pay check then why not play the men and see if they can win the bigger prize over the longer format? Because surely the best players should net the biggest prize? Bah!
More madness in Brussels, what is wrong with these lunatics, no religion encourages these mindless acts! Bah!
