Tory spat over Cameron's plan to purge Central London of poor people

[shaunbhoy]

Learn the difference between absolute and relative growth. If we were paying £1trillion, even a 1% growth would be £10billion but it wouldn't be a big increase.

Stop splitting hairs. The main issue is that we are paying way too much to way too many people for doing way too little productive endeavour.
Until we stop rewarding laziness this abortion will continue.

[d000hg]

Stop splitting hairs. The main issue is that we are paying way too much to way too many people for doing way too little productive endeavour.
Until we stop rewarding laziness this abortion will continue.

It's hardly a hair. If the government told us they'd reduced our national debt by £20bn it would sound like a lot but be an equally small amount.

In real terms, the amount spent has barely increased over the last decade. In fact using the widely ridiculed AtW inflation index (which claims inflation is about 20%), real-term spending on benefits has dropped about 90%

That doesn't mean it's not too much. Just that it hasn't sky-rocketed as was insinuated in this thread, it's remained equally over-size.

[MrRobin]

It's hardly a hair. If the government told us they'd reduced our national debt by £20bn it would sound like a lot but be an equally small amount.

In real terms, the amount spent has barely increased over the last decade. In fact using the widely ridiculed AtW inflation index (which claims inflation is about 20%), real-term spending on benefits has dropped about 90%

That doesn't mean it's not too much. Just that it hasn't sky-rocketed as was insinuated in this thread, it's remained equally over-size.

According to ONS, inflation between 1999 and 2009 equaled 20% i.e. 20 ^ (1/10) = 1.83% a year.
The benefits bill has increased 50% over the same period and as you correctly pointed out, this is 4.1%
Therefore, in real terms, the benefits bill has increased by 30% in 10 years. Hardly 'barely increased'.

[d000hg]

I'm tired now. Can we subtract percentages that way? But if so, fair enough. Although 30% is a lot less than the quoted %50.

[AtW]

Although 30% is a lot less than the quoted %50.

Around 30% reduction in current housing bill is the same number as around 50% growth it experienced in the last decade.

HTH

[d000hg]

Around 30% reduction in current housing bill is the same number as around 50% growth it experienced in the last decade.

HTH

You are in no position to make any arguments since you claim inflation is way above the official figure, which contradicts what you claim in this thread.

[AtW]

You are in no position to make any arguments since you claim inflation is way above the official figure, which contradicts what you claim in this thread.

SALARY inflation isn't higher than official claimed, in fact I'd say probably lower (for same job).

[Doggy Styles]

Thanks MrRobin.

To summarise the numbers, the benefits total that some say will cause families hardship is a tax-free £26,000 per annum. To obtain that, a worker paying taxes would need a salary of £36,000.

That is a tidy sum indeed. Isn't it more than three-quarters of wage-earners?

[d000hg]

Thanks MrRobin.

To summarise the numbers, the benefits total that some say will cause families hardship is a tax-free £26,000 per annum. To obtain that, a worker paying taxes would need a salary of £36,000.

That is a tidy sum indeed. Isn't it more than three-quarters of wage-earners?

Probably. But running a household on a single salary isn't easy even without children. Two salaries makes a massive difference.

[fullyautomatix]

It's hardly a hair. If the government told us they'd reduced our national debt by £20bn it would sound like a lot but be an equally small amount.

In real terms, the amount spent has barely increased over the last decade. In fact using the widely ridiculed AtW inflation index (which claims inflation is about 20%), real-term spending on benefits has dropped about 90%

That doesn't mean it's not too much. Just that it hasn't sky-rocketed as was insinuated in this thread, it's remained equally over-size.

When I cannot afford a 4 bedroom house for my 4 children I settle for a 3 bedroom or a smaller one. So I take up what I can afford. Why should my taxes go to house workshy muppets who are intent on producing as many babies as they can ?