Women Hit Hardest of all by Osborne

Women Hit Hardest of all by Osborne

25 posts
7 March 2014
jivago
Photographer
jivago

Exclusive: George Osborne's tax and benefits changes have hit women almost four times harder than men 


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-george-osbornes-tax-and-benefits-changes-have-hit-women-almost-four-times-harder-than-men-9177533.html

George Osborne’s tax and benefit changes have hit women almost four times as hard as men, according to new research which threatens to compound the Conservative Party’s unpopularity among women.

Labour will mark International Women’s Day today by celebrating the economic, political and social achievements of women and seizing on the figures. It will demand measures to close the “gender gap” and tackle the “cost of living crisis” in the Budget on 19 March.

The analysis suggests that women were hit hard by the cuts to tax credits, which top up the earnings of those on low incomes: the 2010 Budget took £2.7 billion from women and only £750 million from men. Reductions in childcare support through tax credits in the 2010 government-wide spending review saw women lose £343 million and men £47 million.

The Chancellor’s three-year freeze in child benefit, usually paid to the mother, took £1.26 billion from women but only £26 million from men.

Conversely, men reaped the most benefit from Mr Osborne’s controversial decision to reduce the top rate of tax on income over £150,000 a year from 50p to 45p. Some 85 per cent of the gains went to men, and only 15 per cent to women.

Labour will also point to a separate study by HM Revenue & Customs showing that the decision to bring in a £1,000 transferable tax allowance for four million married couples next year will give a £411 million handout to men (84 per cent) and only £84 million to women (16 per cent).

Labour is not promising to reverse all the changes but argues that the gender bias illustrates “the choices” made by Mr Osborne and David Cameron.

Catherine McKinnell, a Labour Treasury spokeswoman, said: “It’s little wonder the Government has made such unfair choices when women are so absent from the top table. After significant progress under Labour, when the gender pay gap fell by over 7 per cent, the pay gap between men and women is now increasing again. The cost of childcare places has risen by an average 30 per cent on David Cameron’s watch – five times faster than pay. The truth is that for women across the country this is no recovery at all.”

She added: “George Osborne’s Budget is one of his final opportunities to turn the tide on this Government’s failure towards women. But after their woeful record of the last four years, I’m not holding my breath.”

However, some experts argue that the apparent bias against women stems from the make-up of those receiving benefits and pensions rather than the result of specific policies targeted at women.

The Treasury insisted the analysis was flawed. A spokesman for Mr Osborne said: “The Government’s long-term plan is working, with 1.6 million new private sector jobs and more women in work than ever before. This means more women and families with the peace of mind and financial security that comes with a regular pay-packet. This is why the biggest risk to the recovery and to women would be abandoning the plan that's providing economic security for hardworking people by going back to the days of more borrowing, more spending and higher taxes."

The spokesman added: “By focusing only on the named beneficiary of tax and benefit measures, this analysis fundamentally misunderstands the way in which families and couples share their income, thereby distorting the impact on men and women. The increase in the personal tax-free allowance, child tax credits and marriage tax allowance have all benefited women and families, while ensuring that the Government can tackle the debt that it has inherited in the fairest possible way”.

Most opinion polls show a gender gap. This week’s ComRes survey for The Independent gave Labour an 11-point lead over the Conservatives among women (39 to 28 per cent) and a four-point advantage among men (36 to 32 per cent).


Posted 7 March 2014
Edited by ForumModerator 8 March 2014
tonycsm
Photographer
tonycsm
And the left wing's answer to reducing borrowing to fund unaffordable social policies is....? 

It must be absolute hell being a left winger!...always miserable, always feeling downtrodden, always oppressed and victimised! Feeling that the whole world seems to be against them and what do those evil Tories do...they expect the country to live within it's means when the country is up to it's eyes in debt and almost bankrupt due to funding unsustainable social policies put in place by the last socialist government...how terrible and thoughtless to expect people of the country to actually live within it's means!

We've all seen what happens to the country when the left got into power and their hands on the country's credit cards ....the question is simple.... do you want more of the same after the next election?
Posted 8 March 2014
Chandos
Photographer
Chandos
A combination of reducing childcare support payment and reducing income tax for high earners plus increase allowances for married couples has been interpreted as an attack on women's purse by a tabloid and Labour who then said would not revearse most if any of the policies if they were elected. Just a lot of bickering between politicians who want to seize upon a percieved populist moment to cater for the great unwashed.

How much Harriet Harman may have cost Labour the last general election and she is still around and could cost them the next one too.

Posted 8 March 2014
Edited by Chandos 8 March 2014
Andy_B
Photographer
Andy_B
tonycsm

It must be absolute hell being a left winger!...always miserable, always feeling downtrodden, always oppressed and victimised! Feeling that the whole world seems to be against them and what do those evil Tories do...they expect the country to live within it's means when the country is up to it's eyes in debt and almost bankrupt due to funding unsustainable social policies put in place by the last socialist government...how terrible and thoughtless to expect people of the country to actually live within it's means!


On the contrary, it must be wonderful! Never having to take responsibility for anything - makes life so stress free!

Even if it was your own government that screwed the economy up, it's always someone elses fault! 

And (as in this case) even if you call out something in society that you don't like, you can make it clear that you'll do bugger-all about it and your loyal supporters won't care!
Posted 8 March 2014
OldMaster
Photographer
OldMaster
..."We've all seen what happens to the country when the left got into power and their hands on the country's credit cards ....the question is simple.... do you want more of the same after the next election?".. And you think New labour was "Left"...Blair was almost to the right of Thatcher!! I was trying to find any facts in this post but failed. The "Tory" policy is obvious. No one is suggesting the debt needed attending to but it's the way you do it. Sadly the "Tories" chose to balance the books by penalising the "middle classes", the poor and those on benefits. It may have escaped your notice but the rich are still getting richer and that includes the Bankers who caused the crisis in the first place (their philandering, deceit and corruption is still being uncovered today..) and I find it hard to understand that you can support consecutive administrations who have ensured that every service required by the population is now in private hands..gas, electricity, water, travel, communications? You may enjoy being ripped off and paying through the nose so the directors get rich but frankly I am bemused by that mentality. And here's another fact..yes, women have been hardest hit, whether they are in work, working supporting a family or singly supporting family. But as your contribution is tragically short of "fact" I doubt, like most blinkered to what has really been going on since 1979,that you will have noticed. Most of the population haven't but then again they read the Sun, The Mail and The Express. The fact that Tory voters are so easily swung to UKIP, a "Party" that is utterly without policy..(Well, one, keep those johnny foreigners out), says not too much about the grey matter of the Tory Voter... Well, sorry to disappoint guys but next time the chances are you will get Milliband, probably in coalition with Clegg, so get used to it! All still public school of course but not all from Eton! Socialist and very proud of it
Posted 8 March 2014
anthonyh
Photographer
anthonyh
We have just had a recession (still have?) and it is a basic rule of economics that a recession is a process whereby wealth is re-distributed from the less wealthy to the wealthy.

If women in general are a significant proportion of the less wealthy to start with, then a recession will have a disproportionate effect on them.

The problem is that pretty much the same happens in the so called boom times....capitalism sees to that.

Neither are political decisions since the govt in power has little power relative to the market forces that drive capitalism...and human greed of course as exactly the same process takes place in every political system whatever the name given to it. The migration of wealth to the already wealthy that is.

Posted 8 March 2014
SMILESPHOTO
Photographer
SMILESPHOTO
So THAT'S why so many female models are prepared to work to nude levels for £15 an hour!!!
Posted 8 March 2014
tonycsm
Photographer
tonycsm
OldMaster

. and I find it hard to understand that you can support consecutive administrations who have ensured that every service required by the population is now in private hands..gas, electricity, water, travel, communications?


If the utilities weren't in private hands and still under state ownership, the left wing union bosses would be running wild, holding the country to ransom with their unrealisic wage demands and working practices just as they did before privatisation!

Those idiots are the ones who spoiled it for everyone.They made life miserable for everyone.

If that is Socialism then it's nothing to be proud off.


Posted 8 March 2014
stolenfaces
Photographer
stolenfaces
tonycsm
If the utilities weren't in private hands and still under state ownership, the left wing union bosses would be running wild, holding the country to ransom with their unrealisic wage demands and working practices just as they did before privatisation! Those idiots are the ones who spoiled it for everyone.They made life miserable for everyone. If that is Socialism then it's nothing to be proud off.
Some are still in state hands , just foreign governments - like Edf Do you regard John Lewis as left wing?
Posted 9 March 2014
Edited by stolenfaces 8 March 2014
tonycsm
Photographer
tonycsm
stolenfaces

Some are still in state hands , just foreign governments - like Edf Do you regard John Lewis as left wing?


I was sad to see the utilities removed from state ownership and put into private ownership, but what was the alternative?

Thatcher had to break the stranglehold of the Soviet backed militant unions which were effectively driving the grossly over-manned industries and the country into the ground with their incessant strikes, militant actions and unrealistic demands.

It would have been far better today for the utilities to be in public ownership though it wouldn't have guaranteed services would have been cheaper but, the one good thing to come out of it has been the continuity of services provided by the various private companies...unlike when in state ownership with strikes and cuts in services in some form or other being an almost daily occurrence..

That was indeed the ugly face of Socialism - anyone who lived through the 60's - early 80's period will know exactly what I mean.

Posted 9 March 2014
Edited by tonycsm 9 March 2014
stolenfaces
Photographer
stolenfaces
tonycsm
I was sad to see the utilities removed from state ownership and put into private ownership, but what was the alternative? Thatcher had to break the stranglehold of the Soviet backed militant unions which were effectively driving the grossly over-manned industries and the country into the ground with their incessant strikes, militant actions and unrealistic demands. It would have been far better today for the utilities to be in public ownership though it wouldn't have guaranteed services would have been cheaper but, the one good thing to come out of it has been the continuity of services provided by the various private companies...unlike when in state ownership with strikes and cuts in services in some form or other being an almost daily occurrence.. That was indeed the ugly face of Socialism - anyone who lived through the 60's - early 80's period will know exactly what I mean.
Either you are living some sort of bad dream or you are deliberately re-writing history. List some of these strikes (and the Soviet backed unions). Thatcher sold the utilities off to make money, and give it to the rich in tax cuts as she was ideologically opposed to the efficient use of resources. (The only notable state owned industry which might vaguely fit your scenario would be the Coal Industry which Thatcher closed down rather than sold off.) Although she was happy to sell these industry's off for a pittance, even she wouldn't sell Royal Mail, which this government gave away last year.
Posted 9 March 2014
Edited by stolenfaces 9 March 2014
tonycsm
Photographer
tonycsm
stolenfaces

Either you are living some sort of bad dream or you are deliberately re-writing history. List some of these strikes (and the Soviet backed unions). Thatcher sold the utilities off to make money, and give it to the rich in tax cuts as she was ideologically opposed to the efficient use of resources. (The only notable state owned industry which might vaguely fit your scenario would be the Coal Industry which Thatcher closed down rather than sold off.) Although she was happy to sell these industry's off for a pittance, even she wouldn't sell Royal Mail, which this government gave away last year.


Were you actually around and old enough to experience what was happening at that time? 
Posted 9 March 2014
tonycsm
Photographer
tonycsm
stolenfaces

Either you are living some sort of bad dream or you are deliberately re-writing history. List some of these strikes (and the Soviet backed unions). Thatcher sold the utilities off to make money, and give it to the rich in tax cuts as she was ideologically opposed to the efficient use of resources. (The only notable state owned industry which might vaguely fit your scenario would be the Coal Industry which Thatcher closed down rather than sold off.) Although she was happy to sell these industry's off for a pittance, even she wouldn't sell Royal Mail, which this government gave away last year.


Were you actually around and old enough to appreciate what was happening at that time? 
Posted 9 March 2014
Edited by tonycsm 9 March 2014
stolenfaces
Photographer
stolenfaces
tonycsm
Were you actually around and old enough to appreciate what was happening at that time? 
Yes - that's why I know that what you say is not the reality - specify the strikes that you claim happened in the industries in public ownership. It should be easy enough if you are painting a truthful picture. Surely the offical right-wing view of the success of companies like British Gas, Bt, SSE (all the electricity companies apart from SSE are now owned by foreign companies like Electricite De France, I think the Water Companies too) is that the management weren't paid a competitive (ie obscene) wage when they were in public ownership. No-one any good can be expected to get out of bed for less that £4M a year plus a few million in bonus, apparently.
Posted 9 March 2014
Edited by stolenfaces 9 March 2014
tonycsm
Photographer
tonycsm
stolenfaces

Yes - that's why I know that what you say is not the reality - specify the strikes that you claim happened in the industries in public ownership. It should be easy enough if you are painting a truthful picture. .


Careful, you appear to be suffering from what is known as selective amnesia!

Now let's see if we can address this issue to help you get back some of your lost memory.

1957 - 8.4 million working days lost through industrial action.

Average annual number of working days lost during 50's and 60's - 3.6 million

1979 - the pinacle of union madness.... The Winter of Discontent....29.5 million working days lost through strike action. This figure was higher than the working days lost during the whole of the miner's strike which was 27.1 million!

Earlier we had the three day week with power cuts due to the action of the NUM....During the 1970's, working days lost through strike action averaged over 12 million per year. 

I could go on but that is enough for now for you to perhaps regain a little of your lost memory!



Posted 9 March 2014
To reply to this thread you must be a member. Click here to join