George Osborne claimed it was a "progressive Budget". Analysis by the independent IFS shows that, stripping away pre-announced measures, it was a "regressive Budget".
A picture says a thousand words. The respected, independent Institute for Fiscal Studies today said clearly that , “likely … overall impact of yesterday’s measures was regressive”.
By 2014-15, the distributional impact of tax and benefit measures is only “progressive” if the pre-announced decisions made by Labour – including the 50p income tax rate – are included. The IFS are clear that the Treasury’s claims only hold valid, “because of reforms announced by the previous government”. Stripping them out means that George Osborne’s dictum is wrong.
This analysis – consistent with Left Foot Forward’s own yesterday, the Financial Times’ and Nick Pearce on Open Democracy – could not be clearer: taken on its own, it was a regressive Budget.
Left Foot Forward doesn't have the backing of big business or billionaires. We rely on the kind and generous support of ordinary people like you.
You can support hard-hitting journalism that holds the right to account, provides a forum for debate among progressives, and covers the stories the rest of the media ignore. Donate today.
52 Responses to “IFS: Budget was “regressive””
Christopher McKeon
Of course it was RT @leftfootfwd: IFS: Budget was "regressive" http://bit.ly/9CVpcG
Ben Cooper
RT @leftfootfwd: IFS: Budget was "regressive" http://bit.ly/9CVpcG < hope @chriswiggin has had a look!
Alex Marsh
RT @leftfootfwd: IFS: Budget was "regressive" http://bit.ly/9CVpcG
Duncan Stott
I reckon the IFS is wrong on this http://bit.ly/9CVpcG Why strip out the impact of Labour's budget? That's not what's happening.
Martin Coxall
RT @DuncanStott: I reckon the IFS is wrong on this http://bit.ly/9CVpcG Why strip out the impact of Labour's budget? That's not what's h …