Sorry Guido, but there really is a cost of living crisis and it's getting worse under a Tory government.
Guido Fawkes has put up a curious post this morning in which he claims that, rather than there being a cost of living crisis, voters are actually better off now than they were in 2010:
“Throw in the income tax threshold hike (£493), the savings from holding down council taxes (£210) and you have already countered the Balls attack in cash terms – and some – at £1,703. Meaning that in terms of disposable income the “average working person” is better off.”
In other words, the rise in personal allowance and the fact that council taxes haven’t significantly increased since the coalition came to power outweighs the fall in living standards due to prices rising faster than wages.
Unfortunately for Guido and the Tories, this is simply untrue.
Even when excluding the impact that falling wages are having on peoples’ living standards, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) says that taking into account tax and benefit changes since 2010 a majority of working households are worse off now than they were when the coalition came to power.
As senior research economist at the IFS Robert Joyce puts it:
“Looking at all the measures that are happening that started in 2010 and that are happening to the end of this parliament, if you look at all the measures announced over that period, then most of those families will lose overall because of things like the main rise in VAT back in January 2011.”
And as John Rentoul has also recently noted on disposable income, comparing the last whole year of Labour – Q3 2009 to Q2 2010 – with the most recent year to Q2 2013, real households’ disposable income per head fell by 2.2 per cent.
Sorry Guido, but the coalition really are presiding over a cost of living crisis.
35 Responses to “Sorry Guido, but the Tories really are presiding over a cost of living crisis”
hatchepsut
Anyone that uses Waitrose as their initial example of a place to get food clearly has no clue what life is like for us plebs. Migrants are not the problem. Corporate greed is the problem. Wages are low because employers know they can get away with it. They know we will get our wages topped up by benefits so they pay us less and keep more for themselves. They are the ones taking other “other people’s money”. also I repeat, my landlady gets my housing benefit. It goes directly to her. Rents have soared because landlords realised they could keep upping rents, knowing that the benefits system would cover it. I have no options, they do.
LB
You’re being teased on Waitrose. Mind you MPs had a John Lewis list. So you don’t want to have cooperatives as your place of shopping.
Migrants are a major issue. Not all of them. Some we need and should accept. However, we should not allow people in who need HB like yourself.
Wages are low because they don’t have to pay. Partly because the state screws us to pay you. Then because demand is so high because they increased the supply driving down wages.
As for HB, you receive it. Doesn’t matter what label you put on it, its other people’s money given to you to live. Rents have soared, because demand has increased because of the unfettered migration. So you are in the market for low rent properties, and you’re having to compete against the low skilled low paid migrant. 5.8 million have arrived recently. No surprising what the result was. That was Labour’s plan. They weren’t bright enough to work out the consequences. You’ve been screwed as a result.
It will get far worse for you. It’s back to the big problem. Pensions. They have spent all the money you’ve given them. There is just the debt left. That’s rising at 734 bn a year, and total taxes are 600 bn. If you’re forced to rely on the state, you will be screwed.
hatchepsut
So you genuinely believe that without migrants our employers would voluntarilly pay us much better wages and our landlords would reduce our rents? There would still be a supply and demand issue without all the migrants due to the housing policies of the past 30 years of governments. Selling off all the council houses started the problem and no one intervened before it got out of control. Even without migrants in this country, employers are competing in a global economy with countries where staff are paid pennies. As long as they can get away with it they will continue to pay us as little as possible, I have no foreign migrants working where I work and yet I still only get minimum wage, which is not enough to live off.
LB
What I think is that the market kicks in.
A shortage of workers puts upwards pressure on wages as employer’s compete for those workers.
Currently, the workers are competing for the jobs because the supply has been inflated. That drives down the price of workers.
Likewise with landlords. Without 5.3 million extra people to house, what do you think happens? Renters pick and choose. A better property for the same price, or a similar property for a lower price.
Supply and demand.
Notice that selling off council housing didn’t change the number of houses. It’s gone up as new are built over all. Or is it that you’re complaining that you can’t get your housing paid for out of other people’s pockets. Winging that other people want to spend their money on their needs, not on yours?
Global economy does apply, for some jobs. How are you going to outsource the NHS for example, to India?
Yep, min wage has an issue, You get taxed on min wage. Made poorer by the state.
So what’s your problem? You’re advocating the state taking money off other people, why are you complaining when money gets taken from you.
Russ
Selling off assets that the taxpayer has supported, more wealth going to an elite minority, whilst the workers become poorer. Anybody who has supported the Bullendon Boys in the sale of assets taxpayers have funded must have a perverse sense of logic and perhaps by applying your support to this farcical coalition is akin to owning up to being intellectually bankrupt.