Quizzes & Puzzles7 mins ago
How much worse off is the cabinet?
Has any newspaper or other organisation worked out how much worse off the members of the cabinet are going to be, especially Cameron and Osborne, as a result of the spending cuts?
Since we are all part of this "big society" it would be informative to be able to put some numbers to the degree of financial hardship they are going to have to face.
Since we are all part of this "big society" it would be informative to be able to put some numbers to the degree of financial hardship they are going to have to face.
Answers
1 to 20 of 20
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by bibblebub. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
i think it's going to be a bit difficult without knowing their financial situations (for example are YOU able to work out how much worse off you'll be in actual monetary terms?)
but:
they will both stop recieving child benefit (if they have children) being higher rate tax payers
they will both have to work for longer before recieivng pension
but:
they will both stop recieving child benefit (if they have children) being higher rate tax payers
they will both have to work for longer before recieivng pension
Tut-Tut Booldawg
You should know better than to criticise 'Johnny Foreigner'
/// In 2008-09, China received more than £40m, while Russia got £190,000.///
India’s economy is about 50% bigger than Britain’s, the country has more millionaires than the UK, so why should British taxpayers continue to help?
You should know better than to criticise 'Johnny Foreigner'
/// In 2008-09, China received more than £40m, while Russia got £190,000.///
India’s economy is about 50% bigger than Britain’s, the country has more millionaires than the UK, so why should British taxpayers continue to help?
/// How much worse off the members of the cabinet are going to be, especially Cameron and Osborne, as a result of the spending cuts? ///
In answer to the question you set bibblebub, They risk their political career should their spending cuts not work.
This is much more important to a politician than being a a few pounds out of pocket.
It is a responsibility that I would not want.
In answer to the question you set bibblebub, They risk their political career should their spending cuts not work.
This is much more important to a politician than being a a few pounds out of pocket.
It is a responsibility that I would not want.
They will be worse off like the rest of the middle classes. They are on unremarkable salaries so I don't suppose anyone has done a specific calc but just look at what someone on N, where N is a ministers salary and that'll tell you. I belive they have actually had a pay cut too, a gesture sure but a cut none the less. Most of of the union bosses earn more than the PM I suspect they are worse off too.
[Two Part answer]
It is difficult to assess the full impact of the “spending cuts” on any individual or small group because so many factors need to be assessed apart from their income. However, some things can be said with reasonable certainty:
All members of the Cabinet (and indeed all MPs) earn in excess of the £44k or so which will see those with children under 18 lose their Child Benefit.
Those of them currently under about 57 will see their State pension delayed by a year at a cost of about £5k. (Women born between 1951 and 1957 have already see their pension delayed by up to five years at a cost of up to £25k).
The MP’s pension scheme (which provides a pension of up to half pay after twenty years service) has been declared as unsustainable and will be wound up.
You may think I am naive, but I do not believe that Messrs Cameron and Clegg considered how their own personal financial circumstances would be effected by these or indeed any other changes they have had to consider. It is true that those more financially well off (which cabinet members and MPs are undoubtedly are) are more resilient to such changes, but they often tend to be more resilient generally and that is no reason why they should be disproportionately affected. As OAG says, failure of their policies may well see them both kicked out, but their resilience (and their initial wealth) will ensure they don’t starve.
It is difficult to assess the full impact of the “spending cuts” on any individual or small group because so many factors need to be assessed apart from their income. However, some things can be said with reasonable certainty:
All members of the Cabinet (and indeed all MPs) earn in excess of the £44k or so which will see those with children under 18 lose their Child Benefit.
Those of them currently under about 57 will see their State pension delayed by a year at a cost of about £5k. (Women born between 1951 and 1957 have already see their pension delayed by up to five years at a cost of up to £25k).
The MP’s pension scheme (which provides a pension of up to half pay after twenty years service) has been declared as unsustainable and will be wound up.
You may think I am naive, but I do not believe that Messrs Cameron and Clegg considered how their own personal financial circumstances would be effected by these or indeed any other changes they have had to consider. It is true that those more financially well off (which cabinet members and MPs are undoubtedly are) are more resilient to such changes, but they often tend to be more resilient generally and that is no reason why they should be disproportionately affected. As OAG says, failure of their policies may well see them both kicked out, but their resilience (and their initial wealth) will ensure they don’t starve.
]Part Two]
Slightly off your original question (which I know you do not appreciate but I think is relevant nonetheless): On a more general note it must be remembered that these “Draconian cuts, the likes of which have not been seen since WW2” are not cuts at all. They are rebalancing existing budgets. Overall government spending is still set to rise by 9% by 2015. This includes a 15% increase in the welfare bill and equates to 2.5% pa – roughly in line with the inflation forecast. Unfortunately over the past decade or so people have become accustomed to ever increasing public expenditure (often with no appreciable increase in the quality or quantity of services provide) and to reduce such an increase is seen as “Draconian”.
Far more worrying is the accompanying figures in June’s budget which suggests that tax revenue will rise in the same period by 34% from £548bn to £737bn ( a rise of £7k for every household). Even with the Treasury’s own optimistic forecast of economic growth, that really could be Draconian and worries me far more than the prospect of not getting my Bus Pass and Coal Allowance.
Slightly off your original question (which I know you do not appreciate but I think is relevant nonetheless): On a more general note it must be remembered that these “Draconian cuts, the likes of which have not been seen since WW2” are not cuts at all. They are rebalancing existing budgets. Overall government spending is still set to rise by 9% by 2015. This includes a 15% increase in the welfare bill and equates to 2.5% pa – roughly in line with the inflation forecast. Unfortunately over the past decade or so people have become accustomed to ever increasing public expenditure (often with no appreciable increase in the quality or quantity of services provide) and to reduce such an increase is seen as “Draconian”.
Far more worrying is the accompanying figures in June’s budget which suggests that tax revenue will rise in the same period by 34% from £548bn to £737bn ( a rise of £7k for every household). Even with the Treasury’s own optimistic forecast of economic growth, that really could be Draconian and worries me far more than the prospect of not getting my Bus Pass and Coal Allowance.
Cameron is a millionaire and the salaries he will recieve after leaving government will run into hundreds of thousands of £ a year, not forgetting the usual lucrative book deal, His reduced salary as PM will easily be covered once hes out of office.
Look at Blair, Major etc Blair has earned around £20mill since being booted out and Major was on The Carlisle group board at around 600k pluse shares,pension etc etc.
These sort of people do NOT get affected in any real sense by these or any other cuts, they are, have been, and always will be very well off
So the cuts will be minimal from DC's financial point of view, Osborne , is also pretty well off maybe not as well off as DC but he wont be affected either.
So even if you could come up with an actual figure its meaningless
Look at Blair, Major etc Blair has earned around £20mill since being booted out and Major was on The Carlisle group board at around 600k pluse shares,pension etc etc.
These sort of people do NOT get affected in any real sense by these or any other cuts, they are, have been, and always will be very well off
So the cuts will be minimal from DC's financial point of view, Osborne , is also pretty well off maybe not as well off as DC but he wont be affected either.
So even if you could come up with an actual figure its meaningless
-- answer removed --
1 to 20 of 20
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.