Institute for Fiscal Studies says chancellor's plan will cause 10% drop in family living standards

Has it occured to you WHY those "who can afford" to do that are in that position? Could it be because they have worked hard, and used their brains? Or do you just think people get rich doing nothing?

Oh I see. You're going to pretend that we live in a meritocracy, right? In fact, the biggest indicator is social outcome for an individual is the family and wealth in which they were brought up; if you are born into wealth, you will remain wealthy. If you are born poor, you will remain poor.

The reasons for this is obvious: rich people have connections, get better schooling, get better healthcare, have a better diet, and are less likely to be victims of crime.

Of course there are always rags-to-riches stories, but in general, background determines wealth.

The poorest are paying very little, the rich paying a lot, we are in this together. It's just that a lot of people's idea is that the rich should pay for everything, and the poor just left to live fecklessly.

As a portion of their income, the rich aren't paying a lot, in fact. That's why wealth inequality is greater than it has been since Victorian times. We bail out the banks, while they continue to award themselves billions (£14 Billion last year) in bonuses.

Finally, I think you should rethink the use of the word 'feckless'. Considering it also means 'irresponsible', I think you'll find that it applies more to the casino gamblers who brought the world economy to its knees than the average mother working 40+ hours per week on less than £20K.

Cogito-

The government does have control over prices of food and fuel. It has at least two mechanisms at its disposal: regulation and taxation. There is no good reason, for example, why public transport in the UK is three times more expensive than mainland europe, while corporate profits in that sector are souring.

Wage restraint is a less important element because many of the poorest households are either on fixed unearned incomes such as retirement savings or benefits & pensions which at least have a degree of index-linking.

I was referring to the working poor. Those in low incomes. These are the people who have had their wages depressed - what your euphemistically called 'wage restraint'.

There is no need for 'wage restraint' when the income of top earners has increased 10 or 100 times in two decades, while those in the middle and bottom have stagnated. 'Wage restraint' needs to happen at the top, so that regular working people's wages can keep up with inflation.

I don't believe the poorest are being victimised or being asked to pay over the odds. I do believe that they are most vulnerable to the effects of high inflation.

The economy isn't a natural phenomenon like the weather. Like any political and economic decision, there are winners and losers. Reducing the deficit could be done by asking the richest to pay for the greatest share, or by putting the burden on the poorest. At the moment, as the report shorts, the burden is lying on the poorest.

I think some of your missed the point of the article - or at least, one of its main points.

The issue is not just the drop is living standards, but the fact that the poorest are going to suffer disproportionately from government policy.

Secondly, the 'correction' isn't as simple as 'living within our means': we are in the middle of a recession caused by a financial crisis. Therefore tax receipts are at an all time low and people are out of work.

Furthermore, as I've explained a few dozen times, spending on public services in this country is really not that high. Relative to other european countries it is average or below average in many areas, including health.

As for individuals, the fact is that wages have stagnated for three decades due to attack on workers rights and unions and hiring people overshore to do work cheaper than in the UK. In order to keep consumption going (which is what our economy depends on), people were given cheap access to credit.

So the consumption of 'living beyond our means' is the ruling class having its cake and eating it: it gets to reduce wages and increase profit, while at the same time keeping up consumption to keep the economy going. Yes, this was a bubble. That's the nature of Capitalism.

So in any case, if you read the article, it states that the poorest 30% will be hit especially hard. My point was that the poorest should not be victimised to pay for a crisis not of their own making. There is much room here to ensure the poorest are protected while those who can afford to make a higher contribution, do so.

"We're all in this together.", remember?