We must kill the IPPR. Hang them, gut them and salt the corpses down

Their report on the living wage.

While the direction of the living wage campaign is ultimately a decision for campaigners themselves we recommend that:

The government funds an independent research unit, be based in a university or in Whitehall, to support further rigorous analysis of the costs and benefits of living wages.

Yes, the usual cuntflappery. Gissa job on the taxpayer\’s cash. Zero work, nice pension, better than having to work for a living innit?

As to the rest of the report. They mention only in passing that the low paid currently get charged income tax and NI. For we have a taxation system which reaches down into the party timer on minimum wages income. For that of course they must be killed. But that\’s not all:

While under current plans, total tax credit expenditure is set to decline and tax credits will be subsumed into the new Universal Credit from late 201343, high marginal tax rates will continue to face large swaths of households. This means that raising wages among workers in low-income families will generate significant savings for government, in addition to the increased tax revenues.

They positively glory in the idea that the government will be able to nick more money from poor people. Presumably to fund that research body that will look into hte effects of the living wage. Increase the amount stolen froim the poor of our society to pay for academic wibbling by those advocating the theft.

For that we need to hang them, gut and salt the corpses and display them on gibbetts around the country. Seriously, this is cuntitude of the grossest form.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Kayte Lawton is a senior research fellow at IPPR.
Matthew Pennycook is a senior research and policy analyst at the Resolution Foundation.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Laura Bradley provided background research for chapter one, and Alex Hurrell and Howard Reed contributed to the analysis in chapter five. Original analysis in chapter four was conducted by Rebecca Riley at the National Institute for Economic and Social Research. The authors would like to thank David Coats, Arnie Graf, Rhys Moore, Marc Stears and Matthew Whittaker for input and advice during the project; and Graeme Cooke, Tony Dolphin, Mubin Haq, Gavin Kelly, Nick Pearce and James Plunkett for advice throughout and comments on earlier drafts of this report.

All of you should hang your heads in shame: in the absence of that we should indeed take a righteous and bloody revenge.

How fucking can you argue that the poor should be taxed to provide you with a comfy sinecure?

11 comments on “We must kill the IPPR. Hang them, gut them and salt the corpses down

  1. I disagree with you, Timmer. Poor should have to pay taxes, too. If not, you get the mess we have in the U.S. It’s easy to vote for government spending if you think someone else is going to pay for it.

  2. “How fucking can you argue that the poor should be taxed to provide you with a comfy sinecure?”

    Er, because that’s the basic reason for taxes and government since civilisation began?

    And you won’t change that by moving the tax on the poor from a visible income tax to other taxes they don’t notice. They’ll keep paying the tax, and they’ll keep voting for government that taxes them. That’s why the gangster-statists running the US now are so delighted that the majority don’t pay income tax. They have a permanent support base of low information voters who don’t realise they’re turkeys voting for xmas.

    It’s sad you don’t see this Tim. It’s a reminder that it’s not just left-wing intellectuals that are a problem, it’s all intellectuals.

  3. If the problem is that the poor are uninformed, the problem is that the poor are uninformed, not that a ‘living wage’ is uncompetitive.

    Unfortunately, our tax pounds are funding the forces that spread nonsense. The BBC comes to mind. I have no idea who funds IPPR, but it’s a good bet the taxpayer is involved.

  4. @PJF
    The IPPR are campaigning for a so-called “living wage” in the UK, not the USA. In the UK, food, rent, public transport, children’s clothes are zero-rated for VAT and medicines are free and Council tax is rebated for those categorised as poor. In the UK the main indirect taxes
    for the genuinely poor are the “sin” taxes on tobacco and alcohol.
    Taxes paid by the relatively poor in the USA are totally irrelevant to Tim’s point.

  5. john77 // Jan 20, 2013 at 7:09 pm

    @PJF
    The IPPR are campaigning for a so-called “living wage” in the UK, not the USA. In the UK, food, rent, public transport, children’s clothes are zero-rated for VAT and medicines are free and Council tax is rebated for those categorised as poor. In the UK the main indirect taxes
    for the genuinely poor are the “sin” taxes on tobacco and alcohol.
    Taxes paid by the relatively poor in the USA are totally irrelevant to Tim’s point.

    ===========================

    Nope. Lower income Americans (47%) don’t pay income taxes, and, as you say, pay tobacco and alcohol taxes. All your schemes for “helping” the poor are mirrored in the U.S.

    The principle doesn’t change: as long as voters think someone else is going to pay, they are happy to vote for more spending.

  6. @ Gamecock
    For Pete’s sake!
    Where did I say that the relatively poor in the USA pay income tax?
    Nor did PJF: he was saying that they pay indirect taxes instead and seemed to assume that the poor in the UK, the potential beneficiaries of Tim’s appeal paid loads of VAT.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>