Yes, this is dreadful news.

The spendthrift Labour Party has a lot to answer for………

If household income is dropping, then clearly it is the other 40% of the economy (business presumably) which is sustaining growth (well it could be government, but that is reining back).

Which kind of suggests that a low tax policy (favourable to business) is a good idea to sustain growth?

Pagar,

Check your calendar, the dates in the OP reflect the time period of growth projected by Osborne, since then, UK growth projections in particular, have been revised by just about everybody.

“Measured by volume, household spending fell by 0.6 per cent, the second consecutive fall after a 0.2 per cent drop in the last quarter of 2010.

Measured by price, spending is still rising – up 1.4 per cent on the quarter – as you might expect when inflation is higher than the growth in incomes.”

They are more indicative of the impact of such policies as the VAT increase plus he over 5% inflation increase shown in the RPI in which energy and petrol make major contributions to the misery experienced.

None of these are either caused by, or the legacy, of the previous government.

You don’t seem to understand what’s being discussed.

It’s household disposable income, which is money after paying things like rent, mortgage and fuel. So increases in rent and fuel will impact that.

Although a fall in household income combined with an increase in business profits would also be pretty terrible, as it would mean another increase in the gap between the top 3% of the population and the bottom 90%.

This is not good news but is hardly astonishing – with the measures being taken there was always likely to be a widespread pinch not seen for a generation.

Question is – would Labour’s policy of increasing taxation have prevented this? I suspect not, and I hope they do not make political capital out of someone else cleaning up their mess…

http://outspokenrabbit.blogspot.com/

Shrinking our way to growth.

How’s that welfare for the global rich turning out?

“Less than three years after receiving $10 billion in bailout money from American taxpayers, Goldman Sachs informed its employees recently that it will fire 1,000 workers in the United States and elsewhere, shifting their jobs to the cheaper Singaporean labor market.

According to Fox Business, Goldman Sachs has quietly informed workers and lawmakers of its plan to outsource 1,000 jobs in an attempt to inoculate itself from the impending blowback:

Goldman is so concerned about the potential for criticism that the firm’s representatives have been alerting staffers of lawmakers in Washington of the hiring spree in recent weeks as a way to mollify any concerns they may have about previously undisclosed plans to add 1,000 jobs to the firm’s Singapore office, according to people in Washington with direct knowledge if the matter. Goldman is concerned about criticism because it is adding those jobs while it is planning what could be a significant retrenchment in its U.S. workforce, these people say.”

In recent years, the UK and other developed nations have bought ship loads of cheap consumer goods from developing nations. Ship loads, and the middle classes have rooms full of that production. Other citizens have a wardrobe full of it.

Taking people outside direct taxation (in any form) is deliriously good, and more of it please. It means that more people have more stuff (wardrobes), stuff to do what pleases them. And we only tax them if they can cough up.

Less than three years after receiving $10 billion in bailout money from American taxpayers…

Sally, you do realize that Goldman paid back that $10 billion more then two years ago, right? And that the US government threatened sanctions against banks which tried to refuse a bailout? Of course you do.