Tim, I'm not terribly impressed by your argument there, which seems to consist of little more than throwing around accusations and then backing them up with at best ultra-simplistic and often incorrect comparisons. a) I haven't cherry-picked any data. That would imply going through the literature looking the most convenient data points from each study to build up the picture I wanted. Instead I've looked at one particularly reputable study and reported it's contents as comprehensively as I could. And made that approach very clear. 1) There aren't a lot of empirical studies of the link between rioting and relative poverty that I'm aware of and this is a very high quality one. My article was never set out as a comprehensive treatment of this issue. If you have better or more comprehensive evidence, please provide it, until then I would say an article by Harvard and Chicago economists is a decent place to start. 2) I never said that punishment was the only factor determining crime rates. My article was about riots and even there I explicitly name checked at least four other major factors - national income, ethnic heterogeneity, urbanisation and unemployment. And on many measures US cities are now safer than London. Murder is the exception but with good reason. Before the recession the US unemployment rate was lower than ours (US 4.6%, UK 5.3%, OECD, 2007), and our unemployment rate was, thanks to relatively liberal employment regulation, much lower than that in continental economies. Scandinavian countries are different in many ways other than relative poverty, for example on ethnic heterogeneity. There is no clear correlation between relative poverty and crime. That was claimed in the Spirit Level but, along with many claims in that book, has not stood up to scrutiny. In other words, you've responded to a post citing relatively strong evidence from respectable academics with spurious and simplistic claims, in order to attack me as lazy.

This is an incredible exclusive as it shows that this recognition is being significantly entrenched. Great story from ConHome. But polygamous marriages are already recognised in the benefit system to some extent. For example, see the "Amount for claimant and first spouse in polygamous marriage" and "Additional amount for additional spouse" under pension credit in this document: http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/newbenefitrates.pdf We have tried to FOI before to get the amount paid under those lines, but were refused. Need to try again. Absolutely awful it has happened.

How much of a change would this be from the status quo, given that such marriages are already recognised within the benefits system?

Leaving aside that the data is erratic and out of date (see the OECD tax database), we're in the same ballpark and gaining very quickly with their rate frozen. And the Irish revenue thinks they are *beyond* the point at which increases in tax rates lead to lower, rather than higher, tax revenue.

See above, that claim is inaccurate. The TaxPayers' Alliance doesn't take support from public sector organisations.

That isn't true. They looked simply at the amount tax was increased and/or benefits decreased on different income deciles. The actual effects, which depend on behavioural responses to a host of policies aren't revealed by that. To put a practical example on my hypothetical: the benefit changes announced will show up as regressive as they cut benefits overall but could easily improve the incomes of the poor by reducing the number out of work. There are others: the effects on different regions (where spending is clearly high enough to massively depress growth) and even progressive direct tax changes that could have regressive effects if they lose revenue (as a number of independent forecasters expect).

Malcolm, Here is a CentreRight post from me, making pretty much exactly the same points I have today, in December 2009: http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2009/12/the-parties-responses-to-the-fiscal-crisis.html That post accompanied a report that was followed up by a book making a similar point, which you should buy: http://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Cut-Public-Spending-Election/dp/1849540152/ Best, Matt

Malcolm, I don't know about the others, but here is my post on CentreRight in December 2009: http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2009/12/the-parties-responses-to-the-fiscal-crisis.html That post accompanied a report and was followed by a book making the same point, which you should buy: http://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Cut-Public-Spending-Election/dp/1849540152/ Best, Matt

We asked quite a simple question: How much road salt has been ordered for this winter period (2010-11) in tonnes? How much road salt was ordered for last year’s winter period (2009-10) in tonnes? To say that isn't a fair comparision is a little absurd. Of course, and we noted this in the executive summary to the report and the press release, they might order more in the future. But the winter period has now very clearly started and not having orders already in place risks not being able to get what they need - and suburban and rural roads not getting salted - or relying on emergency orders - which cost over £10 million last year.

By the end of the period, we will be spending more on International Development than Justice. You are right that this is a potential issue with the kind of graph I've produced, but in this case it isn't. There is more in this document: http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/csrbriefing.pdf

Lots of taxpayers don't agree with Christian Aid's views on policy. For example, I think a financial transaction tax - or "Robin Hood" tax - would be an economic disaster with ordinary taxpayers paying the price. That is one of the causes that your charity supports (http://www.tuc.org.uk/economy/tuc-17542-f0.cfm). Why should I be paying, through my taxes, for you to promote your political views? That is a disgusting and undemocratic, as it biases the debate, misuse of taxpayers' money.

It doesn't add up... That's why I provided a link to the press release, from which you can access a full report with a detailed explanation of how we arrived at the figures. http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/realdebt.pdf Best, Matt

Daniel, No. We would massively reduce marginal deduction rates to a maximum of 55 per cent. In order to make the sums add up, within the iron triangle, we would cut the poverty line - one of the parameters under our negative income tax - to 50 per cent of median income. Best, Matt

New York is beautiful, but that doesn't mean we want to cover the Highlands in skyscrapers. I think the encroachment of windfarms on our remaining relatively wild landscapes makes them less wild and, ceteris paribus, is something we would want to avoid.

Thanks for the response Neil. 1) I think that the increased cost of the EU ETS with a floor under the price could outweigh the reduction from the removal of FiT and changes to RHI and CRC. Those policies are enormously wasteful but much smaller scale than the ETS so an increase in its cost could mean higher bills for consumers, at least in the short term. 2) I look forward to seeing that. As the 2020 targets are the biggest driver of higher costs, they are absolutely central to this issue. I'm not sure you can just look at the renewable energy target though, the 2020 emissions target would need to be included as well. 3) I've set out an alternative in the report linked above: http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/egro.pdf

There is some analysis of absolute poverty standards in the report. We've constructed a substantial model that allows us to assess the costs and effects of different taper rates and poverty lines for an NIT. But modelling the present system, and its dozens of benefits, would be far more complex. As such, I'm afraid we can't draw those kinds of comparisons. The full report has a lot of detail on the kind of NIT payments that will be made, see Appendix B in particular for more information. Best, Matt

Harry, I didn't have time to discuss our administrative proposals in this blog. But if you take a look at the full report, there is a serious discussion of how to address the issues you are talking about. Best, Matt

No. The worst off - those in severe poverty - would get more reliable support as it would stop people falling through the net as they do under the current system. It would somewhat unwind the last Government's focus on pushing people over the 60 per cent of median income line.

I wasn't making a relative point. I'm interested in the impact not the distribution. There are plenty of spending cuts that don't hit the budgets of poor families. And I think there is a particular problem with taxing the poor, undermining their ability to stand on their own two feet.

What? We've gone native because we aren't going to go along with the coalition's programme?

We have consistently argued for greater spending cuts.

It's less about what people consume and more about the balance between consumption and saving. The exemptions make VAT less regressive but don't entirely compensate for that imbalance.

That isn't necessarily true if smokers avoid dying of exceptionally expensive chronic conditions like Alzheimer's. A Dutch study found that smoker's would actually cost the NHS less: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/05/healthy_tax_burden/

I'm opposed to tax hikes and find them particularly unpleasant when they hit poorer people. Abolishing Inheritance Tax wouldn't do that, it wouldn't increase anyone's tax bill. As such, it wouldn't increase poverty and benefit dependency.

We're not talking about the unemployed particularly, but people on low incomes. They're often working very hard.