Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
[the proposed cuts to tax credits] served the government’s unnecessarily stringent bid to create a large surplus by the time of the next election in 2020. It was an attempt to “front load” the pain of austerity, buying Downing Street room for giveaways in the run up to that vote. It was a bid to heap the burden of deficit reduction onto the sorts of young, low-income people who do not vote and spare the old and asset-wealthy who do so in large numbers. It was predicated on the mostly bogus claim that the government is moving Britain from a “high welfare, low skill, low wage” economy to a “low welfare, high skill, high wage” one (it has done lots on the first category and much too little on the second two; moreover to suggest that the three are causally linked is patently nonsense).
More deficit-denying gibberish from those Lennonists at The Economist.
More deficit-denying gibberish from those Lennonists at The Economist.
Please explain clearly why the article is "gibberish"?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
