rlLiving standards continuing to fall, says Institute for Fiscal Studiesrl – won't reach pre-crisis levels by the 2015 election, and those on low incomes could feel the squeeze more in the coming years as a result of further cuts to benefits and tax credits.

That report is a bit strange - it is suggesting the richest have been hardest hit and the poorest least hit - is that a suggestion the wealth gap is closing?

Only if you think that, say, 10% of an income of £1m is equal, in its impact, to 2% of an income of £12,000.

Reminds me of a situation I came across recently, of a vice chancellor at a university in the south west of England, who, after several years of massive pay awards, leaving them on something like £250K, had decided, as a show of solidarity with the university's lowest-paid staff – who have been offered a below-inflation pay cut of 1% this year – to take a rise this time around of 'just' 2%.

Meanwhile, since we've been mentioning big business – rlwarnings as Virgin gives money to Met Police to help with a private prosecution.rl

Good old Virgin Media! I told them to FO and take their cable tv with them years ago. Why? For taking seemingly random sums from my bank a/c and double charging on change of billing date (I wonder how many subscribers may have had the same but missed it?). Initially they refused to repay me until, iirc, I asked them to confirm what they had done was not theft and money laundering!

Why?
Are you a criminal?
Which reminds of the time I left a tenner in my Jeans and the wife put them in the washing machine.

Sorry you've lost me.

OK so we have a businessman with a 1m a year salary and an unskilled worker earning 15k the wealth gap is 985k

If said businessman has a 9% drop off in his standard of living his 1m becomes 910k and unskilled worker has a 3% drop his 15k he is 14,550 therefore the wealth gap is £895,450, a reduction in the gap of £89,550 or 9%

I appreciate this is a very simplistic model but is that not what the report is saying?

I'm suggesting that that is one way of looking at it – if you conclude that impact of the loss is the same.

There are many more elements to this: for instance, those on low incomes pay a disproportionate amount of those incomes on VAT – you don't have much realistic choice about buying cleaning products for your home or toothpaste of sanitary protection. It's a myth that VAT is only levied on luxury goods.

So the person on the lower income will end up paying a greater percentage of their earnings in such a tax.

Similarly, it's been said that those with less money are likely to incur more charges at ATMs etc, because they'll be more likely to only be able to remove small amounts of money from an account at any one time. Indeed, many people on certain types of contract struggle to be able to get a bank account. Same sort of thing with domestic fuel bills – many on low incomes pretty much forced to have metres, which are often set far higher than a supplier's lowest tariffs.

So to go back to that wage: a small percentage of a low wage will have far more of a negative impact on someone's life than a larger percentage of a much larger pay packet.

As only a slight aside, why do you use, as an example, a businessman versus an "unskilled worker"? How are you defining 'skilled'? Would your "unskilled" worker include a homecare worker – someone performing what most would consider a vital role, but frequently on less than £5 an hour, which means £175 a week, assuming a 35-hour week and no faff over no payment for travel between visits etc, which would give an annual income of £9,100.

I'm sure most of us would struggle on that – now take 2% off it and consider the impact on real decisions about paying bills and buying food etc.

Looks like it's working for somehttps://o.twimg.com/2/proxy.jpg?t

There are plenty of stories around that One Hyde Park – and similar properties have been bought with dodgy Russian money.

For the last couple of years the Russian money has been sniffing around the Anglo-Irish millionaire communities along the Algarve and are being viewed as not very welcome there even by the Portuguese although unfortunately the natives aren't in a position to refuse their approaches.

George Osborne presented gave further evidence today that his policies are continuing to work with world leading growth predictions. With the improvement in the economy his budget will reduce taxes for more people, totally reform and improve savings prospects and provide more incentives for business. Ded Ed avoided mention of the budget in his "budget response" having to fall back on old outdated arguments many of which have been superceded by events.

Possibly the most ludicrous sentence I've ever read. If you're trying to prove a point, epic fail.