Budget Day 22 June 2010

Person_one

marklv wrote: »

I don't know, but I know what I would do: get rid of child benefit and tax credits. If you can't afford children, don't have them!

Right, that'll work out great for all the children born into poverty who never asked to exist. Nothing like keeping the cycle going for another generation.

Think what you want about the parents, but society has a duty to try and turn its children into productive adults. For everybody's sake. That's not easy when they're not getting the right nutrition or any intellectual stimulation because good food and play groups etc. are too expensive.

nickmason

Person_one wrote: »

Right, that'll work out great for all the children born into poverty who never asked to exist. Nothing like keeping the cycle going for another generation.

Think what you want about the parents, but society has a duty to try and turn its children into productive adults. For everybody's sake. That's not easy when they're not getting the right nutrition or any intellectual stimulation because good food and play groups etc. are too expensive.

I'd use tax to incentivise decent eating. Make the preprocessed foods vat-able, so that good food is relatively cheaper. (I don't think tax cuts are in the frame!) Might have the added benefit of removing expensive absurdities such as the cake vs biscuit debate. Apparently gingerbread men decorated with chocolate are VAT-able unless the decorations amount to no more than a couple of dots for eyes. Seriously, can't we pay civil servants to do more useful things?

zygurat789

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Budgets 1997 - 2001 had a large surplus which Brown used to pay off debt.

That's worth repeating

Masomnia

zygurat789 wrote: »

That's worth repeating

Is that not because Labour had committed to sticking to Ken Clarke's spending plans?

After 2001 it goes downhill pretty quickly.

bendix

VAT up
Benefits frozen
Public sector pay frozen
Stupid expensive schemes like ID cards scrapped
Announcement of plans to drastically reform public sector pensions (just for marklv)

zygurat789

bendix wrote: »

VAT up
Benefits frozen
Public sector pay frozen
Stupid expensive schemes like ID cards scrapped
Announcement of plans to drastically reform public sector pensions (just for marklv)

Benefit rates to 5/4/11 have already been announced and public sector pay rounds seem to start from 1/1/10 so not much scope for saving there.
Public sector pensions desparately need adjusting but it is difficult to see any concrete result until 2012/13 at the earliest.

kennyboy66_2

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Budgets 1997 - 2001 had a large surplus which Brown used to pay off debt.

Laudable though that was it was hardly a gigantic surplus each year

There were neglibible changes in years 1997 - 2002 apart from 2001 where £33 bn was paid off.

kennyboy66_2

Masomnia wrote: »

Is that not because Labour had committed to sticking to Ken Clarke's spending plans?

After 2001 it goes downhill pretty quickly.

Not really - even in years 2006-2008 debt as a % of GDP was roughly 35%

Obviously we should have been running a surplus in these years (as a recession comes along eventually), but pretty difficult to have predicted the extent of the recession.

zygurat789

kennyboy66 wrote: »

Laudable though that was it was hardly a gigantic surplus each year

There were neglibible changes in years 1997 - 2002 apart from 2001 where £33 bn was paid off.

Budget surpluses keep a boom in check and tend to be deflationary.

robin_banks

nickmason wrote: »

I'd use tax to incentivise decent eating. Make the preprocessed foods vat-able, so that good food is relatively cheaper. (I don't think tax cuts are in the frame!) Might have the added benefit of removing expensive absurdities such as the cake vs biscuit debate. Apparently gingerbread men decorated with chocolate are VAT-able unless the decorations amount to no more than a couple of dots for eyes. Seriously, can't we pay civil servants to do more useful things?

Not comfortable with VAT on food, since when was it a 'luxury', plus it smacks of being a bit a 'nanny state', which is hardly in line with ConDem ethos.