Wednesday 20th Budget Discussion

Mr_Mumble

Osborne is a monkey playing with peanuts.

Taking £1bn here and £2.5bn there from taxpayers to pay for token schemes is not going to move the needle when the British government spends £720bn per annum.

MS1950

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Of the 80% that are in the private sector how many of them are paid out of public finances, via their private employer, I wonder?

Those are examples of workers contracted to do direct jobs what about them that are incidental.

Just curious.

As I explained on the original 'Jeremy Warner on the Budget', anecdotal 'examples' can't address the scale of the discrepancy between Thrugelmir's claims ("By 2010 50% of the workforce were effectively (more if outsourcing is included) employed by the Government") and the official ONS figures.

As I said:

"The ONS figures show nothing of the kind - as I cited above the breakdown in September 2010 was roughly 20% of the workforce in the public sector and 80% in the private sector.

As I asked above - no matter how many supposed 'examples' (without actual figures) you come up with - do you really believe that an additional 30% of the overall workforce (the difference between the ONS figure of 20% and your claim of 50%+) - an extra 9 million people - can be accounted for (through outsourcing, the bailed out banks or whatever) as 'effectively employed by the Government'?"

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/59977995#Comment_59977995

If around 9 million people had been miscounted by ONS as in the private sector when they should properly be included in the public sector because they are "paid out of public finances, via their private employer" that you're 'wondering' about - don't you think that someone like the Institute of Fiscal Studies or other mainstream analysts would have exposed this statistical 'slight of hand' - rather than it being 'discovered' on an internet forum by Thrugelmir (even with his "Lifetime spent dealing with Finance")?

Mr._Pricklepants

It's hard to draw a clear line between private and public sector anyway.
I worked for a private company providing server automation software to the likes of Serco and Capita.
I'd say I worked in the private sector, but some revenue indirectly came from the taxpayer...

N1AK

grizzly1911 wrote: »

That is fine if you are not reliant on the income.

Losing between £170 -£340 per month may be more than people can afford, as inflation digs deeper into peoples finances.

Frankly, any household earning £90k+ per year that says they couldn't afford it is lying or financially inept on a level it is hard to imagine.

A household of 5 with 1 earner on £45k which ends up losing £170 a month however is a more sympathetic example; unfortunately raising money means taking it from someone. I think this would be a comparatively effective and fair way to do it but it'll never happen because we'll have sob stories about poor £90k household families just like we did with the limit on incomes for child benefit.

N1AK

wotsthat wrote: »

- you don't need to be much of a cynic to realise that a temporary tax could quite easily become permanent

Absolutely, but even if they never increase taxes directly they can increase it by freezing allowances etc. Beyond which making it a bill with a sunset clause set just before a general election means I doubt any major party would do anything to stop it ending.

wotsthat wrote: »

- why assume that the government would make a better job of investing this than individual taxpayers.

I reckon an increase in the higher rate tax bracket and an equivalent cut in spending would be far more beneficial for the economy.

Because there are certain things that the individual tax payer is not able to do. Hospitals aren't built by individuals, nor are roads or large scale public housing developments. Attacking any government spending on the grounds that "I'll spend money better" is nonsense; though clearly there are many things the government won't do effectively.

I have no faith in the idea that a higher top rate tax bracket will have any noticeable influence on money raised. We have seen no evidence yet that the decrease in the highest rate has dropped tax revenues after all. The government should be looking to minimise avoidance by some very high earners not milking those already paying millions even harder.

N1AK

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

It seems there has already been an agreement to increase this in 2014-2015 and 2015 - 2016
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/tiin/2012/tiin1080.pdf

Thing is about your suggestion, how much of that increased revenue would be used to plug the increase in the lower earning limit threshold.

How much funds would you see go into
> Housing
> Infrastructure
> Training & Apprenticeships

The higher lower earning threshold is effectively a decrease in tax for everyone and is already budgeted. I'd leave the planned changes alone.

A very rough guess is that it would raise £5 billion a year (not a massive amount) for those two years. I'd budget to spend the money over 3-4 years (~£2.5-3.5 billion per year). I'd budget ~£1.5 billion pa to start producing ~100,000 houses pa. ~£1 billion to fund ~100,000 pa apprenticeship 'loans' in desired industries. Any money left over isn't going to fund an awful lot of infrastructure so I'd be tempted to allow local governments to request partial funding for infrastructure projects designed to decrease ongoing costs and/or make access to services easier.

grizzly1911

MS1950 wrote: »

As I explained on the original 'Jeremy Warner on the Budget', anecdotal 'examples' can't address the scale of the discrepancy between Thrugelmir's claims ("By 2010 50% of the workforce were effectively (more if outsourcing is included) employed by the Government") and the official ONS figures.

As I said:

"The ONS figures show nothing of the kind - as I cited above the breakdown in September 2010 was roughly 20% of the workforce in the public sector and 80% in the private sector.

As I asked above - no matter how many supposed 'examples' (without actual figures) you come up with - do you really believe that an additional 30% of the overall workforce (the difference between the ONS figure of 20% and your claim of 50%+) - an extra 9 million people - can be accounted for (through outsourcing, the bailed out banks or whatever) as 'effectively employed by the Government'?"

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/59977995#Comment_59977995

If around 9 million people had been miscounted by ONS as in the private sector when they should properly be included in the public sector because they are "paid out of public finances, via their private employer" that you're 'wondering' about - don't you think that someone like the Institute of Fiscal Studies or other mainstream analysts would have exposed this statistical 'slight of hand' - rather than it being 'discovered' on an internet forum by Thrugelmir (even with his "Lifetime spent dealing with Finance")?

It isn't a slight of hand though is it because technically they are paid and employed by the private sector.

The fact the taxpayer through the government pays the supplier to provide the service historically done by the direst workforce is irrelevant to the statistician.

I don't know what proportion of that 30% are employed to provide service through the public purse. I am concious though that most of the visible public services that I see used by my council aren't direct employees, refuse, parks maintenance, road maintenance, street lighting, street cleaning, leisure services etc. The same goes when I visit hospital, apart form the clinicians many of the support staff are private contractors cleaners, catering, maintenance etc.

If only 20% are employed by the public sector why are people so concerned about a top heavy public sector. If it is only 20% that seems pretty small relatively and should thus be readily sustainable.

Edit:-

Canada, Greece, Iceland, Israel, Mexico, the United Kingdom and the
United States do not account separately for goods and services
financed by general government in their National Accounts

http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/download/4211011ec054.pdf?expires=1363705874&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=A517A4E93F779237146E20E15AFC269F

wotsthat

N1AK wrote: »

Because there are certain things that the individual tax payer is not able to do. Hospitals aren't built by individuals, nor are roads or large scale public housing developments. Attacking any government spending on the grounds that "I'll spend money better" is nonsense; though clearly there are many things the government won't do effectively.

Governments should concentrate on providing a decent environment for investment but leave (most) investments to the private sector. They aren't qualified to make investment decisions on my behalf.

There are areas where the government is better placed to spend but the principle of individuals being better placed to invest and spend is sound.

I have fully funded pension arrangements (investing heavily in house building, utilities, oil & gas, insurance, banking, healthcare etc.) and many years of budget surplus meaning that already manageable debts will be reduced further. I also managed to give c44% of my income to the government in tax/ NI to spend on my behalf - they even make charitable donations on my behalf - I hardly need to think about anything for myself.

IveSeenTheLight

Thrugelmir wrote: »

What % of BTL LL's or let properties do you represent?

We'll Thrugs.
I'm happy to put this into perspective for you.

Now I'm sure you can accept this is not the definitive figure as it only includes mortgages retnal properties, however that is what "BTL" is.

According to http://www.cml.org.uk/cml/media/press/3423

The total number of buy-to-let mortgages outstanding at the end of 2012 stood at 1,445,300, accounting for 13% of all mortgages

Simple mathematics would conclude that 3 divided by 1,445,300 is 0.000207569%.

A fraction I'm sure we can both agree and will not vary with much significance if the outstanding BTL figure was to vary by a few thousand.

However........

This does not answer your assumption.
Perhaps you could now attempt to show the facts to back up your assertion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Part of the issue is that an accountant prepares the books for the LL. Minimises the tax liability. Ensures full reliefs are claimed. However the amateur LL doesn't put the cash aside in reserve. So if the boiler or double glazing need replacing. There's no money to fund the cost.

I won't hold my breath.

IveSeenTheLight

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Lets see how the game plays out shall we.

Not even half time yet.

It's a game of two halfs and XXXXXx couldn't score in either of them.

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Lets see how the game plays out shall we.

Not even half time yet.

Plenty of facts and information are available if you wish to make an informed view.

That's what I am asking you, lets see those facts and information if you find them so easily available.

That way your posts can be backed up and not subject to soundbite subject matter.

Due to its brevity, the sound bite often overshadows the broader context in which it was spoken, and can be misleading or inaccurate