Budget 2013

Glen_Clark

This is the best piece I have ever read in the Telegraph;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/budget/9943314/Budget-2013-Labour-made-the-mess-but-the-Tories-are-only-making-it-worse.html

talexuser

Scary but looking like how it will pan out. We were absolutely incredulous that in the "age of austerity" we could splash out money for childcare, mortgages and cheap beer, while ignoring all the broken promises on reducing debt.

N1AK

Thanks for highlighting a good article that I hadn't seen; though I'm not sure I hold it in quite such high regard.

There is certainly an argument to be made that the 'austerity' proposed so far has been nominal and that more aggressive action may have been better. I'm not sure if I agree or not with it but it is an argument that has merit.

What I would say is that for all the people suggesting that the Chancellor has failed by not cutting hard enough, there are very few suggesting how he could do so and asking the question of how much we would have cut (if at all had we had a Labour coalition instead). Perhaps he is cutting as much as he plausibly can in these circumstances:
> Labour have opposed everything the conservatives have done to cut spending.
> The Lib Dems may not have gone along with more aggressive cuts
> The wider population is against many of the cuts already suggested. Much heavier cuts could be even less popular.

Ultimately if the conservatives tried to cut harder they may not have been able to pull it off. Even if they did it might be hugely unpopular and lose them the next election to a party promising to cancel all of them anyway.

Glen_Clark

I don't drink alcohol, so would be happy for the drinkers to pay all the tax
But I think there is a lot more to it than that. Huge amounts of alcohol are brought across the channel from France, depriving the exchequer and British producers of revenue. Turning otherwise honest citizens into bootleggers and pitching them against Customs and Police when they should be on the same side. All increasing the cost of courts and prisons, and border controls. I think the Government is, as usual, shooting us in the foot. The budget will be another good one for criminals as he has increased the duty on alcohol other than beer, which is too heavy and bulky to be very profitable anyway.
I don't buy their assertion that 'cheap' alcohol is the cause of drunkenness. A litre of drinkable wine in Spain is less than one Euro, but the only drunks I have seen are English (and are what has put me off drink altogether)

Glen_Clark

I listened in horror and disbelief that Osborne is committing the British Taxpayer to borrowing billions of pounds, only to lend it out at ultra low - and even interest free - rates to inflate house prices even further. Then it got even worse.

Glen_Clark

N1AK wrote: »

> The Lib Dems may not have gone along with more aggressive cuts

Britain has the highest military spending in Europe. The Lib Dems want to cut Trident at least, but with the Cons and New Labour both in favour, they know they have little chance.
Like the overseas aid budget, huge military spending gives politicans status on the world stage.
The cons have hired private contractors (another rip off for the taxpayer), to attack benefit claimants. But with no jobs, and inflated house prices inflating the housing benefit budget, there is little to be saved there. By the time they have added on the payments to these private contractors, and increased cost of crime through taking away people's benefits, the taxpayer will be out of pocket as usual.

jimjames

Glen_Clark wrote: »

This is the best piece I have ever read in the Telegraph;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/budget/9943314/Budget-2013-Labour-made-the-mess-but-the-Tories-are-only-making-it-worse.html

An interesting and possibly rather worrying description of the situation. I don't know what the answer is but one thing that does strike me is that elements now being looked at for cuts such as welfare do have to be reformed and reduced. For example it cannot be sensible long term for the country or taxpayers for youngsters to think it is a viable option to have babies that they are making no financial contribution for supporting themselves. I see a lot of it first hand and multiplied up across the country it must make a massive impact on the deficit when the whole package of support, housing benefit etc is all taken into account.

Like I say I don't have the answers but the largest numbers in the budget have to be tackled at some point. This is an interesting comparison of the deficit to a household budget

http://damn-lies-and-statistics.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/uk-debt-deficit-budget-real-money.html

ColdIron

Osborne simply isn't up to the job, all we have seen from him in three years is continuity Brown. Brown nearly tripled the debt but it took him thirteen years to do it, Osborne will nearly double it to 1.5 trillion in five

1.5 trillion! An almost unbelievable figure

I am now more convinced than ever that his only tactic is to inflate away the debt while still continuing to accumulate it

The only consolation is that Balls would be immeasurably worse

Glen_Clark

jimjames wrote: »

for youngsters to think it is a viable option to have babies

The disconnection between the basic wage (or benefits) and housing costs has made this the only option for some. Single people don't get housed, those with babies do.
Some people would rather see benefit kids thrown out on the streets rather than see house prices fall. But that is not acceptable in 2013. So the defecit keeps on rising.

coastline

Once again you could say politicians are looking after themselves just before another election as we see the budget deficit is to remain flat for 3 years instead of falling.
The same could be said about the period between 2002-2007 when borrowing was used to keep economic growth bubbling.
Without getting into politics you can see from the two links below our main political parties were keen to continue borrowing without a mention of national debt and an end to economic cycles.Its hard to see if things would have been any different.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bR_hfQU-4r0

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6975536.stm

Just to keep things in tune with the Savings Forum...we have a situation where savings rates are well below inflation...which hasn't been the case for years..

http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/uk-base-rates-inflation-89-11.png

srcandas

jimjames wrote: »

...........but the largest numbers in the budget have to be tackled at some point.

I think there needs to be two processes. The first is to decide where we want/need to be? And to understand that we need to free the mind of all the sacred cash cows (e.g. military, NHS, education) and vested interests --- start with a clean sheet

Then we need to decide how to get there without change making people unnecessarily suffer. However change will always lead to some pain.

Of course that is impossible when decisions are made by people who fear for their jobs every 4 years. All they can do is tinker and look for sound bites and headlines.

O god I'm depressed. I'll go take a glass of wine ..... no no sorry a beer. I mean a penny off a £3.20 pint will make me feel so much better :beer: