Budget 2015 - A budget of no consequence.

CLAPTON

.string. wrote: »

@Clapton --- Why ridiculous? (and why be rude?) - no new Government can know the nitty gritty until they have the access that being in Government brings.

In the overall context it is interesting to read of this again -- General election 2010: VAT rise is a risk under Labour.

At the time I suppose most thought (I would include myself) this was all electioneering nonsenses; now, being wise after the event, it looks like all three parties were thinking of having to raise VAT.

I'm not sure what point you are making.


quoting from your Telegraph reference i

Unveiling the party's manifesto for a fourth term in office, the Prime Minister and senior colleagues repeatedly declined to give a promise not to increase VAT from 17.5 per cent during the next Parliament.

and

The Conservatives are likely to face questions about their stance on VAT when they publish their manifesto today, especially as they are committed to offering voters a £6 billion-a-year tax cut by blocking Labour's National Insurance rise and a £550 million tax break for married couples.

OK so I was the only person that clearly saw the VAT rises were almost inevitable : I apologise to you all if you were offended

Thrugelmir

CLAPTON wrote: »

don't be ridiculous; the situation was well known at the time : in fact by the time the election was over the debt and deficit was slightly less than forecast.
they then changed their line from the size of the debt and deficit to nonsense about the structural deficit.

Whatever the situation. There was no simple straight forward solution. Labour have offered no solutions either in the past 5 years. Even today Milliband appeared totally flat footed by talking about the NHS. As a diversionary tactic. So austerity or cost cutting has to remain a primary objective. As the job is far from complete.

vivatifosi

michaels wrote: »

No one blogging this live for us this year?

C'mon Viva, step up and Walk Tall

Sorry hun, had to work through this one, despite best efforts to the contrary.

Thanks to Jason though... much better job than I could have done.

BobQ

antrobus wrote: »

Well, it worked for Blair a couple of times.

Not quite, Blair did not offer misery even for the few. But I agree that in difficult times its quite usual for a Government to talk up the situation.

To be fair at least Osborne is promising misery after the election, but his trick is that he is trying to convince people the misery is equally shared. It will not be. It will favour the few as he has done since becoming Chancellor.

But credit where credit is due some of the reforms to tax and savings are quite reasonable and (while he would not admit it) he is moving towards less radical austerity measures and is prepared to bash the banks and tackle some aspects of tax evasion.

N1AK

.string. wrote: »

@Clapton --- Why ridiculous? (and why be rude?) - no new Government can know the nitty gritty until they have the access that being in Government brings.

...now, being wise after the event, it looks like all three parties were thinking of having to raise VAT.

It was painfully obvious that VAT was going up after the election. We needed a considerable boost in government revenue and the lengths all parties went to to avoid promising NOT to raise VAT made it clear that was where the increase would be.

Just think back to the constant criticism of government prior to the election on things like QT where members of the public were saying "we know you're going to raise tax, why not be honest and tell us".

.string.

N1AK wrote: »

It was painfully obvious that VAT was going up after the election. We needed a considerable boost in government revenue and the lengths all parties went to to avoid promising NOT to raise VAT made it clear that was where the increase would be.

Just think back to the constant criticism of government prior to the election on things like QT where members of the public were saying "we know you're going to raise tax, why not be honest and tell us".

Good point.

On your second para, I think there is a good case for a TV programme, along the lines of Panorama (ie not every week but maybe every month) which focusses on spin and lies. All too often we get things said which are blatant lies and even verge on the libellous. It would be good if there was a concerted effort to call politicians for things they say.

We, the public, are very vulnerable to repeated spin so that we eventually adopt as true political labels which are only there because of some parties wish to outdo another party.

I think it would give politicians pause for thought (a new concept that!) and no party should be off limits.

JasonLVC

vivatifosi wrote: »

Sorry hun, had to work through this one, despite best efforts to the contrary.

Thanks to Jason though... much better job than I could have done.

Aww, thanks V!


:o

Graham_Devon

Just been announced on the BBC that it's "highly likely" that Class 2 NI payments are going to be wrapped up in Class 4 NI payments.

The treasury has stated that a consultation is to take place to look at expanding class 4 NI contributions to include a contributory element.

So seems, at least on the Class 2 NI statement that it's correct to say that they will be removed, but it doesn't look like it will be a saving, rather Class 4 NI contiubitons will now include what you paid in Class 2.

michaels

vivatifosi wrote: »

Sorry hun, had to work through this one, despite best efforts to the contrary.

Thanks to Jason though... much better job than I could have done.

Don't worry, we were only calling your name because you have done it so well in the past.

michaels

BobQ wrote: »

To be fair at least Osborne is promising misery after the election, but his trick is that he is trying to convince people the misery is equally shared. It will not be. It will favour the few as he has done since becoming Chancellor

I just don't get this.

I earn probably top 15% of incomes and feel I have paid 'more than my share' with the loss of child benefit, the increase in VAT (which hits the better off more as we spend a lower proportion of our income on zero rated food and low rated energy) and the fact that the 40% tax threshold has been adjusted so that I didn't benefit from the increase in the personal allowance.

Had I been on minimum wage I would have gained a lot from the increase in the personal allowance, the vat increase would have impacted a much smaller proportion of my income as most of it would be spent on energy, food and kids clothes, I would still be getting child benefit and full tax credits, housing benefit and council tax benefit (unless I was already receiving more than 26k which is more than my take-home after housing and council tax).

Surely the figures on falling child poverty and reduced income inequality show that over this govt it has been higher income 'typical tory supporters' who have done worse?