The Budget

vivatifosi

As we've had a General Election, Wednesday will be Budget Day, with Osborne presenting his latest measures to the House.

Some of these are starting to feature in the papers. Today's headlines include:

Civil Service facing 100000 jobs cut:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/budget/11718573/Budget-will-pave-way-for-up-to-100000-Civil-Service-job-cuts.html

People on higher income to lose subsidies for social housing:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33399650

My personal view is that the second is a great idea, but withhold judgment on the first. I think that there will still be fat in Whitehall, there are some departments that are still hurting from previous cuts. Await with interest the rest of it.

Sky is running a funny trailer in the run up:
http://news.sky.com/video/1508157/he-s-been-thinking-about-you


What are your thoughts on the budget? What would you like to see? What are you worried you will see?

vivatifosi

Some more stories adding to picture of what will feature:

Inheritance tax cuts:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/03/inheritance-tax-giveaway-welfare-cuts-budget-conservatives-george-osborne

There's also the reduction in amount of benefits one family can receive, but story I wanted to quote for that is behind a paywall.

Graham_Devon

The inhertiance tax "cuts" appear to be alongside a huge tax give away for the rich?

An extra £125,000 threshold for your "main" property. That's alongside £325,000 each.

The "cuts" would effect only a handful of super wealthy people. It's likely they will simply be able to avoid them anyway. It also appears the "cuts" are going to cost the treasury £1bn. In other words, the only "cuts" happening here appear to be the amount of revenue the treasury can raise from wealthy property owners.

More interestingly, this is one "cut" or (or give away, dependant on which way you view it) that the coalition stopped in the last parliament. I think we'll start seeing a lot more credit given to the lib dems if they can shout loud enough about it.

vivatifosi

Graham_Devon wrote: »

More interestingly, this is one "cut" or (or give away, dependant on which way you view it) that the coalition stopped in the last parliament. I think we'll start seeing a lot more credit given to the lib dems if they can shout loud enough about it.

That's a fair point Graham. I think history will look more favourably on the Lib Dems over time.

Masomnia

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The inhertiance tax "cuts" appear to be alongside a huge tax give away for the rich?

An extra £125,000 threshold for your "main" property. hat's alongside £325,000 each.

The "cuts" would effect only a handful of super wealthy people. It's likely they wil simply be able to avoid them anyway It also appears the "cuts" are going to cost the treasury £1bn.

More interestingly, this is one "cut" or (or give away, dependant on which way you view it) that the coalition stopped in the last parliament. I think we'll start seeing a lot more credit given to the lib dems if they can shout loud enough about it.

The super wealthy don't pay inheritance tax, it's quite easy to avoid through trusts. It's the better off middle class types this is aimed at.

PasturesNew

Inheritance tax isn't something anybody in my family (research going back to the 1400s) has ever had to pay, nor will the current generation pay any ... or any next generation probably. It's simply not something in most people's lives at all.

I'd like to see WTC/similar SLASHED as I know their existence has halted pay growth for people in the last 15+ years. You should either go to work and earn money, or stay at home and not .... not fiddle about with minimums and claims and all the associated costs that brings.

Bring back wages that make it worthwhile working.

Work should pay .... it's been wrong where many people who are barely working are raking in more than others who are working full-time.

Employers played the game too: only paying NMW where they could and not giving pay rises. Plus breaking up full-time jobs into 16 hour chunks and then wanting a "flexible" workforce (of people at their beck and call).

Proper jobs, proper wages. Proper sorted!

purch

Social Housing is in such short supply, so there should be an income qualification anyway.

It would be unfair and unfeasable to turf people out of their house just because their income went over the threshold for what could easily be only a short period, so asking them to pay a higher rent when they earn more is a sensible way to address this.

Thrugelmir

PasturesNew wrote: »

Employers played the game too: only paying NMW where they could and not giving pay rises. Plus breaking up full-time jobs into 16 hour chunks and then wanting a "flexible" workforce (of people at their beck and call).

This is where Brown's WTC policies backfired. Created the disincentive to work. Employers therefore responded likewise.

Thrugelmir

vivatifosi wrote: »

Civil Service facing 100000 jobs cut:

Been effective so far. The cull has reduced costs and a lot of dead wood.

stator

Evil little Osborne has been rubbing his hands with glee since the election. Can't wait to make more people homeless, foodless and in poverty.

lvader

stator wrote: »

Evil little Osborne has been rubbing his hands with glee since the election. Can't wait to make more people homeless, foodless and in poverty.

I'm sure the 100k civil servants being affected will survive. The vast majority of them will be on salaries well above the average and will most likely be re-employed in the private sector in no time at all.