The Budget

lisyloo

Yep cells, in my industry (it) if you took a couple of years off you'd find it very difficult to get another job.
It's extremely competitive and you need to have up to date skills, so whole careers could be lost.

vivatifosi

We haven't discussed it yet and it hasn't been on the news either, but one of the things GO announced was ensuring a surplus. The plan is to get Parliament to agree to changes whereby, once we are in surplus, we cannot run a deficit unless GDP growth falls to 1% or lower.

I thought this could be huge, as it would define state spending for decades. Clearly we have to pay down debt so in that respect it is a good thing, but what would it mean when demographics dictated need more money for the NHS or pensions? It would also mean Labour would have to overturn it in order to raise spend. V interesting.

Generali

vivatifosi wrote: »

I thought this could be huge, as it would define state spending for decades. Clearly we have to pay down debt so in that respect it is a good thing, but what would it mean when demographics dictated need more money for the NHS or pensions?

You can't really finance pensions and NHS spending from deficit spending as you just put an ever bigger burden onto future spending as you have to add interest payments to the next years' spending. It's like any sort of spending to consume.

vivatifosi wrote: »

It would also mean Labour would have to overturn it in order to raise spend. V interesting.

This is the key point. It makes the deficit a political thing rather than something that just happens. I do wonder what happens if there is an 'unexpected' deficit. If spending is just more than actual taxation but less than expected taxation for example.

michaels

Generali wrote: »

This is the key point. It makes the deficit a political thing rather than something that just happens. I do wonder what happens if there is an 'unexpected' deficit. If spending is just more than actual taxation but less than expected taxation for example.

Presumably the OBR is the arbiter of the plans? the outcomes afterall are bound to be uncertain and of course their are lags in the real economy.

MFW_ASAP

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Easy, if she's got 2k to move tenancies in the first place.

Well she doesn't. So far she hasn't even got a TV as she hasn't paid for her TV licence. She doesn't have any internet as she hasn't paid for a phone or broadband. She hasn't got any transport so can't shop very well.

Infact, what is she doing in your scenario which leaves her with this money? Knitting saucepans to cook in?

I'm not saying she'll be stone broke. What I'm saying is that your scenario is worlds away from most peoples circumstances. I'm also saying working should at least put her ahead of the unemployed. And now, it doesn't.

Infact, looking back, this conversation is so utterly pointless that, with respect, I'm out. What next? Stick them in a workhouse?

The key fact remains, she's lost £116 a month, and that's going to hurt anyone on these lower incomes, regardless.

Jeeze, nothing changes with 'glass always empty' GD, does it?

It always cracks me up when you create a fictional character that strangely always seems to fit your extreme view, who then seems to descend into poverty and you then get all upset for the fictional character, railing against the injustices of the world. It's comedy gold!! :rotfl::rotfl:

missyrichards

I just did the BBC Budget calculator - In 2016-17 you will be no better or worse off.

I don't know whether to be happy or sad.:D

I think young people have been screwed over yet again. I would be angry if I was a young person living in the UK at the moment, particularly the ones who can't sponge off Mummy and Daddy.

[Deleted User]

lvader wrote: »

That is why they increased the minimum wage, so that people working full time would be better off overall. The chart doesn't take the income increase into account.

I was pretty sure that you were not correct, given what the IFS stated, but I thought I should wait for other information before coming back.

This morning on Radio Scotland, having been pressed for a straight answer 3 or 4 times by the interviewer, Chukka Umunna confirmed that the living/national minimum wage budget changes would not cancel out the tax credit reductions UNTIL 2020. That's years more of the wealthy and powerful being protected. Astoundingly I am now forced to include pensioners in the "powerful" category as governments of any type now seem terrified of doing anything that might upset them, however fair the the measures might be. The under 25s, however, and the working poor, can go straight to hell. It seems that the info in the table in the link I posted was quite correct.

It pains me to say this, and I mean that, but the means of economic and social support are now so twisted in their application that I am close to supporting things that I would not have believed a few years ago. Computerisation should by now be so advanced that many more "sacred cow" social welfare measures will have to be means tested. As by far the largest element of "welfare", the full state pension can no longer be left alone and recipients certainly cannot sensibly expect a 2.5% increase year on year while inflation is anywhere near the present 0.1%. How can anyone expect a rise of twenty-five times the inflation rate? And, again IIRC, the state pension is 42% of the "werlfare" budget. Having 42% of the welfare budget increasing by that amount year on year is by no stretch of the imagination fair while the working poor are being shafted. Put simply, the "workers" - the ones expected to achieve an increase in productivity, are to lose thousands in state support for 5 years before they might get back to where their incomes are now, while the retired, including very many with substantial incomes from other sources, will see state support go up over the same period by nearly 800 quid. So, I'd suggest that the state pension be subject to a gradual taper whereby anyone whose other income from any source exceeds the higher rate threshold loses a proportion of their state pension down to a level of say 50% of what they would otherwise receive.

I am well aware that the Conservatives stood on a manifesto that included cutting welfare - I also recall that they resisted any attempt by journalists or the public to find out where the cuts would fall. (Plenty about where they WOULDN'T fall) Further, the leadership relentlessly rammed home the message about support for hard working families. IMO, and I accept it's just "MO", working people are entitled to consider that, quite simply, they were lied to. Again, IMO, if the Conservatives had announced these measures before the election, folk would have realised that the target of the welfare cuts was not the "wasters", so beloved of sections of the media, but the decent working people who the Conservatives claim to, but clearly don't, love so much.

Check out the table in the link, The 5 lowest income deciles lose most. We are not "all in this toghether". The attack on welfare spending targets the working poor.

Before anyone looks for special pleading/self interst stuff from what I've said, our household will be better off under the budget, and I still think that the budget stinks.

On another point, and again on the "all in this together" front, I'll ask the question again that I asked somewhere else. Will MPs be held to the same 1% increase as they are so robustly applying to the rest of the public sector? I have a feeling that I know the answer, but would be delighted (if somewhat surprised) to be proved wrong.

WR

ukcarper

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

Jeeze, nothing changes with 'glass always empty' GD, does it?

It always cracks me up when you create a fictional character that strangely always seems to fit your extreme view, who then seems to descend into poverty and you then get all upset for the fictional character, railing against the injustices of the world. It's comedy gold!! :rotfl::rotfl:

Although he does tend to go over the top I think this time he has some valid points where I live i think it would be almost impossible to find a job were you could walk to school then onto job and although I think it should be possible to get by on £250 a week it would not be easy. The only thing that concerns me would be how they found themselves on their own with two children.

ukcarper

Wild_Rover wrote: »

I was pretty sure that you were not correct, given what the IFS stated, but I thought I should wait for other information before coming back.

This morning on Radio Scotland, having been pressed for a straight answer 3 or 4 times by the interviewer, Chukka Umunna confirmed that the living/national minimum wage budget changes would not cancel out the tax credit reductions UNTIL 2020. That's years more of the wealthy and powerful being protected. Astoundingly I am now forced to include pensioners in the "powerful" category as governments of any type now seem terrified of doing anything that might upset them, however fair the the measures might be. The under 25s, however, and the working poor, can go straight to hell. It seems that the info in the table in the link I posted was quite correct.

It pains me to say this, and I mean that, but the means of economic and social support are now so twisted in their application that I am close to supporting things that I would not have believed a few years ago. Computerisation should by now be so advanced that many more "sacred cow" social welfare measures will have to be means tested. As by far the largest element of "welfare", the full state pension can no longer be left alone and recipients certainly cannot sensibly expect a 2.5% increase year on year while inflation is anywhere near the present 0.1%. How can anyone expect a rise of twenty-five times the inflation rate? And, again IIRC, the state pension is 42% of the "werlfare" budget. Having 42% of the welfare budget increasing by that amount year on year is by no stretch of the imagination fair while the working poor are being shafted. Put simply, the "workers" - the ones expected to achieve an increase in productivity, are to lose thousands in state support for 5 years before they might get back to where their incomes are now, while the retired, including very many with substantial incomes from other sources, will see state support go up over the same period by nearly 800 quid. So, I'd suggest that the state pension be subject to a gradual taper whereby anyone whose other income from any source exceeds the higher rate threshold loses a proportion of their state pension down to a level of say 50% of what they would otherwise receive.

I am well aware that the Conservatives stood on a manifesto that included cutting welfare - I also recall that they resisted any attempt by journalists or the public to find out where the cuts would fall. (Plenty about where they WOULDN'T fall) Further, the leadership relentlessly rammed home the message about support for hard working families. IMO, and I accept it's just "MO", working people are entitled to consider that, quite simply, they were lied to. Again, IMO, if the Conservatives had announced these measures before the election, folk would have realised that the target of the welfare cuts was not the "wasters", so beloved of sections of the media, but the decent working people who the Conservatives claim to, but clearly don't, love so much.

Check out the table in the link, The 5 lowest income deciles lose most. We are not "all in this toghether". The attack on welfare spending targets the working poor.

Before anyone looks for special pleading/self interst stuff from what I've said, our household will be better off under the budget, and I still think that the budget stinks.

On another point, and again on the "all in this together" front, I'll ask the question again that I asked somewhere else. Will MPs be held to the same 1% increase as they are so robustly applying to the rest of the public sector? I have a feeling that I know the answer, but would be delighted (if somewhat surprised) to be proved wrong.

WR

I don't agree that state pension should taper off it is already taxed I lose 20% of mine and some people will lose 40%. If you want people to save for their own future removing state pension from them whilst still giving to people who have made no effort is a big disincentive.

I do agree that continuing the triple lock does not seem justified I also think there is a case for means testing or taxing additional pensioner benefits.

I'm not sure why you think people who voted Tory should feel disappointed as they are doing exactly what I thought they would do.

If pensioners are powerful it's because they vote perhaps younger people should do the same.

wotsthat

ukcarper wrote: »

Although he does tend to go over the top I think this time he has some valid points where I live i think it would be almost impossible to find a job were you could walk to school then onto job and although I think it should be possible to get by on £250 a week it would not be easy. The only thing that concerns me would be how they found themselves on their own with two children.

As people are forced to contribute more to the costs of their choices they might start to make different and, hopefully, better choices.