The Budget

Thrugelmir

kabayiri wrote: »

Hmm, just linking things together ...

Harsher budget >> Greater pain on the masses >> increasing frustration amongst voters >> swing to anti-austerity parties >> return to spending money we do not have >> more hardship long term.

Perhaps we should erect a statue of George Osborne now saying "Inspiration of the Left!"

The UK has more common sense than that. Anti austerity isn't a policy. It's just hot air.

kabayiri

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The UK has more common sense than that. Anti austerity isn't a policy. It's just hot air.

It's almost a counter policy though. It's useful for parties whose strength lie in opposition, because it suggests that the party in power is dogmatic; autocratic; unforgiving.

The thing about hot air is that it rises. This time it has risen up to Scotland where a certain party has embraced this particular type of air

westv

westv wrote: »

Private healthcare in their 80s/90s? Are you a family of millionaires?!

MumOf2 wrote: »

Not everyone's healthcare needs are great as they become older. Looking after yourself throughout your whole life and having a close family support network means that the costs associated with ageing don't automatically have to rule out private healthcare for those few ailments which do need professional input.

Whatever the fitness of the person, private medical insurance will always be expensive for the ederly. You've already said that private education is the norm in your family so that might indicate your idea of affordable might be well in excess of what others might think.

Thrugelmir

kabayiri wrote: »

It's almost a counter policy though. It's useful for parties whose strength lie in opposition, because it suggests that the party in power is dogmatic; autocratic; unforgiving.

The thing about hot air is that it rises. This time it has risen up to Scotland where a certain party has embraced this particular type of air

Over time it cools. As there's no substance. No answers.

When there's no effect opposition. No better time to announce all the bad news. Much of which won't impact immediately so will be forgotten in a matter of days. Providing that the medicine then works. Difficult to put counter arguments.

patman99

The only problem that Osborne's plan to cut in-work benefits has is that he will expect employers to increase wages.

This won't happen unless forced-to by a rise in NMW.
Companies are run to make a profit and every 1p increase on an hourly wage will eat into this profit. They cannot increase the prices of their goods/services otherwise they will price themselves out of the market.

Thrugelmir

patman99 wrote: »

The only problem that Osborne's plan to cut in-work benefits has is that he will expect employers to increase wages.

There'll be an incentive to work more hours as well.

NMW beyond a level is interference that small business could do without.

Fairest way is to increase personal allowance so that everyone can earn a living wage.

chewmylegoff

IHT should just be scrapped and the recipient should pay income tax in the normal way on anything they receive in the way of inheritance as well as on any lifetime cash or asset gifts received from BOMAD above a certain level, say £20k cumulatively.

Any transfer into a trust should have 50% withholding tax levied. Job done.

mwpt

patman99 wrote: »

The only problem that Osborne's plan to cut in-work benefits has is that he will expect employers to increase wages.

This won't happen unless forced-to by a rise in NMW.
Companies are run to make a profit and every 1p increase on an hourly wage will eat into this profit. They cannot increase the prices of their goods/services otherwise they will price themselves out of the market.

Why do companies ever raise wages then? Because they're competing against other companies and industries and locations (etc) for employees.

So in theory, remove the in work benefit subsidy to companies (in work benefits) and employees should demand higher wages or move elsewhere.

In theory.

Shakethedisease

kabayiri wrote: »

It's almost a counter policy though. It's useful for parties whose strength lie in opposition, because it suggests that the party in power is dogmatic; autocratic; unforgiving.

The thing about hot air is that it rises. This time it has risen up to Scotland where a certain party has embraced this particular type of air

Seems Osborne night have embraced a bit of it too.... Accordiing to Sky news he's slowing the timetable of cuts right down. Especially tax credits and housing benefits...

By Faisal Islam, Political Editor

The Budget will reveal the timetable for £12bn welfare cuts by 2017/18 has been extended by at least a year, Sky News understands.

George Osborne has already said he has found the £12bn, but Sky sources say the full amount will now be delivered over a longer timeframe than announced in the March Budget and envisaged before the election..

cells

patman99 wrote: »

The only problem that Osborne's plan to cut in-work benefits has is that he will expect employers to increase wages.

This won't happen unless forced-to by a rise in NMW.
Companies are run to make a profit and every 1p increase on an hourly wage will eat into this profit. They cannot increase the prices of their goods/services otherwise they will price themselves out of the market.

of course companies can increase the wages they pay their staff

For athe supermarkets it would mean increasing the price they sell their goods for by a couple of %