Budget 2016

Mistermeaner

Ive been out had 3 pints watching the footy now I'm eating pate on toast. All budget neutral I think

I also went for a run earlier

Cheers George

CLAPTON

lisyloo wrote: »

Part of my point was that £6.67 per month (my cal from the BBC budget calculator) is not enough to change any behaviour of any middle or high earner (if they want a £3 coffee they can probably afford it already).
I don't believe Those amounts will change anyone's behaviour, so we come back to the feel good factor and it being done cynically (although I accept the personal allowance also helps low earners).

financial incentives or disincentives work at the margin i.e it affects those struggling not the comfortable /rich

cells

lisyloo wrote: »

Personally I don't think the chancellor should be cutting taxes for the better off at a time of austerity when the books don't balance.
I will save £80 a year which won't make any difference to me personally or the vast majority of people who are on middle or higher incomes, but could collectively do some good for society where there is greater need. £6.70 per month would buy about 2 coffees a month. I'd rather they only did tax cuts for the low paid.

by the same thinking you would have been happy for him to take £80 a year from you after all its only two coffees a month and it wont change your behaviour?

onlyroz

Apparently I'm going to be about £150 a year better off. While I'm not going to turn it down I'm not comfortable with the fact that this money has been taken off disabled people who certainly need it more than me.

Generali

onlyroz wrote: »

Apparently I'm going to be about £150 a year better off. While I'm not going to turn it down I'm not comfortable with the fact that this money has been taken off disabled people who certainly need it more than me.

Nothing is proposed to be taken from disabled people. The rate of increase is going to be less than previously announced AIUI and PIP will be payable to fewer extra people than previously announced.

onlyroz

Generali wrote: »

Nothing is proposed to be taken from disabled people. The rate of increase is going to be less than previously announced AIUI and PIP will be payable to fewer extra people than previously announced.

Semantics. Either way he's giving extra money to those who don't really need it while taking it away from those who do. If there's a problem with some people claiming money they genuinely don't need then by all means sort that out, but surely that just means there's more in the pot for genuine claimants?

mwpt

onlyroz wrote: »

Semantics. Either way he's giving extra money to those who don't really need it while taking it away from those who do. If there's a problem with some people claiming money they genuinely don't need then by all means sort that out, but surely that just means there's more in the pot for genuine claimants?

Semantics are only unimportant if your agenda is to frame something a certain way.

Tromking

Twas but a suggestion apparently. Looks like another u-turn on the cards with 'pip'. Jeez, Osborne is over-rated!

CLAPTON

onlyroz wrote: »

Semantics. Either way he's giving extra money to those who don't really need it while taking it away from those who do. If there's a problem with some people claiming money they genuinely don't need then by all means sort that out, but surely that just means there's more in the pot for genuine claimants?

no money is being given to rich people : merely less taken away

there is of course, never a good time to take less money from people

mwpt

Tromking wrote: »

Twas but a suggestion apparently. Looks like another u-turn on the cards with 'pip'. Jeez, Osborne is over-rated!

Over-rated by who?

He is however bringing the deficit down. The correct trajectory imo, regardless of how quickly or not he does it while maintaining a growing economy.