PDA

View Full Version : Budget review


Matblack
06-12-2006, 16:16
So, the next PM of Great Britian has set out his Budget Review

There are quite a few things here I agree with, although there are a few glareing errors too.

I'm not overly pleased about fuel tax going up, if I has some form of cast iron promise that the extra money will be spent on the transport system or on green initatives I would be less cross though. £5 on flights is acceptable AGAIN as long as the money doesn't just go into the pot.

I salute the increase in Apprenticeships, although apprenticeships are not made by the government, they need willing employees and until there is an incentive to take on apprentices then any initative will fail. More money for basic skills for adults is great, increasingly young people are falling out of the system and not realising the value of an education until later in life, but I would like to see more investment in keeping them in in the first place, prevention is almost always cheaper and more effective than cure!

But there is one thing that really bothers me
An extra £600m for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq
An extra £84m for intelligence and counter-terrorism


Surely this should be the other way around? I am very keen for us to hand back both Iraq and Afganistan as soon as possible, we need to cut and run, congratulate ourselves on freeing these dictatorships, apologise for the deaths we have caused get the hell out!




The chancellor said economic growth of 2.75% had beaten forecasts and he pledged to pay Child Benefit from the 29th week of pregnancy, from 2009.

Although fuel duty is going up 1.25p per litre from midnight and air passenger duty from £5 to £10 for most flights, Mr Brown rejected demands to re-link petrol prices to inflation.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gif






Mr Brown, who is widely expected to take over as prime minister next year, told MPs the UK was performing better than its major competitors, apart from the US.

He said the UK was enjoying the "longest period of sustained growth in our history".


Children
Former director general of the CBI, Sir Digby Jones, has been made the government's skills envoy, said Mr Brown.
And there would be new cash for children who had fallen behind at schools and more basic skills training for adults.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gif


There would also be an increase in the number of apprenticeships on offer for young people, he said. With all eyes on next summer's Comprehensive Spending Review, Mr Brown held off from making major policy anouncements.

But he unveiled further details of planned capital investments in schools in England. Separate announcements will be made for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

He pledged to increase annual spending to £10bn by 2010, which he said would match spending per-pupil on buildings in the state sector to that in the private sector.
Other measures include:

A further 300,000 households to be offered free insulation and free central heating.
Consultation on bringing in bursaries worth £2,000 for looked-after children - such as those in local authority care - to go to university.
Bookstart scheme to be extended so children get more free books when they leave primary school.
An extra £600m for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq
An extra £84m for intelligence and counter-terrorismMr Brown said trend growth (the assumed rate) of the UK economy will be maintained at 2.75%, while the public finances will be based on a rate of 2.5% And he forecast economic growth next year of 2.75% to 3.25%.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6211176.stm




All in all nothing majorly wrong here, the taxes imposed appeal to my liberal sensibilities as long as they are used properly, the spending emphasis is on children and the environment which sits well and the economic forcasts look good, of course this is Gordy's spin so its going to come across looking rosey but it could be worse.

In my eyes it was always going to take a major cock up on the part of Labour to end up out of office at the next election, people still remember the mess the Conservatives made last time and if Labour can get Iraq pushed firmly under the carpet before the next election and nothing else bad happens I can't see Camaron pulling off a victory.

Ideas?

MB

Mark
06-12-2006, 16:21
Oops. I completely forgot this was today. Annoyed at myself for missing it. :(

I did scan through some of your post and agree with you to a point on the transportation taxes. If the Government is serious about environmental issues, then it makes sense for them to increase taxes on transportation, but only if that money is used to help offer a viable alternative for those who can't drive or can't afford to drive. However, my main fear is that it'll act as an inflationary pressure and thus prompt the Bank of England to shove up rates again earlier than it otherwise might have.

I'll have to leave the rest for another day. No time. :(

Will
06-12-2006, 16:32
The question one has to ask is are they really going to be spending money in the key areas they stiuplate? And does throwing more money at the problems actually help? Look at all the money they are throwing at public transport, the NHS, education and other public key services, has it helped? I don't know - I think it often causes more bureaucracy and paper work, and lines pockets of people rather than it being put to good use. Or is that over simplistic and cynical?

Furthermore what about the £10-£25bn for new trident nuclear submarines? Do we really need that sort of spending?

I think it's a folly to even spend anywhere near £600m for the Afghanistan and other war "efforts" - I'd rather the spent that money on diplomatic and peaceful missions and activities.

Ok it's great news that the UK economy is growing and expanding, but I personally view this as an excuse to jack prices up, and jack salaries of functionaries up. If there is growth, we should see an improvement in services and public sectors, but I really dont' believe we do - as the more the UK grows the more money is required to feed it.

Matblack
06-12-2006, 16:43
I honestly believe we have seen an improvement in the NHS, as for transport, well the railways were sold off so thats not the government's problem, roads take a long time to build too.

I do see what you are saying about extra levels of beaurocracy and I see this more and more in my own organisation, we are seeing more and more middle management collateing figures for reporting :/

MB

Admiral Huddy
06-12-2006, 17:54
....In my eyes it was always going to take a major cock up on the part of Labour to end up out of office at the next election, people still remember the mess the Conservatives made last time and if Labour can get Iraq pushed firmly under the carpet before the next election and nothing else bad happens I can't see Camaron pulling off a victory.

Ideas?

MB

You really think that people will forget? I'm not so sure.


Seems an odd sort of budget to me.. I thought there may have been some anti-inflation tactics brought in. This will only mean that interest rates will rise again. Possibly at a higher rate than normal. Will hve to see what the BoE makes of this.


600M for iraq and afgan ops... WTF? and on the news yesterday they are closing hospitals and a uni in reading tut tut.

Von Smallhausen
06-12-2006, 18:20
£600 million for Iraq and Afghanistan.

My force is facing a £6 million budgetry shortfall and will lose officers as a result. When people retire etc, they won't be replaced as the money is not there to replace them. Several forces are facing the same problems.

The public loses frontline police officers, making the blue line even thinner and the Government will not fork out cash to help, despite it's guidelines being the reason for the problems in the first place.

It ******* stinks !

I see the motorist is hammered again. Start slamming people with fuel rises when public transport is fit to take away the burden of personal vehicles. It is grossly unfair. I work 25 miles away from home, travelling time 35 minutes. By public transport ? 2 hours. What do they expect ?

This government piss me off beyond belief, Lets tax who can afford it, lets tax who on paper can afford it and lets use the money for hairbrained schemes and policies beset by fraud, mismanagement and waste.

I do not like Gordon Brown's version of social justice.

Admiral Huddy
06-12-2006, 18:28
.....
This government piss me off beyond belief, Lets tax who can afford it, lets tax who on paper can afford it and lets use the money for hairbrained schemes and policies beset by fraud, mismanagement and waste.

I do not like Gordon Brown's version of social justice.

I agree and it will be a black day if he comes to be the head man.

I'm not sure about more taxation on those that can afford it. Define your definition of "afford". I think it may be just better if they make better use of the taxes they do collect.. the 600m for example.

Burble
07-12-2006, 00:55
To be honest, I see the budget as nothing more than background noise. Mr. Brown is already ass raping me for £1.8k/month income tax so an extra hundred quid or so a year on fuel is pissing in the wind.

Not that I'm happy about it of course, I'm playing more and more, and getting less and less back.

Admiral Huddy
07-12-2006, 16:46
unfortunately for those of us who are already struggling, these 'little' increases mean the difference between struggling and managing. It really is galling to know that had i left school with nothing but a couple of babies dangling off my boobs, I'd probably have a much better standard of living than I've had the last few years. At least that's what's happened to the girls I knew at school that did it. Decent houses (most of them now bought from the council at a fraction of what I paid for mine and sold on for more than double - so their houses are far more spacious and expensive than mine), most bills paid, little or no debt, hefty payouts for the kids, top ups of family credit/income support/housing benefit and huge support to get them into the workforce.

Whereas I've worked like a donkey the last 10 years and am treated as such. Except donkeys get given carrots now and again - they don't just suffer the stick all the time.

yep that stinks. I'm penalised for being a higher rate tax payer and so does my wife for being married to me. Aparantly, the goverment think i should support people on lower income?? How does that work then.. Do nothing = get more... Do more = get nothing?? Makes me so damn mad!!

Our neighbours are both work but are on low income yet they manage to support 5 kids. Family tax credits, income support, child benefit etc.. yet they still seem to keep a 2 year old Range Rover going ??? He get jack... I'm puzzled by the whole thing...

Desmo
07-12-2006, 16:48
The whole system needs to be looked at, but it's never going to happen :/
It does make you wonder why you bother.

Matblack
07-12-2006, 16:50
I'm actually on the other end of the spectrum.

Yes I agree that benefit fraud maybe an issue but I have no problems in paying taxes to help people who need it. Yes I will be a little worse off next year but I like the safety net that if I become unemployed or unable to work that I will be helped to survive. If I was in the States I would be abandoned, you don't want to know what their health system will (not) do for someone who has no medical insurance!

MB

Admiral Huddy
07-12-2006, 16:53
The whole system needs to be looked at, but it's never going to happen :/
It does make you wonder why you bother.

yep I'm conviced that this neighbour of mine has more cash in his pocket at the end of the day than I do. Even my investments are taxed at 40%.

The money from our fostering has had to go to Teresa else we would have to pay higher rate on that. I've not bothered with any investments or savings because it's not worth it after tax, yet they want us to save more. I'm best off spending the money or paying extra money off my mortgage.

Desmo
07-12-2006, 16:57
Matt, I'm all for a welfare system and I'm more than happy to pay into it. But it just seems that there are so many unfair payments made to people who seem to be able to spend it on all the wrong things. Sky, Xbox, Playstation, Fags, Beer and the like are being paid for with our taxes. I think a voucher system would cut out a lot of this. This could really do with it's own thread, hehe.

Matblack
07-12-2006, 17:02
yep I'm conviced that this neighbour of mine has more cash in his pocket at the end of the day than I do. Even my investments are taxed at 40%.

The money from our fostering has had to go to Teresa else we would have to pay higher rate on that. I've not bothered with any investments or savings because it's not worth it after tax, yet they want us to save more. I'm best off spending the money or paying extra money off my mortgage.

But the reason you are taxed at a higher rate is that it is considered that that should give you enough to survive and above that you need to get higher pay rises to get more money and the government gets a bigger chunk to 'do good' with. I actually support a higher rate of tax for those earning over £100,000pa, probably 50%.

And I do realise the potential repercussions of this the alleged mass exodus of our business elite and I think its bunk tbh.

MB

Matblack
07-12-2006, 17:17
You're not claiming JSA based on your contributions?

MB

Admiral Huddy
07-12-2006, 17:20
But the reason you are taxed at a higher rate is that it is considered that that should give you enough to survive and above that you need to get higher pay rises to get more money and the government gets a bigger chunk to 'do good' with. I actually support a higher rate of tax for those earning over £100,000pa, probably 50%.

And I do realise the potential repercussions of this the alleged mass exodus of our business elite and I think its bunk tbh.

MB

I think a 50% tax on 100k plus earner is a much better policy tbh.

The banding for higher rate tax payers is not that high (£32,400) so this means I pay the same rate as someone on 200k. Sorry, but the sums don't add up. Paying higher tax is one of those things I except (Death and Taxes) but it's everything else like i've stated above. The fact that someone just below the higher tax rate could end up with more in their pocket than someone who is above the threshold, since they have more entitlements.

Take childcare for example, you can get Child care vouchers from your employers and the vouchers are deducted from you income. However, it means that they are non tax deductable and free of NI. When Teresa returns to work, we need a childminder but we won't qualify for this scheme because i'm a higher tax payer. The irony is that sho could opt not to return to work, then the government loose out on her income tax.

Matblack
07-12-2006, 17:25
I've tried. That's what I thought I should be able to do. They say that because Leo works full time and earns what he does then I'm not eligible. Certainly I won't get any help towards the house/council tax. I don't really understand it. I've got an appointment to go and see them on Monday, so I'll know better then.

Your situation may be complicated if you haven't built up enough NI contributions due to having been self employed but if you are not working and have worked in the past you should be able to claim Contribution based JSA http://www.jobcentreplus.gov.uk/JCP/Customers/WorkingAgeBenefits/Jobseekerallowance/index.html

I'd like to think that if something happened with regard to my job then I wouldn't change my political standings but you are right in dire circumstances it is possible

MB

Matblack
07-12-2006, 17:28
The irony is that sho could opt not to return to work, then the government loose out on her income tax.

Indeed they do, what you are outlineing is the benefit trap, its been around for a very long time, by instigating changes like childcare vouchers the government has tried to reduce it but it will always be there. There will always be a level at which it is or is not productive to return to work vs claim benefit. No system is perfect but it is better than it was.

MB

Matblack
07-12-2006, 17:29
yeah I never thought that was fair. At the company I used to work at they used to give people the option of going over the tax bracket or staying just under it and taking benefits instead (shares etc) so they weren't taxed at 40pc.

Interesting. Do you think thats fair?

MB

Desmo
07-12-2006, 17:34
So where do I get my help from? I've paid my taxes for a bloody long time and if my business goes bust, being self-employed, I get no help. Where is the incentive for people to start up their own small business?

Desmo
07-12-2006, 17:36
Nope. I put in all the hard work and when it all goes tits up due to a bad economy I get bugger all help :)

Matblack
07-12-2006, 17:40
So where do I get my help from? I've paid my taxes for a bloody long time and if my business goes bust, being self-employed, I get no help. Where is the incentive for people to start up their own small business?

Your fuxed, you'd be a case for income based JSA but.......


If you have a partner who works an average of 24 hours a week or more you cannot usually get income-based JSA. This work does not affect your contribution-based JSA.


Theres a definate issue there, are you paying NI?

If you have been paying NI, which is effectively an 'insurance' policy then I can sort of see why this happens but your right its still not entirely fair. The option I suppose is that you are forced to pay NI at a level you would have it paid for you if you were working for a company but obviously this is also an issue for people planning on starting their own company, possibly more so than the risk of not getting government help if it all goes tits up :/

MB

Admiral Huddy
07-12-2006, 17:55
yeah I never thought that was fair. At the company I used to work at they used to give people the option of going over the tax bracket or staying just under it and taking benefits instead (shares etc) so they weren't taxed at 40pc.

I know a lot of peop, who have choosen not to exceed the limit for this very reason. Unless the amount paid is well above the threshold then your silly to accept an annual salary just above. There are too many other considerations to bear in mind like bonuses, interest and any other income that will be taxable at the higher rate.

The smake in the face for me is overtime. I'm on call every other week and sometimes get called out overnight. Pisses my off when nearly half that goes on tax.

But as I said, it's something you accept.

Admiral Huddy
07-12-2006, 17:57
Well I don't agree that the gap should be as large as £32,400 - £200k+ - that's certainly not fair.
There's a huge difference between the standard of living that comes with just over £32k and that which comes with £200k so I think that seriously needs looking at. But no, I don't think it's morally right to do it.

Whether or not you take the shares instead, which some companies do as a standard practice - that's for the individual to decide.


the 200k was just an example I think.

Basic rate of tax should be for the majority of working class IMO, but it appears that working class is banded.

Dymetrie
07-12-2006, 20:57
At the start of 2002 (I think) when I found myself unemployed I applied for JSA (with the intention of not being on it for long because I get bored when not working). My records were checked for the previous 3 years and allegedly I didn't pay enough NI to qualify to receive anything, at all. I had been working for the entirety of that time, and I was a student FFS!

Did they take this into account? Did they accept the fact that I was working my sac off to try and find a job? Did they expect me to live on fumes (this being London and all)?

It was at that point that I lost all respect for the DWP. Here was me, an honest person who had been paying taxes on virtually full time work for 6 years, paid my way through University and I was being ignored and crapped on when the slapper who lived 2 doors down the road popped a sprog and got a free house, money to buy her sprog a playstation (at 18 months old!) and everything she asked for...

Bitter? No, I'm not bitter, disillusioned and pissed off? Yes.

mejinks
07-12-2006, 21:18
A Disabled friend of mine can claim over £300 a week with disability/jsa/whatever else and theres me paying a shade over £200 a WEEK in tax. How the **** is that fair?

Dymetrie
07-12-2006, 21:21
A Disabled friend of mine can claim over £300 a week with disability/jsa/whatever else and theres me paying a shade over £200 a WEEK in tax. How the **** is that fair?

He's disabled...

Seems pretty fair to me unless.. Can he work, is he trying to? Or is he just sponging?

mejinks
07-12-2006, 21:26
He's disabled...

Seems pretty fair to me unless.. Can he work, is he trying to? Or is he just sponging?

She.

Yes, she can work, but suffers from the fact she cannot lift her arm above shoulder height and suffers with PTSD.

She would be willing to work and is allowed to work 16 hours a week before it affects her benefits.

Haly
08-12-2006, 11:10
I have to say that sounds a bit unlikely - the highest payment rate is £62.25 and anything extra such as housing benefit/council tax help goes straight back to pay for those things. Does she work the 16 hours? If so, that makes more sense but I find it hard to believe he takes home £300 p.w unless she is paid for a helper - and that should go straight to the carer.

If she is claiming disability I don't think she's allowed to claim JSA...because she can't be actively seeking work if she's disabled... and JSA is only £57 per week iirc so she's not going to be raking it in on either.

I agree. Sounds like a lot more than meets the eye.
I know my Dad gets nowhere near that amount for disability benefit, I don't think he even earns that much and he works part time :undecided:

mejinks
08-12-2006, 11:22
I have to say that sounds a bit unlikely - the highest payment rate is £62.25 and anything extra such as housing benefit/council tax help goes straight back to pay for those things. Does she work the 16 hours? If so, that makes more sense but I find it hard to believe he takes home £300 p.w unless she is paid for a helper - and that should go straight to the carer.

If she is claiming disability I don't think she's allowed to claim JSA...because she can't be actively seeking work if she's disabled... and JSA is only £57 per week iirc so she's not going to be raking it in on either.

I will ask next time she comes down, but afair, she is claiming all sorts, including attendance? allowance, higher disability, and yes, 16 hours a week work, which is minimum wage.

Mark
08-12-2006, 12:35
and on the news yesterday they are closing hospitals and a uni in reading tut tut.
Link please. There's only one uni in Reading, and it's closure would be news to me (they are closing one department at the uni, but that's mostly due to lack of interest).

Matblack
08-12-2006, 12:51
Link please. There's only one uni in Reading, and it's closure would be news to me (they are closing one department at the uni, but that's mostly due to lack of interest).

Physics I believe?

MB

mejinks
08-12-2006, 13:44
You can work either 16 hours or earn £80 - whichever comes first iirc. so added to the rest of the stuff you mention including the higher rate disability, she may well be bringing in that much.

*penny drops*

Still, earning £200 and she doesn't have anyone bar herself to support?

Haly
08-12-2006, 14:01
I still wouldn't envy her. I don't know what disability she may have but considering my Dad's agonising arthritis is the lower rate of disability, I would never exchange money for being in constant agony and knowing I'd only be getting gradually worse.

Mark
08-12-2006, 14:06
Physics I believe?

MB
http://www.boat-drinks.co.uk/images/icons/icon14.gif